2010-05-31 42 1 8 REPS 0 0 2010-05-31 The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 12 pm and read prayers. 4523 Miscellaneous 4523 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 41(h), and the recommendations of the whips adopted by the House on 26 May 2010, I present copies of the terms of motions for which notice has been given by the members for Gilmore, Hinkler and Wakefield. These matters will be considered in the Main Committee later today. 4523 Bills R4347 Cognate bill: 4523 Bills R4373 4523 Debate resumed from 27 May, on motion by Ms Macklin: That this bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Abbott moved by way of amendment: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: affirms its commitment to supporting all Australian families and supports policies which give choice and flexibility to parents to enable them to choose what is right for their individual circumstances, whether they are at home or in the paid workforce; recognises that parents have different patterns of family responsibilities and paid work over their life cycle; recognises that due to rising costs of living and a housing affordability crisis, the majority of families require two incomes to make ends meet; notes that Australia remains only one of two OECD countries that does not provide a paid parental leave scheme and that introducing a paid parental scheme is critical to the needs of working families and our national productivity more broadly; rejects the Government’s representation of a paid parental leave scheme as a social security measure and instead affirms that it is a valid workplace entitlement that must come with a superannuation component to arrest the gross inadequacy of female retirement incomes; notes the Government’s proposed paid parental leave scheme is inadequate in its current form and should be amended to better reflect the requirements of Australian working mothers, and families more generally; supports the ability of casual, part time and fulltime women to access paid parental leave provided that they have met the qualifying criteria; recognises that a paid parental leave scheme is only one part of government’s important role in supporting families as they raise the next generation of Australians; acknowledges that the bill does not: provide paid parental leave for a period of 26 weeks to afford all mothers the opportunity to breastfeed their infant for the minimum six month period recommended by the World Health Organisation; provide women with a replacement wage, to a cap or minimum wage (whichever is greater), and so does not adequately support working families when they are at their most financially vulnerable; acknowledges that the bill places a totally unnecessary impost on Australian businesses by requiring employers to act as paymasters for eligible employees; and calls on the Government to make such amendments to the bill as would rectify these flaws”. 4524 12:01:00 Turnour, Jim, MP HVV Leichhardt ALP 1 0 Mr TURNOUR —As I was saying last week when I started speaking on the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the cognate bill, Mr Costello described the Leader of the Opposition’s paid parental leave scheme as ‘silly’, with a silly tax on everything as its basis. The Leader of the Opposition cannot be trusted on paid parental leave and he cannot be trusted with the Australian economy. If elected he would introduce a paid parental leave scheme that would push up the cost of living for working families to pay millionaires $75,000 a year in parental leave payments. Under his scheme, income payments are capped at an annual salary of $150,000; so, for six months leave, those recipients would receive $75,000. But eligibility is not capped, so those on incomes above $150,000 would receive those payments. I do not believe, and neither do the Australian people, that those on higher incomes need to be supported by the government in this way. The Liberal Party scheme is economically irresponsible and unfair. It is no wonder the Australian people see the Leader of the Opposition as a huge risk to the Australian economy. Mr Abbott is all over the shop on tax and he is all over the shop on policies as important as paid parental leave. Earlier in the year he said, ‘There’s no way we will increase taxes.’ He was talking about a possible future Abbott government, of course. Then a month later he announces a tax on everything that would push up the cost of living, to pay for his parental leave scheme. Right now he is running the mother of all scare campaigns on the government’s mining super profits tax—a tax that will ensure that the Australian people get a fair share of the nation’s natural resources. As a minister in the Howard government he told a Liberal Party function in Victoria: Compulsory paid maternity leave? Over this government’s dead body, frankly. It is no wonder he has been nicknamed Phony Tony—because what he says depends on his audience and the timing. He is the great weathervane of Australian politics and will blow in any direction depending on what is in his and the Liberal Party’s interest rather than the national interest. The Australian people have a stark choice later this year at the election. They can vote for an extreme and erratic Leader of the Opposition who is a real risk to the Australian economy—a Leader of the Opposition who takes a policy on the run approach to serious issues like paid parental leave—or they can support a government that takes a serious approach to developing policy. This bill and the government scheme are based on serious policy development by the respected Australian Productivity Commission. It is a scheme that is broadly supported by community and business leaders. It is a good scheme that gets the balance of responsibility right in terms of the family, business and government. I would encourage everyone in this House to support this legislation and the government’s Paid Parental Leave Scheme. 4524 12:05:00 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 0 0 Mr TUCKEY —The member for Leichhardt, in concluding his speech on this important matter, just chose to recite the various items he has been given for attacking the opposition rather than present cogent arguments. It is a pity he has walked out of the chamber, because I just wanted to remind him that the principal town in his electorate, Cairns, presently has a 14 per cent unemployment rate—14 per cent. Western Australia is trying to do a bit to help them out in that regard, through trying to generate mining revenue for all Australians. There are now two 737s, I think—that would be about 300 people travelling east-west and west-east—flying directly from Cairns to Karratha. As I said in the House the other day, I doubt those on the flights would be going for the scenery in Karratha; they are going there for employment. As such, one would think that the member for Leichhardt would be taking the opportunity, as one Graeme Campbell did many years ago when the Hawke Labor government decided to introduce a tax on gold that had not previously applied, to cross the floor and vote against his own government. 8T4 Ferguson, Laurie, MP Mr Laurie Ferguson —These are the paid parental leave bills, mate! SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr TUCKEY —I just thought that that was a fair and reasonable response to the closing remarks by the member for Leichhardt, who did not say one word in his closing statements about this important matter. Returning to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 that are before us, it is a quite serious day in this House when a government moves to provide paid parental leave. I have spent many years in this place and I have seen attitudes on this issue change, both in the community and in this House. On my arrival in this place I would have been one of those who thought that probably the best arrangement was a single income family—which I, for instance, was raised in—where the responsibility of the female was to be the carer of the children of that marriage. My mother never had paid employment until quite late in her career when she joined me in a couple of business enterprises. Not only was she a great help; she was a great innovator and clearly would have made a considerable contribution as an employed person during her married life had that been seen as the right thing to do. She was a very able woman and a great supporter of me in my ambitions. One of those was to go into business at the age of 18. She had none of the conservative views in that regard that my father had. Here was a person in a period in my living memory probably denied the opportunity to contribute to the economy, if I can use that expression. She would have made a great contribution as a younger woman, but was denied that opportunity by community attitude. Of course, community attitude has moved on in many ways. Some of us with conservative views get a little shocked when we find out that the flower girl at a wedding is actually the child of the union. That is now commonplace. We have fiancees and partners. We have actually taken ‘husband and wife’ out of the vocabulary. Many people have happy lives without going through the process of marriage. I am concerned about that, but on the other hand it just shows how community attitudes have changed and that a response is required. For numerous reasons the participation of women in the workforce—from the highest jobs, such as the Chief Executive of Westpac, to process workers and others—is now an economic necessity. It is always important—and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services, who is at the table, would agree with me—that the best stock breed. Quite some time ago in Singapore there was an initiative of the government—I do not know whether it was to restrict population growth or encourage it—and they found that the people not having children were the educated elite. Their economy was heavily reliant upon those sorts of people. The population was still growing at the other end of the socioeconomic scale, and that was of concern to them. Being as they are in Singapore, they very quickly admitted their mistake and moved away from it. All of a sudden Australia is confronted with the opportunity and the necessity for women to be involved in the workplace at all levels. Those who can attract higher wage levels and whose genetic structure, if you like—and I will probably get criticised for this remark—means their children are more likely to be brighter than others should be encouraged to have children. I do not think there is any doubt that they will have pleasure and comfort from that decision anyway. I have an interesting family with two 20-year-old, one four-year-old and one two-year-old grandchildren. We are having so much enjoyment, as is their mother and father, watching those two younger children progress. I am pleased to say that the two-year-old can already count to 20. I am very pleased about that. She will no doubt pass her NAPLAN tests with little or no problem in future years. There are so many benefits in having children because of the contribution they make to a family. On the other hand, we have seen the economic circumstances change. I want to take the parliament back to the days of my own parents. My father was a saver. He was nine years older than his wife. He took her into her family home the day after they were married. He had paid for it. He was a motor mechanic. He was not a man of great wealth or anything else. Therefore, when I arrived—the third child in the family—we could live on some £6 a week. He did not have a £5 a week mortgage. What has happened now? Women must be in the workforce now because of the cost of housing and more particularly the cost of the block of land upon which it is constructed. I opened the Sunday Times in Western Australia the other morning and in the home section saw that there was a four-bedroom house available for $160,000 on your block of land. You will not buy a block of land in Western Australia for under $200,000 and in Sydney for probably under $300,000 or $400,000 because the state government I believe wants about $160,000 upfront anyway. Here is a four-bedroom home with a TV room, an office and two bathrooms for $160,000 and we are paying, through the operations of this parliament, $800,000 for a school canteen. I thought to myself that something is wrong. Nevertheless, there is the cost. I read also that the recent interest rate rises are presently adding about $290 a month to the repayment schedule for a $250,000 mortgage. That brings us back to the fact that people need assistance in various ways if the female member of the family has to remove herself from employment when having a child or children. The government have come up with a proposal. It is very modest. The internationally recognised standard is six months but they have not adopted that internationally recognised standard, but have chosen 18 weeks, hoping employers will top-up the leave entitlement to make it up to 26 weeks. They are looking at virtually the minimum pay rate for a person, notwithstanding the income that they forgo and, more importantly, the family debt associated with household mortgages and other investments that they might have made. I find it a bit worrying to watch all the whitegoods and TV retailers et cetera offering people no interest, no repayment offers—walk into the shop and walk out with a couple of thousand dollars worth of the goods they wish to market. There is always a point in time when that has to be paid and it often gives people an opportunity to accumulate other debts beyond their resources. So this scheme is probably not sufficient to keep the family income up to a state where they can meet these excessive payments for home mortgages and things of that nature. There is a suggestion that possibly employers will make a contribution. This is probably not going to be much help and it could even be a disability because, as the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs said in her second reading speech: In particular, new provisions will make sure that, as intended, families receiving parental leave pay will not be able to receive the baby bonus, and family tax benefit part B will not be payable for the duration of the parental leave pay. Those families not eligible for Paid Parental Leave, or who choose not to participate in the scheme, will be eligible to continue to access the baby bonus and the family tax benefit if they are eligible. The problem with that is: which one do I take? I doubt that the loss of the baby bonus is even fully compensated by the amount of money that is being offered as parental leave under this arrangement. It is of course at the lowest end of the scale in terms of the remuneration that people are paid. One of the great issues, as I am advised, is that small business will be burdened with the red tape of having to pay the government’s parental leave to employees who are participating and they may be liable for state payroll tax and workers compensation for those employees on parental leave as well as for their replacement. This adds cost and red tape which the business sector deeply resents. Furthermore, I read into that that in fact the employer will pay the parental leave and, presumably, seek reimbursement from the government. I could not find that particularly identified within the second reading speech but it follows, if that sort of payment is being made and those risks are inherent in the government scheme, that that is a huge financial burden for a small business. They are paying the absent worker and obviously a replacement. It could in fact tip such a business into the payroll tax regime, because payroll tax of course in most states has a threshold under which the business is not responsible for paying payroll tax but, if you add another salary, they could be. That has always been a criticism of payroll tax: that it frequently prevents the employment of people because the small business would have a situation where they had to pay payroll tax if they put another worker on. They might need another worker, but they say, ‘No, the business is not going to grow anymore because the net result is detrimental to so doing.’ Here we have that situation forced upon a small business employer by law and that seems extremely unfair. That is why, having a changing attitude on the issues and recognising the changed circumstances between my childhood and today, I was quite amenable to the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, when he said, ‘Okay, we will tax or raise a levy against the higher income earners across the board.’ He did not pick the mining sector or the financial sector or anything else. If you are an incorporated company and your taxable profit exceeds $5 million—not your turnover, your taxable profit exceeds $5 million—he proposes a modest levy to raise the funds necessary so that women deciding to leave their employment for the purpose of having a baby will be reimbursed to the extent of their salary up to $150,000 a year. I have said in this place on many occasions that $150,000 is not a lot of money anymore if, for instance, you are raising a family, looking at their long-term education needs, and you have a mortgage on a $1 million house—or a $600,000 or $700,000 house. So it is grossly unfair and very negative to be saying to those people in that higher salary bracket: ‘Don’t have any kids. You can’t afford it. Wait till you’re 40.’ I think that is sad, because they will live such a short period of their life with their children and grandchildren. So I support the concept of remuneration relevant to the salary forgone in the period when they are having children. I also note that many of the enterprises that will be so taxed already pay significant parental leave anyway. Under the Abbott proposal, they will have the full wages of those people paid to them and they will therefore not have that responsibility. I have not seen the sums. It is a pity that someone has not pointed out how much parental leave is already paid, typically, by large organisations and government, who will be relieved of that cost under the Abbott scheme. So for many—and, I think, most—the tax will be compensated by the payments that will be refunded to their employees under that arrangement. I think that is worth understanding. It just makes the point that the initiative was needed but that the response of the government seems to be a failure as compared to the proposal put forward by the opposition. I think that is pretty important. This has to work. It has to be sensible and it has to recognise the realities of the modern family. To say, ‘You’re rich and almost famous if you are on $150,000 a year,’ is simply not true. Sometimes in the family—and I can quote examples known to me—the female partner is the big earner, frequently earning twice as much as the husband. When you take that into account in a family budget, that is another argument why the amount of salary earned by the female partner should be the one refunded. 4528 12:25:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 0 Ms RISHWORTH —I rise today to support these very important bills, the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. This is Australia’s first national Paid Parental Leave scheme. It is integral to providing the necessary support that parents expect and deserve. It is increasingly difficult for parents to balance work and family commitments. This is echoed time and time again in my electorate. Complex modern life does make it difficult to balance work and family commitments. Paid parental leave is one of those things that will go a long way to alleviating some of the financial pressures that families are facing. The introduction of paid parental leave in this country has been a long time coming. We know that for many years Australia was one of the few nations in the OECD that did not have a paid parental leave scheme. So I am very proud to be part of a government that has acted so that parents can receive the benefit of paid parental leave from 1 January 2011. This is in stark contrast to the previous government, who actively opposed paid parental leave for the 11 years they were in office. Indeed, if we believe some of the reports about the coalition party room coming out in the media, there are still people in the party room who oppose paid parental leave. Paid parental leave is a good thing for employers, a good thing for employees and a good thing for children. The introduction of the Paid Parental Leave scheme will assist employers to retain experienced staff without a significant cost burden on business, especially small business. For employees it provides job security and ongoing connection with their employer but also flexibility at that critical time when a baby is born. Most importantly, the scheme ensures that parents get the opportunity to stay at home with their children in those vital early months just after the birth of a child. As evidence continues to show, this is a critical time for a primary caregiver to be at home with their child. The scheme is designed to be flexible, being available to either mothers or fathers, and allows for the primary caregiver to transfer unused parental leave pay to their partner, ensuring that there is flexibility to meet differing family arrangements. While I recognise that there will be many more women choosing to take paid parental leave, this flexibility does allow individual families more options. It allows them to really look at what works best for their family. The government’s paid parental leave initiative is fair for employees and fair for families, so these bills are very significant. Many parents in my electorate have not previously been lucky enough to work for companies that have offered paid parental leave as part of their employment contract. This has often been the case for casual workers, who have experienced financial stress when having a baby because of the cessation of the second income. Many mothers have told me that they have had to return to work earlier than they would have liked because of financial pressures on their family. The Paid Parental Leave scheme before the House today is the government’s response to the Productivity Commission’s report into paid parental leave, entitled Paid parental leave: support for parents with newborn children. The Productivity Commission reported that there were compelling reasons for a paid parental leave scheme, including the improved wellbeing of families and, in particular, child and maternal health. It found that such a scheme encourages women to maintain their lifetime attachment to the workforce, improves gender equality and ensures that there is an emphasis placed on the balance between work and family life. The government has accepted the recommendations of the Productivity Commission to balance the interests of both employers and employees and develop a scheme that is affordable and responsible and does not put all the burden onto employers. That is why the government accepted the Productivity Commission’s recommendations that a paid parental leave scheme be a government funded scheme that pays parents for a maximum of a continuous 18 weeks at the federal minimum wage, currently around $543. To be eligible for paid parental leave a person must be the primary carer of a newborn child or adopted child and must have been in paid work. Paid work is defined as being engaged in work continuously at least 10 out of 13 months prior to the birth or adoption of a child. That person has to have worked at least 330 hours in the last 10-month period. This means that parents may be regarded as working continuously if they have worked part time or casually, if they have had multiple employers or have recently changed jobs. This government initiative provides a realistic test and accommodates real-life situations, which include a mobile workforce. The scheme will mean that people who are primary caregivers who earn less than $150,000 in a financial year will be eligible for the Paid Parental Leave scheme. Importantly, as I have already mentioned, the parental leave is transferable. The paid leave period can be taken at any time in the first year after the birth or adoption. The government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme is due to start on 1 January 2011. This is really important to a lot of people in my electorate, as I am sure it is around the whole country. It means that couples who fall pregnant now will know that they will be able to get access to government paid parental leave at the time of the birth of their child. From 1 October 2010 parental leave may be started to be applied through the Family Assistance Office, which will ensure that parents will be able to put the wheels in motion. The scheme the government has announced does not put undue burden upon business and imposes minimal new costs. The government will fund employers to pay eligible long-term employees as part of the scheme who have been employed for over 12 months. The Family Assistance Office will ensure that funds are made available to employers in advance of the provision required of them to pay paid parental leave, which will ensure that paid parental leave payments will be made available in the usual payroll cycle. This initiative provides long-term benefits for business, keeping that parent who has had time off work connected with their employer, connected with their career, and promoting their return to work after the paid parental leave has concluded. This is very important for employers. A lot of employers talk about the cost burden when a person might leave the workforce, the training costs associated with skilling them up. There are a lot of very good employees out there and employers want to have provisions that ensure that they can hold on to these employees. In terms of practicality, it is not in the hands of the employers to decide who is eligible. For my electorate this means whether you are a small business in Morphett Vale, Moana or Willunga you do not have to bear the brunt of assessing who is and who is not eligible. Eligibility will be conducted by application to the Family Assistance Office. In real terms, this means that businesses will not have to dedicate time and funds to assessing eligibility of employees. The government will expect that employers will pass on payments to their employees and the bill contains integrity provisions such as compliance rules and the right to review for employees. This will ensure that parental leave is paid to eligible parents when they require it, ensuring for working parents certainty and security of 18 weeks pay. Employers will not have to change their employees’ usual pay cycle, set up any special bank accounts or report back to the Family Assistance Office. There will be no additional rigmarole for employers. They will only be required to pay the parental leave through the normal means and also deduct tax for it. For employees this bill goes a long way to alleviating the financial burden so often experienced by mothers and primary caregivers immediately after the birth of a new child. Talking with many of my friends and many of my constituents, that time immediately after the birth of a new child is a very stressful time. It is emotionally stressful and also very financially stressful, but at the same time incredibly rewarding and a wonderful experience. By providing financial support this bill will take a little bit of the pressure off parents and allow them to spend time at home with their newborn baby. Importantly, workers who often miss out on many entitlements afforded to permanent staff will receive paid parental leave. Workers who may be casual, contract or self-employed will be eligible. The bill offers real financial support for many parents who have not received paid parental leave in the past. The 2008 ABS data shows that less than a quarter of women on very low wages, less than $400 a week, have access to employer paid parental leave schemes. So it has been those medium- to low-paid workers who have missed out on paid parental leave, and this bill for the first time will give these women access to paid parental leave. Importantly, however, for those who are already receiving paid parental leave, the government has made it clear that the government funded Paid Parental Leave scheme is not a replacement for parental leave provisions currently in any industrial agreement. For those new parents already eligible for employer funded schemes, the government paid parental leave initiative can be taken in addition to existing schemes. Parents can take paid parental leave before or after or at the same time as other legal entitlements. This is very important. Employers cannot withdraw any existing entitlements for the life of the industrial agreement, and modifications if companies choose to do so, including perhaps modifying it to be a top-up payment for the 18 weeks, will need to occur at the time of bargaining any new agreement. This new scheme is characterised by flexibility and allows parents to make their own choices. Parents may nominate when they wish to receive their pay. The start date can be on or after the date of birth or, in the case of an adopted child, the placement date. All pay must be received within the first 12 months after the relevant date. As previously mentioned, the government’s paid parental leave initiative gives parents the option to share their parental leave benefits. This means a mum will be able to stay home with her new baby but will have the choice to return to work when it suits her, knowing that her partner may be able to take paid time from work for the remainder of the 18 weeks. Parents electing to receive paid parental leave will not receive the baby bonus except in the case of multiple births. Parents who fall outside of these provisions, outside of the paid work test, will still be able to access assistance from the government. Those that do not receive paid parental leave will continue to be able to access the baby bonus, if they fit the eligibility criteria, and family assistance under the current rules. Alternatively, parents who meet the eligibility criteria for paid parental leave can also choose whether or not they will elect to receive the paid parental leave or whether they will receive the baby bonus and family assistance in lieu of paid parental leave. I have been contacted by many people in my electorate, both mothers and fathers, who are in great support of a national paid parental leave scheme. In particular, Kerry, of Huntfield Heights, told me specifically that this bill will provide her and her family with the financial security she needs to take time off work and to spend more time at home when her child is born. In this debate we have talked a lot about the benefits to parents, but there are also significant benefits to children. Paid parental leave represents not only our commitment to working parents but also our focus on the welfare of children. Evidence suggests that early parent-child interactions are incredibly important for babies’ social, emotional and cognitive development. Evidence also suggests that ensuring mothers have the capacity to breastfeed is incredibly important to the healthy development of the child. Paid parental leave provides parents with the option of staying at home with their newborn and giving them the best start to life without the financial pressure of returning to work. As I said before, many parents have told me that because of that financial pressure they have felt the need to return to work earlier than they would have liked and earlier than they thought was best for their child. The benefits of the scheme have been supported by many people. The benefits for children have been supported by the New South Wales Commissioner for Children and Young People, Gillian Calvert, who said when the scheme was announced: Research shows the continuous interaction between babies and parents in the baby’s first twelve months of life shapes the brain wiring—affecting how a child regulates their emotions, communicates, solves problems, thinks logically and reacts to the world. I am sure everyone in this chamber will agree that those types of skills and developmental milestones are incredibly important and do set a child up for a good, healthy life. The bill before us today is an historic one. Australians have been waiting for paid parental leave for too long. It took the election of the Rudd government to introduce such a scheme. The previous government demonstrated regularly that it had no interest in this issue. For over 11 years, the previous government refused to even consider a paid parental leave scheme. However, I would go so far as to say that the previous government was not only not interested in a paid parental leave but actively opposed to it. This was made especially clear—and this has been regularly quoted but I think it is really important to put it on the record again—by the now Leader of the Opposition when, as a minister in the previous government, he said: Voluntary paid maternity leave: yes; compulsory paid maternity leave: over this Government’s dead body, frankly. It just won’t happen. That was the attitude of the previous government to paid parental leave—it was never going to happen. That quote does make it clear that neither the previous government nor the current Leader of the Opposition intended ever to support paid parental leave being available to working parents in Australia. Obviously we have seen a change of heart by the opposition leader in—I would suggest—perhaps a desperate bid to try and appeal to women. He has announced a paid parental leave scheme that, on the face of it, sounds quite generous. However, the opposition have yet to reveal most of the details of their scheme. Importantly, what a lot of parents want to know is: when will it start? There has been no start date for the opposition leader’s scheme. It was mooted when it was first announced that it was perhaps starting in 2013—maybe. That would mean that parents would have to wait at least an extra two years for an opposition paid parental scheme than for the government scheme—that is, indeed, if it gets introduced at all. Parents have communicated with me that they are making decisions now about having children and about their financial circumstances. They do not want to wait until 2013 to know whether or not the coalition, if it were to get elected, would do another policy backflip on the issue of paid parental leave. We have seen that Australian families do need certainty. Families are having babies now and they need to know what assistance will be provided to them. In addition, the coalition’s announcement of the 1.7 per cent levy to pay for their parental leave scheme—if it indeed does come to fruition—will be, as is often quoted, ‘a big new tax on everything’. It will hit consumers at the checkout, it will hit consumers when they buy services and it will hit consumers across the board. This is in light of, a few months before, the Leader of the Opposition promising he would not introduce any new taxes. And the Leader of the Opposition had previously said there would not be an introduction of a paid parental scheme and that the introduction of a paid parental scheme would happen ‘over his dead body’. So I think the people of my electorate would be justified in wondering why the Leader of the Opposition does continually backflip or backtrack on what he says. The Australian people have a right to question which statement made by the Leader of the Opposition is indeed the gospel truth. That is a valid question for the Australian people to ask. In comparison, our policy has a start date; our policy has a real and practical system of implementation; our policy does not slug medium and large businesses and put the burden onto them; our policy will not hurt the consumer. Our scheme is fair, balanced and economically responsible. (Time expired) 4532 12:45:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP 0 0 Mr BILLSON —It is a real pleasure to engage in this debate on the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 today, for a number of reasons, most of which have been canvassed by previous speakers and which I will take a few minutes to touch on. It is interesting to characterise the debate on the basis of what you hear from this parliament. What we seem to be in heated agreement about across the chamber is that paid parental leave is a good thing, that it is desirable and something our nation should put in place for the benefit of the microhumans—the babies—coming into this world, for their parents, for the broader economy, for productivity in our workplace and for engaging the incredible gifts of women in Australia so that our participation rates in the workforce are in keeping with the goals and ambitions of Australian families. That seems to be undisputed. Everyone seems to be of one voice in expressing that view in this parliament. What then happens though is that the debate falls away rather quickly. From those very thoughtful and considered remarks we move into a bit of an argument over backflips and the like. It is quite extraordinary to hear Labor members in this chamber suggest that there may be a coalition backflip, with no basis whatsoever to support that claim. This is in the incredible context of backflip after backflip from the Prime Minister on things like climate change—‘the greatest moral challenge of our time’—which he suggests are ‘deeply ingrained in his soul’. This is language that you would normally only hear during wartime. Our Prime Minister is happy to go into that hyperbole at the drop of a hat when it suits him politically, and then just abandon the idea without any explanation or any alternative plan. If we are going to have a real discussion about backflips and where this might leave families in Australia in relation to paid parental leave, my assessment, and I think the assessment of the Australian public, would be that that is not a good tactic for the Rudd Labor government and Labor members to go down. Their form on this is notorious. If big moral challenges of our time represent no impediment to the Rudd Labor government doing spectacular backflips, paid parental leave would be an easy one for them. I think it is an empty argument and I think it is quite courageous for the Rudd Labor government to go down that pathway of backflips again. But, in going down that pathway, they highlight the real difference between paid parental leave and the debate that we should be having in this place—that is, which paid parental leave scheme is best for Australia? On that basis, it is a lay-down misere that the coalition proposal outperforms the Rudd Labor government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme in every measure. That is probably why the Labor members in this chamber do not want to talk about those issues; they would rather scurry down the pathway of ugly arguments, personal attacks on the Leader of the Opposition and some ridiculous notion that the opposition has some proclivity to backflip, when really the Rudd Labor government has no hesitation in backflipping. That is really what this debate is about. The bills before us are about a proposition for 18 weeks of paid parental leave paid at the minimum wage. That minimum wage represents about $543 per week, and that is for those who qualify on the basis of residency, income and work tests and who bring into this world or adopt a child after 2011. That idea represents a small step forward on paid parental leave; it does not represent a substantial move to implement the kind of scheme that Australian families and our economy actually needs. Where we are at the moment is in a debate over which scheme would best support families and employers and be best in our long-term interest. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the coalition scheme outperforms Labor’s in every respect. The Productivity Commission and others have looked at this issue and undertaken research on paid parental leave, and their report is very interesting. It confirms—in fact almost all studies confirm—that paid parental leave is a good thing. But it also points out that 26 weeks is really what paid parental leave should be about. Yet Labor’s bills are 18 weeks. So even in relation to that very fundamental period of time when parents can be with their children, the Labor proposal falls short. The coalition proposal addresses what is necessary in the eyes of nursing mothers associations and early childhood development experts—that 26 weeks is pretty much right. So, on that benchmark, the coalition proposal outperforms the Labor proposal. In relation to the funds that are paid, the coalition proposal again outperforms the Labor proposal. In the coalition’s proposal, we advocate what is effectively described as a ‘wage or salary replacement proposal’. This actually goes to the heart of the difficult decisions families face. Whilst the Rudd Labor government proposal talks about the minimum wage, which is currently $543.78 per week, the coalition proposal actually takes account of what women are earning at the time they leave the workforce to bring a child into the world with the best possible start it could hope for. That child does not all of a sudden move into a household that is geared, framed and budgeted on the minimum wage; that is not the case at all. That child is entering a household where there are income traditions and trajectories that have set in place things like the capacity to pay mortgages, the capacity to pay car-financing charges, decisions about health care and the costs of living that that family unit accommodates in its normal course of events. Those things just do not stop. You do not get the bank ringing you up and saying: ‘Congratulations on your newborn. We’ll now change your mortgage to what your mortgage might be if you were on the minimum wage.’ That does not happen. The finance company to whom you may be repaying a loan for a vehicle or home appliances does not send you a letter, a nice bouquet and maybe a little gift saying: ‘Congratulations on the microhuman who has come into your family. We will now adjust all of the expenditure commitments you have to reflect a household which has been living and shaping its life on the basis of a minimum wage.’ That does not happen. That is not the way the world works. All of a sudden people do not move house. They do not change their debt and financing obligations. They do not find their mortgages suddenly paid for. The electricity company does not say, ‘Despite the increasing cost of living which is happening in every aspect of your life, we will change everything so that your financial responsibilities reflect a minimum wage level of income.’ That does not happen. That is a ridiculous idea, nonsense, which sits behind the Rudd Labor government proposal. People’s financial responsibilities do not change—the way in which their household budgets need to address the costs of their home, their cost of living and expenditures which last well beyond the immediate period of support for a newborn. This is why the coalition’s proposal is infinitely superior to the Rudd Labor government proposal. The coalition’s proposal is for a replacement wage so that all the normal expenses of a household, which are not relieved purely because of a microhuman coming into the world, can be accommodated. That is an enormous comfort for couples planning a family, to have a new child as part of their lives. Under the Rudd Labor government, wherever you look there are financial risks and uncertainties at a time of increasing costs of living. So having financial security, your personal economic security, knowing your circumstances and understanding the income needed to maintain your financial commitments and the living standards you have worked so hard for, all that is very important. We had a discussion in my office earlier today in preparing for this speech. Among the group in my office and among our network of friends, it is hard to identify a family with young children where both parents are not obliged to work. It is hard to conceive of that family with housing costs being what they are, the cost of living pressures having so accelerated under this Rudd Labor government and further cost concerns into the future about great big new taxes on everything under the cryogenically frozen Rudd Labor government ETS, even on the cost impact of the mining supertax and how it will push up by $20,000 the cost of the average home and add to energy bills, the cost of construction, food and in so many things in life. These are real cost of living concerns. The coalition proposal is responsive to those and the Rudd Labor proposal ignores them. The idea of a replacement wage is incredibly important for families, realising when they are thinking about having a family that the running joke is they might be nesting; no, they are ‘nest-egging’, trying to get the cash together to make payments which are not relieved purely because a child has come into the world. They are not adjusted to a minimum wage income. After the child arrives, they continue as they were before the child arrived. The other thing which is important is 26 weeks over 18 weeks. I have touched on why that is relevant. Significantly, in the coalition’s proposal there are two weeks paternity leave, two weeks as part of the 26 weeks for dad to be involved, providing support during the early life of the child who has come into the household. That is not provided for under Labor’s scheme. Not only does the coalition’s scheme offer a replacement wage up to quite a responsible cap but also it extends for longer and recognises that dad wants to do all he can too, particularly in the first couple of weeks after a microhuman comes into your world. People say: ‘You’ve got a newborn. What’s it feel like?’ It is often hard to describe. The answer is: ‘Our world’s been bumped into another orbit. Everything’s different. It’s all hands on deck.’ I am pleased the coalition proposal is responsive to that. Some questions are asked about the start date for the coalition’s proposal. I have a simple answer to that: it will be pretty smartly after the end of the Rudd Labor government. And hallelujah! What a great day that will be. The sooner we can get rid of this crowd the quicker the coalition’s superior paid parental leave can come into effect. I am not sure when that will be as the Prime Minister is holding his own counsel about when the election may be. The other things I want to touch on go to some very specific portfolio interests relating to the small-business community. There was a very strange proposition embedded in the Labor proposal, a proposition which again illustrates why the coalition’s paid parental leave idea is superior. In the Rudd Labor government’s proposal the Paid Parental Leave scheme obliges small business employers to be the paymaster, to carry an administrative burden and a compliance risk for transferring payments to the benefiting employee. As you read through the Productivity Commission’s report, you see that there is an interesting commentary in a number of passages about compliance costs, the risks and the administrative complexities which accompany the Rudd Labor government’s scheme. There has been some effort by the commission to identify different ways of addressing those shortcomings. I commend the Hair and Beauty Australia organisation, the Master Grocers of Australia, Clubs New South Wales, COSBOA and other small business organisations, VECCI and ACCI and the like, all of whom have made their concerns known: why should a small business be injected into this process where effectively the Rudd Labor government sees the government making a payment to the eligible recipient, where the federal government’s Family Assistance Office is involved in that process but does not actually make the payment? So you are requiring a small business to be a part of that scheme, when that exercise adds no value whatsoever to the scheme itself and, in fact, puts the small business at a significant disadvantage and quite significant risk for inadvertent noncompliance with the scheme. The proposition that the Rudd Labor government has brought forward that requires the small business community to be a part of this exercise of transferring money from the government to the eligible person has been justified on the basis of ‘keeping in touch’—that there are some similar provisions in the United Kingdom and that they thought there was some advantage in ‘keeping in touch’. I can tell this parliament that every small business organisation I have spoken with sees no upside whatsoever in this ‘keeping in touch’ notion and they would much rather be kept out of this process. It is simply a transfer of funds, requiring a small business to alter its payroll and administrative systems, to account for the receipt of the funds and then the payment of them, to be responsible for whatever variation there may be in tax liability and obligations, and to be at risk of not doing what is being imposed upon them and therefore at risk of penalty for noncompliance—and then also having that payment being paid by the federal government but being run through their books being taken into account for other things such as workers compensation liabilities and payroll tax. You could imagine that a small business sees no upside in any of those risks and no advantage in any of those additional cost burdens. Yet, having heard from the small business community over and over again, the Rudd Labor government is persisting with this flawed idea as part of its flawed and underperforming scheme and requiring the small business community to be a party. You see in the Productivity Commission report example after example about why this is not a good idea. COSBOA, in their statement in March, in welcoming what they said was ‘small business support for Abbott’s paid parental leave plan,’ go on to highlight its better suitability for the small business community and its ability to attract women to small business employers and the small business family generally. They went on to talk about the compliance cost obligations and the risks. They talked about those things as being a concern and that the Abbott coalition plan overcomes those concerns by the streamlined, tidy and uncomplicated way in which the Family Assistance Office will be responsible for the administration of the payments. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Rudd Labor government is turning its back on this clear and consistent message from the small business community. All they have done—and I believe inspired purely by getting this off the agenda, they hope—is said the Family Assistance Office for the first six months will handle the Rudd Labor government Paid Parental Leave scheme in the way in which the coalition’s proposed its scheme would be handled. My message is simple: if it is good enough for the first six months and all the investment in putting those systems in place with the Family Assistance Office makes sense, why not just keep doing it? The coalition insists that the small business community not be left holding the parental leave cheque because they do not need to. There is no advantage to it and there are plenty of disadvantages to that model as I have outlined in my contribution already. So if the Rudd Labor government has any interest whatsoever in regulatory and compliance burdens and has listened to the legitimate and substantiated concerns of the small business community, they will not force them to be the ones handling the cash with the risks that are attached to that and the inevitable costs of changing their own internal systems, payroll systems and the like; the reporting obligations back and forth to the FAO and to the employee; the concerns about triggering an increased financial liability for workers compensation and payroll expenses because their payroll budget is inflated by that amount. It adds no advantage whatsoever. If the government would follow the call of the opposition and the small business community, it would also bring some comfort to the small business community. As we have heard from speaker after speaker, the Labor plan is not quite right. It is underdone. It is too short. It is not recognising the real cost-of-living impacts on families—and there is every possibility many on the Labor side of the parliament recognise that. If you build in a payment handling reporting and compliance requirement for the small business community, this idea that employers may if they choose top up the contribution coming from the government can quickly morph into an obligation to do so if you set all that machinery in place. Most people, except those opposite in the Labor Party, agree that 26 weeks is better than 18, and that replacement wage outperforms minimum wage any day. So if the Rudd Labor government comes to that conclusion and it is allowed to implement these administrative costs and obligations on small business, they will be fitted up with topping it up. (Time expired) 4537 13:05:00 Jackson, Sharryn, MP 00AN2 Hasluck ALP 1 0 Ms JACKSON —The Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 for me presents an opportunity for celebration. This bill, if passed by the parliament, will deliver Australia’s first national paid parental leave scheme from 1 January 2011. The scheme is funded by the Australian government and it is fair to business and fair for families. For the generation who campaigned for the rights of working women, paid parental leave is now finally being achieved by their daughters and granddaughters. This bill, as I said, is a cause for celebration. For the working women who at the turn of the century watched their working conditions being steadily eroded by Work Choices and despairingly confronted the fact that they were about to become the first generation to pass on worse conditions of employment to their children, this bill in conjunction with the Fair Work Act brings relief and of course a cause for celebration. This bill represents a gigantic step forward for working women in Australia. It will help Australian families balance work and family commitments and help employers retain the valuable skills and experience of their staff. I want to commend and congratulate ministers Macklin and Plibersek especially for their work on this wonderful achievement for women. The Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 has been attacked and criticised by those opposite as symbolism. They say that it does not match pay and it does not pay superannuation. To them I say: the bill is a real leap forward for equity for all working women, not just for those on or near the minimum wage like cleaners, aged care workers and hospitality workers. This bill promises working women 18 weeks to spend bonding with their baby, coping with the stresses and enjoying the rewards that a newborn baby brings secure in the knowledge that they are still being paid and remain a valuable member of the Australian workforce. Of course, the government’s paid parental leave can be taken in addition to existing employer funded schemes, either at the same time or consecutively. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate those forward-thinking employers who have already implemented substantial paid parental leave schemes in their own workplaces, because I think they truly value and recognise the contribution of working women to their enterprises and businesses. This scheme will help employers, especially small business employers, enhance the family-friendly workplaces that, as I said, many already have on offer. After 12 years of refusing to deliver paid parental leave while they were in government, the opposition now claim that they support it and would have had ‘a better scheme than the government’. But the opposition intend to hit business with a great big tax to pay for it. Frankly, the opposition, the party of Work Choices, lacks credibility on this issue. I know firsthand from the work of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment and Workplace Relations that women workers in Australia suffered under the provisions of Work Choices and, indeed, were greatly disadvantaged under individual contracts in this country. It seems somewhat hypocritical to me that the opposition, which had 12 years in government to try and address these issues, chose not to do so. Today I want to celebrate the achievements of working women. I have said that, in addition to this legislation being a substantial step forward in improving conditions for working women, paid parental leave also represents a significant achievement for Australian women in their campaign for equal rights. It is like the time when women got the opportunity to attend university or, in my own state of Western Australia, when Edith Cowan introduced the Women’s Legal Status Act in 1923—a private member’s bill in the Western Australian parliament which provided the breakthrough that enabled women to practice law and other professions. It is like 1966 when the marriage bar was lifted in the Australian Public Service, 1973 when the marriage bar was lifted in the Western Australia public service or 1972 when the Women’s Electoral Lobby was formed and for the first time conducted surveys of political candidates on issues associated with women’s rights. They held their first conference in January 1973 and were addressed by then lawyer Mary Gaudron, who had been asked by the new Whitlam government in its first week of office to reopen the equal pay case. In 1972 the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission handed down its decision on equal pay for work of equal value. In 1973 the first maternity leave was approved in the federal Public Service, with a period of paid as well as unpaid maternity leave. However, in its terms, it was clearly opposed to any flow-on to the private sector. Towards the end of 1975, we saw an equal opportunity employment section created within the Public Service Board. We saw the abolition of women-only and men-only job restrictions in the Public Service, although not in the private sector until the Sex Discrimination Act in 1984. In 1977, the Working Women’s Charter was adopted by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It called for equal pay and the provision of child care for working women and it condemned sexual harassment in the workplace. I still vividly remember as a young woman the campaign run by many during 1978. This was a period of high unemployment of some 7.1 per cent, and there was anger towards married women for ‘taking jobs from men and boys’. In 1979 the Arbitration Commission handed down a decision for 52 weeks unpaid maternity leave and, importantly, the right of women to return to their job. This was done well ahead of prevailing community attitudes—and that was only 30 years ago. In 1984, then Senator Susan Ryan championed and then implemented the Sex Discrimination Act. In my own state of Western Australia, the Hon. Yvonne Henderson introduced and championed the Equal Opportunity Act. Finally, legislation was beginning to establish rights for women to live and work in environments free of discrimination. In 1984, Anne Summers, then an adviser to the Hawke government, pushed the government to make an election promise of 20,000 new childcare places in Australia. As recently as 2002, HREOC recommended in its report 14 weeks paid maternity leave at the minimum wage for all women. Unfortunately, this was hijacked in 2004 by the introduction of the baby bonus—then a $3,000 non-means-tested welfare payment, totally unrelated to work or the preservation of the rights of working women. I have always campaigned for the rights of working women. I cannot let an occasion such as this pass without acknowledging that this legislation is a real step forward, irrespective of the different views in this House and in the other place, I trust and hope that it will be a real improvement for all working women in Australia. I want to talk a little about the baby bonus because, unfortunately, I think it was presented in such a way that it polarised working mothers against stay-at-home mothers. In truth, this distinction is largely false for a couple of reasons. Anyone who has stayed at home to raise children would know that it is very demanding work. In addition, there are a broad range of ways in which mothers return to work—a day a week, two days a week, three half days a week, full-time, nights, weekends and work from home. There is no clear point whereby the hours or the income indicate when a woman stops being a stay-at-home mum and becomes an employee. I believe the failure to recognise women’s unpaid work is one of the great failures of our national economic accounts and theories. Mothers who are not eligible for paid parental leave or who choose not to receive it may still be eligible for the baby bonus and family assistance under the usual rules. I think that is appropriate. The Paid Parental Leave scheme does not need to make a distinction between stay-at-home mums and mums in the paid workforce, because paid parental leave is not a welfare payment. It is an employment benefit. It is the creation of a new right conferred upon employees who are pregnant. As such, employees may elect to take advantage of this benefit. It is not means tested against the family income; it is means tested against the primary carer applying for the benefit. This bill is not about the social or private aspects of raising a family. Clearly improvements in work based conditions mean improved conditions at home. This bill is directed squarely at the industrial issue of parental leave. The proposed scheme will start on 1 January 2011 for eligible parents of children born or adopted on or after 1 January 2011. Eligible working parents will receive government funded parental leave pay at the national minimum wage for a maximum of 18 weeks. A person may be eligible for paid parental leave if they are the mother of a newborn child or the initial primary carer of a recently adopted child, have met the paid parental leave work test before the birth or adoption occurs, have an individual income of $150,000 per year or less, are living in Australia and are an Australian citizen or permanent resident. Paid parental leave will be for eligible working parents, including full-time, part-time, seasonal and casual workers, as well as contractors, the self-employed and, importantly, people who have had multiple employers. Our scheme gives Australian families more options to balance work and family by allowing the primary carer to transfer any unused parental leave pay to their partner, provided the partner is also eligible. This means that an eligible father can get up to 18 weeks paid parental leave if the mother is eligible for the scheme but returns to work. Our scheme is based closely on the Productivity Commission’s expert recommendations for Australia’s best economic interests and follows consultation with employers and employer groups. As I said before, the government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme is fair to business and fair to families. By providing time to parents to spend at home with a newborn baby, the scheme will help promote early childhood development and maternal health. The government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme will also help employers enhance the family friendly workplace conditions which, as I said, many of them already offer. This scheme will also provide long-term benefits for business as more women of child-bearing age stay connected with the workforce and their careers. It will help employers retain their skilled staff. Frankly, I also think it will help with the stereotype that unfortunately still exists in some workplaces in Australia—the assumption that a woman will not stay as long or will not be as committed to a particular employer purely and simply because she is the one likely to take time out of the workforce to bear children. I am also very pleased this scheme contains provision that it will be reviewed in two years to enable the question of superannuation, in particular, to be reconsidered along with other things. I say that because this is an important consideration in closing the pay equity gap. As I said, in November last year the House Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations tabled the report of its inquiry into pay equity and associated issues relating to increasing female participation in the workforce, entitled Making it fair. As it followed so closely behind the Productivity Commission report on paid parental leave, Making it fair did not dwell upon the issue. However, a key observation of the report was the impact of interruptions to continuous employment on the pay gap and the resulting substantial differential in accumulation of superannuation over a lifetime. It is my strongly held personal view that women should not be punished in their retirement as a result of having had and raised children during their working lives. As I said, the pay equity gap has widened. The gap today stands at some 17 per cent. In industries such as finance and insurance, it is 31.9 per cent and in WA during the last mining boom, it was 37.5 per cent. The undervaluation of women’s work in the industries in which women’s employment is concentrated still remains to be addressed. I look forward to the government’s response to the Making it fair report so that I can stand in this place and also congratulate them for taking genuine steps in addressing that pay equity gap. Initiatives such as paid parental leave are a step towards closing the pay equity gap and enabling women to retain continuity of employment. That, as I said earlier, is something that should be a cause for celebration, especially for the women in this place, although I note that it will still be a little while before, and that we still have a little work to do to make sure, our numbers equal those of our male counterparts. This bill demonstrates an understanding that women do not automatically withdraw from the workforce when they have children. I am proud and delighted to be able to speak on this legislation and I commend it to the House. 4540 13:21:00 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 0 0 Mrs GASH —I agree with the previous speaker, the member for Hasluck, that we have come a long way in recognising the worth of women both at home and in the workforce. While the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and related bills may no longer affect me, unfortunately, they will certainly affect my five granddaughters. Therefore I am pleased to have the opportunity to place on record my views about this government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme. I would also like to take the opportunity to highlight the inadequacy of this government’s scheme as well as point out the strengths of the coalition’s proposal, which I think this government should consider. My first point relates to the period of leave or time frame each policy grants to a new parent. Labor’s proposal allows for 18 weeks compared to the coalition’s 26 weeks or, in other words, around four months versus six months, which is crucial for breastfeeding and for adapting to the lifestyle of having a newborn baby in general. I well remember my own experience with both my daughters who were each breastfed for 6-8 months. The next weak point I see within Labor’s policy relates to the rate at which new parents are paid. Labor will offer the minimum wage of $543.78 per week unless a mother’s salary is above $150,000. If it is more than that she does not qualify for the scheme and would simply, maybe, get the baby bonus, whereas the coalition will offer a replacement wage, that is, the equivalent amount to what she was earning up to $150,000. Anyone earning more than $150,000 will simply have their payments capped to the value of $150,000 as this is the limit. A woman earning, say, $175,000 will receive a replacement wage to the value of $150,000 for six months. However, if a woman is only working one day a week, under the coalition’s scheme she is entitled to receive the minimum wage as opposed to her regular wage, whichever is greater. Some of you might be asking: what about the non-primary carer—dads in many cases? Well, dads, you will be entitled to two weeks ‘use it or lose it’ parental leave to bond with your newborn. The coalition’s scheme will signal to the community that taking time out of the workforce to care for babies is good, healthy and normal. Now for the fine print. Labor will not pay anyone who has not worked a minimum of 330 hours in 10 out of the 13 months before the child’s birth. Their legislation will not guarantee time off work to take advantage of the PPL scheme. A woman may find that her employer will not allow her the 18 weeks off to take advantage of the scheme. In fact, Labor have refused to amend the scheme to create a legal entitlement for leave. But there is more bad news. Businesses will actually have to administer this whole scheme for their employees under Labor’s proposal, which is something I am sure they do not need to do with their spare time—what with all the pressures on small businesses of high interest rates and just making ends meet so that they can continue to employ people. I would worry that it might even turn some business owners off employing young women just so they can avoid the administrative nightmare. By contrast, the coalition’s scheme can be for anyone who has worked even one day a week either in their own business or in the workforce in 10 out of the 13 months prior to the birth. This means employees, contractors and the self-employed who meet the work eligibility criteria are all entitled to payments. They will also get super contributions at the mandatory rate of nine per cent—unlike Labor’s proposal. Better still the Family Assistance Office, not small business, will be responsible for administering it. Furthermore the taxpayer will not need to foot the bill for the coalition’s scheme, instead big businesses who have a taxable income or profit of more than $5 million, will. That is, of course, after all their deductions and expenses. Out of all the businesses in Australia, this will affect only 3,200. They will pay a levy of 1.7 per cent to pay for this scheme. This levy will be reconsidered when the budget gets back into surplus. No small business will have to pay the levy, only 3,200 large businesses will, many of whom already have some sort of PPL scheme in place, which could be rolled into this one. The Liberal Party is not traditionally the party in favour of more taxes and to some people this announcement has been surprising, but there are several reasons why this scheme is just too important not to do so. With the high cost of living as well as high mortgage and interest rates it is becoming harder and harder for families to live on one income. I certainly know that is so in the electorate of Gilmore. Women need a replacement wage if they are to be enticed out of the workforce to have a child and then return to work. Productivity is essential to driving economic growth in this country. Keeping the experience and skills of our women in the workforce is crucial. We need our Australian families to have more babies so our workforce will not have to import workers from overseas. Australia is actually the second last OECD country to adopt a mandatory paid parental leave scheme. It is considered vital for the future around the world, which is why it is alarming that Labor’s scheme is so inadequate. Lastly, we need fairness restored. All women no matter where they work should have access to the support they need at such a crucial and life-changing time. This actually benefits small business as well because women do not have to weigh up which maternity leave scheme is better when choosing where they will work—and believe me they do this now. Therefore the scheme at a local small business should be just as attractive as at a major firm in the city. Also it is important that small businesses especially do not have to deal with the paperwork of figuring out who gets what. Obviously as I said earlier it would be preferable if this essential scheme did not have to be funded by a levy and in the future under a coalition government it will not be. The coalition has unequivocally stated that this is temporary and we would prefer to pay for this from a surplus in the budget, like the one we left the current government. We all know that it simply does not exist anymore. It is gone and all we are left with is a $100 million bill for each day, or $700 million a week, just to pay the interest on this government’s spending. Paying off this government’s massive debt will be our first priority when we return to government. Then we will be able to do such things as lower taxes and take this modest levy off big business. In conclusion I would like to state that a paid parental leave scheme is critical to empower parents to make decisions for their families. It is crucial for the future economic sustainability of this country and it is crucial for the job security of all mums and dads. While I am very conscious that many mums did not get this support in their time, it is fair to say that family pressures and circumstances have changed. We need to encourage Australians to continue to make this country what it is. I am very proud to be part of a party that is putting forward a bold policy on this issue. 4542 13:28:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 0 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —As much as I admire the member for Gilmore and, indeed, I will be seconding one of her private member’s motions today, it is really important that the member for Gilmore perhaps reflects a little bit on the history of the passage of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and related bills, which I hope the opposition will be supporting. The first thing to note is that this Paid Parental Leave scheme has been in the making for decades. At last a government is prepared to commit to it and act on it. I found it a bit rich that the member for Gilmore and, before her, the member for Dunkley were parading before us the alternative parental leave plan of the opposition, which is uncosted and essentially unknown—uncosted and essentially unknown—and then tagged with what they term ‘a levy’ of 1.7 per cent on so-called large companies when in actual fact that levy is a tax. Treasury has modelled this taxation plan of the opposition and compared it to the government’s tax plan, and I have to tell you that the opposition’s tax plan is a negative for the Australian economy in so many ways: on wage growth, on gross domestic product and on consumer prices. That is the effect—lost, I must add, in the whole hullabaloo surrounding the Resource Super Profits Tax. Finally, although those on the other side stand up here and say that their alternative, uncosted proposal is so much better than the government’s, they are led by an opposition leader who said that there would be paid parental leave in this country over his dead body. I think that speaks for itself. I would like to now turn to the positive in this debate and congratulate the government and everyone else who has worked so hard to get a paid parental leave scheme in this country. The government funded scheme will provide parental leave pay to mothers and adoptive parents who have been working and have a baby or adopt a child on or after 1 January 2011. I think everyone in this House would agree that we have never got the balance between family and working life right, and we may not have it right even with this positive legislation; but it goes a long way towards trying to restore and encourage a balance between working life and family life, particularly, in the main, for women and our mothers, who carry the greatest burden and indeed the greatest pleasure, I suppose, of the nurturing role in our society. So this is a positive, and it was a long time coming. The government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme is fair to families and also fair to business. Paid parental leave will give babies the best start in life, it is hoped and it is intended. It means one parent has the financial security to take time off work to care for their baby full time at home during the vital early months of social, cognitive and physical development—a very, very important development stage. The government’s scheme meets the challenges and realities of modern family life, giving more parents time at home with their new baby and helping them balance their work and family responsibilities. It also supports women to maintain their connections with the workforce and boosts workforce participation. The government’s scheme, fully costed and fully funded, lets families make their own work and family choices. Parents can transfer the leave, so mums and dads have more options for balancing work and family life. So this scheme contains options, and modern families need the flexibility of options. Also, under the government’s scheme, women in particular in seasonal, casual and contract work and the self-employed will have access to paid parental leave, most of them for the very first time. This is a sector of the workforce that has been inhibited for a long time in trying to balance work and family life because they have not been eligible for parental leave schemes in the private sector and/or, in some cases, in the public sector. To be eligible for the scheme, claimants will need to meet the paid parental leave work test, income test and residency requirements. The claimant must be the primary carer of the child from birth or adoption and have verified the child’s birth or adoption. Under the government’s scheme, paid parental leave is for a maximum of 18 weeks and must be taken in one continuous block. It will be paid at the rate of the national minimum wage, which currently is $543.78 per week before tax. Parental leave pay will be treated in the same way as other taxable income. Parents can nominate when they wish to receive their pay. The start date can be on or after the child’s date of birth or placement but not before, and all the pay must be received within the first 12 months after the date of birth or placement. Now, parental leave pay can be received before, after or at the same time—and it is very important to remember this—as employer provided paid leave, such as recreation or annual leave, and indeed employer-provided parental leave. A parent will not be able to work while receiving parental leave pay but may, in the words of the legislation and in the literature that has been provided on the scheme, ‘keep in touch’ with the workplace for up to 10 days during the period if this is mutually agreed between the person and their employer. So again there is flexibility there. There is the option to keep in touch with, importantly, what is happening in the workplace and of course to maintain the social connections that are so important in the workplace itself. If a person returns to work before they have received all of their 18 weeks of paid parental leave, the person’s partner may be able to receive the unused amount of paid parental leave, subject to meeting the eligibility requirements that I mentioned earlier. Again, this offers families the flexibility to make choices in relation to paid parental leave. If this option is not taken up by the family for one reason or another, the paid parental leave will stop when the person returns to work. The bill provides for subordinate legislation—indeed, which we are dealing with—to give eligibility for parental leave pay to other carers in exceptional circumstances, either as a primary claimant or a secondary claimant, where the parents are incapable of caring for the child and are expected to remain so for at least 26 weeks. It can also cover situations where there are parenting orders resulting in the mother and her partner no longer caring for the child. There may be unfortunate circumstances affecting families, particularly of newborns. This provides financial support for those who become the primary carer for whatever reason and in whatever exceptional circumstances may exist. If parents are not eligible for or do not choose to receive paid parental leave, they may be able to receive the baby bonus and family tax benefit under the usual rules. An online paid parental leave estimator will be available from September 2010 to help parents choose the option that is best for them. Indeed, this has potential benefit payment and taxation implications like similar schemes elsewhere. It is important that families and individuals take note of how it will affect their financial circumstances. The estimator is designed to allow people to do that. Parents will lodge their claim at the Family Assistance Office. It will assess the parent’s eligibility. Claims can be lodged up to three months prior to the expected date of the birth or placement, so this allows people to prepare for this scheme and provides some options for them. Once the scheme is fully implemented, parental leave pay will be provided by employers to their long-term employees. That is the intention of the scheme once it is fully operational. A ‘long-term employee’ is a person who has been an employee of the employer for 12 months or more prior to the expected or actual date of birth or placement of the child. The Family Assistance Office will send a notice to an employer if they are required to pay an employee parental leave pay. It will also advise the parent of this. In other cases the Family Assistance Office will make the payment directly to the parent. The Family Assistance Office will assist both employers and employees to make the scheme work efficiently and effectively for everyone involved. The Family Assistance Office will ensure that funds are made available to an employer in advance of the employer’s obligation to provide parental leave pay to an employee. These funds may be received in as few as three equal instalments. If employers adhere to their normal and proper pay practices when providing parental leave pay to their employees, they will not breach any of their obligations under the Paid Parental Leave scheme. Parental leave pay is not a leave entitlement and does not convert unpaid leave into paid leave or result in the accrual of any additional paid leave entitlements by employees. That is the heart of the government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme. It is designed to assist families and to offer them flexibility and options at a time when they need financial assistance. Most importantly, it will allow the primary carer to have that time, whether out of the workforce or not, to try to balance the importance of family life and employment. It is also very important, if you look at the economic bottom line, as a productivity issue. It allows us to keep people in the workforce—most importantly, females—who play such an important part in the productivity of our nation and in the social capital of Australia. In conclusion, I want to reiterate some of the key points of the scheme. First and foremost the scheme will take effect as at 1 January 2011. It is funded by the Australian government. It is fully costed and fully funded. It is for mothers who have been working before the birth of their child but it can be transferred to the other parent. It is paid at the national minimum wage, currently $543.78 per week before tax. It lasts for up to 18 weeks and can be taken at any time in the first year after birth. It is also available to adoptive parents. 4545 13:44:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 which introduce a national government funded Paid Parental Leave scheme from 1 January 2011. Many families in my electorate certainly need the two incomes to meet their commitments—the costs of raising their families, the costs of education particularly if they have to send their children away for tertiary education, as well paying their mortgages. As we know, 280,000 women have babies each year in Australia, and 60,000 of these return to work within six months of giving birth. When I speak to young women, many say to me also that women should not have limits placed on them when it comes to employment. Women also tell me that when they cannot afford to have children they have to postpone the time in their lives when they do have children. This can have impacts later in their lives in their capacity to have children. Many believe they should not have to choose between a career and a family or be restricted by the timing of that decision. They want to be able to make that decision at a time that is right for them and right for their family. They also need flexible workplace arrangements throughout their working life cycle—something which can be easier to deliver in larger enterprises than it is in small business workplaces. These are the same women who play an invaluable role in our workforce, often being the primary earner in a partnership, but who are also critically concerned with the interests of their children. And we do know that Australia’s women are some of the best educated in the world. As we know, Australia is one of only two OECD countries without a mandated paid parental leave scheme, the other being the USA. Having said this, Mr Deputy Speaker, larger private businesses, government agencies and departments in the public sector have been offering paid leave schemes for over 25 years for their employees, including maternity and paternity leave. This has certainly encouraged women to seek this type of employment and to use the paid maternity leave option. In fact in 2005, 76 per cent of women employed in the public sector used paid maternity leave compared to 27 per cent of women who are employed in the private sector. There is no doubt that each day parents spend with their newborn babies is very precious. Anyone who has ever had a child knows how incredibly precious and important the first days, weeks and months of their baby’s life are, and that it is important both for you as the parent and for the baby. I suspect that there are many of us who see every single day of our children’s lives in exactly the same way. For mothers, this time can also include having to manage breastfeeding, recovering from sometimes difficult pregnancies, as well as recovering from the birth itself. There is also the adjustment at home with a newborn in the house, often complicated by babies who do not simply eat and sleep all the time, as some believe they should. In many cases, for women in families and small businesses as well as those in the workforce, managing work, family and community voluntary expectations also continue during this time. I have seen women who put their babies into care and want to keep breastfeeding, having to leave their workplace with the agreement of the employer to go and do exactly that so that they can maintain their employment during that time. Under this legislation the government is proposing 18 weeks of leave at the national minimum wage for primary carers who can satisfy work, income and residency tests, and who have, or adopt, a child on or after 1 January 2011. There is no provision that requires employers to continue their own, often more generous, schemes and many small to medium businesses cannot afford to top-up a new scheme in the way the government may hope that they can. Women will also have to choose between receiving other family payments, such as the baby bonus and family tax benefit, or the Paid Parental Leave scheme. They will have to use a calculator to assess whether they will be better off under these existing payments or the government’s proposal. The government has also ruled out including superannuation payments in the first three years. It is a fact that the work patterns of women inevitably mean that they are in and out of the workforce with family and caring commitments over the course of their careers and lives, which inevitably leads to a lower level of retirement funds at their disposal. The government has excluded superannuation payments from the commencement of the scheme, which fails to address the long-term retirement requirements of women. As we know, the majority of age pensioners—75 per cent of them—are actually women who have not had, and do not have, the financial capacity to support themselves in their senior years. The coalition has included superannuation contributions at the mandatory rate of nine per cent in our paid parental leave scheme. I have very serious concerns about the additional burden on small to medium businesses and, essentially, how the government’s scheme will actually work in practical terms within these businesses on a daily basis. Exactly what employers will have to do to discharge their responsibilities, and how, has yet to be explained, but it will be another administrative and compliance cost for the businesses concerned. The government has also failed to address the payroll and workers compensation impacts on the employer to continue and to retain and pay the workers on parental leave on their books. How will this scheme work for self-employed and family business operators, for women in the farming sector, those doing seasonal work and contractors in the workforce? I would also like to know how this scheme is reflected in the government’s workplace relations laws and where the provisions are. I am concerned that the minister’s officials have indicated that the rules accompanying this legislation will not be provided until at least October this year. We should also not underestimate the challenges small to medium businesses will face in finding replacement workers for the parental leave period. It will be far more difficult in areas of skills shortages as well as in regional and rural areas. Understandably, small businesses are very wary and extremely concerned about both the extra costs and compliance issues that will be imposed by this legislation. As a result of a lack of consultation with the sector, the government is having to introduce a six-month phasing in or moratorium period, during which time the administration of payments will be borne by the government. Future estimates will reveal what the cost has been to government during this period and give some insight into the additional cost to business over the longer term. This is, unfortunately, just another example of the government’s rushed rollout of policy and programs and continues its pattern of failure to consult with stakeholders. Under this legislation, small businesses will have to manage the government’s parental leave payments to employees who are participating. Small business may be liable for state payroll tax and workers compensation for employees on parental leave, as well as for their replacements. This will add further compliance costs to individual businesses. Under the coalition’s scheme, small businesses will not pay the levy; nor will they administer it. The government is borrowing $100 million a day, $700 million a week, and will have a deficit of $57.1 billion on 30 June of this year. It has a history of rushed and bungled programs. The coalition’s scheme will provide payment to all full-time, part-time and casual workers, providing primary carers with 26 weeks of paid parental leave and up to two weeks of paternity leave—very important for so many fathers who also want time with their newborn baby. This will be available to all employees, including contractors and the self-employed, who meet the work eligibility test. The coalition’s scheme will be administered by the Family Assistance Office, not by employers. Parents have to balance work and family life year after year, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, until their children become fully financially independent. As well as privately negotiated benefits, the Australian government provides a range of family payments and subsidies, including the baby bonus, which are, in comparison with other OECD countries, relatively generous. I would like, at this time, to acknowledge the extremely valuable contribution made by mothers who make the decision to raise their own children. I see this every day in my electorate. These are the same women who often make an invaluable contribution to regional and rural communities as volunteers in so many ways, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott. They are in school canteens, they are at sports days, they are mums’ taxis, they are supporters of community sport and often the flag wavers, and they are part of community service organisations as well. The challenge of finding affordable housing and managing on one wage is a very real issue for many young people. The Labor government has made decisions which affect families—for instance, the decision to cancel 260 new childcare centres. Families in my electorate of Forrest who do manage to secure a place for their children at a local childcare centre while they work can find it almost impossible to afford, depending on their wage. We will see $86.3 million in government cuts to the childcare rebate over the next four years. This comes despite the fact that families are facing a $13 to $22 a day fee increase per child in the next year to meet childcare quality reforms. As we know, accessible and affordable child care is key for parents, especially mothers who stay in the workforce. The family is the foundation of our society and our small communities. Assisting families, particularly those with newborn children, is not only a right but also a matter of importance for this nation. 4548 13:55:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —I would like to start by taking up a few points made by the previous speaker, the member for Forrest. She expressed a concern for business, yet the opposition’s proposal is all about implementing a great big new tax on business. I think that is a bit of an anomaly. She talked about seasonal workers. If she took the time to read the legislation properly, that would answer the question. She talked about a lack of consultation. That really goes beyond the pale because I do not think there has ever been legislation that has had more consultation than this particular legislation, the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The Productivity Commission has reviewed the legislation and there has been consultation with community groups throughout Australia, yet the member on the other side states that there has been a lack of consultation. Lack of consultation happens on that side of the House, not on this side. The member for Forrest talked about rushing out policies. We only have to look at the performance of the opposition and statements made by the Leader of the Opposition to see what rushing out policies amounts to. They make policies on the run—policies that affect Australians each and every day. We have learned from the Leader of the Opposition that the only policies that they roll out that we should take any notice of are the ones that are written and considered. I really think that it is quite strange that the previous speaker would raise this issue. Another point that she made caused me some concern. She thanked the women in the community who raise their own children. I think all women are committed to raising their own children. Just because a woman decides to return to the workforce does not mean that she is not committed to raising her own children. I am absolutely disgusted by that comment from the member for Forrest. She talked about cancelling childcare centres. I put on the record that if the opposition were in power there would be no new childcare centres. Their record in relation to child care was absolutely appalling. I find it strange that members on the other side of the House can come in here and talk about paid parental leave when, under their government, when they were in power under John Howard, there were 12 long years when they did absolutely nothing about paid parental leave. The opposition have a very, very sorry record on giving benefits to women and children. I think that they stand condemned for their inaction in the past. They come in here and hypocritically talk about what they will do for women in the future when in the past they did absolutely nothing. I would like to congratulate the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs for this legislation. I would like to congratulate her and all the people she consulted with to develop such a fine piece of legislation that has the interests of families at its heart. So I say to those on the other side of this House: stop being hypocritical. Get behind the legislation that we have before us today. Support this government legislation and support the families of Australia. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 4549 Ministerial Arrangements 4549 14:00:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be absent from question time today because he is attending a meeting in Auckland of the ministerial contact group on Fiji. The Minister for Trade will answer questions on his behalf. 4549 14:00:00 Questions Without Notice 4549 14:00:00 4549 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr ABBOTT —Mr Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the latest victim injured through the government’s home insulation scheme, 80-year-old Melbourne grandmother Edith Preston, who was forced to defend her burning home with buckets of water. This brings the total number of house fires caused by this failed program to 146. I ask: why does criticism of the Prime Minister justify a $38 million advertising campaign when a home insulation scheme linked to the deaths of four Australians, 146 house fires and countless dodgy insulations does not? 4549 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. The government regrets very much the information concerning that most recent incident in Melbourne. Furthermore, the government has acknowledged on many occasions that there have been mistakes made in the implementation of the insulation program. That is why the relevant minister is now conducting an extensive inspection program across both foil insulation and a large number of houses with non-foil insulation. The government intends to work closely with the industry and households in dealing with the problems that have arisen. 4549 4549 14:02:00 Trevor, Chris, MP HVU Flynn ALP 1 Mr TREVOR —Mr Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister explain the importance of the government’s tax reforms and any misinformation that surrounds them? 4549 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —Mr Speaker, I thank very much the member for Flynn for his question because it goes to the importance of keeping the Australian economy strong. Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Those opposite, in the midst of their guffaws, should reflect on the OECD’s report last week on the strength of the Australian economy worldwide. The fact that this economy came out of the global economic crisis as the only major economy not to go into recession is a matter of pride for the government and for the nation. The fact that we are able to produce the second lowest unemployment across the major advanced economies is a matter of pride for the government and the nation. These are fundamental achievements in addition to bringing about the lowest debt and the lowest deficit of all the major advanced economies. The challenge for the future is to keep our Australian economy strong. That is why the Treasurer delivered a budget which will see the budget back in surplus in just three years time—three years ahead of time—and will also bring about a halving of net debt. These are significant economic achievements, particularly if those opposite would bother to reflect on the state of economies around the world. The global economy is not out of the woods yet, as those opposite, if they paid any attention to analyses of events in Europe, would also conclude. The business of keeping the Australian economy strong, however, lies in also prosecuting a continued campaign of economic reform, and tax reform is a key part of that. This government believes in tax reform to deliver better super for working families, to bring about tax cuts for small business and to fund our future infrastructure needs for the nation at large. The government was elected to office with an ambitious reform program. We have abolished Work Choices, we have cut income taxes on three occasions and we have increased hospital funding by 50 per cent, but there is much, much more to be done and we intend to get on with the business of doing it. On the question of tax reform, firstly, this is in Australia’s deep economic national interest, the reason being that this sort of tax reform will, in time, grow the Australian mining industry. It is a tax on profits not a tax on production. And even those opposite, led by the shadow minister for finance and others, have concluded that a tax on profits is the way to go for the future. Secondly, it also helps mining companies themselves because if you are being taxed on profits it means that, when commodity prices are high, you pay more but, when they are lower, you pay less—as opposed to a flat tax effectively operating on production and volume. Thirdly, this tax also enables us to get on with the business of building infrastructure. The member for Flynn has asked a question about this. In his electorate I have sat down with the Gladstone Regional Council before and spoken to them about the impact of infrastructure demands in that part of Queensland through the developments in the Bowen Basin. Mr Speaker, these have to be funded in advance for the future, and we need a revenue stream to underpin that investment for the future. That is why the government is getting on with the business of these fundamental tax reforms—because at the end of the day what we are on about is a fair share for all Australians for the resource which all Australians own; that is, the natural resource wealth of Australia. There is only one person in this House who has said that in fact he believes the mining companies are taxed too much, and that is the Leader of the Opposition. No-one in this parliament believes that the mining companies are taxed too much, except the Leader of the Opposition. We in this government intend to get on with the business of tax reform. It is necessary for long-term economic reform, and necessary to enable the funding of the hospital and health and additional reforms that we have proposed for the nation at large by keeping our economy strong. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition: rather than simply acting as a mouthpiece for elements of the mining industry and acting as a mouthpiece for Clive Palmer, of the Liberal National Party, why does he not stand up and act in the Australian national economic interest instead? 4550 4550 14:07:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 Mr ABBOTT —My question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his promise prior to the last election to ban publicly funded political advertising in the three months before an election unless specifically agreed by the leaders of the government and the opposition. I quote: That is an absolute undertaking from us. I believe this is a sick cancer within our system. It’s a cancer on democracy. Why has the Prime Minister walked away from yet another promise? 4551 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question because I welcome a debate on tax reform and I welcome a debate on the standards of this government on public advertising as opposed to the standards of those opposite on public advertising. I stand absolutely committed to our earlier statements. Those statements went first and foremost to the quantum of public advertising. Let us bear very plainly in mind the previous government and their investment in public advertising. They allocated $420 million for public advertising on the GST, more than 10 times that which has been allocated for this campaign in relation to the RSPT. Secondly, for Work Choices, $120 million came from the taxpayer, almost four times that which has been allocated for the public information campaign concerning the RSPT. In 2008, this government spent one-third of what the previous government spent in 2007 on public advertising. In 2009, we spent about one-half of what the previous government spent in 2007 on public advertising. So, on the question of the quantum of public advertising, I say to the Leader of the Opposition: this government stands absolutely by its commitment to reduce the overall amount of public advertising. Secondly, we go to the guidelines to which the Leader of the Opposition in part addresses his question. The government instituted a set of guidelines in July 2008. Those guidelines came into criticism from a range of people including, I seem to remember, the member for Mackellar, as well as the member for Kooyong, because, according to them, the guidelines placed the Auditor-General in an invidious position. The government, as of March of this year, brought in revised guidelines which were welcomed by those opposite. Those guidelines have been adhered to in the context of public advertising campaigns since then. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: on the question of overall reform and on the need for public advertising, when the Australian government faces the prospect of a mining industry kicking up to $100 million into a campaign, by some reports, when the interests of working families are at stake and when the economy on the whole and its reputation and standing and confidence are at stake, this government will not stand idly by while a campaign of misinformation is run against a fundamental element of tax reform. We stand for tax reform to benefit working families, small business and investment in infrastructure. That is what we stand for. We will stand resolutely opposed to any campaign of misinformation which has been marshalled by those opposite, including by the likes of Clive Palmer, for whom the Leader of the Opposition stands in this place as a public mouthpiece. 4551 4551 14:11:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, why is the government’s proposed Resource Super Profits Tax such an important economic reform? How does this tax debate compare, Treasurer, with those that have gone before it? 4551 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the member for Braddon for that very important question. Australia has had a long history of economic reform which has created almost two decades of uninterrupted expansion. This makes Australia stand out almost uniquely amongst developed countries. Of course, in the past when there have been fundamental economic reforms put in place, there have always been exaggerated claims about these reforms—how they would produce the end of the world, how damaging that would be and how they were unacceptable. We should reflect on the last 25 years or so. We should reflect on what was said during the eighties and the nineties when the dollar was floated, when the tariff walls were brought down and when compulsory superannuation was introduced. These reforms were opposed bitterly by sections of the business community, who would have Australians believe that they would damage the economy and hurt employment. Of course, through these reforms the Australian economy did become stronger and stronger, so much so that these reforms are much admired elsewhere in the world. But at the time there was not agreement in the community about them at all. There was trenchant opposition from sections of the business community. You can remember what happened when there were proposals to tax gold, with the removal of its income tax exemption. We were told that was going to be the end of the world. That industry survived and prospered. Of course, there was the bitter opposition to the petroleum resource rent tax that was introduced in the early eighties. It pays to go through some of the quotes of what was said at that time. This was said on 1 July 1984 in relation to the petroleum resource rent tax: The Hawke Government’s RRT will effectively destroy the incentive for offshore exploration … Who do you reckon said that? John Howard, the shadow Treasurer. This was from an industry representative on 2 March 1984: An RRT reduces the upside potential so, no matter how much of the financial exposure is covered by the Government, investors will not be induced to put their money into exploration in Australia but will rather explore overseas and invest in other, less risky, industries in Australia. Who could have possibly said that? Rio? BHP? That was a representative from BHP on 2 March 1984. We had this one from an industry negotiator on 2 March 1984: ‘An RRT is a bit like communism’. Who could have said that today? The man who owns those opposite lock, stock and barrel. All these claims were rubbish then and they are not true now. We are being told that we will see the end of the world. What we have put forward is a very important economic reform for Australia to grow the resource sector, to deal with the challenges of a two-speed economy, to provide some incentive for corporate Australia and small business. And it is opposed by all of those opposite because they are owned lock, stock and barrel by sections of the mining industry. We on this side of the House will stand up for the national economic interest. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Treasurer has now twice made an offensive remark and I ask him to withdraw it. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —In the robustness of debate often these matters are said, and this is what I have indicated all along in this debate. On occasions people at the dispatch box have withdrawn them of their own volition, but I am not requiring it. But what I am requiring is that we give consideration to less debate in answers, and I invite the Treasurer to respond to the question. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —Yes, Mr Speaker. It is the hard and difficult reforms that do produce the enduring gains. We on this side of the House understand that; those on the other side of the House do not understand that. We understood that when we put in place national superannuation, and it goes to the very core of what we are doing now. We understand the national interest in terms of building the national savings pool. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The member for Sturt! 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —We know how important it is for the future of this country to build up our national savings. We understand that. We understand how important it is to give small business some incentive. We understand that; that is not understood by those on the other side of the House. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The member for Sturt! 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —One of the reasons why this economy has prospered for so long is that it has had those essential and enduring reforms. We have prospered because of those reforms of the eighties and nineties and we need another round—which indeed goes to the core of what the government is doing now. We on this side of the House are about protecting the national economic interest, supporting Australian workers, supporting Australian small business, lifting our national savings and investing in infrastructure. We see that as our duty because it is in the national interest, unlike those opposite. 4553 4553 14:17:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 Mr ABBOTT —My question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his statement in parliament last Thursday when he said that the proposition that his great big new tax on mining was contributing to a fall in share prices was ‘wrong, wrong, wrong’. I also refer the Prime Minister to his minister’s justification for the $38 million advertising campaign that ‘the tax reforms impact on financial markets’. I ask the Prime Minister: what is the explanation for this obvious contradiction? DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr Crean interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister for Trade! The question has been asked and the Prime Minister now has the call. 4553 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I welcome the debate on tax reform and I welcome the debate on public advertising concerning tax reform. The core difference, if the Leader of the Opposition bothered to reflect on it, is one essential point. The policy which the government has put forward, as attested by the independent modelling of the Australian Treasury, grows the Australian economy and grows the mining industry. That is separate from the impact of a misinformation campaign which a range of people—including Clive Palmer—of the Liberal National Party are now engaged in. That is the core difference. That is our policy. Given the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question, it raises of course the question as to what their position would be. The Leader of the Opposition was asked this question this morning: ‘Would you put an end to government advertising?’ E3L Morrison, Scott, MP Mr Morrison —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is on relevance. The Prime Minister was asked to explain his hypocrisy. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Cook will leave the chamber for one hour under 94(a). The member for Cook then left the chamber. BV5 Adams, Dick, MP Mr Adams interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Lyons is not assisting. There was clearly no point of order. That was not a point of order. There was no point of order even on relevance. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The Leader of the Opposition asked a question about public advertising and my response to it was in the terms that I have just delivered concerning policy on the one hand and the deliberate misinformation campaign underway on the other. Second point: it raises the legitimate question as to what the policy on advertising is by those opposite. This morning the Leader of the Opposition—the ‘straight talking’ Leader of the Opposition—was asked this at the doors. Journalist: Would you put an end to government advertising? Abbott: I … I … I want to put an end to a Prime Minister … This was followed by the usual spray against me: Journalist: What about government advertising? Abbott: Well, the issue is … And there is another spray against the Prime Minister: Journalist: But you’re the alternative Prime Minister, people have a right to know where you stand on government advertising, would you ban it … Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat until we can get people’s attention back to the big things, rather than the smaller things. There are a number of people that I have mentioned along the way that have been interjecting. Obviously, they do not think that the standing order applies to them. I am warning them that it will be applied. I nearly placed one of those memorable statements on the record that I was going to invite the classroom to come to order because some of the behaviour has been really, even by the standards of a classroom, reprehensible. The Prime Minister has the call and he should be heard. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —There are some people that have been here long enough to know that, if they want to get on the good side of the person in the chair, they could at least keep quiet while the chair is making a statement. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The Leader of the Opposition was asked five times this morning what the position of the opposition was on the future of public advertising. I got up to the third. The fourth was: Journalist: What is your opinion on government advertising? Abbott: I think … The fifth was: Journalist: You’ve got to have an opinion. Abbott: I think, I think … And then there was another spray at the Prime Minister—five times in a row from the straight-talking Leader of the Opposition, right on message, always negative, never positive. The Leader of the Opposition was part of a government which expended $420 million, or allocated that for expenditure, on the GST public advertising campaign and $120 million on Work Choices. Can you imagine that? Using the taxpayers’ dollars to take away from working people proper wages and proper conditions. What we are doing through this campaign is explaining— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt will leave the chamber for one hour under 94(a). The member for Sturt then left the chamber. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —the facts to the Australian people in relation to a tax reform proposal of the government which, in contrast to what was advocated for Work Choices, actually seeks to enhance the prospects of working families by adding to the superannuation earnings of working families. Our tax reform plan delivers better super. It also delivers tax cuts for small business and proper funding for infrastructure. Before the Leader of the Opposition asks his next question on this subject, could I ask him also to explain how they still propose to justify the $17,000 we are incurring every year for the storage of those 36,650 mousepads from the Work Choices campaign—100,000 plastic folders created by the previous government, 98,000 mousepads and 77,000 pens. When it comes to the use of public advertising dollars, the figures speak against those opposite. They knew what they were doing when they were using that money to undermine the interests of working families. We will defend the interests of working families, including their right to better super. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews —Mr Speaker, I ask that the Prime Minister table the document he was quoting from. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Was the Prime Minister quoting from a document? 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Yes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Is the document confidential? 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Yes. 4555 4555 14:25:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 Ms SAFFIN —My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. How will the government’s tax reform package impact Australia’s international standing? 4555 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr TANNER —There have been many colourful claims made in the debate about tax reform recently, both by sections of the mining industry and of course the opposition. For example, sections of the mining industry chose very conveniently to exclude the effect of generous tax concessions when making claims about what percentage of their profits are taken in tax. But perhaps the most absurd claims with respect to the impact of the government’s tax package relate to its impact on Australia’s international reputation—to what extent Australia is an attractive location for international investment—and in particular to the issues of sovereign risk and alleged retrospectivity. I would urge all members to have a look at a column about these issues today in BusinessDay in the Age and, I presume, in the Sydney Morning Herald by Ross Gittins, somebody who has in recent times been critical of the government on a number of matters but on this issue is absolutely bang-on. We are seeing the mining sector seeking to redefine the concept of sovereign risk to something very different from what it is generally understood to be. Typically it is understood to relate to issues of conflict, corruption or expropriation, but now sections of the mining industry want us to believe that sovereign risk basically arises whenever there are tax changes we do not like. That is basically their concept of sovereign risk. Even though prices for our resources have soared relative to where they were five, six or seven years ago and are likely to continue to be at elevated levels, and the Australian people are seeking through their government a better return for the asset they can only sell once, according to sections of the mining industry this raises sovereign risk issues. That is simply nonsense. Second is the alleged issue of retrospectivity. This also involves a clever redefinition of the concept of retrospectivity. It effectively seeks to relate the tax incidence not to the activity—which of course is the usual concept of retrospectivity, and clearly we are not dealing here with retrospective taxation—but to the original investment. Some mining investments can last for decades, so the concept of retrospectivity that is being sought to be applied here is one that is totally unrelated to the normal use of that concept in taxation. You would never be able to change taxes without them being retrospective if this were taken to its ultimate extreme. Any change in tax that applied to any business, if taken back to an original investment decision that could have been taken 20 years earlier, would therefore be deemed retrospective. Interestingly, it is notable that nobody is complaining that the proposed cut in company tax is retrospective. Nobody seems to be complaining about that, even though it has exactly the same kind of effect. Most importantly, these absurd claims about the alleged impact on Australia’s international reputation completely ignore the positive elements of the government’s tax package—the cut in company tax down to 28 per cent. Whereas the coalition are promising that their company tax rate will be increased to nearly 32 per cent, the government’s package involves a cut in company tax down to 28 per cent. What are the implications of a cut in company tax for Australia’s reputation internationally? According to the former Treasurer Peter Costello, it would increase attractiveness as an investment location, strengthening Australia’s prospects for investment and economic and jobs growth. That is the former Treasurer Peter Costello’s assessment of the benefits for Australia’s reputation of a cut in company tax. I also want to draw the House’s attention to the benefits to our reputation of increased investment in mining infrastructure, better tax treatment of mining exploration and, of course, a stronger superannuation system which is already the envy of the world. In conclusion, if you ever wanted to see a better example of the ludicrous rhetoric and the ludicrous scare campaigns that the government’s proposals are being subjected to, I draw your attention to statements by Clive Palmer yesterday morning on the Meet the Press program. I preceded him on the Meet the Press program, but unfortunately it was not a debate, otherwise I would have had a bit of fun. I would have had some serious fun. His statements were these: The perception overseas is that it is a 70% tax on mining in Australia, so avoid Australia and that perception will mean that there won’t be any further investment and there won’t be any jobs created. Mum and dads all over Australia will become unemployed. They won’t have the money to buy their Christmas presents for their kids. They will be out on the street. We have not quite got to the plague of locusts and the seven years of famine and the four horsemen of the apocalypse, but by God we are getting there. This is just empty rhetoric, hysterical rhetoric, from a man who is the proprietor of the Queensland Liberal National Party. This is just ludicrous rhetoric, and it illustrates precisely why it is important for the government to explain its position as to why these changes are good for the Australian economy and good for Australia’s international reputation. 4556 4556 14:31:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 Mr HOCKEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the $38 million of taxpayer ads that deliberately mislead Australians into believing that ‘The Australian people only receive royalties and resource charges from mining companies’. Why does the government deliberately exclude from the ads company tax paid by mining companies to the federal government? Is it because a decade ago only five per cent of all company tax paid to the government came from the mining industry, whereas last year an estimated 24 per cent of all company tax came from the mining industry? 4556 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —Again, I welcome any question from those opposite about tax reform in Australia and I welcome any question about the public advertising associated with that tax reform. The reason I welcome it is that long-term tax reform is necessary for the long-term reform of the Australian economy. That is why we are doing it: to build better super for working families, to cut taxes for small business and to fund the future of infrastructure. The member for North Sydney—as a member, I presume, of the Liberal Party and therefore a representative, more broadly, of the Liberal-National Party—must therefore also now be taking his instructions from Clive Palmer, the new pin-up boy of the LNP. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It goes to relevance. I asked the Prime Minister why company tax was excluded from his ads. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for North Sydney finally got the call after those behind him allowed it. The member for North Sydney has raised with me a point of order. There is no point of order. He can extract the element of the question where he wants the direct answer, but he has to remember that the question included other matters. The member for North Sydney will know that under a strict reading of the standing orders, much of his question was out of order as it contained argument. I think that he understands that during my period in the chair I have allowed those types of questions because of what I believe to be an imbalance in the standing orders, but he also has to recognise that once I allow that matter to be in the question it can be responded to. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —As the member for North Sydney will know when it comes to royalties, 10 years ago, for every $3 that companies received in profits, $1 came back to the governments of Australia through royalties. Ten years later, for every $7 which companies received in profits, $1 was coming back in royalties. Furthermore, the member for North Sydney would be aware that, if you then added royalties to the company tax cake, you would find that on average receipts relative to profits have halved compared to the proportion which existed 10 years ago. I say to the member for North Sydney, though: whichever way you cut the cake—whether it is on royalties, whether it is on company tax and against all ranges of measures—the bottom line is that because of the current structure of the taxation regime the return to the Australian people via the taxation system is infinitely less than it was a decade ago. In the intervening decade, Australian families have faced a range of additional imposts to fund the infrastructure of the future. SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer you to page 553 of Practice and direct you to the second paragraph, which says that ‘the answer must maintain a link to the substance of the question’. The substance of the question was corporate tax being paid by the companies to the Australian government. I would ask you to ask the Prime Minister to either answer that core part of the question or to sit down because he cannot. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The chair is in the difficulty that if the chair identifies other aspects that could be considered core to the question, they are open to being involved in the debate. Core to the question might have been the preamble about the $38 million being spent on advertising. The core could also have been the part of the question that talked about deliberately misleading about other taxes and levies. I think that this shows the problems about question time. Whilst I do not want to delay people much longer, I would refer them to pages 515 and 527 of Practice which, inter alia, say: The purpose of questions is ostensibly to seek information or press for action. Before the guffawing, this statement I am going to make refers to everybody: However … it is often a time for political opportunism— where the opposition questions will seek to embarrass the government— … while government Members will be tempted to provide Ministers with an opportunity to put government policies and actions in a favourable light or to embarrass the Opposition. This is the tradition of question time that has developed. If the House would like to have changes, it should deal with that itself. The Prime Minister is responding to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —So I say to the member for North Sydney: if you look at the overall return to the Australian taxpayer, the return now is much less than it was 10 years ago. The commodity price increases which have occurred over the period of time have not been properly reflected in returns to the Australian people. Frankly, the Australian people are deserving of greater returns in order to fund the future needs which they face—one, by assisting and bringing down the company tax; two, by assisting those companies to pay additional superannuation payments through the SGL; and, three, by funding the infrastructure needs of the future as well. The other thing I would say to the member for North Sydney is this: we have seen one scare campaign after another from those opposite when there have been any changes over the last 10, 20 or 25 years that affect the mining sector and its profitability. When the PRRT regime was brought in 25 years ago, those opposite claimed that it would lead to a collapse in investment in the industry. It did not. In fact, I would draw the attention of those opposite— HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Mr Speaker, having heard what you said by way of explanation to the previous points of order, can I indicate to you, sir, that it is the view of this side of the House that the Prime Minister is in no way answering the question. Having said that, he is straying right away from any semblance of relevance to the question. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Menzies will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —It goes to the question of the impact of policy decisions on the mining industry. The history of those opposite over the last 25 years was in saying that any changes that affect the mining industry will automatically result in something akin to the collapse of the industry. They did the same in relation to the PRRT regime—a resource rent tax—25 years ago. Secondly, do we all remember the debate over Mabo? The debate over Mabo was that the mining industry would collapse as a result of the introduction of native title laws. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How can this be possibly relevant at all? Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The House will come to order! I expect better from both frontbenches—much better. They are not immune. The Prime Minister is responding to the question. The Prime Minister has the call. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The point of my response is to say— 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Deputy Leader of the Opposition! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, when it comes to defence of the national interest, I believe has form herself. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will respond to the question. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews —Mr Speaker— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Menzies will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —So, when those opposite enter scare campaigns in relation to the mining industry, they have form: the PRRT regime, first and foremost; secondly— SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Speaker— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister has the call. The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. The Prime Minister has the call and he will conclude his answer. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —And when we brought in legislation to get rid of Work Choices, they said it would kill the mining industry as well. Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong on this one as well. 4559 4559 14:42:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 Mr PERRETT —My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism. How will the resource super profits tax grow investments in infrastructure and ensure that Australia continues to prosper from our natural resource wealth? 4559 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism 1 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I thank the member for Moreton for his question. I echo what the Treasurer said today: long and enduring tax reform has never come easy to Australia. I simply say that our government is not going to walk away from this very tough debate, because it is a debate the nation has to have. This debate is about our long-term national interest. We also appreciate in that context that we are seriously engaged in a proper process of consultation. We are absolutely committed to getting the balance right, based on ensuring an ongoing stream of investment in Australia akin to what we have achieved over the last 2½ years, as evidenced by the Gorgon investment, and ensuring that the Australian community gets a fair share of the opportunity to develop its resources. I compare that to the position of the opposition at the moment. Also, I remind the House that one of the key outcomes of this debate is a capacity to further invest in the infrastructure requirements of the resources sector in Australia—something that the opposition neglected for 12½ years. A prime example is that, for the first time ever, we will have, in forthcoming budgets, a line item going to investment in resource communities in Australia—initially, $700 million in 2012-13; an amount of $5.6 billion over the next decade. We are in catch-up mode because of the failure of the opposition to invest during their period in government in key resource infrastructure projects. The bottlenecks that they left unattended effectively meant that we lost market share over the previous decade and lived off the back of commodity prices. They were content to spend the proceeds of the mining industry boom but not willing to invest in our future opportunities. I was therefore not surprised to see the ongoing campaign of misinformation yesterday by the stand-in opposition spokesperson, Mr Clive Palmer, claiming that the resources industry is paying 70 per cent tax. That is an outrageous claim, even from Mr Palmer—and we all appreciate what a colourful character he is, better known for his real estate activities than for his mining capacity. The opposition might be content to stand side by side with Mr Palmer, but we are going to continue the debate that goes to the primary focus of our capacity to ensure the long-term sustainability of the resources sector to invest in key projects related to port, rail and road infrastructure. I compare our performance over 2½ years with the opposition’s performance over 12½ years. Let us go to the state of Western Australia: $339 million invested in the Oakajee project, something that the Western Australian Premier asked us to commit to, and another $40 million in the port of Esperance, which was a major problem in the previous parliament. Northern Australia is so important to the resources sector: investment in the further development of the Darwin port, $50 million; the Australian Rail Track Corporation, $1.2 billion, including key investments in the Kalgoorlie corridor in Western Australia; the Perth urban transport corridor, $350 million; and the upgrade of the Port Hedland roadworks, $160 million—an area historically absolutely neglected by the opposition under the AusLink program—under AusLink 1. We also appreciate that the impact of resources activity does not extend only to resources communities. That is why I was delighted to notice a commitment today by the Commonwealth government of $180 million to a $225 million project in the heart of the city of Perth. The Great Eastern Highway is to be expanded to six lanes between Perth Airport and Graham Farmer Freeway, something that is so important to Perth. The impact of the resources boom is not just on regional communities; it is also on our major capital cities. Compare that key resource investment in the city of Perth with the previous government’s preoccupation with approving a brickworks at Perth Airport for a key donor rather than doing something about huge delays at Perth Airport that increase the cost of conducting mining industry activities in Australia. It is not just government that is investing in key infrastructure. I also welcome the announcement last week by the Queensland Coal Industry Rail Group to commit $4.85 billion to seek the purchase of the coal corridors in Queensland, which is also exceptionally important. It is not just the initial commitment of $4.85 billion; it is going to mean another couple of billion dollars over the next couple of years to make sure we front up for the necessary maintenance and capital expansion of the Queensland rail corridor. The industry, despite the rhetoric that is currently out there in the community, understands that the coal industry in Australia is going to expand. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister will start to conclude his answer. LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —Its capacity is going to grow over the next three to five years, and that investment is most welcome and supported by the government. In conclusion, I simply say that this is a debate that we had to have. We as a government are going to go on and get the balance right. The resources sector is part of our future, but so is tax reform. It is about making sure that we stand up for the long-term national interest of Australia. The government’s policies are not for sale. The opposition might be owned lock, stock and barrel by the likes of Clive Palmer and his ilk, but we are going to continue this program of activity, because it is in Australia’s long-term national interest. 4560 4560 14:49:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 Ms LEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House of when the government first decided to seek an exemption from its own guidelines to run a $38 million advertising blitz to defend its great big new tax on mining? When were the advertising agencies first approached to prepare these advertisements? 4560 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —In response to the honourable member’s question, in the context of reviewing the Henry report on taxation the government over a large number of months considered the desirability of a public advertising campaign to underpin its response to the Henry report. That is the first part of the answer. The second part of the answer goes to the use of the particular exemption provisions to which the member refers. My advice is that that was done in response to the conclusion reached by the Special Minister of State and the Treasurer concerning the misinformation campaign which began to unfold. That is the answer to the honourable member’s question. 4560 4560 14:50:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 Ms RISHWORTH —My question is to the Minister for Human Services and Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law. What will be the impact of the government’s Stronger, Fairer, Simpler superannuation reforms for low-income earners, and what threats are there to the delivery of those reforms? 4560 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law and Minister for Human Services 1 Mr BOWEN —I thank the member for her question. It is the case that low-income earners receive fewer tax concessions for their contributions to superannuation than high-income earners. When a worker puts money into superannuation it attracts a 15 per cent tax rate. For some Australian workers, this is considerably less than their marginal tax rate of 30, 37 or 45 per cent. There are 3.5 million workers who earn less than $37,000 a year and therefore face income-tax rates of 15 per cent or less. For these Australians, there is very limited incentive to save through superannuation. This is a situation that the previous government was happy with for 12 years, but it is not a situation that is acceptable to this government. That is why the government has decided to give back the contributions tax to low-income earners—those who earn up to $37,000—up to a maximum of $500. These are the people with the least money set aside for retirement. These are the people who need more assistance. It is worth bearing in mind that if you take into account the government’s increase in the superannuation guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent, together with the rebate of the contributions tax and a $1,000 member contribution matched by the government, low-income earners will see their effective superannuation contributions increased to 19 per cent of their wages—something this government is very proud of and something which stands in contrast with those opposite. It also complements the government’s moves to provide more incentives to save through non-superannuation for low- and middle-income earners. Of the 5.7 million taxpayers expected to benefit from the discount on interest through bank accounts and credit unions and building societies, three-quarters of those have taxable incomes of $80,000 or less. All these are to be funded by the resource super profits tax, all measures opposed by the opposition. Let us make it 100 per cent crystal clear. Let us make it the gospel truth. The opposition stands opposed to tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners who are trying to save. They oppose tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners. They rage on behalf of mining companies, they rail on behalf of mining executives, but when it comes to tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners they are worse than silent; they actively oppose a tax cut. I guess low- and middle-income earners cannot bankroll a Liberal Party election campaign. That is the difference between their approach and our approach. We heard previously from the Treasurer about how the Liberal Party are very good at running scare campaigns against major economic reform. They opposed the petroleum resource rent tax, and they were wrong. They opposed national superannuation, and they were wrong. This is the Leader of the Opposition who told this House in 1995, ‘Compulsory superannuation is one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted by government on the Australian people.’ That is what this Leader of the Opposition said. I reckon the biggest con job is the Leader of the Opposition, who says mining companies pay too much tax but does not care about low- and middle-income earners showing a bit of aspiration, trying to save for their future, and says they should pay more tax. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to connect with working families, he should back our plan to give them a tax break for saving. That would be regarded as real action. 4561 4561 14:54:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 Ms LEY —My question is again to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister or any of his ministers fail to reveal in parliament, and in Senate estimates last week, that the government had given itself an exemption from its own advertising rules? Given that the government was considering this campaign for months and exempted itself last Monday, why did the government conceal it until Friday? 4562 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for her question. First and foremost, unlike the previous government, this government has had clearly published guidelines concerning public advertising. I would say to those opposite when they ask their questions about this that they should bear in mind not just the absence of effective guidelines but also the quantums that they expended—$420 million on the GST and $120 million on telling Australians that they would be better off under Work Choices, having their basic pay and conditions ripped away. In response to the honourable member’s question, I would simply draw her attention to this fact: first, consistent with the development of any major new policy initiative of the government, it is inevitable and probable that you would be dealing with a consideration within government about a public advertising framework to work with it. That is the first point. That has gone back quite a number of months. Secondly, in terms of the budget provision for it, the honourable member will be aware that amounts for this and other campaigns associated with policy change by the government were clearly outlined in the budget papers. Thirdly, in terms of the use of the specific exemption clauses which she refers to, these were activated once the government, through correspondence between the Special Minister of State and the Treasurer, concluded that the misinformation campaign in which both her party and people like Clive Palmer were engaging—and other associated misinformation campaigns—represented, therefore, a risk to various aspects of economic confidence in the economy. For those reasons, the decisions were taken in the order in which they were taken. 4562 4562 14:56:00 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 1 Mr BEVIS —My question is to the Minister for Education, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Minister for Social Inclusion. Would the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the rollout of computers to schools and any rifts associated with the continued rollout of computers to our schools? 4562 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 Brisbane for his question and I know about his lifetime commitment to education. As a man with a lifetime commitment to education, he and members on this side of the House recognise that for school students to get the education they need in the 21st century it is vital that they have access to the learning tool of the 21st century. AK6 Gash, Joanna, MP Mrs Gash —Where are they? 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I am very glad that the member for Gilmore is so interested in where these computers are. Just listen. If the member for Gilmore just tried listening—we know they always caterwaul about education—why she is probably caterwauling now is she wants to stop me saying clearly what we inherited when we came into office. The first thing we did under the computers in schools program was we audited how many computers there were for students in years 9 to 12, counting as a computer something four years old or less. There were 210,000 of them. There were some schools that did not have any. There were some schools that had a ratio of 1:8. Faced with these statistics, what had the Howard government done? It had obviously viewed this as satisfactory. AK6 Gash, Joanna, MP Mrs Gash —You made a promise. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —The member for Gilmore and all the members opposite have sat in their seats looking at this scene and deciding it was satisfactory. The hunt is still on for someone over there who will finally stand up for their electorate, because we did not believe it was satisfactory that there were only 210,000 computers, we did not believe it was satisfactory that there were some schools without any and we did not believe it was satisfactory that there were some schools with a 1:8 ratio. The member for Gilmore clearly did. She was a core supporter of the Howard government and did nothing to rectify this situation. We have acted, unlike those opposite. Today I am pleased to report to the House—on 31 May these figures are accurate— AK6 Gash, Joanna, MP Mrs Gash —You made a promise and you failed. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —The member for Gilmore might like to think about them—as of 31 May, we had funded 696,000 computers and installed 297,000. That is, we have installed more computers than were available to kids when the Howard government was in office. In 2½ years we have installed more computers than were available to students after 12 long years of the Howard government. AK6 Gash, Joanna, MP Mrs Gash interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —The member for Gilmore can scream and shout all she likes, but she is clearly exposed as someone who did not care about this track record of neglect. She should be celebrating the fact that 297,000 computers have been installed, more than were available when the Howard government was in office—a shameful track record of neglect. The hunt remains for a member over there who is prepared to stand up for their electorate after the budget cuts announced following the three-ring circus, the pass the parcel—the hospital pass—that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer engaged in with the shadow finance minister. Let us just think about the dimensions of these cuts. Trades training centres: gone, including ones that schools were promised last November. We know of course that, in addition to trades training centres being gone, quality teaching money would be gone, money that is bringing the best and brightest graduates into teaching, money that is funding the best teachers to go to the classrooms that need them the most—gone, as a result of the policies of the Leader of the Opposition. But, obviously, today what would also be gone is the continuation of the computers in schools program. That means 120,000 kids would miss out on a computer. And then, beyond the allocation of these computers, the program would not be continued in a way that would support kids to have access to computers. So it would be back to the days that we had under the Howard government, where kids in the class scrabbled to get to the only computer, back to the days where they did not care that our nation was not ready for the 21st century in schools—back to those days, because they did not care in office at all about Australian education. Let us listen to the words of people who do care about Australian education—and I suggest members opposite might contemplate these. I received an email from a parent, Kate Swadling, who said: I am writing to express my support of the great work you are doing in Public Education. My son was one of the lucky students to receive a laptop at the end of last year. As a boy with handwriting difficulties this has made an enormous difference to his ability to work well in class and follow through at home. As a very low income family we would not have been able to afford to purchase such an item and so THANK YOU! The opposition do not care about that, and there would be no more stories like that if they were elected. Kids like that would miss out as a result of their cutbacks. Let us listen to the words of students themselves. Blake Osmond and Elizabeth Kuskovska, year 9 students from the Illawarra Sports High School Student Representative Council, wrote: Our Year 9 students received their state of the art … Laptops from the Federal Government. We are writing to thank you on behalf of our students for the investment in us, our school and inevitably our Nation’s future. It seems remarkable to me that students in year 9 can understand how important this investment is to the nation’s future but the Leader of the Opposition does not understand, does not care and would stop kids like these ones getting the computers they need. 4564 4564 15:03:00 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP 0 Mr RUDDOCK —My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I refer to your election promise to tighten the rules in relation to political advertising, specifically your undertaking: … you have my absolute 100 per cent guarantee that that will occur. And each of you can hold me accountable for that. Given your ‘100 per cent guarantee’ has been breached, why should anyone believe you on this issue anymore? 4564 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the member for Berowra very much for the question, given his historical commitment to integrity in this place. Can I say in response to the honourable member’s question that, when the government was elected, its pre-election commitment was to bring in a system of guidelines which involved the Auditor-General. Furthermore, that was then argued against by two members of the opposition: the member for Kooyong and, I think, the member for Mackellar. The Auditor-General himself also expressed reservations about the system that we were proposing to bring in. When we brought that system in, as of July 2008, we also undertook to review that system in 2010. When the system was reviewed in 2010, consistent with the original recommendation by the Auditor-General, we established instead an Independent Communications Committee, and that was welcomed by Senator Ronaldson, on behalf of the opposition, by the member for Kooyong and by the member for Mackellar. Those guidelines, which were welcomed by the opposition, as of their introduction in March 2010, contained within them the exemption clauses which have already been the subject of questions by the member for Farrer. Can I also say that the pre-election commitment by the government went to guidelines and it went to quantum. The second element of the commitment on quantum was to reduce the overall amount expended on government advertising. In the government’s first year in office we spent one-third of what the previous government had spent in 2007. In 2009 we spent one-half of what the government expended in 2007. The government’s allocation in relation to this campaign in support of tax reform in Australia represents less than one-tenth of what those opposite allocated for the GST campaign, and it represents a little more than a quarter of what the previous government allocated for is Work Choices campaign. I also say in response to the member for Berowra: this campaign in support of tax reform is to deliver an additional benefit to working families through better super. The campaign in support of Work Choices, on which they spent nearly four times as much, was about ripping away the wages and conditions of the same working families. 4564 Motions 4564 4564 15:07:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr ABBOTT —I seek leave to move a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister. Leave not granted. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Warringah moving immediately—That the Prime Minister no longer possesses the confidence of this House for repeatedly failing to keep his promises and honour his word which has diminished the Office of Prime Minister and his government, and, in particular for: seeking a national emergency exemption to run a tax-payer funded political advertising campaign against the mining tax when a real national emergency is occurring in over 240,000 roofs across the country yet there is no ad campaign to warn homeowners; declaring government advertising a “cancer on democracy” in 2007 but once elected, scrapping his own system of auditor-general approvals and then going around the replacement committee with a special exemption in a desperate attempt to save his political hide; ripping $38 million out of taxpayer pockets for an advertising campaign about the new great big tax on mining which isn’t even draft legislation, let alone passed by the Parliament; and promising to usher in a new era of accountability and to end the blame game, but instead, upon coming to government, leading a government that is spin over substance, reduced to breaking its own rules and utterly shameless with over 52 examples of broken election commitments. The public of Australia do not know it, but this is actually day four of a national emergency. There are no guns in the street, there are no sandbags around government buildings, but it is a national emergency in the eyes of the Prime Minister because the people who mine the ore that makes the steel and the people who quarry the sand that builds the sandbags are critical of this government. This is not a national emergency for our country; it is just a political emergency for our Prime Minister. We know, because the Prime Minister has just admitted it, that he has been planning an advertising campaign for months. Yet this man, who parades as a paragon of political virtue, has gone around his own rules for a political advertising campaign that he now admits he was planning for months. This shameless Prime Minister is prepared to spend $38 million advertising a tax that he cannot explain, he cannot defend and he will not even legislate until after the next election. This is a Prime Minister who will not advertise to alert 240,000 families to the problems in their roofs but is prepared to advertise to save his own political hide. This Prime Minister’s political future means more to him than the health and safety of 240,000 Australian families. This is a government which is looting the Treasury to pay for the government’s re-election campaign. This is a government which is looting the Treasury because this Prime Minister cannot do the job ordinarily expected of a Prime Minister—that is, to explain, justify and defend the policies of the government. There is the $30 million for climate change advertising, even though he has given up on an ETS until the election after next. There is $29.5 million for hospital advertising, even though he has not yet got a national deal, and, in any event, there is no real reform involved. There is $16 million for National Broadband Network advertising, even though he has not even got a business plan for his $43 billion white elephant. And now he wants taxpayers to shell out $38 million for an advertising campaign that is not legislated, and he is breaking his own rules to do so. This is $38 million for an advertising campaign for a tax change that was not part of the Henry review, was not legislated and is not compliant with the guidelines. He has junked his own rules to fund his own campaign. He has junked his own principles to save his political skin. This is not just about the advertising; this is fundamentally about this Prime Minister’s integrity. Even by the Prime Minister’s usual standards of sanctimony, he has engaged in self-righteousness of a high order. Let us remember what this Prime Minister said of government advertising repeatedly in the months before he was elected to high office. He described government advertising not just as a bad thing, not just as something that he would rather not have; he said it was nothing less than a long-term ‘cancer on democracy’. This is the Prime Minister who says, of course, that climate change is the greatest moral challenge of our time—and he says that government advertising is a long-term cancer on our democracy. In fact, he made a compact, if not with the Australian people, at least with Kerry O’Brien. He made a compact that there would be no government advertising whatsoever in the three months prior to an election unless it had been entered into by an explicit agreement between the leader of the government and the Leader of the Opposition. That is what he said on The 7.30 Report. And Kerry O’Brien said to him: Is that what you will promise to do in a Labor Government? And here the Prime Minister channels Dietrich Bonhoeffer, his great inspiration in government. His actions have made Graham ‘whatever it takes’ Richardson look like a paragon of political virtue. Channelling Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Prime Minister said to Kerry O’Brien: That is an absolute undertaking from us. I believe this is a sick cancer within our system. It’s a cancer on democracy. Perhaps that is what the Prime Minister is crossing out as he frantically scribbles his notes over there, but at least on this occasion he is not running away from defending himself—but how can he defend himself? This is an absolute betrayal of a commitment that he gave not once but many times prior to the last election. Not only has he betrayed the commitments that he made to the Australian people but also he has clearly misled this parliament. All of us can remember that last week he was asked about the impact of his great big new tax on mining on the currency markets and on the share markets, and he said that any suggestion that there is an impact on currency markets and share markets is ‘wrong, wrong, wrong’. Who has revealed the Prime Minister as telling a lie, lie, lie? None other than his own minister, the Special Minister of State, Senator Ludwig, who said, ‘I further accept the Treasurer’s advice that tax reform changes impact on financial markets.’ He went on to say, ‘I am satisfied that a compelling reason for an exemption exists, particularly given the nature and extent of misinformation against a backdrop of continuing market volatility.’ This is a Prime Minister who just cannot be trusted. He cannot be trusted to be straight with the Australian people and, as we know this morning from Simon Benson, he cannot even be trusted to be straight with Morris Iemma, his own state Labor colleague. He lies shamelessly. He lies shamelessly to anyone and everyone, if he thinks there is an advantage in it for him. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The leader will be careful of his language. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —If there is a national emergency today, it is not criticism of this government which constitutes a national emergency; it is the work of this government which constitutes a national emergency. I say this to the Australian people: if you want to stop the boats you have to change the government, if you want to stop the tax you have to change the government and if you want to restore decency to our public life you have to change the government. It does not matter how many times he gives a press conference outside a church on Sundays, nothing that he says can actually be believed. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Is the motion seconded? 4567 15:17:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 0 Mr HOCKEY —I second the motion. This comes down to trust. This comes down to the ability of the Australian people to trust their Prime Minister and it comes down to raw numbers. Numbers in the Corporations Act and the ASX Listing Rules require people to tell the truth to the Stock Exchange and investors. So, when the head of Rio and the head of BHP and the head of so many mining companies come out and say, ‘These are the real numbers, this is the impact on our balance sheet, this is the impact on our profit and loss,’ they have an obligation to tell the truth. It is only a shame that the government and the Prime Minister do not have the same legal obligation. Why? It is because the government has sought, at every point in this debate, to deliberately mislead the Australian people. It has misled the Australian people about the true impact and shape of the tax. It has misled the Australian people about the numbers behind old Swannie’s notes. It has misled the Australian people in the ads by deliberately excluding company tax, which has increased dramatically over the last few years. Even in question time today, the Prime Minister sought to deliberately mislead the Australian people when he said, ‘Whichever way you cut the cake—whether it is on royalties, whether it is on company tax and against all ranges of measures—the bottom line is that because of the current structure of the taxation regime the return to the Australian people via the taxation system is infinitely less than it was a decade ago.’ The facts are that royalties a decade ago were $1.2 billion. Last year they were $7.5 billion. A decade ago company tax was $1.4 billion. Last year, it was an estimated $14 billion. That is a total increase of tenfold in the contribution of the mining sector, which makes a lie of the Prime Minister in question time today. But we should not be surprised. This is a Prime Minister that had all sorts of moral courage before the last election—moral courage when he was challenged by the Australian people to reveal his innermost character. He was asked to be honest, to be fair dinkum, to be real with the Australian people and the Australian people took him at his word. They took him at his word when he said that advertising prior to an election was a cancer on democracy. I know this man understands the real impact of cancer, as so many of us do. To use that word flippantly in relation to democracy is a significant issue, because it clearly illustrates the fact that the Prime Minister will use whatever words are available at the time to emphasise his real commitment. The problem is that we do not know what his real commitment is. Does he believe in climate change? Is it truly the greatest moral, social and economic challenge of our lifetime? Are you truly a political coward if you do not act immediately to support an ETS? And are you truly engaging in supporting a cancer on democracy if you advertise just before an election? What has happened now is that the government has been caught out. Last week we saw this policy was framed by Google. The government went to North America and got a working paper from academics. It went to Treasury and got a draft note handed around, all to justify the mining tax, and now it is seeking, through advertising—through taxpayers’ money—to deliberately mislead the Australian people about the true impact of this tax. It says a lot about the character of the Prime Minister. Anything we say on this side of the House will never have the impact of the words of our own Prime Minister being brought back to him. All the commentary, anything said by a critic, means nothing compared to the raw information that has come from the Prime Minister’s mouth at one time and now completely denied by him. He blames us for his hypocrisy. He blames us for his misleading the Australian people. He blames us for everything that has gone wrong in his life. I say to you, Prime Minister: you stand condemned not by us and not by the commentators; you stand condemned by the Australian people and, even more importantly than that, you stand condemned by your own words. 4568 15:21:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —I rise to respond to the remarks that have been made by those opposite on this suspension motion. What we have had from those opposite, and particularly from the Leader of the Opposition, is ‘full gospel’ Tony Abbott in full flight—or was it? He said that this is a debate about trust. Let us go back to a core principle that has been put on the public record by the Leader of the Opposition only recently in an interview conducted on The 7.30 Report. He said, ‘Unless I put my remarks in writing, these should not be regarded as considered remarks and should therefore not be believed.’ If you want, therefore, a full gospel truth version from Mr Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, he said—and these are his own words—‘to get it in writing’. That means that three-quarters of everything that he has said since he became Leader of the Opposition should as a matter of discipline and process be disregarded—absolutely disregarded. What, therefore, is his ultimate position on climate change? What is his position on the economy? What is his position on housing and homelessness? What are his positions across the whole gamut of things that he has debated in the lead-up to the debate in this parliament today? None of us know, because ‘full gospel’ Tony has said, ‘It is only if I, the Leader of the Opposition, put something in writing that you should believe it.’ Those opposite have come to the despatch box and said that this is a debate about truth, this is a debate about trust and this is a debate about reliability. I say to those opposite that they should look very carefully at the words used by the Leader of the Opposition in that seminal interview that he had on Kerry O’Brien’s show. They should look carefully at everything that is said between now and the next election. The bottom line is what the Leader of the Opposition said, which is this: ‘No-one should trust a single thing I say.’ He said that the only thing that people could trust were things that he wrote down and considered. We can go through Battlelines and look at those things which the Leader of the Opposition wrote down and considered. Look, for example, at the provisions within Battlelines on the taxation treatment of superannuation. In Battlelines—something which he wrote down and which is his considered view of the world—he said that the role of taxation concessions for superannuation was, frankly, not valid, not to be supported and not relevant. Is that therefore a considered doctrine, a considered manifesto and a considered document presenting what the Leader of the Opposition believes? Can I apply the Kerry O’Brien question to this? Is this the full gospel truth? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition stands for or has that been rendered redundant as well? ‘Full gospel’ Tony Abbott has been on copious display in the six months that he has occupied the position of Leader of the Opposition, as one undertaking after another has simply gotten knocked over in the breeze. As the Minister for Finance and Deregulation documented recently as he went through the various commitments made by the Leader of the Opposition, one after the other has fallen down in the breeze as he was forced to have an encounter with reality. This suspension motion is essentially about two things, tax reform and a public advertising campaign concerning tax reform. The ultimate proposition of those opposite is this: somehow, there was something secretive about what the government has done. If it was secretive, why was it in the budget? Why was the full amount to be dedicated to this campaign outlined in the budget papers? The precise amount was articulated in the budget papers. Why was this therefore not a matter for public debate in budget week? We were here for three days in budget week: Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Last week we were here, as well on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Not a single question was asked. I am not sure what, if anything, was asked in estimates. I ask the Leader of the Opposition this: if this was such a dreadful secret, why was it that in the space of those two sitting weeks not a single question was raised—not one? I suggest that the reason why this question has been raised today is that those opposite are day by day hauling up the white flag on the actual prosecution of the tax reform debate. If you look at question time last week, by the time we got to Thursday they were back to old faithful, the issue of asylum seekers. They decided to go down that road instead. We notice that the member for Wentworth has had a few things to say about that on the way through. Suddenly, having exited the tax policy debate at the end of last week, they decided to re-enter it today. But they have not really re-entered the tax policy debate. They are instead trying to have a debate about the transparency of the government’s budget allocation for a public advertising campaign to underpin this reform for the future. Those opposite have hauled up the white flag on the issue of why we need a profits based tax as opposed to a tax which is based on production. They have entirely absented the debate because, uniquely, the Leader of the Opposition has stood in this place and said that mining companies are paying too much. That is his policy: mining companies are paying too much. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that he is absolutely wrong. They are not paying too much. Not a single person in this chamber other than him believes that mining companies are paying too much. It seems that so much have you become beholden to the likes of Clive Palmer of the LNP that you are now prepared to mouth anything that is put to you, such as that the mining companies are paying too much. We on this side of the House stand for a fundamentally different principle of economic reform. That principle of economic reform is as follows: if you bring about a better taxation regime for the mining industry you can then engineer decent tax reforms for the entire Australian economy. That is what we stand for. We stand for better super for working families; you stand for ripping it away from working families. We on this side of the House stand for tax cuts for small business; you stand for taking away those tax cuts from small business. We stand for bringing down the company rate by two percentage points; you stand for raising it two percentage points. We stand for funding the future of this country’s infrastructure needs; you stand for blaming the states and territories on the assumption that money grows on trees and infrastructure can be funded elsewhere. The policy priorities of the Leader of the Opposition in this debate are clear. He has those priorities because of one core reason: those opposite have effectively been bought by representatives of various elements of the mining industry. We see no evidence of independent research. We see no evidence of independent policy analysis. What we see instead is a Leader of the Opposition who simply reflects the interests of certain elements of the mining industry. We go to their new favourite pin-up boy, Clive Palmer, of the Liberal National Party, who on various occasions has accused the Treasurer of being a communist and me a socialist. I have been called many things in the Labor Party, but never a socialist! I say to those opposite: Clive Palmer, the pin-up boy of the Liberal National Party, when asked the core question ‘Why are you engaged in this debate,’ goes out there as bold as brass and says, ‘Because I’m a member of the Liberal National Party.’ There is no independence of voice there whatsoever. We looked at the records for electoral donations. Those opposite received in the state of Queensland something approaching $1 million in campaign donations from an individual, Clive Palmer, whose position on mining tax they now mouth in this place. Talk about public policy for purchase! That is what has happened in this debate. I notice also Clive Palmer, the pin-up boy of the mining industry—or parts of the mining industry—and the pin-up boy also of the Liberal National Party, does have a sense of balance: nearly $1 million to the LNP in campaign donations, $25,000 to the WA branch of the ALP. That is what I call his definition of balance. What we have seen in this place is the Liberal National Party in Queensland, through the agency of Clive Palmer, dictating a policy position to those opposite. The Leader of the Opposition has sought to be particularly righteous on the question of public advertising. Mr Speaker, I have gone through in question time already what they have done in relation to Work Choices and what they have done in funding the GST campaign. Do we all remember ‘rock solid, ironclad’ guarantee? We remember that one on the Medicare safety net. Who authorised that $36 million campaign prior to the 2004 election, guaranteeing the Australian people that they would of course obtain higher Medicare rebates? The Leader of the Opposition. He was challenged on it before the election, he went ahead and advertised, at a $30 million-plus expense to the Australia taxpayer, and then in a train wreck with reality, subsequent to that election, walked away from that rock solid, ironclad guarantee. The reason he did that, notwithstanding the fact it cost the taxpayer $36 million? I presume it was because the journalist in question never got it in writing. It was not gospel Tony; it was the Tony in whom this House has no trust! (Time expired) Question put: That the motion (Mr Abbott’s) be agreed to. 15:36:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins) 61 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Fletcher, P. Forrest, J.A. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Jensen, D. Keenan, M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Neville, P.C. O’Dwyer, K Pearce, C.J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. * Simpkins, L. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 75 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.S. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. 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. 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. Macklin, J.L. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Rudd, K.M. Saffin, J.A. Sidebottom, S. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Zappia, A. * denotes teller Question negatived. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 4571 Privilege 4571 15:39:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Leader of the House 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —Mr Speaker, I wish to raise with you a matter of privilege, of which I notified you earlier. On 27 May 2010, the Australian reported that the member for Ryan made a complaint to the Australian Federal Police about a ‘senior LNP official’s improper attempts and undue influence to pressure and intimidate’ him to resign from parliament. I table the article, entitled ‘Expelled Lib faces tax office grilling’. Comments attributed to the member for Ryan later identified this senior official to be LNP president Bruce McIver. I table the article from the Courier-Mail of 29 May entitled ‘Libs told to rein in bullies’. Intimidation of a member may constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege and contempt against the House, as outlined in chapter 19 of House of Representatives Practice at page 731. It may also contravene the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, which at section 4 provides that conduct may constitute an offence against the House if: … it amounts, or is intended … to amount, to an improper interference … with the free performance by a member of the member’s duties as a member. Attempting to intimidate an individual into resigning from parliament or refraining from nominating as a candidate for election could also constitute a criminal offence under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Section 327(1) provides: A person shall not hinder or interfere with the free exercise or performance, by any other person, of any political right … that is relevant to an election … In summary, the comments that have been attributed to the member for Ryan allege that the president of the Liberal National Party attempted to criminally intimidate him into resigning from the House of Representatives. If true, this may constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege, a contempt against the House and an offence under the Parliamentary Privileges Act. It may also constitute a criminal offence under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. These matters would seem relevant to the jurisdiction of the Privileges Committee and may constitute reasonable grounds for a referral. Mr Speaker, I ask that you consider the matters I have raised with a view to allowing precedence to a motion on these matters and indicate to you that, as a matter of courtesy, I had a discussion with the member for Ryan earlier today to confirm these matters. 4572 15:42:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I will look at the matter raised by the Leader of the House and the articles that he has tabled. I will give consideration and report back to the chamber at my earliest opportunity. 4572 Documents Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 15:42:00 —Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move: That the House take note of the following documents: Department of the Treasury—Car dealership financing special purpose vehicle—Report for the period 1 January to 31 March 2010. Ministerial statement—Administration—Approval of exemption from guidelines on information and advertising campaigns by Australian Government departments and agencies—Senator the Hon. Joe Ludwig, Special Minister of State and Cabinet Secretary, 28 May 2010. Tourism Australia—Report for 2008-09—Correction. Debate (on motion by Mr Hartsuyker) adjourned. 4572 Bills R4347 Cognate bill: 4572 Bills R4373 4572 Debate resumed. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Warringah has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. 4572 15:43:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —The Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 is landmark legislation, legislation that brings Australia into the 21st century and legislation that places Australia in a comparable position with other OECD countries. Currently, Australia and the United States are the only two OECD countries that do not have a paid parental leave scheme. It is unfortunate that, for the 12 years the Howard government was in power, the current Leader of the Opposition failed to advocate a paid parental leave scheme. Now his solution is to impose a great big new tax on business—a tax that will be passed on to each and every Australian. This legislation is great for Australian families, Australian businesses and the nation as a whole. It will enable all eligible working parents of babies born or adopted from 1 January 2011 to receive 18 weeks of paid parental leave at the federal minimum wage. The fact that there has been no paid parental leave scheme until now has cost families dearly. It has impacted on family income. It has made it really hard for families to make the decision about whether or not to start a family or to have an additional child. If they have made that decision, it has often caused the family to experience financial hardship. In many cases both parents have had to return to work earlier than they would have liked to. I think it is really important to put this on the record given the contribution of the previous speaker in this debate: I value the contribution made to child rearing by each and every parent in this country. I know that some parents choose to stay at home and rear their children, that they are with their children until they start school. That is their decision. Other parents choose to go to work or need to go to work. That is their decision. Each and every one of those families needs to be supported. This legislation does that. It helps families make that decision based on the fact that they choose to stay at home or to go to work. The government will be offering them financial support for the first time in Australia’s history. From the family perspective, it is also very important because there are issues relating to the mother’s health. In most cases it is the mother that tends to be the person that cares for the baby in its early months. Quite often if there are enormous financial implications the mother will be forced to return to work sooner than she would like to. From a health perspective, that could be sooner than it would be wise for her to return to work. This legislation will enable her to take the time that she needs to allow her body to heal and to bond with her newborn child or her adopted child. If both parents have to return to work very early in the piece, that impacts on a family’s dynamics. That does not allow the whole family to come together and bond and to see itself as a family unit. There is an enormous social cost associated with both parents being forced to return to work very early. It is noted that a parent’s exclusive care for their child improves the child’s development. Where a mother chooses to breastfeed that enables her to establish a breastfeeding pattern. It also works with bonding and nurturing. From a social perspective, that is very good for the whole community. Businesses have also been adversely affected by the lack of a paid parental leave scheme. In the past the lack of a paid parental leave scheme has led to a situation whereby the primary care giver, usually the woman, is forced to leave the workforce. This in itself is a cost to business. The employer is losing a skilled and valued worker so it leads to the business incurring a cost. Studies have been conducted into this. I would like to refer to one by an Australian human research institute which cites research that has found that replacing that employee can cost up to 1½ times the employee’s salary. A global expert on restructuring, a professor at the business school of the University of Colorado in Denver, has conducted research that has found that in some instances, depending on the employee’s role in a company and the supply of suitable skilled workers, it can cost up to 2½ times the worker’s wage. That is a significant cost to business. The costs involved include exit interviews, interviewing and selecting new employees, overtime worked by other staff to fill the short-term vacancy and then the training of the successful applicant. Retraining in itself is a quite significant impost on companies. Using the 1½ times salary figure and an estimate of the average staff turnover within large companies in Australia of 12.6 per cent, the institute calculates that the cost to the Australian economy could be as much as $20 billion. That shows that this legislation which we have before us today is a very fine investment in Australia. I note that the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs is at the table. I would like to formally congratulate her in this House on all the hard work that she has done in developing this legislation. She has been a long-term advocate of paid parental leave. I know that without her efforts this legislation would not have come to fruition. Mr Deputy Speaker, forgive me for having been sidetracked for a moment. There is the cost to the nation as a whole because of the loss of skilled workers. Also there are the enormous financial implications when workers have to stay at home without any financial support and, as I have already mentioned, there are the long-term social costs. This legislation has the potential to change the face of our society. It will deliver certainty and financial security to families throughout Australia. It is legislation the opposition should support. Listening to the contributions by members of the opposition, it is quite obvious to me that they do not support the legislation. If this legislation does not pass the parliament, each and every one of them will stand condemned. This legislation has the support of both business and unions. I refer to an article quoting a business leader on the legislation: Australian Industry Group chief executive Heather Ridout, says the Government’s scheme is a “sensible approach” to an unresolved issue— It has been unresolved for far too long. It was unresolved when the opposition was in government, when the Leader of the Opposition was in a position to bring about change. The article goes on: “A taxpayer funded scheme providing payments to working mothers of 18 weeks at the level of the minimum wage is consistent with the recommendations of the Productivity Commission and is largely consistent with the Group’s proposals,” she said. “The introduction of an appropriately designed paid parental leave scheme will provide many benefits to the community, not least of which is increased participation by women in the workforce … Those are the words of industry. Those are the words that Ms Heather Ridout has spoken in support of the scheme. I also refer to a media release by the ACTU: ACTU President Sharan Burrow called on Opposition leader Tony Abbott not to block the bill … “Australian families and women in particular are counting on this scheme being in place on January 1 next year,” Ms Burrow said. “This is an important reform in the way we help women especially to handle work and family commitments at an emotionally and often financially stressful time … I think that says it all. This scheme has the support of both industry and the trade union movement. There has been widespread community consultation. The Productivity Commission looked at the economic, productivity and social costs and benefits of a paid parental leave scheme. It also considered the health and developmental benefits for babies and parents. I referred to this earlier in my contribution to this debate, but from the mother’s perspective it is essential that in the first few months after she gives birth to a child she stays home to develop that bond, to allow her body time to recover and to establish breastfeeding, which is in the best interests of the baby. Further on, it allows the development of the baby to progress in a very measured and appropriate way. The commission undertook extensive public consultation. The government also undertook extensive consultation with key stakeholders—trade unions, employer groups, families and community groups. This is well-researched legislation that has been thoughtfully developed. The legislation that we have before us here today is based on the recommendations of the Productivity Commission. This is not spur-of-the-moment legislation that is ill thought out, like the Leader of the Opposition’s tax on businesses with a taxable income in excess of $5 million—a great big tax on everything that will cause a burden to Australians, increasing the cost of living. This is a scheme that delivers to families, not a scheme that places enormous financial imposts on both businesses and families. In the short time I have left in this debate, I will touch on a couple of key elements of the legislation. The scheme is for an 18-week period of paid leave, which must be taken in one continuous block. It will be paid at the national minimum wage. Parents can nominate when they wish to receive the pay, but it must be within the first 12 months after the child’s date of birth or placement, in the case of adoption. Parental leave pay can be received before, after or at the same time as employer-provided paid leave such as recreation or annual leave and employer-provided parental leave. A parent will not be able to work while receiving paid parental leave—and that is fair enough because that would defeat the purpose of the legislation—but they can ‘keep in touch’ with the workplace for up to 10 days during the period if this is mutually agreed between the person and the employer. It is all about keeping workers connected to the workplace whilst giving them time to spend with their baby and, in the case of women, to allow their bodies to recover. This legislation is groundbreaking. It brings Australia up to the rest of the world as far as paid parental leave is concerned. We are no longer one of those outlying countries that does not provide support for parents to return to the workforce. I conclude by imploring the Leader of the Opposition to abandon his flawed scheme and support this legislation, legislation that will benefit all Australians. We on this side of the House are very used to the Leader of the Opposition opposing anything just for the sake of opposing it. This legislation is far, far too important for him to adopt his oppositional politics on. All Australians look to him to show some leadership on this legislation, get behind it and see that it passes through both houses of this parliament. 4575 15:58:00 Katter, Bob, MP HX4 Kennedy IND 0 0 Mr KATTER —I give notice that I will be tabling some amendments to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 to remove the discriminatory aspect from the legislation. Whilst a woman who chooses to further her career in the marketplace and make a wonderful future for herself personally will get tremendous benefit from this legislation, those women who sacrifice themselves to stay at home and give their children a full-time mother will get absolutely nothing out of this legislation. So the government is very generous to people—whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, and I am not saying it is a bad thing—who wish to further their careers and work in full-time employment. The deputy principal of the high school in Charters Towers resigned recently because she is having a second baby and believes that her children need full-time care. She will move from an income of $70,000 or $80,000 a year—something of that nature, I presume—to an income of nothing in order to do the right thing by her children. This bill will give her no benefits whatsoever and no remuneration whatsoever. I have given notice of my amendments, which I will speak to in due course, aimed at extending this benefit so that there is no discrimination in it and a woman who decides to stay at home and look after her kids gets the same decent fair go as some woman who decides that she will instead devote herself to her own interests. Good luck to her. But do not ask that the public purse discriminate in favour of her and discriminate against someone who is so self-sacrificing. I was asked to do a chapter in a book that was published recently. It was a cookbook, and you did a story on your mother. I made mention of Clyde Cameron, one of the greatest old political warriors that ever set foot in this place. He was a man who, if he went after you, you said your prayers. He was one of the toughest men ever to set foot in this place and one of the most dangerous, and I mean that in a flattering and not a derogatory way. When they were interviewing him on the ABC on a program called The Confessions of Clyde Cameron—which comes in the form of a book, and I would recommend that everyone in this House read it—they said ‘you had a very close relationship with your mother’, and his voice broke completely and he staggered through the sentence and said ‘I can’t really talk about my mother’. So here was this hardened old warrior whose mother had been dead for 20 or 30 years, and he could not talk about her. I say to you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that 40 years ago my mother died, and I still cannot talk about her. Compare that to a career! I am of the first generation whose women went on this career path. I know them all. They are the same age as me—that is, in their mid-60s or early 60s. They pursued their career, and now they are old, embittered, lonely people. They have no one to love and no one to love them. I feel very sad for them, and I think that the culture they lived in and the value system that was inculcated in them has left them bereft of all the finer things in life. I am among those people who come from country areas and owner-operated business backgrounds. My family on my father’s side have been in owner-operated business ever since they came to Australia in the 1870s, and that is true to some degree of my family on my mother’s side as well. Those who know my family know that those businesses have to a very large degree always been run by the women—and run very, very successfully I might add. Those people were full-time mothers who also ran the family businesses and ran them magnificently well. My own family business was run so well—and this is going back a fair bit—that my great-grandad was able to give £3,000 to the general strike in the mid-1890s, which in terms of today’s money is nearly $1 million. I doubt whether there has been another person in Australian history who has donated $1 million out of his own money to a strike fund to back the workers because he believed in the cause that they were fighting for, and I say that with very great pride. So those businesses were carried to a very large degree by the mothers who were in them. Having said all that, I would like to be very specific. There is the most extraordinary lady still alive in Australia. Her name is Lady Pearl Logan. Her husband was knighted, and she has an honorary doctorate from James Cook University. She spent her life on remote sheep and cattle stations, of which her family owned a number. She was the mother, and she was also running the business side of the operations. You could say she made a decision not to have a career, but let us just see what this lady has contributed to Australia. I say that she is the finest lady still living in this country and that nobody could come close to her achievements. She was heavily involved—along with her husband, who played the main role—in demanding a minimum price scheme for our wool industry, which was virtually vanishing in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In the face of trenchant opposition from a lot of the rich wool growers themselves, two very great men—Sir William Gunn and Doug Anthony—introduced the wool scheme, and for every year for the next 20 years we had a nice increase in the price of our wool. By 1990, more than one-tenth of this nation’s income came from wool. Within two years of former Prime Minister Keating’s removing that scheme, our incomes had dropped by half, and now there is not much left of that wonderful industry that carried this nation from its very inception until 1990. There is only 40 per cent of it left, and I suspect that over the next 20 or 30 years there will be virtually nothing left of it at all. But let us not revel in the shame of what was done by the free trading policies of the governments of Australia; let us honour the lady who was one of the people instrumental in and responsible for securing the wool scheme. I was there the day that they ripped into Doug Anthony, who was a man big enough not only to take the pain but also to realise that these people were right and he should go back to Canberra and change the world in which we lived. There was no such thing as equality in education when I was a young fellow in Cloncurry. We did not have the senior high school in Cloncurry. Those of us from well-off families—I would not say that we were rich, but we were well-off by Cloncurry standards—that is, six of the 66 boys and girls my age, had enough money to go away to boarding school. The other 60 got no secondary education. Their opportunities in life were truncated, because people from the country did not get a secondary education. Never mind about a tertiary education; they never even got a secondary education. There was a lot of class warfare in our town because, when the Aboriginal support systems came in to enable them to go away to school, they could afford to go away but a lot of the white fellas could not. The white fellas were very upset and angry about that. This inequality in education meant that over 20 per cent of this country could not get a secondary education because they lived in country areas without secondary education available to them. Pearl Logan—a wonderful lady—decided that the government should put in some money to make it fair and give everyone an equal opportunity. After all, equality in education is one of the most basic freedoms that one can have in any society at all. One of the many reasons the great Huey Long of the United States was made famous was that he lived in a state where nearly 20 per cent of the population could not read or write and, within four years, he had provided reading and writing skills to some 100,000—arguably 200,000—residents of Louisiana. He instituted systems in the schools so that everyone would be able to read and write in Louisiana. Pearl Logan joined an organisation that was originally called the ICPA. I will not go into the details of political machinations, but what she did was very brilliant and very clever. She got a particular person appointed—an education minister—to the IOU and got him to submit to the Queensland cabinet a proposal for assistance to kids who lived in towns or outside of towns and did not have access to a secondary education. He took it to cabinet and cabinet rejected it. Pearl Logan had connections with the CWA. She was not Robinson Crusoe. I do not want to make out that she did all of this by herself—far from it—but, if I were to look at who the most important figure in this battle was, I would end up saying that Pearl Logan was. She got over 5,000 telegrams—as we called them then; I suppose we call them faxes now—through the CWA connection to the state cabinet and the Premier. He got so worried about it all that they had a special cabinet meeting at the end of the week and reversed the decision. So we got our foot in the door. After 17 or 18 years of battle, when a child went away to the big boarding schools in Charters Towers—All Souls being the biggest boarding school in northern Australia—the entire cost for the student was met by the state and federal governments as a result of the energies of that woman. Equality in education is one of the greatest freedoms that we should have in Australia. It did not extend to nearly 20 per cent of us who lived beyond the big cities—those of us who did not have access to high schools—but suddenly we were given equal rights to the rest of Australia. What a wonderful contribution to a country. I had the very great honour of serving in Aboriginal affairs in Queensland for the best part of a decade. I have received very glowing tributes which I did not deserve. Almost every initiative that was taken in those years was taken by the black-fella Australians themselves, not the white-fella Australians. The other person who facilitated that and stood between me and a government which could be brutal on some issues was Lady Pearl Logan. She delivered to those people. She delivered private ownership of their land and she delivered the right to run their own affairs. Both rights were taken off them by successive governments—including the LNP; mostly socialist governments. If I were a socialist I would deeply regret that I was associated with governments that did that. For those who like reading books, there are two textbooks—they are used in university courses throughout Australia: Rosalind Kidd’s The way we civilise: Aboriginal affairs, the untold story and Frank Brennan’s Land rights Queensland style : the struggle for Aboriginal self-management. You can read both of those books. They are a very fine tribute—not to Pearl Logan; she was a facilitator—to the people who drove that agenda. Having said that, I move on. The Queensland Industry Development Corporation—which was the State Bank—was incorporated when I first came into this House. Pearl Logan decided that the bank should not be a plaything for the rich people, the slithering suits of the cities, like all the other banks were; it should be a bank that performed the duties that a bank should perform: facilitating and growing the real productive capacity of your country and giving people a fair go in times of trial and letting them drive ahead in good times. That is what a bank should do. I was referred to as ‘Pearl’s posse’. She made sure that I was in the driver’s seat with respect to QIDC. One-third of the sugar industry in Queensland would not be there today without the QIDC, and the QIDC would not have been there to help them without Lady Pearl Logan. People talk about a career. Pearl Logan was a woman who had no career. She did not have enough money—her family were dirt-poor dairy farmers—to go away and get a university education. She did have some tertiary qualifications, but they most certainly did not amount to a university degree. She had to abandon her career to bring up her children and live with the man she loved. He had an obscure property out of Richmond. Did that destroy her as a person? Did that prevent her from achieving great things for this nation? There is no-one who could even get close to her. There is not a person in this nation who could even go close. And I have not finished yet. There is not a member in this House who has not faced up to the horrific problem of a shortage of doctors in Australia. One of the reasons is that more than half of the graduates coming out of the universities are women—and God bless them. They decide to go out and have children and they stop practicing medicine, to a very large degree. That has resulted in shortages, but that was not the real problem. The real problem was that the existing medical schools, in fairness to them, could not—there were those who argued that they would not—expand. Then they would not allow the building of any other medical schools. There was one medical school built in 44 years in Australia. When I went to see the then minister for health, Michael Wooldridge, he said that the real problem was that we needed a medical school in Townsville. I saw the solution as that as well, but all we got was talk from the government. Then this tenacious lady was appointed chair of the committee. We had been promised by successive governments for 28 years a medical school for Northern Australia, and for 28 years we saw the promises broken. But when this tenacious fox terrier of a lady, in her mid-70s at the time, was made chair it was a different paradigm that we lived in. She was tenacious. I am very proud to say that my daughter was secretary to that committee. For seven years after that committee was formed—seven bitter, bloodthirsty years—they fought the battle and they secured the building of the first medical school in Australia, with one exception, in 44 years. What a magnificent achievement. Because of the way they approached the problem, seven universities have now walked through the door that this wonderful lady opened. Every year now, there are 1,000 to 2,000 extra graduates pouring through the doors of those new medical schools. We have had the terrible problem of stripping doctors away from countries whose need is more desperate than our own. Time after time and case after case we have run into terrible difficulties bringing these doctors here. God bless them for coming to Australia but, unfortunately, a lot of them have great difficulties with the language, with the culture and also with their training, which in some cases—not all cases—is grossly inadequate. If the problem was solved—and it most certainly was—then this nation has a great debt of gratitude to that lady. I conclude in my last three minutes on this note: it is not very nice to belong to a vanishing race. If you come back here in 100 years, as Bob Birrell said in a major landmark article in the Australian newspaper, there will be not 20 million Australians but seven million Australians. I thought that had to be rubbish, so I rushed off to the library and the demographer up there said: ‘Bob, if the birth rate, or the replacement rate, is 1.7, then when 20 Australians die they are replaced by 17 people. That happens five times in 100 years.’ It is simply mathematics: if you have a birth rate of 1.7, and you have 20 million people, then over 100 years the population will continue to grow to 36 million and then rapidly go into decline. As the baby boomers—the generation that came along five or 10 years behind me—die, they will not be replaced. If 20 of them die, they will be replaced by only 17 people. When my generation dies, we will be replaced. We have replaced ourselves; we have a positive population growth. People say, ‘Our population is not declining, it’s growing,’ but each year the number of net births is exceeded by the number of foreign people coming to this country. You might say, ‘God bless them for coming to our country,’ but they are foreign people; they are not Australians. (Time expired) 4579 16:19:00 Bradbury, David, MP HVW Lindsay ALP 1 0 Mr BRADBURY —It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and cognate bill, which will put in train for the first time in Australia’s history a national paid parental leave scheme. If this legislation is passed it will come into effect from 1 January 2011. It is noteworthy that we are one of only two OECD nations that does not currently have a national paid parental leave scheme. One might ask why it has taken so long for a progressive country such as ours to grasp the nettle and introduce a scheme of this sort. If we look over the past decade or so, we see that there has been much opposition, particularly from those who were in government and who are now in opposition. I welcome their most recent embrace of more progressive policies in this regard, but those in opposition were deadset opposed to the introduction of any scheme of paid parental leave. We all recall the former Prime Minister, John Howard, and we all recall each and every one of the members of the then cabinet standing up, one after the other, telling us that this was something the country could not afford. But it is something that the country cannot afford not to do. That is what the Productivity Commission has concluded, and that is the advice that this government is determined to take on board and to act on. The scheme that we propose to introduce will cover up to 18 weeks at the national minimum wage and will be open to eligible primary carers who have or who adopt a child on or after 1 January 2011. The primary carer must satisfy the work test, the income test and the residency test. Having a child is one of the greatest privileges that any of us can have. Those who wish to do that and those who are fortunate enough to experience the joy of parenthood can all reflect upon just how significant it is. I have the great privilege of having four children and of having gone through three pregnancies with my wife, having had twins on the third occasion. Each of those pregnancies became the central focus of our lives. Each was something that we prepared for and something they we enjoyed and relished. We were often fearful of the challenges that came with that, but we also recognised that the great leap one takes in choosing to become a parent, if in fact one does have that choice, does not come without a financial cost. I also reflect on an experience I had several years ago when I was the Mayor of Penrith City. Back in the year 2000 I decided to go out on a tour of all the local childcare centres that the council was managing. I recall visiting some of the centres, walking in and seeing some of the young children, in some cases as young as six weeks. It struck me on a number of levels. Firstly, one can never judge these cases because you simply do not know what the circumstances are, but in many cases I suspect the children were in child care at such a young age because their parents had no other option. Financially, they had to get back into the workforce in order to meet the financial demands of raising a family in an area like mine in outer Western Sydney where, over the years, house prices have continued to increase exponentially or at a much greater rate than average wages and salaries have increased. It is almost a necessity these days for families on average incomes in my electorate to have at least a second parent partly in the workforce, if not full time. Some families who are on a single income are doing it tough, others might be doing it that little bit more comfortably; but very few people can do it comfortably on one income in communities such as mine. That is the reality that many families and communities such as mine face. There is the additional issue of choice of career—choice of the contribution that parents, both mothers and fathers, may wish to make. Certainly a lot was made of notions of career choice in the speech just given by the member for Kennedy. I think it is a great development that, over the years, opportunities have been opened up to women to pursue their skills and talents and to make a contribution in many areas of life that were previously closed off to them. With three sisters, three daughters and a very well educated wife, I am a great advocate of the importance of preserving those opportunities and making them available to all Australians, male or female. Science has only come so far, and when it comes to having babies the males are still in the passenger seat. It is the female that has to go through that experience and, more often than not, that becomes a reason why the female may spend a little more time out of the workforce in order to rear the child. The importance of breastfeeding is a consideration. As hard as I may have wanted to try, I would never be able to match my wife on that. These are the realities that we deal with. On the one hand, there are the financial issues and, on the other hand, there are the career opportunities. Then there is the productivity that can be achieved under a scheme of this sort. I simply make the point that the Intergenerational report and its predecessors have very clearly articulated the case for why we need to boost productivity throughout our economy. We need to ensure that, where people are taking some time off to have children, their skills are preserved and they are given the opportunity to seamlessly move back into the workforce and, where possible, return to the work that they had left in order to have their children. Without a scheme such as the one that is proposed here, it simply would not be possible for some families to have children or an extra child that they may long for and hope to have. The financial pressures and the challenges that one faces in terms of career and career opportunity are considerations that actively weigh on the minds of parents and impending parents all around this country. That is why this measure is essential. I am shocked by the approach that the opposition have taken to this scheme. For so long they were so opposed to having a scheme of this sort at all. We all recall none other than the now Leader of the Opposition when he was in government saying that a paid parental leave scheme would only ever be introduced over his dead body. Thankfully for the Leader of the Opposition, and thankfully for most Australian families, that is not going to be the case. With the passage of these bills, we look forward to seeing a system in place as of 1 January next year—a scheme of paid parental leave that will be fair to not only families but also business because it is funded by the government. I think that is an important point to acknowledge. As I said a moment ago, the Leader of the Opposition has previously said it would be over his dead body. We have moved a long way. I think in his speech in this second reading debate he said that his position had evolved over time. This is hardly evolution; this is more like revolution. We have gone from ‘over my dead body’ to a position where he now proposes a scheme that basically will allow individual caregivers who were previously earning salaries of up to $150,000 to receive payments that equate to about $75,000. That is a hugely generous scheme that will impose a very significant burden on those 3,000-odd businesses that will be required to bear it. A basic question that has to be resolved here is whether schemes of this sort should be funded by the taxpayer through the government or whether they should be borne by business. Clearly the opposition had decided that this was not a burden to be shared on all business, so they decided to impose this on big business alone, on those 3,200 businesses that the Leader of the Opposition says pay company tax on a taxable income of over $5 million. It beggars the question: if raising funds for paid parental leave is as easy as going and putting an indiscriminate tax on the 3,200 businesses that just so happen to be generating income of more than $5 million taxable income, why don’t we impose an additional levy on these same businesses to achieve certain other social policy goals throughout the community? Why stop at the 1.7 per cent levy? There are other needs in the community, whether it be infrastructure needs or whether it be the Leader of the Opposition’s much celebrated additional assistance to stay-at-home mums that went to shadow cabinet but was knocked over in shadow cabinet. Why stop here? It is an interesting question to ask and one that those on the other side have to come forward and respond to. But we see, as we saw recently with the comments the Leader of the Opposition made on The 7.30 Report, that there is a distinction to be drawn between those comments that are supposedly carefully crafted, carefully scripted, the ones that are in the fine print, or at least in writing—the gospel truth, we are told—and those statements that are made in the heat of the moment. I thought it was astonishing when, in December last year, the Leader of the Opposition came out and said, ‘There’ll be no new taxes.’ I find it astonishing because, contrary to the rhetoric you often hear from those on the other side, they have been pretty good in government when it comes to introducing new taxes. Remember the GST, perhaps the biggest tax to have been introduced in my lifetime? That was a great big fat tax, but we do not hear so much about that. In fact, at the time I think it was not described by those opposite, who were in government at the time, as a great big fat tax; it was described as the tax that was somehow going to ‘unchain our hearts’. Their taxes ‘unchain our hearts’ or are modest levies, whereas any tax that the government introduces is ‘a great big tax’ that threatens to bring the sky down. The Leader of the Opposition, in his first statement on paid parental leave, said ‘over my dead body’. We have had subsequent statements from him, though. We also had a comment from him when the Productivity Commission handed down its report in relation to paid parental leave. I will read from an article in the Australian on 30 September 2008. The article reads: Opposition families spokesman Tony Abbott attacked the scheme proposed by the Productivity Commission because it gave stay-at-home mums less taxpayer support than those who worked, creating “first- and second-class mothers”. I thought that an interesting principle. We have seen the evolution of the Leader of the Opposition’s approach, the Tony Abbott approach, to paid parental leave. It started with no scheme, unless it was over his dead body. And then it moved on to, ‘I’m opposed to any scheme that treats stay-at-home mothers as if they’re second-class citizens’. I want to make the point that I value mothers whether they stay at home, whether they are engaged in the workforce or whether they are looking to re-engage in the workforce. Frankly, the role of motherhood is something that is one of the most important things that we ask anyone in our community to do. How mothers choose to balance their responsibilities is ultimately a matter for them and for their families. It is government’s role to provide as many opportunities, to give people the choices so that they can actually have choices and make those according to what suits their personal circumstances. Notwithstanding that, we have the Leader of the Opposition moving on to his position that this would make a second-class citizen of the stay-at-home mother. Then we had the Leader of the Opposition come forward with his policy, and I understand that he did not take it through the usual party processes. This is one of those things for which he simply sought the subsequent forgiveness of the party room, which is one of those robust approaches which I guess could only occur in policy development as far as the opposition is concerned. But in relation to his proposal, we have a 1.7 per cent levy on taxable income over $5 million for those 3,200 companies, and that would raise $2.7 billion. So, from the Leader of the Opposition who said he did not want a paid parental leave scheme—over his dead body—a Leader of the Opposition who said there would be no new taxes, we then have a Leader of the Opposition who comes forward, without consultation with his party, and proposes to introduce a new tax to fund a new paid parental leave scheme. It is extraordinary. Talk about evolution! That is not evolution but revolution coming from the Leader of the Opposition, who has already said publicly—it is all on record now, although it was not in writing—that if he says something when not in the heat of battle that is carefully scripted then it is gospel truth, although no-one has pointed out to me when you are not in the heat of battle when you are engaged in debate in public life. But if you are in the heat of battle and you happen to answer a question from a journalist—you might not be expecting that they are going to ask a question—and perhaps you have your guard down, and if the answer you give happens to be a bit of a porky, then no-one should be surprised, because that is all in the heat of battle. Frankly, that is absurd. The interesting point about the statements that the Leader of the Opposition made when he said that he was opposed to any paid parental leave scheme that treated stay-at-home mums as second-class citizens, or ‘second-class mothers’, as he put it, is that the particular scheme that he proposed—and I say ‘he’ because it did not go through the coalition party processes—will in fact create a much larger differential between the government support that is provided to a stay-at-home mum and a mother who happens to be on a high income and takes a little bit of time off to have a child. Just to put this in stark relief: the proposition we began with was that any scheme that discriminates against a stay-at-home mum is a bad thing. That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Under his scheme, a woman who is currently on an income of $150,000, takes 26 weeks off and receives $75,000 will be almost $70,000 better off than a stay-at-home mum who receives a baby bonus but is not eligible to receive family tax benefit part A or part B. Under the government’s scheme, the differential is not very big at all. Mothers who take 18 weeks of leave will receive the equivalent of $9,788 or thereabouts. The difference between what is provided to women under this scheme and what is provided to stay-at-home mums is not much at all. But under the opposition’s scheme—and this is, after all, the opposition leader who said that this was one of those great maladies that he would never bring himself to support—there is a difference of almost $70,000. The Leader of the Opposition cannot be trusted when it comes to paid parental leave. He has had a different position for all seasons. He once said he would support such a scheme over his dead body. He then said he did not want a scheme that would disadvantage stay-at-home mums. He said he would not introduce any new taxes. And now he has proposed a scheme that discriminates against stay-at-home mums. He cannot be trusted. He has no consistency. He has shown himself to be phoney. 4583 16:39:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 0 Ms SAFFIN —It is wonderful to get the opportunity to speak to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010, which would introduce Australia’s first public national paid parental leave scheme. A lot of people in this place have said it is historic, and it is. Australia is one of only two OECD countries—the United States is the other—which do not have a comprehensive paid parental leave scheme. It is long overdue. It is fair and just, and it is funded. I would like to thank Minister Macklin, Minister Plibersek and all the other women, in this place and in other places, who have lobbied long and hard for this scheme. It is called the paid ‘parental’ leave scheme—it is for men and women. But the fact is that it is something for which women have campaigned for a long time and it will apply primarily to women. It is women who have the babies and primarily women who take the leave to stay at home with the babies, so I will direct a lot of my comments to women and the role they play. It is a good feeling to be part of the government that is introducing this scheme. It was good to see it introduced in a costed, practical way, such that there will not be a big impost on small businesses—which I will turn to—and other organisations. It is a big win, it is popular and it is also necessary. For many years people said we could not afford it and it would be an impost on everybody. There was economic modelling and economic advice saying it was not necessary. For all those years, the advice was that we could not do it, when we know that we could have—it does make me wonder. On this scheme, the government sent a reference to the Productivity Commission. They had time to consider it and they took submissions from a broad range of people and organisations in the community. They came up with a costed model that would work without having all the imposts. I rejoice in it but, my gosh, it has been a long time coming. It makes me wonder why we could not have done it a lot sooner. I remember the debates—I was part of them—that occurred outside of this place. We were told that this was a contentious issue and that these were not mainstream concerns. I wrote a piece in the Women Lawyers Association’s newsletter talking about issues that impacted on women, including superannuation, maternity leave, ART and RU486. I said that, when we had debates in the community on those issues, they tended to become contentious, they were not seen as mainstream and they were not debated in a rational way—and such it was with maternity leave for a long time. I am pleased that these are now mainstream issues. Having babies, paid maternity leave and paid parental leave are all seen as regular issues—as they always have been. That in itself is a milestone. When the commitment was made to deliver this scheme, I did have some concern because of the global financial crisis, the global recession. Women often get asked to take a back seat when major events happen—including in families, where we often willingly take that back seat. I was concerned that might happen with this scheme. I am so pleased that we have stayed on track and are introducing it from 1 January 2011. It demonstrates the commitment from the government to support mothers, whether in paid jobs or at home. The baby bonus and family tax benefits will still be available for families not eligible for paid parental leave. We are committed to women who are in the paid workforce and women who are not, and that is a good thing. Those who choose not to participate in the scheme will also be covered. The scheme is affordable and minimises the impact on employers, particularly those in small business. That should be a consideration at any time, but particularly with the advent of the global recession and the global financial crisis. In my seat of Page there are about 11½ thousand registered businesses that we know of and a lot more that we do not know of. It is important that they can share in the benefit of a paid parental leave scheme but do not have to wear the financial burden of it. They do not with this scheme. To give an overview, this scheme starts on 1 January 2011. People who are eligible can claim from October this year or they can put in a submission. I will not go into the minute detail of eligibility, because people will have worked that out when they apply. In general, it applies to the mother of a newborn child or to the initial primary carer of a recently adopted child. One of the concerns raised was that they should meet the paid parental leave work test before the birth or adoption occurs. They should have an individual annual income of $150,000 or less, be living in Australia and be an Australian citizen or permanent resident. Those criteria apply to many schemes or benefits that one can access from the government. I campaigned in the lead-up to the decision to introduce the scheme in my local area and talked about it with many local women. I talked with parents, different groups, local small businesses and others. I was clear that it should not be a further impost on small business, but I said that employees in small businesses should be as entitled as anybody else to take maternity leave, paternity leave or paid parental leave. I also publicly supported the campaign, with New South Wales unions, about the ideal and visited childcare centres with them. I also supported the ACTU campaign, which supported the introduction of an affordable scheme. So there was lots of debate. There were lots of schemes thrown up for discussion and, of course, we all wanted the ideal. But it comes with a cost, so we have to be mindful of how it is introduced. I say it will be money well spent. The ACTU campaign was about affordability and accessibility to as many as possible. The scheme was proposed to be shared between the primary carers and adoptive parents and it was costed properly. I note the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, in her second reading speech thanked a number of people, including Marie Coleman, Heather Ridout and Pru Goward, who advocated a scheme when she was the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. I remember that Senator Stott Despoja introduced a draft bill or a private member’s motion on a paid parental leave scheme. I pay tribute to a whole body of women right across Australia from all sides of politics who recognised it made sense and was something we needed to do. It took time to convince some of our male colleagues in politics that it was something they had to come at, but eventually they did. I have heard other honourable members in here refer to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Warringah, that there will be a maternity leave or paid parental leave scheme ‘over my dead body’. It seems as though he has had a change of view. He did come out with something that was not costed, did not seem to be affordable, would be quite an impost and would cost a lot of money. It is not a scheme as such; it was just something he announced. It struck me as rather an erratic approach to policy making, if one can call it that. When schemes such as this are introduced they do need work-up time, they do need to be considered carefully, they do need to have the cost and the modelling tested and we do need to seek input for it from all parties. One of the other things that are really good features of this scheme is that women in seasonal, casual and contract work, along with the self-employed, will have access to paid parental leave, with most of them having access to it for the first time. We know that 25 per cent of women work in casual jobs. They receive no paid leave entitlements. One of the trends that has developed in modern times is the casualisation of the workforce. It is something that we have to be mindful of and rail against in some ways, because permanent jobs provide security. Sometimes they are essential if one wants to get a loan. But 25 per cent of women work in casual jobs and receive no paid leave entitlements. Under this scheme, for the first time they will be eligible. That is a very good thing. Eligible families can choose whether to participate in this scheme, depending on their individual circumstances. I said early on in my contribution that there would still be the baby bonus and things like that. People will be able to elect to be with the particular scheme that they want to be with, the baby bonus—except in multiple birth cases, which recognises that is a special circumstance that warrants extra assistance—or paid parental leave. The notes that are published on the website about the scheme say that the paid parental scheme will have a net cost to the government of $731 million over five years. When you think about $731 million, that does not seem a huge amount for such a significant benefit for and impact on our community. It brings me back to the question of why it took so long when it is not a mammoth amount of money that is being spent. And that is over five years. Going back to what the Leader of the Opposition has said about the idea that he announced on International Women’s Day, when you look at it, the tax increase of up to nearly two per cent through the company tax regime for over 3,000 businesses would cost something like around $3 billion. That does not make sense and shows that it is not a scheme that is costed well and is instead a rather extreme idea. I would like to reiterate some key points about the paid parental leave scheme. It will start on 1 January 2011. It is funded by the Australian government. It is fair to business and fair to families, which is not something which is always easy to achieve. That is what is aimed for; it is a guiding principle. With this scheme, it works. It will help Australian families balance work and family commitments and it will help employers retain the valuable skills and experience of their staff. Turning to employers, from reading the information that is available about it—and there is quite a good deal of information—it will not be a big impost upon employers. They will not have to do all of the extra work that so often has to be done by small business when changes come in through schemes and systems. They often have to do a lot of that work—like with the GST and a whole range of other things. That is one thing that pleases me, and I know that it pleases small business as well. Australian families have been waiting decades for this. The time has finally come. The government’s paid parental leave will be able to be taken in addition to existing employer funded schemes, either at the same time or consecutively. The government’s paid parental leave scheme will help employers enhance the family friendly workplace conditions that many already offer. This is an extra for them. It will give families more options to balance work and family by allowing the primary carer, which is usually the mother, as we know, to transfer any unused parental leave pay to their partner, provided that they are also eligible. That is a good mix, particularly with modern life and the demands on modern families. This means that an eligible father can get up to 18 weeks paid parental leave if the mother is eligible for the scheme but returns to work. The minister, in her second reading speech, committed to monitoring and evaluating the paid parental leave scheme. There will be about $3 million allocated for that purpose. There are two issues that the government committed to look at in the review and the evaluation. One was the superannuation contributions for the period of paid parental leave. I would like to make a comment on that. So often, superannuation is a great thing. It is good that is going from nine per cent to 12 per cent. But for many years it, for a whole range of reasons, did not advantage women as much as men, like a lot of areas. It is one of those issues that we have to be constantly mindful of and working at to make sure that women are not disadvantaged. I welcome the review which will look at that. That is an area that I will watch very closely. I commend this historic bill to this House. 4587 16:59:00 Parke, Melissa, MP HWR Fremantle ALP 1 0 Ms PARKE —I rise today to speak in wholehearted support of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, an incredibly significant and long-awaited reform that will better support Australian families, encourage greater workforce participation, increase the assistance to women who want to find a workable balance between their professional and family lives, and give children the best possible start to life. This bill is a reform that is in keeping with a policy commitment that Labor made in 2002, and it is a scheme that was designed with guidance from a comprehensive report from the Productivity Commission. It has also followed from the momentum created by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s 2002 report, Valuing parenthood: options for paid maternity leave. From 1 January next year, for the first time in Australian history, eligible mums or dads will be entitled to receive the federal minimum wage—currently $543 a week—for a maximum period of 18 weeks, and will be able to transfer any unused portion of that leave to the other parent in the event that the first parent returns to work inside that period. Eligibility requires that a worker—whether ongoing, casual, self-employed or a contractor—has had continuous employment for 10 of the 13 months prior to the birth, and has worked for about one day a week across the period. Eligibility is also limited to families in which the primary carer has earned $150,000 or less in the previous financial year. This ensures that the government’s fully-funded scheme will be targeted to those who need support to balance their financial and family obligations in the critical period when their children are coming into the world. Though the scheme operates from 1 July next year, families are able to lodge claims with the Family Assistance Office from 1 October this year, and it is expected that this landmark Australian reform will be available for take-up by some 148,000 eligible parents, most of whom will be women. Families, if they prefer, can choose to receive financial support through the baby bonus and family tax benefit B instead of paid parental leave during that 18-week period, and those who received support through the paid parental leave arrangements may still receive payments under family tax benefit A. An online paid parental leave estimator will be available from September to assist families in considering their support options. New mothers who are ineligible to receive support under the Paid Parental Leave scheme will remain eligible for the baby bonus and family tax benefits, subject to the normal eligibility tests that apply to those payments. Parents who have twins or triplets—or more—will receive the baby bonus for the second and third child, and so on, in addition to receiving parental leave payments. And of course because all new mothers remain entitled to a full year of unpaid leave under the new National Employment Standards, there is the option beyond the 18-week period of paid leave to stay at home for the full 12 months before returning to work. There is also now the right to request an additional 12 months of unpaid leave, and it is important to remember that the 18 weeks of paid parental leave can in fact be taken any time during the first 12 months after the birth of the child. All in all, this provides a flexible and substantial system of support for new parents and their children. It is a fully-costed government funded scheme that will not place a financial impost or any related uncertainty on Australian business. Indeed, there is every reason to expect that the support this scheme provides will make it easier for women and for families to navigate through the difficult shifts and changes in work/family balance that occur when children are born or adopted, and that in many cases this will make it easier and more attractive for women to maintain professional continuity, which will deliver those continuity benefits to their employers and the productivity benefits to the Australian economy. The scheme will cost $1.04 billion over five years, and as an important item of expenditure it follows the principle of targeting government assistance to where it is needed most. This Paid Parental Leave scheme is subject to a means test and it is set at the level of the minimum wage. This means that it will provide support for those families that are not in a position to make adequate financial provision for the parental time out of work that having a baby involves, and it will be at the same level irrespective of family income. This is a fair and economically responsible approach. In celebrating the arrival of this Paid Parental Leave scheme, I want to acknowledge the critical advocacy work of those who have called for this long overdue action. Unfortunately, this is not a reform about which we can say that Australia has played a leading role within the international community. While we have in the past done so in areas like universal suffrage, in this case, as many have noted, we were until now the only country in the OECD other than the United States to be without a comprehensive paid parental leave scheme. At last, we move ourselves out of that old-fashioned and outdated club. The union movement has called for a comprehensive paid parental leave scheme for many years, and I want to particularly mention the advocacy on this issue by Unions NSW in the past two years. A number of passionate and indefatigable Labor women have argued the case for this reform for many years, including my predecessor as the member for Fremantle, Dr Carmen Lawrence. In recognising Carmen’s enormous contribution to this area of policy, I want to emphasise a point that she made in addressing the Public Service Association of NSW’s annual conference in 2002. In that speech—titled ‘Is paid maternity leave enough?’—Carmen Lawrence said the following: Australia needs a sea change in the policies and attitudes that are hindering the capacity of families, and particularly women, to take on and survive the complex responsibilities of work and family. And we must oppose the message that those in the [Howard] government send that these policies are for the corporate high flyers with nannies and housekeepers, as they are really for the millions of Australian mothers whose jobs are the safety net in their family’s economic survival; who work to pay the bills and to support their families. These families simply can’t afford to have one parent at home full-time for five years, and many of these women can’t afford to lose their connection to paid work, and the skills and confidence that are so important to ensuring their security in our rapidly changing world. To do this requires the development of more responsive models of parental leave and income support, improved access to high quality, affordable childcare, and a modern industrial relations agenda with options like longer unpaid leave with guaranteed job security, part-time work, working from home, and job sharing. I am glad that with this scheme, and in combination with the new National Employment Standards, this government has addressed some of those necessary changes, and I recognise that there is more to be done. On parental leave itself, however, it is interesting to read that speech again and look at the statistics and facts it marshalled. The fact that in 2002 the Howard government resolutely believed that parental leave should be left for employers to choose to provide or not, as they saw fit, ignoring the fact that those who needed the financial support most were those working in the less secure and lower paid employment circumstances where the likelihood of an employer-provided scheme was next to nothing. At that stage only 0.7 per cent of all Australian workplace agreements provided paid maternity leave, while only 3.4 per cent of private sector agreements contained such provisions. Agreements containing any kind of paid maternity leave fell from around 10 per cent of all agreements in 1998-99 to seven per cent in 2000-01. And, according to the Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training, 65 per cent of managers and administrators had access to some paid maternity leave, compared to only 18 per cent of clerical, sales, and service workers. It is for all those reasons so many hardworking advocates have been calling out for Australia to join the rest of the civilised and sensible and economically forward-thinking countries of the OECD and introduce a paid parental leave scheme that covers all working Australians who need financial support. I also want to acknowledge the fact that the former Democrats senator and leader Natasha Stott-Despoja tabled draft legislation for paid parental leave in the Senate eight years ago, which was at the same time that Labor committed to the introduction of a scheme like the one we debate today. As Natasha pointed out in an op-ed piece in the Australian last week, her proposal was also for a fully costed, fully funded scheme, and for 14 weeks, which was then in line with the minimum recommendations of the International Labour Organisation.I hope that Carmen and Natasha and all the many Labor women, especially the minister, Jenny Macklin, and the advocates, men and women, from unions, research institutes, business and community groups who have argued long and hard for this belated reform take some due pride, credit and satisfaction from this achievement—because they have certainly earned it. As for those who can take no credit whatsoever for progress on this critical policy issue, I note that when in government the then Minister for Finance and Administration, Senator Minchin, described it as middle-class welfare, at a time when it was only the middle class and above who had any hope of enjoying the scanty and inconsistent maternity leave arrangements that were then available, and at a time when his own government was finding new and ever more profligate ways to expand non-means-tested payments for its own benefit. Furthermore, the Leader of the Opposition has previously declared that parental leave would be introduced over his dead body, but he appears to have achieved a remarkable kind of self-resurrection on this issue and is now in favour of it. It is genuinely difficult to know what the opposition leader believes. But this is not a time to dwell on the naysayer and the dissemblers on this issue; this is a time to mark and celebrate a big step forward. I congratulate and commend the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs with all my heart for working with her cabinet colleagues, the caucus and the community to bring about this momentous achievement. This Paid Parental Leave scheme will change for the better the lives of hundreds of thousands of families and children in the years to come. It will mean that parents spend more exclusive time with their new babies, which we know is better for health and learning outcomes and better for their emotional wellbeing and security. It will increase participation rates for women and it will help employers retain continuity and the corporate knowledge and accrued skills of their employees. This Paid Parental Leave scheme is a very significant change to the basic fabric of Australian life. It is a massive improvement in the guaranteed working conditions of all Australians, and so it is in keeping with the long tradition and progressive agenda of the Australian Labor Party. I commend the bill to the House. 4590 17:09:00 Symon, Mike, MP HW8 Deakin ALP 1 0 Mr SYMON —I speak in support of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 as moved by the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. This bill proposes Australia’s first national paid parental leave scheme, which I think is a cause for great celebration, not only for working mothers but for all working families. At present Australia is one of only two OECD countries without a national paid parental leave scheme, for which I hold the Howard government responsible. Even New Zealand, whose employment conditions generally trail Australia’s, has now had a paid parental leave scheme for the last four years. With the exception of the United States, every one of the other 29 countries in the OECD has paid parental leave, which is an indictment on the Howard government and all of its ministers, who would not countenance introducing such a scheme when in government; rather, they were too occupied by driving down working people’s wages and conditions. As a condition, paid parental leave never stood a chance under Work Choices. What chance could an employee who was forced to sign a ‘take it or leave it’ Australian workplace agreement ever have of getting paid parental leave, when many of these secret agreements did not even contain a pay rise for up to five years? The Rudd Labor government has introduced this bill to catch up with the rest of the developed world and provide a paid scheme for working parents. Eligible working parents of babies born or adopted from 1 January next year will receive 18 weeks parental leave pay at the federal minimum wage applicable at the time. The government’s scheme provides security and support for families and will make many households in my electorate of Deakin feel much better about the challenge of having a child or further children. In the lead-up to and during this debate it has been interesting to take note of the reaction of the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, to our policy. Not long after we introduced our plan, the opposition leader decided to introduce his own parental leave thought bubble—and, as I understand it, his plan did not go through the coalition party room; he just made an announcement without even consulting his own parliamentary members. It was quite an amazing turnaround by the Leader of the Opposition, who, whilst the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, did nothing to introduce a scheme for paid parental leave. In fact, by his own admission he was actively working against a paid parental leave scheme and is quoted as having said at a Liberal Party function in Victoria in 2002: Compulsory paid maternity leave—over this Government’s dead body, frankly. He must have had some sort of conversion, because recently he has come to look back on the wasted years and say: I was part of the government that could have done better in this area. But I think we should ignore his crocodile tears and look into his record on paid parental leave. He opposed it and fought against it. For 12 years the government that he was part of, the Howard government, followed his line and did nothing to start a paid parental leave scheme. The opposition leader is on record as opposing a paid scheme and he did nothing whilst minister for workplace relations. Yet he now turns around and proposes a scheme—his thought bubble—that will cost Australian business $10.8 billion over four years. It is a great big new Liberal Party tax on employers; it is a tax on 3,200 businesses at 1.7 per cent, coming on top of the existing 30 per cent company tax rate, and will push cost of living increases right through our economy. I have no doubt that working families will be hit hard should the opposition leader ever have the chance to get his parental leave thought bubble through parliament. It would mean higher grocery bills, higher petrol bills and bigger electricity, gas and phone bills—the list is almost endless, and each and every one of those commodities comes from large companies. If you look at the supply chain, there is a large company there. They will get hit with that tax and the costs will flow on. Those costs will not stop at the first user; they will go right through the economy, which means there will be no escape for the household budget. This comes at a time when the Rudd Labor government is proposing tax cuts for businesses that will reduce the company tax rate to 28 per cent whilst the Liberal Party is committed to increasing the rate to 31.7 per cent, a 3.7 per cent difference that will come straight off the bottom line of company profits. For some large employers this extra cost is $100 million or more per year. This Liberal Party great big new tax on companies compares with a comprehensive paid parental leave scheme that is fully budgeted and funded without increasing the tax on employers. In February 2008 the Rudd government asked the Productivity Commission to look at the economic, productivity and social costs and benefits of paid maternity and parental leave. The Productivity Commission analysed the evidence from Australian surveys and international research. It undertook extensive public consultation on proposals for the scheme and it sought public submissions and conducted public hearings. The Productivity Commission’s final report recommended the introduction of a government funded statutory scheme of paid parental leave, paid at the level of the national minimum wage for up to 18 weeks. In last year’s budget the government committed more than $250 million a year to Australia’s first paid parental leave scheme, which was based closely on these recommendations from the Productivity Commission. The Rudd Labor government has delivered for Australian working families a paid parental leave scheme, delivering on its promise to working families to help them in the challenge of raising children, which involves a huge cost, as we all know. The government estimates that each year around 148,000 people will be eligible for paid parental leave under our scheme. The scheme will provide eligible working mothers and initial primary carers of children born or adopted on or after 1 January 2011 with up to 18 weeks of paid parental leave, at the national minimum wage, whilst they stay at home to look after their baby or adopted child. This rate is currently $543.78 per week and can be taken in conjunction with other existing leave entitlements. All up this figure equates to almost $10,000 to assist working families adjust to the loss of income whilst the primary carer is not at work. This amount will rise in line with the national minimum wage. Another important aspect of this scheme is that it will apply to women working part-time, in seasonal, casual or contract work, and also the self-employed. For so many years employees in most of these groups have missed out when it comes to paid leave. That is why this is one of the best components of the scheme. The extension of paid parental leave to casual workers, seasonal workers and those who own their own business is fantastic news. It will mean that many workers will able to access paid parental leave for the first time even though they may not have access to sick leave or annual leave or many of the other types of leave that most employees do have access to solely due to their type of employment. So a mother may be eligible if she has worked continuously for at least 10 of the 13 months before the birth or adoption of her child and has worked for at least 330 hours in that 10-month period, which is around one day a week. To meet the needs of contractors and seasonal and casual workers who have irregular work patterns, a parent can have a break of up to eight weeks between working days and still be considered to have worked continuously. Parental leave pay will also be available to parents who work in their own business or a family business, such as a farm or a milk bar or even a small contracting operation. For many full-time workers who do not have a paid scheme at their workplace this government policy is great news. In my former job as a construction electrician, I and my colleagues had pretty good workplace conditions but we did not have paid parental leave. It was not in the award and not in the enterprise agreement. I suppose when you look around at the people that I was working with it was another barrier to women actually getting into that trade. I can think of large construction sites that I worked on that had 1,000 people working on them, with three of them being women. That needs to change. We need to get women involved in traditional trades. The barriers to that at the moment are big and longstanding. This addresses one of them and I hope it is a small help in that area of the economy. Earlier this year I visited a local childcare centre, the Knaith Road Child Care Centre in Ringwood East. I went there with the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin. We held a low-key forum with staff and the parents who came in to drop off their kids for the day. We explained to them the benefits at that time of the proposed paid parental leave scheme. I think the most well-received part of the briefing that we had there was that for the first time childcare professionals would have paid parental leave. Curious staff came up and asked for more information as it had always been an irony for them that, although their work was to care for and help educate babies and young children in their community, they as childcare professionals had never had paid leave for when they had children. I can only imagine that the news of a paid scheme is being celebrated in many other industries that have not had paid leave in their awards and agreements. Another aspect of the government’s scheme is that it is a parental leave scheme, so the payments can be for the partner to stay with the child if the mother returns to work. Generally, it will be mothers who claim parental leave payments in the first instance as they usually provide the primary care of their child during the initial months of the child’s life. We can well understand that. However, it is becoming increasingly common for men to spend some time being the primary carer of the child during its first year. Our paid parental leave scheme is flexible and will allow parents to make their own work and family choices. The legislation allows all or part of the parental leave pay to be transferred to the child’s other parent, provided they also meet the eligibility requirements and are the primary carer of the child. Paid parental leave must be taken in one continuous 18-week block within 12 months of the child’s birth or adoption, including in cases where the payment is transferred to the other parent or carer. A parent cannot work during the paid parental leave period, although they can stay connected with their workplace through keeping-in-touch provisions. These keeping-in-touch provisions provide for an employee to attend the workplace for up to 10 days during the period of the leave to attend training or planning days with the agreement of both the employer and themselves. Employees who participate in the keeping-in-touch provisions will also receive their normal rate of pay in addition to their parental leave pay. Paid parental leave can be taken before, after or at the same time as other leave entitlements, such as annual leave or employer funded maternity leave, to best suit a family’s circumstances. A parent will be eligible if they have individual income of $150,000 or less in the financial year before the claim or the birth of the baby, whichever is the earlier. This is a generous income test but consistent with the principle of targeting government support to those most in need. Unlike the Liberals’ policy, which allows million-dollar salary earners to receive payments from the taxpayer, our scheme targets those working people who need it most. The thought bubble from the Leader of the Opposition would have some parents paid at the rate of $2,884 per week for paid parental leave whilst others would receive only $543.78 per week. So some people would receive roughly five times the amount for the same event, being the birth of a child and the subsequent period of leave. We know that all mothers ‘work’ regardless of whether they are at home or in a paid job and that most mothers will spend time in and out of the workforce depending on their circumstances. We will continue to support mothers whether they are in a paid job or at home. The baby bonus and the family tax benefit will remain available for families not eligible for the scheme and for those who choose not to participate in the scheme. The government’s scheme will help employers enhance the family-friendly workplace conditions many already offer. The paid parental leave of 18 weeks is additional to any paid scheme already provided by an employer. For many Australian workers, there will be a substantial increase in their entitlements and as such they will be able to consider a more extensive period of paid leave. For example, University of Melbourne staff with more than five years experience receive 24 weeks of leave at full pay, and the addition of the government’s scheme will increase the total paid leave to 42 weeks. Many industries have parental leave schemes that have been built up over many years through industrial agreements negotiated between unions and employers. They change wildly depending on the industry and, quite often, the employer. Australian unions and employers that have been involved in those negotiations over the years to bring about advances in workplace conditions, especially for working women, should be congratulated. The scheme that we have now put on top is in many cases a fantastic bonus. This new government scheme will augment current entitlements and extend paid leave to employees that do not have any form of paid leave and to business owners. The government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme is fair, balanced and economically responsible. The scheme will benefit employers by assisting them to retain skilled and valuable staff without having to fund parental leave pay. Employers are integral to the rollout of Australia’s first national paid parental leave scheme. Most women will receive government funded paid parental leave through their employers. By receiving parental leave pay through their usual pay cycle, just as other workplace entitlements are paid, women will remain connected to their workplaces and, I hope, be more likely to return to work at that workplace. Previously, to access some form of leave, some women would resign their jobs and receive their leave entitlements. As the employment relationship had been severed, returning to that employer was always going to be less likely. Employers will provide parental leave pay for their long-term employees—those with at least 12 months of continuous service. Other working mothers will receive parental leave pay from the Family Assistance Office. The Paid Parental Leave scheme has been introduced at a time when the right to request a return to work on reduced or flexible hours has been enshrined in the changes that were part of the scrapping of the Work Choices legislation. Very soon Australian families will be able to incorporate the government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme, any employer scheme they may have and a return to work at reduced hours into their plans. This will mean that leaving the workforce for a period to care for a baby and then returning to the previous position becomes the norm for our community, as it always should have been. This will have great benefits for our community, reducing the financial pressures on young families, and it will have great benefits for Australian businesses as they can retain their skilled and knowledgeable employees, who will be much more likely to return to their workplace. I commend these bills to the House. 4594 17:26:00 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 1 0 Ms OWENS —I am proud to stand to speak to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010. I have been looking forward to its introduction to parliament, as have many people in my electorate. As of 1 January next year it will deliver, for the first time in Australia’s history, paid parental leave. This bill will go down with the great Labor reforms—the pension, Medicare, compulsory superannuation and now paid parental leave. It is that important. It has been a very, very long time coming. There are many people in the community who have been working for decades towards a national paid parental leave scheme. We are so far behind that we are currently one of only two—yes, two—OECD countries without a national paid parental leave scheme. But, as of 1 January next year, eligible parents will receive 18 weeks paid leave at the minimum wage. That date will be an extremely important one for many people in the community. Our Paid Parental Leave scheme is fully costed and funded and delivered as promised. Early in our term, I am sure there were many women out there who had lobbied so hard for this for so many years who held their breath. We finally had a government prepared to introduce a paid parental leave scheme and we were faced with a global financial crisis that wiped an estimated $210 billion off the bottom line for the government over the forward estimates. Many people wondered whether the budget that was coming up would contain a paid parental leave scheme. Many people held their breath. But it was there. It is being delivered in spite of the financial downturn and here it is in the parliament today. Currently there are around 176,000 employed women who have babies each year. They have been entitled to unpaid parental leave until now. Some have been receiving paid parental leave but many have not. Most return to work following the birth of their child. Quite a substantial number—about 126,000 of that 176,000—return to work with the employer they had prior to the child’s birth. Around 11 per cent return to work before the child is three months old, 26 per cent before the child is six months old, 57 per cent before the child is 12 months old and 74 per cent before the child is 18 months old. The Paid Parental Leave scheme increases the flexibility for parents. I am sure we all hope that parents who might be in financial difficulties with the birth of a child will be able to spend some more important time with their baby in those early months. For many people in the workforce, paid parental leave already exists. According to the ABS in 2008, 40 per cent of the then 8½ million employees were entitled to paid parental leave, while 44.9 per cent of female employees were entitled to paid maternity leave. The highest coverage was in areas of public administration and safety—where 82 per cent of employees were covered—and in electricity, gas, water, finance and insurance and education and training, which are mainly government and similar kinds of organisations. The worst coverage was in areas such as cafes, restaurants, the retail trade, administrative and support services and arts and recreational services—that is, many of the industries that have the highest numbers of female workers. Submissions to the Productivity Commission indicate that many of the bigger businesses will continue to offer the added benefits of paid parental leave as a way to attract and retain quality staff and they will do that over and above the entitlements in this Paid Parental Leave scheme. The scheme has been designed so that government paid parental leave can run concurrently with or after any leave that is provided by an employer. For many parents—and I say ‘parents’ because both the father and the mother are entitled to leave under this scheme, although not at the same time—particularly those in low-paid jobs, there is very little opportunity for paid parental leave at this time, and that causes so many of them to return to work far earlier than desirable. It also leads to those parents using up other forms of leave in order to be able to spend as much time as possible at home with their child. It also leaves them short of leave later in the year and adds considerable stress to families. Families do incredibly important things for the community. They raise children, they educate children and they support those children until they reach working age. We all benefit when it goes right and it costs us all when it goes wrong. It costs us in health, in crime, in welfare benefits and in public housing. These are all costs that we would rather not have, particularly if they come from the difficulties that a child has in its family life. This bill normalises what actually happens in the workforce: parents work, stop work for a while when a child is born and then return to the workforce. Requiring businesses that have these ongoing employees to make the payments through their normal payroll process helps keep the worker in touch and normalises what happens in the workforce for both employers and the community. The bill also provides support for a family at a very critical time. The birth of a child profoundly changes the world and adds new complexities and, sometimes, strains on the relationships both between the parents and among others in the family. The mother also requires time to physically recover and establish a bond and a feeding routine with the child. If the mother chooses to breastfeed, paid parental leave is, of course, incredibly important. It is worth focusing on that for a small part of this speech. Overall evidence suggests that there are significant benefits from exclusive breastfeeding for up to six months. The benefits include: reductions in a wide range of infant conditions—for example, respiratory tract infections and eczema; cognitive gains; and reduction of potential adult impacts such as obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure. There is considerable scientific evidence which demonstrates the benefits to us all of a strong breastfeeding culture. Mothers also gain psychological benefits, faster recovery from the birth, reduced risks of breast cancer and ovarian cancer and possibly a reduced risk of postmenopausal hip fractures and osteoporosis. For many women who have to return to work because of the financial circumstances of their family, breastfeeding is not possible for as long as they would wish to do it. This bill is extremely important in that regard. It does provide mothers with greater flexibility to determine how they raise their child. Many decisions need to be made in designing a paid parental leave scheme: how long the leave is to be, who is to pay for it, whether fathers can access it and much more. This scheme has been developed over two years of work. It is not, like the one proposed by the opposition, a thought bubble. A substantial contribution to its development was made by the Productivity Commission, which delivered a report that in the main has been accepted by the government and its recommendations incorporated in the bill. It was necessary to do that substantial research because debate on the scheme had essentially been stalled under the previous government. We heard the now Leader of the Opposition say quite openly while he was in government that paid parental leave would be introduced over his dead body. So while the community were still talking about it and parents were still talking about it, the debate had been well and truly stalled under the former government. Women make up a substantial part of the workforce and have been incredibly affected by the lack of paid parental leave until now. Around 45 per cent of those in the working population are women, but our participation rate during the peak child-bearing years is lower than for women in other leading industrialised countries. In Australia, workforce participation by single women is rising while by single males it is actually falling slightly. By partnered females, there has been a substantial increase in workforce participation and a slight decrease by partnered males. So the trend is overwhelmingly that of an increase in the number of women working, yet around one-third of mothers return to work very quickly—that is, within six months—of the birth, and around two-thirds of those return to work because they need the money. This Paid Parental Leave scheme provides real choices for parents and is remarkably flexible. It allows parents to choose to remain with the baby bonus and family tax benefits if they prefer that option. It allows parents to transfer the 18 weeks from one parent to another if they choose to share the role of primary carer over that period of time. That 18 weeks must be taken in a block, but it can be taken at any time within that 12-month period. So the scheme allows parents to consider the use of other forms of leave and it allows parents to share the role with other family members—it provides an incredible amount of flexibility. We expect that businesses that already have substantial paid leave will add to this scheme. Submissions to the Productivity Commission confirm that businesses that offer levels of paid parental leave now in order to attract and retain good quality staff are likely to build on this scheme and continue to offer benefits over and above this scheme. We have heard from some that the range of things being discussed with employers range from child care to topping up this scheme and extending leave beyond this scheme. Again, it is incredibly flexible for businesses to offer greater incentives to attract and retain staff. Our scheme is in complete contrast to the thought bubble put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. Our scheme is costed and funded. It is carefully thought through and is backed up by substantial work by the Productivity Commission and consultation across the community. On the other hand, the opposition’s scheme was an idea for the moment. They are still trying to explain it and define it, and of course it is paid for by a great big new tax on business. It is not costed. As the Productivity Commission report noted—and they considered a range of options similar to this—the opposition’s scheme favours those on the highest salaries. On the other hand, our scheme tends to be more powerful for those on lower wages and casual workers. It is very strong on making sure that people in casual work can access the scheme. A mother may be eligible if she has worked continuously for at least 10 of the 13 months before the birth or adoption of her child and has worked for at least 330 hours in that 10-month period. That is around one day a week. In addition to full-time workers, women in part-time work, seasonal work, casual work or contract work and the self-employed may be able to access the Paid Parental Leave scheme—many for the first time. Because many contractors, seasonal workers and casual workers work irregular patterns, the scheme allows a person to have a break of up to eight weeks between working days and still be considered to have worked continuously. Parental leave will also be available to parents who work in their own business, a family business or on a farm. A person will be eligible if they have an individual income of $150,000 or less in the financial year before the claim or the birth of their baby, whichever is earlier. It is based on an individual income of $150,000, not a couple’s income. Casual workers are by far the big winners from the first Paid Parental Leave scheme. Women are far more likely than other workers to be casual. They make up almost 57 per cent of all casual employees in Australia. Almost 20 per cent of employed women work in casual jobs and receive no paid leave entitlements at this point. For them this is a major step forward. Arguably, casual workers would be under the most financial strain after the birth of a child. Under our scheme, an eligible mother who is a contract worker but whose contract finishes before the baby is born will still receive parental leave pay, providing she meets the work test. Parents who are not employed at the time of the birth of their child will be paid directly by the Family Assistance Office. Those who were employed until the birth of their child will receive the payment via their employer. Essentially, their parental leave pay will go through the usual pay cycle. That, again, helps women remain connected to their workplace. This scheme is introduced without significant additional burdens on the employer. It is estimated that around nine per cent of all businesses will be involved in the Paid Parental Leave scheme in any year and only three per cent of small businesses will be involved. So for businesses, in terms of their company payroll, it will be business as usual, but for families this will be a major step forward in allowing them to spend time with the new addition to the family—bonding as a family and setting up important routines. Importantly, it will provide the mother with an opportunity to recover physically from the birth. The government understands the importance of reviewing schemes such as this. We have allocated almost $3 million for this purpose. We have committed to a review of the scheme in two years. That is incredibly important. I am sure that many of those who fought so hard for this—they have been acknowledged by several speakers today and I acknowledge them again—have not finished. In the two-year review, I am sure they will be back again and they will be watching this scheme very carefully in the interests of families around the country. We have committed to look at two issues in particular: paid paternity leave and superannuation contributions for the period of paid parental leave. I am particularly glad that we have considered looking at those two issues. They have both been raised by people in my community since we first made announcements about the scheme. We have waited far too long for this. Australian families have waited too long for a national paid parental leave scheme. I am glad to see it introduced to the House at this time. I hope that the opposition decides to vote for it. At the moment, you never know what the opposition will do in the Senate, but I am hoping, for the sake of Australian families, that they get behind this scheme and vote for it. It is a major win for Australian families. I thank the minister for her work and commend the bill to the House. 4598 17:44:00 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP SE4 Mackellar LP 0 0 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —In rising to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 and the amendment moved by the opposition, I highlight the fact that we actually have competing policies in the way paid parental leave should be tackled. Clearly the participation of women in the workforce is a key issue in discussing the way in which the best policy development is made. If we simply look at what is on offer, we see that both the coalition’s scheme and Labor’s scheme are opt-in schemes subject to eligibility, and the default is the baby bonus. After that, the two schemes part company quite dramatically. The coalition is offering 26 weeks of paid maternity leave; Labor is offering 18 weeks. The coalition is offering a replacement wage or federal minimum wage, whichever is the greater, with a cap of $150,000 per annum; the Labor Party is offering only the minimum wage of $543.78 per week. The minimum payment for 26 weeks under the coalition’s scheme would be $14,138 gross; under Labor’s scheme, $9,788 gross for 18 weeks. There is a cap, as I said, under the coalition’s scheme. The replacement wage would be paid up to an annual salary of $150,000. A carer earning over this amount would be limited to the cap. Under the Labor Party’s scheme, there is no paid parental leave if the primary carer’s annual salary exceeds $150,000. Quite clearly, the Labor Party is biased against women who are in any way successful or indeed who may be the primary income earner for their family. There is no consideration of the fact that things have changed. Labor still thinks that it is just men who are the dominant earners and that women can get by on part-time work. The coalition has a totally different consideration of the way the world has changed and knows that there are more and more women who are in fact the dominant earner. Under the coalition’s proposal superannuation would be paid in full at nine per cent; under the Labour Party’s proposal there is no superannuation payment at all. Under the coalition’s scheme, full-time, part-time and casual workers would be eligible if they worked at least one day a week for at least 10 months of the 13 months prior to the expected date of birth or adoption—and I was very pleased to see adoption feature in both policies, because it was a strong recommendation of a committee that I chaired in the last parliament. Under the Labor Party’s scheme, full-time, part-time and casual workers who work one day a week for at least 10 months of the 13 months prior to the expected date of the birth or adoption will be subject to a similar requirement. Under the coalition’s scheme there would be paternity leave of up to two weeks of the 26 weeks, subject to consultation; under Labor’s scheme, none. The net cost of the scheme proposed by the coalition would be funded by a 1.7 per cent levy on companies, based on taxable income above $5 million. Under Labor, the entire scheme would be funded by the taxpayer from consolidated revenue. The coalition’s scheme would be administered by the federal government through the Family Assistance Office, which would be responsible for the administration of paid parental leave. The importance of that is it would not add to the costs of businesses, who would have to make those payments. However, under Labor’s scheme, the employer would be responsible for the administration of those payments, with some exceptions. The cost of the scheme under the coalition would be $2,700 million and under Labor a paltry $260 million. It is a case of getting what you pay for. Labor’s scheme really is nothing more than a slight extension of the baby bonus scheme introduced by the coalition. That was introduced at the $5,000 mark, representing then the equivalent of some 12 to 14 weeks of paid maternity leave but without discriminating between women who were in the paid workforce and those who were not. But it has become quite clear, with the dependence on productivity in this country resting on the participation of women, that it is about time that we had a serious paid parental leave scheme. Again, during the last parliament I chaired an inquiry into balancing work and family, and it produced an excellent report, which I can still recommend. We highlighted certain facts in that report that are pertinent to this debate. For instance, one chapter in the report covered financial disincentives to starting a family in terms of loss of salary and wages. The evidence we took showed that if a woman loses salary—if she leaves the workforce for a period or reduces the hours that she works—that can be a disincentive. People who leave the workforce or decrease their hours either stop accruing on-the-job skills and experience or accrue them at a reduced rate, which affects the hourly wage rate. If they are absent from the labour market, that leads to an atrophy in their skills and experience, reducing the employee’s hourly wage rate. It was found that the simple fact of having a child can reduce a woman’s lifetime chance of being employed by seven per cent. The authors of the report that made that finding, Matthew Gray and Professor Bruce Chapman, also found that on average a woman would lose 37 per cent of her lifetime earnings by having one child. By having paid parental leave which is at the same salary that you are receiving, and by being able to have that for six months and to readjust your family circumstances, your chance of returning to the workforce at your full capacity increases dramatically. To have a sort of subsistence payment where you will stay out for just 18 weeks is more likely to have the effects that were found in the report as lessening the skills of women and their capacity to earn. It was interesting taking evidence from the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers Australia, who noted of their female membership that 69 per cent did not have children. By comparison, the current estimate for the Australian population generally is that 16 per cent of women are likely to remain without children. They concluded that the very high proportion of childless female professionals found in the association’s surveys reflects the reality that professional women with children are leaving the workforce or reducing their level of workforce participation due to family responsibilities. This is clearly a loss of women of that calibre to the nation as a whole, let alone for their own personal use of their skills and their qualifications. In this inquiry we also commissioned Access Economics to do some research for us about the importance of the participation of women in the paid workforce. They found that GDP in Australia could increase by 4.4 per cent more than that estimated by the government in the Intergenerational report. As a reform initiative, increased women’s participation would be placed above the 2000 tax reform at a 2.5 per cent increase in GDP and below national competition policy of 5.5 per cent. In their analysis, Access Economics commented that women’s employment had risen more quickly than predicted in the 2002 Intergenerational report, but they found that, if women’s participation only grew through part-time work, the increase and benefit to the nation as a whole would be far less than if it was an increase in full-time work. For anybody who has had a child, coming home with that child is a fair shock to the system. We are not really very well prepared for what it means, but you have to learn quickly. To be able to have full remuneration at your proper salary through that period and adjust your life and get it ready so that you can utilise the skills that you have acquired and not lose them is a very, very important fact for women. When we talk about the impact that policy has on the participation rate, it cannot be stressed too much. OECD research has shown that women are very sensitive to policy initiatives. They do make an analysis and consider the impact that a policy will have on them personally. In other countries in the OECD where they have paid parental leave there is a much higher return to full-time work than there is in Australia. We rate very poorly. I think this initiative by the coalition to give true parental paid leave is a huge step forward. I have heard many cynical comments from those opposite—they get repeated ad nauseam, so presumably they were put out in their speaking notes—saying that Tony Abbott has said previously that he was not in favour of paid paternal leave. They find quotes from the past, but when Tony Abbott stood at this dispatch box and spoke to this bill he said quite clearly he had listened to his wife and his now grown-up children on this question. To me, that shows someone who is prepared to see that life has changed, and all the snide comments from across the other side will not make a dent in the fact that here is a man who is prepared to listen to a female point of view. And the female point of view is quite clearly that we are sensitive to policy and, if the policy is a good policy and enables women to benefit from it, we will respond in a positive way. The coalition’s paid parental leave scheme means that there is a real chance for women to organise their lives and have children as well. The baby bonus—which, as I said, was initiated as a start to paid parental leave—has had a desired effect. Our birth rate was below replacement levels. As a result of the baby bonus, our birth rate has risen. You can try to find arguments to the contrary, but empirically that is just the case. The result is that we have made a start. The Labor Party is merely extending those weeks and the pay rate is at the minimalist rate. We have been criticised by those on the other side for saying we want the cap to be $150,000 but that people who earn above that can have up to that $150,000 because we would like women who are successful to have children as well. I would put to you that the women who gave evidence that I referred to earlier—who are engineers and scientists and managers—are just the sorts of people we would like to have children as well as others. We do not want them to be discriminated against so that they are forced into not choosing to have a family as well as having their professional life. I simply say that, in speaking to this bill, we are in the position where we have two competing policies. One is worth $260 million, which makes not one iota of a difference to the decision-making ability of women to say, ‘This is good for me.’ But what is on offer from the coalition at $2.7 billion in cost means that women will have a real choice to have a family, to have a good bonding time, to prepare themselves during the six months to return to the paid workforce and to add to the productivity of the nation. As I said before, you cannot have productivity gains in this country unless women are participating in the workforce. We are dependent on that participation. And in the future it will be the case that more women will have tertiary education qualifications than men. We cannot afford to force them out of the workforce by treating paid parental leave as some sort of tokenistic gesture. The time has come to be really sensible and serious about it, and by making this announcement Tony Abbott has done just that. The legislation that is before us has had an amendment to it moved. We said we will not deny the bill a second reading. But, clearly, come the election, the people will have a real choice and they will be able to decide that the only way they can get a decent paid parental leave scheme is to change the government. 4601 18:01:00 Cheeseman, Darren, MP HW7 Corangamite ALP 1 0 Mr CHEESEMAN —Today I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 that are before us. These bills have been a long time coming and I am proud to be a part of a government that is introducing them to the Australian parliament. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission granted men and women the equal minimum wage back in 1972. This was a big step toward equality, a very substantial step forward. But, in reality, the gulf between male and female pay and benefits at that point in time was very great, and many steps have been required to be taken since. In fact, we still today have a very large gap between female and male wages. The average industry pay gap today between men and women is still about 17 per cent. In my own electorate of Corangamite there are some 6,000 women working in clerical and administrative jobs, nearly 5,000 women working as community service workers and some 4,000 working in sales. These women are also likely to be employed as casuals and part-time workers, and are more likely to have interrupted work patterns as they take time from the workplace to have children The flow-on implications include women being more likely to be dependent on pensions as they get older, and having accumulated less superannuation. Incredibly, the pay gap has actually grown since 1992. In one of the world’s great privileged societies that we live in here in Australia, we also have one of great shames—that is, we still do not have, in a meaningful way, equal opportunity between men and women, particularly in the workplace and in terms of taking time off to rear one’s family. In plain English, this is just not fair; it needs to be fixed. That is of course what the Rudd government is very determined to do. We want to redress the trends and the prejudices of the Howard government. The bills we have before us today will go some way in helping to bridge the gap of the pay inequality between men and women in Australia. I know in my electorate, thousands of mothers, and for that matter fathers, will certainly be helped by paid parental leave. I thank the minister for these particular bills and the policy work undertaken in the lead-up to the 2007 election and beyond. Government funded paid parental leave will pay mothers and adoptive parents who have been working and have had a baby or adopted a child on or after 1 January 2011. This is very positive news for working families across my electorate, and indeed across this nation. To be eligible for the scheme parents will need to meet the paid parental leave work test, income test and residency requirements, spelt out within the act. The parents must also be the primary caregivers of the children. The parent will also be entitled to 18 weeks of paid parental leave. Today, as these bills begin their passage through the Australian parliament, is a great moment for working families. These bills will allow families the freedom to have children and not be completely hamstrung by their household budget. This gives working Australians real choice as to when they can have a family. These bills give more choice by allowing parents to choose when they receive their paid parental leave. Parents can start receiving payments on the birth of a child or, in cases of adoption, on the placement of that child into their care, and they will receive all payments in the first 12 months. These payments must be taken in a continuous sequence. In reality parents have a choice to take the 18 weeks whenever they think they need to in the first 12 months of their child’s life. This will provide much more flexibility for parents when deciding to have children. Importantly, these bills give the opportunity for both parents to receive the payment. As a father, along with many fathers in this chamber and in this nation, I know that we also want to participate in the rearing of our kids. If a parent returns to work before the 18 weeks, their partner maybe eligible to receive the unused proportion of the paid parental leave arrangement. This is great news for working families, particularly those who choose to jointly raise their children. Significantly, when planning these bills, the circumstances of a very wide range of families has been taken into consideration. We have tried to make sure that we cater for people in different circumstances. Not every family is the same, and we have tried to make sure that the government recognises that with these arrangements. Because of these bills, many families in my electorate of Corangamite will have real options when making decisions about having children. Under these arrangements, they will have more options as to when to take time off, when to have children and who will have responsibility for raising the children. These bills also provide for subordinate legislation to give eligibility for parental leave pay to other carers. These cases will be exceptional circumstances, and the pay will be provided to the primary claimant or a secondary claimant. Exceptional circumstances will be granted where parents are incapable of caring for a child or where there have been orders resulting in a mother and her partner no longer caring for a child. Parents who are not eligible for, or do not choose to receive, paid parental leave may be eligible to receive the baby bonus and the family tax benefit under the usual rules. The Rudd government is committed to making life easier for working families. It will launch an online paid parental leave estimator in September to assist families in making these critical decisions. The process for parents will be simple, and they will be able to use the agency that they deal with already. Claims will be lodged with the Family Assistance Office and the office will assess these claims. To give parents more flexibility, they will be able to lodge claims three months prior to the expected date of birth of a child or the placement into their care of an adopted child. When the scheme is fully implemented, parental leave pay will be provided by employers to their long-term employees. Someone who has been employed for 12 months or more prior to the expected date of birth will be classed as a long-term employee. These procedures will make applying for paid parental leave very easy for working families across this nation and in my seat of Corangamite. A notice to an employer will be sent by the Family Assistance Office if they are required to pay employee parental leave pay. These bills provide an easy process for parents and also for employers. This is a great step forward for working Australian families. The Family Assistance Office will ensure that funds are made available to an employer in advance so the employer can meet their obligation to provide parental leave payments. This will make life very easy for businesses, including small businesses, in my electorate. If employers adhere to their normal and proper pay practices when providing parental leave pay, they will not breach any of their obligations under the paid parental leave scheme. I am very excited for the many parents in my electorate and I am confident that this will assist small businesses across the country. I believe the opposition should support these bills to ensure that working men and women across this nation can access paid parental leave. Most of those opposite supported the Work Choices legislation, which made it much more difficult for women, including women in my electorate. I know those opposite have a leader that is deeply committed to Work Choices and deeply committed to denying women the opportunity of taking paid parental leave. On the other hand, the Rudd government is committed to real, practical assistance for young families in accessing paid parental leave, to ensure that we close the wage gap between men and women. I ask Tony Abbott and the opposition to support the government’s efforts in this regard. There is one woman that I would particularly like to pay credit to for her contribution to my life and the lives of many working Victorians. That is my former employer, Karen Batt, the state secretary of the Community and Public Sector Union. Karen has been in that office for a very long time. When she was first elected as state secretary of the Community and Public Sector Union, most of the Victorian public service did not have paid parental leave, maternity leave or carers leave. Through her efforts and the efforts of the union, when I left that union in 2007, almost all of the Victorian public service had arrangements that enabled families to choose when to take time off. I would like to commend Karen Batt and her colleagues for that tremendous work, and commend these bills to the House. 4603 18:13:00 Collins, Julie, MP HWM Franklin ALP 1 0 Ms COLLINS —I would like to start my comments in relation to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the cognate bill by saying how wonderful it is to be in this place debating not whether we should have paid parental leave but what it should look like. As a mother of three who had two children without paid parental leave and one child with it, I can say from personal experience what a difference parental leave pay makes. I am sure that many families around Australia can tell of similar experiences. I want to talk about the history of paid parental leave. I think it is important to look back and see how we got to this point today. I want to go back to 1973, when maternity leave for Commonwealth public servants was introduced by the then Whitlam government. It was the first form of paid maternity leave for public servants in this country. What a landmark decision that was. In 1979, the ACTU, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, put forward a test case which allowed for maternity leave to be inserted into federal awards. In 2002, there was a HREOC, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, discussion paper which talked about paid parental leave and its implications for women in the workforce. It talked about the impact of women not having access to paid parental leave on their participation in the workforce and the productivity losses that caused in this country. We have come a long way since then, thank goodness. Although Australia is one of only two OECD countries without a national paid parental leave scheme, we are here today not debating whether we should have one but debating what it should look like—and I am really pleased about that. The Productivity Commission report, which we commissioned some time ago, has some key points that I want to talk about. In 2007, around 2,000 female employees—or 54 per cent of women in the workforce—had some form of paid parental leave available to them. Some of them had paid parental leave in full-time highly paid work and others were part-time workers. While all employees were covered by unpaid parental leave legislation, not all employees met the eligibility criteria. Around 17 per cent of employee mothers and 15 per cent of employee fathers were ineligible for any unpaid parental leave. Around 72 per cent of mothers in paid work take leave around childbirth. The vast majority of women not taking leave resign from work, and 75 per cent of fathers in paid work take leave around the time of childbirth. On average, mothers taking leave from paid work remain on leave for around 37 weeks. A mother’s leave is usually a combination of several types of leave. The use of leave is normally reflective of the availability of the leave and under what conditions it is paid. Unpaid maternity leave makes up the majority of the leave taken. Most of the leave fathers take is annual leave. Of mothers in paid work prior to childbirth, 11 per cent return to paid work within three months, 26 per cent return within six months, 57 per cent within 12 months and 74 per cent within 18 months. Casual employees rely heavily on unpaid parental leave and other unspecified types of unpaid leave and are marginally more likely to return to work early and less likely to return in the long run. Mothers with more children are more likely to be outside the workforce prior to childbirth; however, if those women are already in the workforce prior to childbirth, they are much more likely to return to work. So it is important that we have some form of leave that covers parents that want to take leave when they have children. I am particularly pleased that in our paid parental leave scheme, as the member for Corangamite mentioned before me, fathers are included—it is a paid parental leave, not a maternity leave scheme. As a mother of three children, I know that my own husband has taken much leave in the rearing of our children, and he would not have missed that for anything in the world. I am sure that many working families in my electorate appreciate the choice that this Paid Parental Leave scheme offers to parents. It is available to either parent, and I think that is really important. Our Paid Parental Leave scheme will be available for around 148,000 people each year. It will commence on 1 January 2011, should it get passed by the parliament. It will provide up to 18 weeks parental leave at the national minimum wage, which is around $545 per week, while parents stay at home to look after their baby or adopted child. In addition to full-time workers, as I have said before in referring to the Productivity Commission report, it is important that women working part time, those in seasonal or casual contract work and the self-employed are able to access paid parental leave—many for the first time. I think that is a really important part of our scheme. A mother will be eligible if she has worked continuously for 10 of the 13 months before the birth or adoption of her child and has worked for at least 330 hours in that 10-month period or around one day per week. To meet the needs of contractors and seasonal or casual workers who have irregular work patterns, a person can take a break of up to eight weeks between working days and still be considered to have worked continuously. Paid parental leave will also be available to parents who work in their own family business, such as a farm. Generally, it will be the mother who claims the payment in the first instance, as she usually provides the primary care for the child during the initial months of the child’s life. However, it is becoming increasingly common for the father to spend time as the primary carer of their child during the first year. The legislation allows all or part of the parental leave to be transferred to the child’s other parent, provided they also meet the eligibility requirements and are the primary carer of the child for that time. The paid parental leave must be taken in one continuous 18-week block within 12 months of the child’s birth or adoption, including in cases where the payment is transferred to the other parent or carer. A person cannot work during the paid parental leave period, although they can stay connected with their workplace through ‘keeping in touch’ provisions. A person will be eligible for the Paid Parental Leave scheme if they have an individual income of $150,000 or less in the financial year before the birth or adoption of their child. This is a generous income test but is consistent with the principle of targeting government support to those who need it most. To apply, a person must be living in Australia and be an Australian citizen or permanent resident. Families receiving paid parental leave will not be entitled to receive the baby bonus or family tax benefit part B for the duration of their paid parental leave. The government estimates that more than 85 per cent of families will be better off taking paid parental leave. These families will, on average, receive around $2,000 more than if they had chosen the baby bonus. This is after tax has been paid and other family assistance has been taken into account. Our plan is fully costed and fully funded and is expected to commence on 1 January 2011. We have previously debated in this chamber what form of paid parental leave we may have, but we must not lose sight of the fact that we need some certainty for parents. There are parents or families out there now, planning to have children, and they need some certainty about whether or not the Paid Parental Leave scheme will be in place from 1 January 2011. I urge those opposite to consider supporting our scheme regardless of whether their own amendments get up or not and to not delay its passage through the Senate—or in any other form in the parliament—so that mothers, fathers and families have some certainty as to when the Paid Parental Leave scheme will start. We have heard from those opposite about their scheme, which I understand includes a 1.7 per cent tax on 3,000 or 5,000 companies at a cost of $2.7 billion. It is six months, often for very wealthy individuals. There is no income test and no payment for stay-at-home parents. 00AMV Hunt, Gregory, MP Mr Hunt —There is an income test. HWM Collins, Julie, MP Ms COLLINS —It is a very high income test. The parental leave is available to most working mothers, even those on very high salaries. That is in stark contrast to the Labor Party’s plan, which is fully costed and fully funded and which has a commencement date. Previously the Leader of the Opposition said that there would be a paid parental leave scheme over his dead body. He is now saying that he has seen the light or something. I do not know whether that is the ‘gospel truth’ or whether it is another commitment that will be discontinued in the election campaign. But I hope that the opposition are sincere about this. I hope that they are debating it in good faith and that they pass a paid parental leave scheme regardless of whether or not their amendments get up. People out there will be listening carefully to whether or not the opposition intend to support the scheme, regardless of whether their amendments get up. People are planning to have families. It is really important that those opposite do something that is in the best interests of the families of this country, stop opposing just for opposition’s sake and support what is a very important scheme that will have a very large impact on the lives of the working families in this country. 4606 18:23:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 1 0 Ms GRIERSON —I am very pleased and very proud to rise to speak in support of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the related bill. For me, this is legislation that represents all of the good things that Labor governments always strive for: empowering everyone in our communities, empowering women. This is also the sort of legislation that occurs when women represent women. I am very proud of the women on this side of the House. I congratulate Minister Macklin. It is good to have people who understand the importance of paid parental leave in this country and the importance of that leave to women. I am a woman who has been in the workforce for almost four decades. This should never have taken this long. It has been overdue for so long. We thought that the 1970s were the enlightened era, yet this has taken until now. It is about time. This is historic legislation. It is legislation that families and women in Australia will cherish forever. They should mark the passing of it in their calendars as a special date to celebrate. It is to the shame of the previous government that we are only one of two OECD countries that have not already introduced a paid parental leave scheme. Finally, with this legislation, we will catch up to the rest of the world. It is truly astounding. Traditionally, only half of Australian women had access to paid parental leave. It is absolutely undeniable that the women who have had access to paid parental leave are generally public servants working for governments and people in higher paid professional positions. That is certainly not fair. This Labor government cares about equity, fairness and opportunity for everyone. This legislation addresses that inequity and makes sure that all Australian women who work have access to paid parental leave. With the safe passage of these bills through the House, it is expected that almost 150,000 families across Australia will benefit. The Rudd government staged its seventh community cabinet in the Hunter on 29 September 2008 and on that same day the Productivity Commission report was handed down. After congratulating the staff of the John Hunter Hospital, our big regional hospital, for their care, the Prime Minister—with Jenny Macklin, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Treasurer all there—made this statement: Having just visited the midwives and looked at some of the outreach work that they do, it’s quite plain that one of the essential services they provide is this combination of pre-natal care and post-natal care. Post natal visits out to new mums, to make sure that mum and bub are doing well. In fact we met a new bub today, his name is Carson who now shares a birthday with the Deputy Prime Minister, Happy Birthday Julia. Carson is 5 hours old, Julia is just a little bit older than that. But this brings us to the whole question of part of the challenge for the future which is the future needs of the Australian economy. The Australian economy of the future will have stay at home mums who we’ll be supporting with the baby bonus, but also mums in the paid workforce who we will also be supporting with paid maternity leave and it’s time Australia bit the bullet on this. It’s going to be a challenge to make sure we get the exact policy settings right because we are in the midst of serious global economic challenges. But we are determined to get that balance right for the future. We’ve had 12 years of neglect on this, it’s time Australia bit the bullet on paid maternity leave, we intend to get on with the job and we will get the policy setting right once we work our way through the detail of this report. Thank you, Prime Minister. As a women and a mother of two women, I was very proud that first commitment to paid parental leave was made in my electorate. I am proud to stand here and see it being delivered. We will get to the opposition’s role in that later. This legislation will support women to maintain their connection to the workforce and at the same time boost workforce participation. For the first time, casual and part-time workers, as well as contractors and the self-employed, will be eligible for paid parental leave. More importantly, it will ensure that new parents will have the financial security to take the time off work to give a newborn baby the attention that it needs and deserves. And we will see businesses benefiting from the retention of skilled female staff while not having to pay for that maternity leave. That is vital. It is an important difference between the opposition’s policy and ours. When you push the burden of paying for parental leave onto business, you make women very undesirable as workers. That is never acceptable. It is a sensitivity that the opposition overlook. You cannot have business see the employment of women as a risk factor or as a financial burden in any way. That would be to the detriment of the whole skill base of our nation and to the strength of our economy. This scheme is the right one and it is the culmination of a long campaign to install Australia’s first ever paid parental leave scheme. There are many individuals who have worked tirelessly to see it come to fruition, too many to name here. The legislation before the House is primarily based on recommendations from the Productivity Commission, which undertook an extensive inquiry to get the scheme right. As a result, we have come up with a fair, equitable and fully costed scheme that will benefit families and small business. From 1 January 2011, new parents will be eligible for up to 18 weeks paid parental leave. This would consist of the national minimum wage payment of $544 a week at this stage to take time off to care for their child, either a biological child or an adopted child. It will be available to parents who earn less than $150,000 a year, live in Australia and meet residency requirements. They must have also worked roughly one day a week for at least 10 of the 13 months prior to the birth or adoption of their child. I think this provision is important recognition of the fact that many women do choose to stay in the workforce on a casual basis between having children and while raising their family. The Rudd government will still cater for parents who cannot access the proposed scheme. Families who are not eligible or who choose not to participate will still be able to access the baby bonus and family tax benefits as long as they are eligible for those payments. It is estimated that 85 per cent of families will be better off under the scheme. On average, they will receive around $2,000 more than if they choose the baby bonus alone. This government funded paid parental leave can be taken in conjunction with or in addition to employer provided maternity and other leave. It is a really wonderful thing to think that if you already have an entitlement to paid parental leave you can add that on to the beginning, the end or anywhere you like with our scheme. I hope the fact that parents are able to access two lots of paid parental leave will drive more employers into accepting they have a responsibility to their workforce and establishing a paid parental leave scheme in their particular workplace. It is something that would enhance what we are doing. Parents will not be obliged to return to work once their 18 weeks of paid parental leave have concluded. Under the new National Employment Standards, new parents have a right to a full year of unpaid leave and the right to request another 12 months unpaid leave. The 18 weeks of paid parental leave can be taken at any time in the first year after the birth. There are several amendments included in this bill. They go to the definition of income, the definitions and rules around social security payments, clarifying the integration of paid parental leave with family tax benefit payments. The amendments also serve to avoid breaches or deal with breaches of social security arrangements. That is the correct way. This is a well-rounded scheme, one that is fully workable. It has garnered and enjoyed support from across the industry spectrum, from Sharan Burrow of the ACTU—and I praise Sharan for all her hard work and leadership in this area, and I wish her great success in her international appointment—from Heather Ridout, CEO of the Australian Industry Group, and from Katie Lahey of the Business Council of Australia. It certainly has the support of women in the Rudd government and women in the community. It is wonderful to see women leading because, as I say, when women represent women, these are the quality outcomes achieved. If the Leader of the Opposition can be believed, even he now supports a paid parental leave scheme, although his plan for funding it seems ironic to this side of the House: the Liberals taxing big business to help families. It is a strange way for us to see them approaching this important policy area. Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald last week as telling his colleagues in a party room meeting: “We have to demonstrate that we have moved on from the Howard era view that mothers should stay at home with their kids … Apparently Tony Abbott wants to move on from the Howard era. Who would have thought it? That is not exactly the way it looks to us. It looks like they are still stuck back in coalition policy behind that white picket fence where all sorts of abuses of human rights were secretly carried out. I think it is a wonderful, healthy thing to see a policy that empowers women and supports women. But apparently it was Phoney Tony who in 2002 said that paid parental leave would happen over his dead body. We cannot escape the fact that the Liberals had 12 years to introduce paid parental leave and did nothing. That is shameful stuff. Regardless of the Leader of the Opposition’s flip-flopping position, we know that this is an important piece of legislation, something that our nation needs. I repeat that any scheme that pushes the burden of parental leave onto business can only have a detrimental effect on the employment of women. It perpetuates that myth that employing women is risky because they might get pregnant and leave you after you have invested all this money in their skill base. Well, no; with paid parental leave paid for by the people of a country through their taxes, through their government, we share that burden and we share the wealth that it creates. As the Productivity Commission inquiry found, once a paid parental leave scheme is in place, it will be seen as a standard contract arrangement. The inquiry report, Paid parental leave: support for parents with newborn children, states: The more that parental leave arrangements mimic those that exist as part of routine employment contracts, the more they will be seen by employers and employees as standard employment arrangements, with the dual effect of: promoting employment continuity and workplace retention (thus helping to preserve job and employer-specific skills that would be reduced if parents were to resign or move to another employer) and reducing training costs for employers signalling that a genuine capacity to take a reasonable period of leave from employment to look after children is just a normal part of working life. And that is how it should be. The Productivity Commission report went on to say: … there is compelling evidence of child and maternal health and welfare benefits from a period of absence from work for the primary carer of around six months … So what will it mean if that becomes part of the way that we do things? It will mean better relationships between women and their children. It will mean greater opportunities for breastfeeding of babies. It will mean, I would hope, over time, less postnatal depression among women and a reduction in the dreadful burdens and conflicting choices that women always have with the financial impost that comes when their income is suspended. This will have wonderful benefits for our women and our children. There is compelling evidence about those benefits. There are sound rationales for stimulating women’s labour force participation rates to overcome the disincentives imposed by the existing welfare and tax systems on that participation. It is what women want to do. Just like men, they want to be able to choose their careers and they want those careers to prosper, but in most cases they also very much want to raise families. The commission report also stated: PPL could advance broad social objectives, such as achieving greater gender equity and balance between paid work and family life. These three points sum up the need for the Paid Parental Leave scheme for me. It will benefit families, it will benefit the workforce and it will progress us as a society. This is a good thing. I believe it is a fundamental characteristic of a socially inclusive society to have a paid parental leave scheme like the one we are debating here today. It is the inalienable right of a woman to choose to have children; it is also the inalienable right of a woman to pursue a career. I look at many of my successful female colleagues in this parliament—frontbenchers, backbenchers, senators and those from the opposition—who juggle family commitments and the demands of new babies and see that they are often not extended the understanding that that is okay. This happens in every sector of the workforce. Women are contributing much to the workplace, to their families and to their community. They should be encouraged to do so and they should be supported to do so. In this year’s federal budget we spoke of further strengthening the national economy, of helping families and of securing real future growth. This is exactly what paid parental leave is about—preparing our nation for the future. It reflects our child centred approach to family policy, which is fundamentally about what is in the best interests of children. The scheme will deliver crucial benefits to women, both in the workforce and at home. It will encourage workforce participation and productivity, both now and into the future. Most importantly, it will help cement the bonds of countless numbers of families across Australia—the benefits of which are difficult to quantify but which we all know are vital to family happiness, family harmony and the strength of the social fabric that underpins the society we depend upon, we want to belong to and we are proud of. I absolutely welcome this legislation and commend these bills to the House. 4610 18:39:00 Neal, Belinda, MP B36 Robertson ALP 1 0 Ms NEAL —I rise today to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. This is a historic moment for Australian working families, particularly for Australian working women, who will finally have a federally funded paid parental leave scheme. The Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 introduces Australia’s first national, government funded Paid Parental Leave scheme as of 1 January next year. The scheme will cost the government over $1 billion over five years, but it will be money well spent. From 1 October 2010 parental leave pay will be claimed through the Family Assistance Office, along with other family assistance payments, up to three months before the birth or adoption of a child. The government will fund employers to pay their eligible long-term employees as part of the scheme. This scheme will apply to parents who are primary carers of a child born or adopted after 1 January 2011. It will complement other leave entitlements, such as unpaid parental leave in the National Employment Standards. This leave can be combined with or complement existing entitlements to paid leave, such as recreation, annual and employer provided maternity leave. Families that do participate in the scheme will not receive the baby bonus or family tax benefit part B; however, families can elect on the basis of their circumstances which is the best option for them. Payments will be delivered either through the primary carer’s employer or through the Medicare Family Assistance Office branches located in most major centres. Parents will be able to lodge their claims up to three months prior to that birth or adoption. The role of employers is being phased in over the six months of the scheme to help employers transition to the new arrangements. Employers can choose to provide parental leave pay to their employees from the commencement of the scheme with their employees’ agreement. Employers may be required to provide parental leave paid to eligible employees from 1 July 2011. Employers will only be required to pay their long-term employees—that is, people who have been with their employer for 12 months or more—prior to the expected date of birth. In other cases the Family Assistance Office will make the payment directly to the parent. In terms of the possible impacts of parental leave on employers, the scheme will not result in the accrual of any additional paid leave entitlements by employees nor will it affect the calculation of notice periods, severance pay or workers compensation or accident insurance premiums. The government is also working with state and territory governments to ensure paid parental leave is not subject to payroll tax. To be eligible for the payment the primary carer, usually the mother, must meet eligibility criteria relating to their work, income and residency. Specifically, a primary carer must have been engaged in work for a total period spanning at least 10 of the 13 months prior to the expected birth with a break of no greater than eight weeks between working days. They will also have to have undertaken at least 330 hours of paid work during the 10-month period, which averages out at around one day of paid work a week—not a particularly onerous requirement. A parent will be eligible if they have an individual income of $150,000 or less per annum before the claim or birth of the baby, whichever is the earlier. This income test is consistent with our ideal of targeting government support to those who are most in need—a proposition that the opposition seems to ignore. This government recognises the irregular working patterns of contractors and seasonal and casual workers with inconsistent work patterns. A person can have a break of up to eight weeks between working days and still be considered to have worked continuously. Casual and part-time working mums as well as sole parents have not been ignored in the bill. In fact, casual workers are said to be the big winners from Australia’s first Paid Parental Leave scheme—a fact that has not been commented on much. Women are more likely to be casual workers and make up almost 50 per cent of all casual employees in Australia. Almost 25 per cent of employed women in work are in casual jobs and receive no paid leave entitlements. Parents who are not employed at the time of the birth of their child but have satisfied the work test will be eligible under the Paid Parental Leave scheme. Many casual workers have irregular work patterns and are in fact unlikely to be in work immediately before the birth of their child for fairly obvious reasons. Under our scheme an eligible mother who is in a contract position but whose contract finishes before her baby is born will still receive the parental leave pay providing she meets that work test that I outlined earlier. Eligible parents not employed at the time of the birth of their child will be paid directly by the Family Assistance Office. Parental leave pay can also be available to parents who work in their own business or a family business such as a farm. This will have a very positive impact on the many women who have worked in small business, such as myself, and on many of the small businesses that are staffed and manned and managed by women on the Central Coast. Parents can determine the period in which they wish to receive their parental leave pay. The start date cannot be before the child’s birth, and parental leave pay must be in one continuous 18-week period. The 18 weeks, though, can be shared between both parents. The government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme is fair, balanced and economically responsible. It helps employers retain valuable staff, reducing the time lost to recruiting and retraining, and it imposes no new taxes on business, being entirely government funded. This scheme recognises that taking time off to have a baby is a normal part of life and a normal part of working life as well. This bill and its complementary legislation will encourage businesses to progress the family-friendly provisions that many are already embracing. The government will review the scheme two years after its inception and will continue to evaluate adjacent issues as paid paternity leave and superannuation contributions for the period of paid parental leave. I would like to relate the experience of one family in my electorate who are eagerly awaiting the passage of this bill into law. Lindsay and Gerrard live in Davistown in my electorate of Robertson on the New South Wales Central Coast. The mother, Lindsay, works in a cafe, and the father, Gerrard, is a police officer. They have a two-year-old boy and are hoping for another child in the near future. For this Central Coast family the government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme is a promise of support and security in a financially stressful and physically exhausting period. During the birth of their first child, Lindsay was required to have an emergency caesarean. It was an unforeseen event, as it often is, and it delayed Lindsay’s recovery considerably. The result was a much longer recovery time for her, and her husband took several weeks off work on carers leave to support his wife and the new baby. With no additional financial support and constraints on the period of time available to Gerrard to remain on paid carers leave, the stress on the family was considerable. This is just one of the unplanned-for contingencies that can occur with the arrival of a new baby. In these instances, the support of paid parental leave can help a great deal. Particularly in circumstances where the father is taking time off work to support the mother and cannot work extra shifts and is only being paid basic wages, it can have a very serious financial impact on the family. You can see in circumstances such as this that this bill will have great beneficial effects. Firstly, the mother was unable to work and therefore received no income, and the father’s wages were dropping due to his need to spend more time with the family. With the introduction of the Paid Parental Leave scheme, Lindsay’s income would be replaced by the federal minimum wage for 18 weeks. It would relieve the pressure on her to return to work sooner than she might otherwise want to and it would allow the financial obligations of the family to be met. I know that this is one family that will be very happy and grateful for the support for the family, but of course they only represent the many, many families out there in the Australian community that will be assisted by this particular bill. The Paid Parental Leave scheme takes the weight off the whole family in many individual cases across Australia. Many mothers do ask themselves: do I put my young baby in childcare or do I stay home; do we have the financial resources to meet the additional financial burden; how will we pay the mortgage while I take additional time off work? The Harvester case, which in the past determined that wages supported a father, his wife—not working—and at least two children, no longer applies, and really, the single wage is seldom enough to support an entire family. As much as many of the opposition would like us to be in the 1950s and have those sorts of priorities set for families in Australia, it is not the present circumstances so the passing of a Paid Parental Leave Bill such as this, which provides financial support for families at a time of the birth of their child, is essential. Women should have a genuine choice to determine within economic and family realities whether to spend an extended time with their babies after their birth, and the fact is that in the economic circumstances that exist today many women do not have that genuine choice. This parental leave bill provides a choice for them. I refer particularly to the sleep deprivation that invariably accompanies a new baby. I know I do not have to belabour this point, so to speak, with the members of the House, but certainly, even though my boys were born some 20 years or more ago I can still remember how difficult it was to get up and go to work after having spent sometimes six hours with a young child who would not sleep at the convenient time that suited my work patterns. I am disgusted at the opposition’s grandstanding on this bill. After 11 years in government, in the period when most other OECD nations took the initiative to introduce support for working mothers, the coalition sat on their hands and did absolutely nothing. Worse, they stand in this place and claim with false sincerity that they would pass the measures they have moved as an amendment. I simply do not believe them. There is nothing more here than a cynical exercise in political expediency, and the public knows it. This is not a scheme that in government they would implement. Paid parental leave, a real scheme to benefit Australian working families, does not factor on their priority ‘to do’ list. I do not believe that the Leader of the Opposition is genuine in the maternity scheme that he proposed in February or March. Ostensibly, he is proposing six months maternity leave for all mothers, who would receive a payment equivalent to their wages up to a maximum of $150,000 per anum plus superannuation. Mr Abbot proposes that it should be paid for by a ‘big new tax’ on businesses with taxable incomes of more than $5 million per year. This proposal is really more about the opposition leader trying to soften his image with women voters rather than a genuine desire to bring equity to the workforce or to recognise the value of women in balancing work and family life. If the opposition leader had been genuine about his proposal, he would have put a lot more work into developing a scheme. He would have consulted with employers, with businesses and even with the members of his own party room. He certainly took everyone by surprise with his announcement, almost guaranteeing that this scheme would never come to fruition. Immediately, Katie Lahey from the Business Council of Australia, Heather Ridout from the Australian Industry Group and Peter Anderson from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry said that they did not support the scheme. The Leader of the Opposition also shocked his own party room, which was strongly critical of his scheme. You might expect someone like the member for O’Connor, good old ‘Iron Bar’ Tuckey, to be opposed to this scheme, but even the more socially outward looking member for Paterson seemed to see that there was some difficulty with the scheme. The soft hearted members, like the member for Canning and the member for Gippsland, also saw that they could not support the scheme. The opposition leader should stop play-acting and support the government’s maternity leave bill, which introduces a genuine scheme which has been thoughtfully considered. Consultation has taken place with business, employees, unions and many parents. That is also what he should do if he really wants to see paternity leave put in place for mothers, fathers and families. I suggest that the coalition cease their cynical politicking on this issue and pass that bill when it arrives here and also support it in the Senate. I would certainly be proud to see a paternity leave bill pass this House. I suggest that, in the interests of Australian families, the opposition support the bill we are currently debating and abandon the cynical exercise that they are proposing as an amendment. 4613 18:53:00 Vamvakinou, Maria, MP 00AMT Calwell ALP 1 0 Ms VAMVAKINOU —I am happy to be following the member for Robertson to speak very much in support of the Rudd Labor government’s historic Paid Parental Leave scheme. Firstly, though, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the extraordinary efforts of the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Hon. Jenny Macklin. The minister’s efforts in introducing Australia’s first ever Paid Parental Leave scheme are to be commended and, I am certain, will give her a well-deserved place in the history of this chamber. Jenny Macklin is one minister and one member of the parliament who is best placed to understand the importance of this legislation to Australian women, Australian men and indeed Australian families. Like most of us in this place, she is first and foremost a working parent and, like an even smaller number of us in this place, she is a working mum. Although her boys are now young men, she came here all those years ago as the mother of two young children, as I did, along with many of my female colleagues. So we are very well placed to understand the significance of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 being debated in the chamber this evening. Although parental experience is not required in order to appreciate the meaning and value of these bills to the Australian community, those of us who are parents and carers of children understand the practical aspects of balancing work and family and, as such, we understand the significance of these bills before us today. Through the introduction of this legislation and the debate it has generated, the Rudd Labor government has placed Australia in a social and economic position deserving of an advanced modern economy. In Australia, there is now a recognition of the necessity for a universal scheme that is responsive to the interests of working families. There is recognition that Australia can no longer do without such a scheme. I want to remind the House that currently we are one of only two OECD countries without a national paid parental leave scheme, and that can no longer do. With the introduction of these bills, the federal government—and, in particular, the minister—has managed to do what no other Australian government has done before. Put simply, this national scheme gives working parents of babies born or adopted from the very beginning of next year 18 weeks of parental leave paid at the level of the federal minimum wage. We came into government just over two years ago committed to protecting working families in Australia from the aggressive Howard government’s Work Choices offensive, aimed at stripping back our most basic rights at work, that inevitably would have hurt the nature and quality of working family life. Not only have we preserved the rights of working Australians but we have further strengthened them in a comprehensive way through the introduction of these landmark bills. With a scheme that is fully costed and funded by the government, Australia now joins all other OECD countries, bar one, in the internationally recognised provision of pay during a period of parental leave. This international recognition is enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which states: Parties shall take all appropriate measures … to introduce maternity leave with pay or with comparable social benefits without loss of former employment seniority or social allowances. With the introduction of these bills, the government is not only carrying out its commitment to UN conventions by satisfying the recommendations of the Australian Human Rights Commission; it is also aligning itself with the International Labour Organisation’s standards for paid maternity, through the Convention concerning the Employment of Women before and after Childbirth. It is important to recognise that the ILO’s convention provides for maternity leave of not less than 14 weeks. The Rudd Labor government, in its recognition of the importance of parents being able to maintain both themselves and the child in an appropriate condition of health and with a suitable standard of living, advances on the 14 weeks recommended by the ILO by providing working families with a further four weeks of fully funded parental leave. Often—and I am always conscious of this argument—the issue of discrimination against women in employment because of the likelihood of falling pregnant is raised whenever there is mention of paid parental leave. That is why it is important to recognise that the effectiveness of this scheme lies in the manner in which it is delivered. By allowing families to make their own work and family choices through the ease of transferring leave between mums and dads, it does not provide a basis from which employers can discriminate against the employment of women. This is because the role of a primary carer in our modern Australia is not assigned to gender. In fact, as the minister noted, the scheme benefits businesses through the retention of skilled and experienced staff whilst having minimal adverse impact, as they will not be forced into funding parental leave payments. It reflects a government which assumes the responsibilities associated with the role it plays within our society—a role which determines that governments are there to make things better, as well as fairer, for members of their community. The roll-out of this national scheme will preserve the link between workers and their employers and in doing so will help retain skilled and valuable staff and do away with the added uncertainties of whether a parent, which in most cases is the mother, will return to work. The linking of the parental leave pay with the normal pay cycle of an employee, along with other workplace entitlements, will continue to strengthen the connection between work and home and is more likely to encourage a return to work. If we are to give Australia’s children the best possible start in life, we need to provide the necessary level of support to the primary caregiver in order for them to help build the child’s emotional, physical and cognitive development at the most crucial stages of the child’s life, the early stages immediately following the birth of the child. With this in mind, 148,000 mothers and primary carers will be given access to Australia’s first comprehensive, statutory paid parental leave scheme in order that the critical early months in the life of a child are recognised as such, and treated with the necessary level of care as parents adjust to the very important task of raising a child. When it comes to the Paid Parental Leave scheme, the government does not discriminate between workers and the conditions under which they are employed. For most women in seasonal, casual and contract work, as well as the self-employed, it will be the first time that the women will have access to paid parental leave, because the government is responsive to the facts. These facts are that women, who in most cases will be the primary carer during the immediate period following birth, not only make up more than half of the casual workforce in Australia, but that 25 per cent of working women are employed in casual jobs that do not offer any paid leave entitlements. In aligning this important social policy with Australia’s economic reality, the government asked the Productivity Commission, as Australia’s leading and independent research and advisory body, to establish an inquiry into the feasibility of a paid parental leave scheme and the models associated with its introduction. The commission itself concluded that one-on-one care of a child, through the introduction of a national government funded statutory scheme of paid parental leave, would provide the best possible effects on the child’s development. In recognition of this reality, I want to highlight the meaning of the Paid Parental Leave scheme for the working men and women of Calwell. I had the opportunity to discuss this bill with two women in my electorate. One of my constituents, Saja, who recently gave birth to her first child, Jamal, is now on maternity leave but Saja’s working entitlements did not include a provision for paid maternity leave. Naturally, this has meant that she has had to deal with coping with the birth of her first child, along with assuming the responsibilities—and the running around, of course—of trying to obtain whatever entitlements she has access to through Centrelink. Beyond the financial advantages of a paid parental leave scheme, Saja describes a situation where, had this long-overdue scheme been in place, it would have allowed her to maintain her connection with her work more effectively and would have removed from her and her husband the burdens of uncertainty, especially financial uncertainty, in their lives. Saja explained that this connection is important because it allows mothers, especially first-time mothers, to be secure in the knowledge that they are performing an important function and that the link between work and home, between family and employment, remains an important part of the social and economic fabric of our society. This view is also shared by Ann, also from my electorate, who is now on a career break following the birth of her first child. Ann, who is obviously very delighted about the introduction of Australia’s first-ever Paid Parental Leave scheme, notes that had this scheme been in place during her time, she might have reconsidered her options about returning to work. These two examples, when put together, demonstrate the importance of developing policy that recognises the link between the social and economic direction of our country. The Australian Human Research Institute, in a study on human resource replacement costs, found that it can cost up to 1.5 times an employee’s salary to replace that employee. With this reality in mind, and taking into account the average staff turnover in Australia at large companies, the AHRI approximates that the cost to the Australian economy could be as much as $20 billion. With all this in mind, the real cost of not having a paid parental leave scheme is too great to ignore any longer. Australian families can today be proud of their achievements in not only preserving their rights at work, but also of progressively building upon them to address a reality that working families have had to face for far too long. It is important to recognise that advocacy groups and unions, as well as the business community, have welcomed the financial and non-financial benefits that this scheme provides to working families. In acknowledging the Australian Industry Group’s position on what it called an important economic and social reform, I felt it important to draw the House’s attention to what working mothers of newborn children in my electorate of Calwell have said about this national scheme, because ultimately it is with these people in mind that this policy has been conceived. This bill is responding to the years of campaigning by women and men who have been so committed to this cause. These are women and men who lead peak organisations such as the ACTU, the National Foundation for Australian Women, sex discrimination commissions, the Australian Industry Group and the Business Council of Australia, but there are also the myriad of women and men from the broader community, those who have lobbied us as members of parliament, our constituents, community groups, from factory floors to corporate boardrooms—such was the broad based call for a paid parental leave scheme that its arrival in this House was inevitable. Today it is their achievements that we celebrate, and I commend the bill to the House. 4616 19:06:00 Hale, Damian, MP HWD Solomon ALP 1 0 Mr HALE —I would like to commend my colleague the member for Calwell for her contribution. As a mother and a member of this place, I know that she has worked tirelessly with the minister in helping formulate the Paid Parental Leave scheme. There are a great many women on our side as well as in the opposition, and men, who will have a great deal of satisfaction that this piece of legislation has come through. I remember that as a young campaigner in 2007 it was with a great deal of pride that I knew it was part of the platform that the Labor Party undertook to implement, a paid parental leave scheme fully funded by the Commonwealth. I thought that was significant, and it is with a feeling of honour that I participate in the debate tonight on the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The introduction of this legislation on 12 May represents one of the most significant achievements of the Rudd government. I was thrilled to be in the chamber when the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs introduced the bill because it was truly an historic moment for Australia. As a result of our reform, new mums and dads will receive up to 18 weeks government funded paid parental leave. It is big news for Australian families and it is great news for the working families in my electorate of Solomon, in the Darwin and Palmerston areas. I am very proud to be a member of the Rudd government because—make no mistake about this—it is the only government that has shown the commitment to introduce a paid parental leave scheme across Australia. It was all very well for those opposite to talk about a paid parental leave scheme for the last 12 years they were in government. If they were fair dinkum about it, they would have introduced it. However, it was probably something they were going to get to in their 13th year, similar to climate change. LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin —Why has it taken 2½ years? HWD Hale, Damian, MP Mr HALE —I will take the interjection from the shadow minister. I do not remember during the campaign the coalition ever talking about a paid parental leave scheme. They never spoke about it. However, there was a thought bubble. We all know about the thought bubble. It was the Leader of the Opposition who decided that he would introduce a paid parental leave scheme. I read through his speech because I was very interested in how Phoney Tony had evolved into this great man that he is. LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I ask you to remind the member, pursuant to the standing orders, that he should address members of this chamber by their correct title. The Speaker has already ruled on that particular expression that he is using. 10000 Bevis, Arch (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AR Bevis)—The standing orders do require members to refer to other members by their correct title and I would ask the member for Solomon to do so. HWD Hale, Damian, MP Mr HALE —I accept that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thank the shadow minister for the interjection. What I will say is that I was reading it and so it is probably true. He read his speech and said in his contribution to this debate, ‘I have listened to my colleagues.’ We know that is a lie because the Leader of the Opposition did not listen to his colleagues. It came as a surprise to them that suddenly he had found this new-found socialistic bone in his body and was going to bring in a paid parental leave scheme. I continued to have a little bit more of a look at his contribution to this debate. I always wondered why in 12 years, sitting on big surpluses, not once did they try to introduce a paid parental leave scheme. This goes to the core of this debate because it is about the honesty of the Leader of the Opposition when it comes to this issue. He suddenly comes into this House and expects the Australian public to believe that he has a paid parental leave scheme that is bigger and better than anything that has ever been put forward before. I will get to how he is going to fund it, because that is a separate issue altogether. After being a cabinet minister for the last 11 years, right in the inner sanctum of the coalition government under John Howard, and then driving to work—or he might have been riding his pushbike because I do not think he uses Commonwealth cars and I commend him on that—he suddenly thought: ‘Yep, I’ve got the scheme. I’ve got it. I am gonna nail it. This is what I am going to do.’ He forgot, because he has got a little bit of a selective memory, that in 2002 he said ‘over my dead body’ would there ever be a paid parental leave scheme. But suddenly the Leader of the Opposition has found this great socialistic reform that will come to pass. It came to him in this bubble that he first took to the press, where he does most of his best work, and then took to the party room. I remember that, back in December when he was preparing to lead the coup against the former Leader of the Opposition and when he did not want to be called a climate sceptic, he decided that the reason— LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin —Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to what this bill is actually about. I ask you to draw the member’s comments back towards the legislation before the parliament. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not think there is a point of order. I do not think the speaker has ranged that far from where the debate has been, but I will listen carefully. HWD Hale, Damian, MP Mr HALE —The point I was making was that he was prepared to say the reason that he led the coup was not that he was a climate change sceptic but the fact that the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth, had not brought his views to and had not debated them properly in the Liberal Party room. That was the fundamental reason that he said: ‘I had to stand up and I had to say something. That’s not the way the Liberal Party operates. We debate issues; we have personal opinions.’ That was why he led the coup. He went outside that and changed his position on that. He decided that he could introduce legislation through the media. LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin interjecting— HWD Hale, Damian, MP Mr HALE —The shadow minister was a cabinet minister in the former government. LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin —No, I wasn’t. I wish. HWD Hale, Damian, MP Mr HALE —I gave you a promotion. You were probably a parliamentary secretary. 5I4 McMullan, Bob, MP Mr McMullan —Even John Howard didn’t make a mistake as big as that. HWD Hale, Damian, MP Mr HALE —I quote from the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution to this debate: Of course, all policies have to be paid for. Only members opposite think that there is some endless source of finance, some magic pudding from which to pay for all the things that they desire to create a better society. I make no bones about the fact that this policy will be paid for by a levy of up to 1.7 per cent on taxable company incomes over $5 million a year. I wish it were otherwise. Were circumstances different, it could have been different. If we had a $20 billion surplus, we could have done it differently. But given the situation that this government places us in, given the fact that this government in just 2½ years has turned a $20 billion surplus into a $57 billion deficit, given that this government has put us in the position where we are borrowing $700 million a week, this is the least bad way to bring about an effective paid parental leave scheme any time soon. And it must be done soon. The women of Australia and the families of Australia have waited too long and they ought not be denied this visionary piece of social policy, this important economic reform, any longer. Who believes that? If you believe that he is honestly going to bring that in, you believe in the Easter bunny, you probably leave a light on at night for Harold Holt and you probably think Elvis is in Tennant Creek driving a cement truck, because there is no way in the world that this Leader of the Opposition will implement his paid parental leave scheme. They had a $20 billion surplus and they still did not do it. They are still in denial over the global financial crisis. They are still in denial that the Treasurer, the Prime Minister, the Treasury and the Reserve Bank have been able to guide Australia through the global financial crisis, leaving us better off than any other country. They are still in denial that our debt was looking at something in the high twenties and we have been able to keep it at around six per cent. They are still in denial. And it just shows how out of touch this Leader of the Opposition is with what real people out there in the community are thinking. He was out of touch when he was a cabinet minister when it came to paid parental leave. He cannot be trusted on this issue. Many of my colleagues tonight have touched on where the bill is at. Many of my colleagues have spoken about different parts of the bill—the money, the eligibility aspects and all those types of issues. But, for me, this is more about the credibility of the opposition in regard to a paid parental leave scheme. It is only Labor that will deliver it. There is no doubt about that. The Leader of the Opposition says he wants to slug business with a 1.7 per cent tax. We are looking to bring corporate taxes down, through the mining tax, by two per cent. It is roughly a four per cent tax turnaround for small- to medium-sized businesses. I put this to the Leader of the Opposition: who carried Australia through the global financial crisis? It was not the big miners; it was small- to medium-sized businesses in this country, aided by targeted stimulus spending. Those businesses showed discipline and courage by sticking with their workforces. The reward for them from this side of the House is to look at a two per cent decrease in the corporate tax rate. That is what we on this side of the House are doing. We are saying to small- and medium-sized businesses in this country: ‘We felt your pain. We gave you money through stimulus. We acknowledge the fact that you continued to put apprentices on, you did not lay people off and you showed courage and discipline in very tough times.’ What does the coalition do? What does the Leader of the Opposition do? He wants to kick small- and medium-sized businesses when they are at their most vulnerable, coming on the back end of a global financial crisis. He wants to whack a tax on them to pay for his paid parental leave scheme. It is unbelievable. What have businesses done to deserve that? I thought that the coalition were the party for small- to medium-sized businesses. HVP Perrett, Graham, MP Mr Perrett —Twenty years ago. HWD Hale, Damian, MP Mr HALE —They were, possibly, 20 years ago—that is right, Member for Moreton—but not now. They stand over the top of businesses, and on this occasion the Leader of the Opposition wants to kick businesses when they are at their most vulnerable. And it will only be the Labor Party and it will only be the Rudd government that will stick by small business. That is a 3.7 to four per cent turnaround in tax if Tony Abbott becomes Prime Minister of this country. That would be bad for the country. But do you know what? You can see, in his comments about the $20 billion surplus, that he has given himself the out. This can only go one of three ways. The first possibility is that he will not bother implementing it at all. He will say: ‘Times are too tough now. We have to pay off Labor’s debt. We will have a look at it another time.’ It will be a bit similar to the phrase, ‘Work Choices is dead.’ Who believes that? Flexibility— HVP Perrett, Graham, MP Mr Perrett —Those rock solid guarantees! HWD Hale, Damian, MP Mr HALE —Yes, his ironclad guarantees. No-one believes him on that. That is the first thing that could happen—scrap it, put it on the backburner. The second thing that could happen is that he may implement the 1.7 per cent tax on small- to medium-sized businesses—but I doubt it. The third thing he might do is, if he does do the 1.7 per cent, he will bring back Work Choices. And that will be his payback to big business. He will say: ‘Look, suffer for a while. Just take it easy. I am going to get rid of their penalty rates. If a woman happens to fall pregnant, we will bring in a clause along the lines of unfair dismissal, and you can get rid of her for operational reasons—because she can no longer contribute.’ This Leader of the Opposition is probably the worst Leader of the Opposition out of the three. The other two had some integrity, but not this bloke. He will do anything and he will say anything; he freely admits that himself. He did it a couple of weeks ago with Kerry O’Brien. Everyone knows. If it is written down and he is reading it, you know it is pretty well close to the truth. But, if he is talking off the cuff—and he prides himself on that; he always tells the Prime Minister off for reading notes—there is a good chance he will throw in a few lies here and there, throw in a few little curve balls. But that’s Tony. That is the way this Leader of the Opposition operates. Does anyone honestly believe that this Leader of the Opposition is committed to a paid parental leave scheme? You are kidding. He is not committed to it. He was never committed to it in government. He has given himself so many little outs—you can see that in his speech in the second reading debate. This Leader of the Opposition loves to put little curve balls, little deceptions and all the rest of the stuff into his speeches. And he loves to talk to the media the same way. In his speech in the second reading debate, Mr Abbott said: As I said, the government’s measure is a small step in the right direction. I believe we should go much further and that is what the amendment in my name will do. I say to members of this House that, if you want to see a long overdue reform, it is important to support the coalition’s policy on this point. If we are to have a better society in the future than that which we have experienced in the recent past, it is important to change the government. If you want to stop the great big new tax on mining, you have to change the government. As was clear from the announcement that the coalition made this morning, if you want to stop the boats, you have to change the government. And, if you want to give families a fair go through a decent paid parental leave scheme, you have to change the government. No-one is buying that for a moment. ‘Change the government’ is the common theme in there. 5I4 McMullan, Bob, MP Mr McMullan —It’s true—they did change the government and they are getting paid parental leave. HWD Hale, Damian, MP Mr HALE —That is right. Thank you for the interjection, Parliamentary Secretary. He too would have worked long and hard on this particular bill. So the common theme in everything that the Leader of the Opposition said is changing the government. There is no substance to what he said and he would not even guarantee that the boats would stop. There is no substance to what the Leader of the Opposition says. He has no credibility whatsoever when it comes to paid parental leave, and that was picked up in the policy that he introduced on 9 March while he was riding up the hill in his lycra. It was picked up on by the CEO of the Australian Industry Group, Heather Ridout, in an interview that she did about this. In referring to the Leader of the Opposition’s policy, she said: … on any measure this is bad parental leave policy and it’s bad tax policy. Well from a parental leave perspective it puts a huge cost on big companies. It will be anti the employment of women. It will be—it’ll cause a bias towards the employment of men. In terms of tax policy, it will deter investment in the sense that we already have in Australia a high reliance on capital taxes such as company tax compared to other countries. In terms of tax policy, it will deter investment in the sense that we already have in Australia a high reliance on capital taxes such as company tax compared to other countries. And small medium sized economies like ours are reducing their company tax rate and not putting it up. That will—putting it up will deter investment into Australia and particularly into sectors that aren’t going to be the big darlings of the mining boom. We just can’t afford this kind of operation, so on any measure it’s a poor policy. I will finish off with this last quote from Heather, when she said what she thought of the opposition’s policy: It is a most inequitable scheme and I don’t know who thought it up, but they’re not a rocket scientist. That just about sums up the Leader of the Opposition: surely not a rocket scientist, and we all know that. Be careful, I say to the working women of Australia and their partners. Be very careful when it comes to paid parental leave schemes being put forward by this Leader of the Opposition. He did absolutely nothing as a cabinet minister for 11 years. In 2002 he said, ‘Over my dead body will I ever be part of a paid parental leave scheme,’ and then he came into this place and decided he was going to slug business with it by putting the company tax up by 1.7 per cent. But we know there is always a hidden agenda with the Leader of the Opposition. No-one falls for it. Not one person in this place falls for it and I know that the Australian public— HVP Perrett, Graham, MP Mr Perrett interjecting— HWD Hale, Damian, MP Mr HALE —They did not know about it. They would have fallen for it, but they did not know about it. I know that the Australian public will not fall for it either, because this guy has form. We saw his form with Kerry O’Brien two weeks ago. We saw his form when he openly admitted, ‘If I’m reading off notes I sort of tell the truth but, if I’m not, anything goes.’ Anything goes—and this guy wants to be Prime Minister. LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin —Haven’t you got anything to say about the bill? HWD Hale, Damian, MP Mr HALE —As the shadow minister interjects again, this debate fundamentally goes to the credibility of the Leader of the Opposition, and he has no credibility when it comes to paid parental leave. I am absolutely rapt that the minister has introduced this bill. I fully support it, I fully endorse it and I commend the bill to the House. 4621 19:25:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 0 Mr PERRETT —I rise to give my strong support to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010, and I commend the member for Solomon on his contribution. The Paid Parental Leave Bill introduces Australia’s first national, government funded paid parental leave scheme, a truly magnificent event to be a part of. I thank the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, upfront, as I will at the end of this speech, because it is quite an honour to speak on this particular piece of legislation—one that I will be telling my grandchildren about, hopefully. The road to equality has been a long and often difficult one for the women of Australia. Australia did have some early runs on the board. We were one of the first countries in the world to give women the right to vote and to sit in parliament, but progress since has been chequered to say the least. It was not until 1949 that our first female federal cabinet minister was appointed, and up until 1966 women working in the federal Public Service were required to resign when they married. I do not remember that year well—it was the year I was born—but if my mum had been working in the Public Service rather than for hospitals she would have had to resign for the fact that she was pregnant. It was not that long ago. In the last 50 years much has been achieved for women in terms of equality in education and the workplace, safe contraception and access to childcare facilities. I would like to say this is also true in terms of equal pay but, having been a member of Sharryn Jackson’s House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment and Workplace Relations, I cannot quite say that. If I read from our report, in 2007 women in Australia earned only 83.9 per cent of each dollar earned by males for full-time ordinary time earnings. Prior to 2007 the gap between male and female average earnings remained relatively constant. In May of this year Australia’s gender pay gap stood at 16.2 per cent for weekly earnings and at about 11 per cent for hourly earnings. The gap declined between 1985 and 2001 but has recently increased slightly. So there is not always a progression towards equality but, nevertheless, in terms of contraception, childcare facilities, education and the workplace there has been a lot of improvement. In 1984 the federal government banned discrimination on the basis of sex. Today more women than men are educated at secondary schools and university and more women graduate from university with bachelor degrees. In 2006 women made up nearly 55 per cent of tertiary students and 47.5 per cent of students enrolled in vocational education and training courses. Forty per cent of Australia’s small business operators are women and 57 per cent of the Australian Public Service are women, with women holding around 36 per cent of senior executive positions. Unfortunately, in the private sector it is a slightly different story: only 12 per cent of management jobs are held by women. In this parliament, even though the Deputy Prime Minister and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are women, only 30 per cent of elected representatives are women. So more work needs to be done there. In Queensland, the state climate change minister, Kate Jones, recently became the first woman to have a baby while a member of the cabinet, and congratulations to Kate and Paul. Following in the steps of many others, I note my former campaign manager and the parliamentary secretary at the time, Karen Struthers, who is now the housing minister and the minister for the status of women in Queensland, also has a child. And obviously our own minister, Tanya Plibersek, is also going to repeat that later on this year, so all the best to them. Paid parental leave is not the final frontier. There is still a long way to go, including wage equality, as I touched on previously, but the bill before the House, in black and white, is a great leap forward. This bill introduces Australia’s first government-funded paid parental leave scheme, and it is long overdue. Almost all modern countries have a paid parental leave system in place—leaving out the United States. To the best of my research, Australia is all alone with, as I said, the United States and Swaziland in southern Africa as the countries without a paid parental leave scheme. Even Sudan and Rwanda are progressive enough to have funded schemes in place. So it is long overdue in terms of looking around our colleagues in the United Nations. But this does not stop the Leader of the Opposition in his opposition to a paid parental leave scheme. The opposition leader might have recently possibly had a change of heart on paid parental leave, but the reality is he had 12 years in the Howard government, where he served as an employment minister, and he never made any attempt to introduce paid parental leave. When he had the power and the opportunity, he did nothing, nada, not a thing. In fact, he vigorously campaigned against the interests of women, including paid parental leave. That is the measure of the man: what he did when he had the power and the opportunity, not the shadow promises he is trotting out now. In 2002, he told a Liberal Party function in Victoria—I do not know whether these comments were carefully scripted or in the heat of the moment, so I cannot vouchsafe their veracity: Compulsory paid maternity leave? Over this government’s dead body, frankly. Does the opposition leader really expect us to believe that he is now going to deliver a paid parental leave scheme if by chance the good people of Australia vote him in as Prime Minister? It is obviously not something that he believes strongly in. In fact, ‘over the government’s dead body’ were the words that he used. The Rudd government, however, is responding to the needs of modern families, while Tony Abbott is responding to results coming out of focus groups which tell him he needs to improve his standing with Australian women. It is certainly pretty easy to give a list of the concerns some of my female friends—not just Labor friends, but female friends—have had about some of Tony Abbott’s comments over the years, but I will not go there. The Rudd government values the hard work of mothers, whether at home or in a paid job. We have brought in some quite reasonable approaches to support mothers. I note that we brought in means testing of the baby bonus, which is obviously a common sense thing to do. It did cause some concern for one of the voters in my electorate—my wife—because she was pregnant at the time we said it was going to be means tested and it was not a nine-month lead in. It was slightly less than that, so consequently, when my son was born on 19 January, the baby bonus was means tested which, as I say, caused some concern for my wife. She assures she will consider who she votes for at the next election pretty carefully. Having a new baby on the scene is one of the most enjoyable and rewarding times of anyone’s life, but obviously it is also a very challenging time—whether you are an MP or anybody else. Obviously a new child creates lots of challenges. New parents usually have to adapt to life without sleep and also, more significantly, often life without their normal income, despite some of the ongoing bills and new bills that come with children. That is why the Rudd government supports families through the baby bonus, family tax benefits and from 1 January next year—not very far away at all—Australia’s first paid parental leave scheme. This scheme is fully-costed and fully-funded by the government, and it does not impose an unfair big new tax on business. As previous speakers have touched on, we are talking about a four per cent differential in terms of our approaches to treating businesses, rising to a two per cent cut to company taxes for all companies, but for SMEs particularly, versus those opposite who are going to slug big business with a two per cent tax to fund their fanciful scheme. The Rudd government’s paid parental leave scheme gives one parent the financial security to take time off work to care for their baby at home during the early months of their baby’s life. It gives mothers time to recover from birth and to bond with their baby, and any psychologist or person who works in the maternity sector will say that that is the most crucial time, early on, when children do their bonding with mothers and fathers. This bill provides up to 18 weeks parental leave pay at the national minimum wage to primary carers who have a child or adopt a child after 1 January next year. It is currently $543.78 a week. To ensure greater flexibility for families, parents can nominate when they wish to receive their pay. However, all pay must be received within the first 12 months after the date of birth or the placement of the adopted child. This will help families balance annual leave, their employer provided paid leave and the Paid Parental Leave scheme to ensure it works the best for them. Carers will also be required to satisfy work, income and residency tests. A parent will not be able to work while receiving parental leave pay. However, if agreed with their employer, they may do up to 10 days to ‘keep in touch’ with their workplace, which can then make the transition back to work calmer and less stressful. The government will fund employers to pay their eligible long-term employees and eligible claimants who are not paid by their employers will be paid by the Family Assistance Office. Families who are not eligible or who choose not to participate in the scheme will still be able to access family payments such as the baby bonus and family tax benefit. This bill provides meaningful support to families but it will also be good for employers. By providing financial support to new mothers, they will keep connected with their workplace, retaining skills and knowledge, and make sure they are ready return to the workplace when they are ready. As anyone who has ever worked in HR would know, the cost of replacing employees is quite significant. So a scheme that ensures employees who are familiar with a workplace are ready, willing and able to go back is a great scheme. It makes good sense for employers. This scheme will help families balance their work and family responsibilities and give Australian families the kind of support almost all other countries take for granted. I thank the minister for families, Jenny Macklin, for introducing such a historic piece of legislation—it has obviously required vision and courage and determination for her to do so—and in doing so I commend the bill to the House. 4624 19:37:00 Zappia, Tony, MP HWB Makin ALP 1 0 Mr ZAPPIA —I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Rudd government’s Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the cognate bill, the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. Being one of the final speakers on this debate, many of the relevant matters relating to this proposal have already been raised by other speakers, particularly from this side of the House. I will, however, outline once again the key provisions of the government’s Paid Parental Leave proposal. The government funded scheme will provide parental leave pay to mothers and adoptive parents who have been working and who have a baby or adopt a child on or after 1 January 2011. To be eligible for the scheme, claimants will need to meet the Paid Parental Leave work test, income test and residency requirements. Paid parental leave will be for a maximum of 18 weeks and must be taken in one continuous block. A person will be eligible if they have individual income of $150,000 or less in the financial year before the claim or birth of the baby, whichever is earlier. Parental leave pay will be paid at the rate of the national minimum wage, which is currently $543.78 per week before tax, and will be treated in the same way as other taxable income. Parents can nominate when they wish to receive their pay and all the pay must be received within the first 12 months after the date of birth or placement. Parental leave can be received before, after or at the same time as employer provided paid leave, such as recreation or annual leave and employer provided parental leave. If a person returns to work before they have received all of their 18 weeks of paid parental leave, the person’s partner may be able to receive the unused amount of paid parental leave, subject to meeting eligibility requirements. Otherwise paid parental leave will stop when the person returns to work. If parents are not eligible for or do not choose to receive paid parental leave, they may be able to receive the baby bonus and family tax benefit under the usual rules. Parents will lodge their claim with the Family Assistance Office, which will assess their eligibility. Once the scheme is fully implemented, parental leave pay will be provided by employers to their long-term employees. I understand there will be a six-month transition period before employers take responsibility for providing the pay. The Family Assistance Office will send a notice to an employer if they are required to pay an employee parental leave pay. It will also advise the parent of this. In other cases, the Family Assistance Office will make the payment directly to the parent. The Rudd government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme follows an extensive consultation period in August, September and October 2009 with key stakeholders, including major employee and employer peak bodies, representatives of small business, family and community stakeholder groups, tax professionals, payroll specialists and payroll software developers. There were also consultations with the state and territory governments. I understand that 32 consultation meetings and teleconferences were conducted with over 200 representatives. Feedback from the consultations was taken into account in the development of the Rudd government’s scheme. Unpaid parental leave is already provided for under the National Employment Standards in the Fair Work Act. Under those provisions, employees have the right to separate periods of up to 12 months of unpaid parental leave relating to the birth or adoption of a child. There also exists the right for a parent to request an additional 12 months of unpaid parental leave, and that request can only be refused by the employer on reasonable business grounds. The National Employment Standards also provide rights relating to flexible working arrangements for parents. These, however, are unpaid provisions. Whilst there are some private employers with schemes in place, it is only with the introduction of these bills that parents for the first time ever have a government funded national paid parental leave scheme in place. Australia lags well behind the rest of the world in supporting new mothers. It is my understanding that over 157 nations around the world have some kind of paid parental leave provisions already in place. The consequence of Australia not having paid maternity leave is that Australia has one of the lowest levels of workforce participation for women between the ages of 25 and 44 and is ranked 23rd out of 24 OECD nations. Australia and the United States are the only two OECD countries that do not offer paid maternity leave at the moment. It is estimated that under this scheme about 148,000 parents, mainly women, will be eligible for assistance. I welcome the support for a paid parental leave scheme from some of the members opposite, although I notice that there is not unity on this issue amongst all coalition members. I also notice that there have not been a large number of opposition members prepared to come into this place and speak on this bill. I wonder whether that reflects the fact that they do not all support it or that they do not support their own leader’s amendments. Since the Leader of the Opposition has now proposed his own paid parental leave scheme, I take this opportunity to make some observations on the coalition’s stance on this issue. I note the comments already made by the member for Solomon and the member for Robertson earlier on, and more recently by the member for Moreton, in respect of the opposition leader’s position on this very important issue. My first observation is the criticism by some members opposite that the government’s scheme does not include superannuation payments within it. These are the same opposition members who right now are opposing the government’s efforts to raise the superannuation guarantee levy from nine per cent to 12 per cent. When it suits their purpose they believe in superannuation; when it does not they oppose it. Coalition members simply cannot have it both ways when it comes to the question of superannuation. If it is so important that it ought to have been included in this scheme, then it is important enough for them to be supporting the government’s measures to increase the levy for the working people of Australia from nine to 12 per cent, as the government is proposing to do. Yet they do the exact opposite and oppose it. Clearly, that is hypocrisy. Let me address the alternative policy on leave put forward by the opposition leader. In a desperate act by a desperate opposition leader, who knows he only has one shot at becoming Prime Minister and who is prepared to do and say whatever it takes, we saw the opposition leader go from one extreme position to another extreme position. This is the man who said in 2002, and I will quote him as did the member for Moreton a moment ago: Compulsory paid maternity leave? Over this government’s dead body, frankly. It just won’t happen … He has now taken that extreme position to a completely new level—and I heard his address to this parliament in respect of this bill in which he talked about how he had changed his mind and the like. But in fact he had five years as a member of government after he made that statement in 2002, if he had changed his mind or was coming around to understanding the importance of paid parental leave, in which to move some kind of amendment or even to suggest that he had a different view of the matter. He never did, so in effect this is a policy reversal that has occurred in just over a period of two years. Effectively he has changed his position from the time he left being in government to then being in opposition. That has happened in just over a two-year period. Having changed his mind in just over two years, he now wants the Australian people to believe that he is legitimate and serious as to his proposal. It might seem absolutely reasonable in normal circumstances to change your mind. But in this instance, in changing his mind, he has gone from one extreme position to another. He now wants to take us from no scheme at all to a scheme that pays some mothers up to $75,000. It is pretty hard to believe and, quite frankly, I do not think too many people do believe it. Perhaps he is hoping that he can stand on the platform of a scheme that will pay mothers up to $75,000 while knowing full well that this bill will get through the parliament and then he can quietly distance himself from his original proposal. So that gives him the opportunity to walk both sides of the fence at the same time. But that is only one element of the opposition leader’s extreme position on paid parental leave. His policy was developed without any public consultation whatsoever, without any government inquiry or investigation to support it and without any consultation with his own coalition members. It is pretty extreme when he is prepared to come into this House with that kind of a policy, having gone through none of those processes, and say that he stands for something. It is pretty extreme, but one should not be surprised. This was the opposition leader’s policy and his alone. He made it—as he makes other statements, without thinking—believing that this was one way that he could win back the support of women voters in this country. How can it be taken seriously? Quite frankly, it cannot. How can the Australian people have any confidence that if elected this opposition leader will even implement a paid parental leave scheme, let alone a scheme which imposes a 1.7 per cent tax on larger businesses? Does anyone seriously believe that larger businesses will allow the opposition leader to do that if he is elected? Does anyone seriously believe that they will allow him to get away with that? I certainly do not. There is another aspect of the opposition leader’s scheme which I also find fundamentally wrong. It is my view that all mothers should be valued equally if they forgo working income to have a child. Under the opposition leader’s scheme, some mothers could be paid around five times as much as others. If you want to argue that the basic minimum wage is insufficient, then do that—and that is a legitimate argument to have—but do not differentiate between mothers for payments which ultimately come out of the public purse from tax. This parental leave scheme is paid for out of a public tax revenue. Whether it is revenue raised by adding a 1.7 per cent tax on larger businesses becomes irrelevant. The money goes into general government revenue. We do not provide unemployment benefits to Australians at the rate of their last employment income. We do not provide pensioners with pension payments at the rate of their last employment income. They are all treated equally when Australian tax revenue applies—and quite rightly so. They will also be treated equally under the Rudd government scheme but not under the opposition leader’s scheme. It is a major flaw in that scheme. Other speakers have spoken in this discussion about the financial pressures on families and the costs of parenthood, and I agree with the views generally expressed. There are, however, other social consequences and costs which I believe a paid parental leave scheme may assist with. In fact, I am quite confident that it will assist. Statistics over recent decades confirm that mothers are having children at an older age. In 1975 the median age of mothers was 24 years. In 2000 it had risen to 29 years of age. Whilst I do not have the latest figures, the median age of first-time mothers is expected to reach 31.2 years this decade. In other words, the median age of mothers has risen by seven years, from 24 years of age to 31 years of age, over the last three decades. The wish to have financial security and financial independence has been identified as a primary cause of the higher median age for first-time mothers. In other words, the reason why many mothers are having their children at a later stage of their life is that they want to ensure that they have the financial security to look after those children. That is being quite responsible. We have all heard about the financial pressures on families today. But the fact is that financial pressures are driving mothers to have children at an older age in life. Providing paid parental leave may begin to lower the average age of mothers having children. Having children at an older age causes some concerns and complications. Firstly, conceiving a child becomes more difficult. Secondly, the risk of pregnancy complications or serious health issues for both the baby and the mother increases considerably as the mother’s age increases. For example, for a woman aged 20 the risk of Down syndrome in the child is one in 1,000. By the age of 30 this risk increases to one in 600. At the age of 35 it is one in 225 and by the age of 40 it is one in 62. So it goes from one in 1,000 at the age of 20 to one in 62 at the age of 40. There are numerous other health risks for both the mother and child as the age of the mother increases; health risks which have social, emotional and financial consequences. So it is in the mother’s interest, the baby’s interest and the nation’s interest for mothers to have children in their 20s rather than in their 30s. Paid parental leave will enable many of them to do exactly that. I want to conclude my remarks by commenting on one aspect of the amendment that the Leader of the Opposition has moved. He has moved that the House: (10) acknowledges that the bill places a totally unnecessary impost on Australian businesses by requiring employers to act as paymasters for eligible employees … The member for Solomon raised this matter as well. If anything is going to put additional pressure on businesses, it is the 1.7 per cent levy that the opposition leader’s proposal places on them. To suggest that the flaw in the government’s system is that employers will be making the payments and to ignore the real burden that the opposition leader’s proposal would put on them is absolute nonsense. I simply say, as I have said in this place on many occasions before, if you look at the track record of the Rudd government since coming to office you will see that this is a government that is truly supporting business out there in the community. The addition of a 1.7 per cent levy on businesses around Australia who turn over more than $5 million—and you do not have to be a big business to do that today—would be an impost that many of them simply do not need. This bill complements other measures already taken by the Rudd government—for example, raising the child care tax rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent and providing education rebates of $375 for primary school children and $750 for secondary school children. This scheme is fully costed and fully funded. I am also pleased to see that the minister has announced that this bill will be reviewed within a couple of years of being in operation. Finally, the measures in the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 relate to fixing up anomalies in respect of social welfare payments and income provisions of the taxation laws. Whilst I will not go into the detail of them, I believe that the bill needs to be supported because, if it is not and the parliament supports the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, then there will obviously be ramifications for a whole range of other payments that are currently being made to people. I commend the minister and everyone who has been associated with this legislation and I commend the bills to the House. 4628 19:56:00 Rea, Kerry, MP HVR Bonner ALP 1 0 Ms REA —I rise, like my colleagues, to support wholeheartedly the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, which sees the introduction of paid parental leave by the Rudd government. It is landmark legislation because for the first time we are saying and really meaning that women do not just have the right to work but are a valuable part of the workplace and make a valuable contribution to the prosperity and work of this country. For that reason alone, this bill is a significant achievement. It is also historic because it recognises, as a result of that, that allowing women to care for their families is a part of any government’s industrial relations and workplace policies, that women have the right to work, that they make a valuable contribution to the workforce and that they can do that better if we allow them the flexibility to be able to care for their families in a meaningful way. As this is such a historic piece of legislation, before I go into the detail of it I would like first of all to pay tribute to the many Australian women who have gone before and who have campaigned for many decades to see this legislation introduced. I begin by paying tribute to Jenny Macklin, the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, who has managed to bring through the cabinet a historic piece of legislation that also is detailed, fair, acknowledges the flexibility needed by women in the workforce, ensures an equitable distribution of the leave, and does all this in a way that is administratively simple for employers to be a part of. Last week in my family was a very sad week for all of us. My mother passed away. On Friday her seven children and their seven partners, her 18 grandchildren and her 19 great-grandchildren farewelled her at her funeral. She was nearly 91 years of age. She was born the year after the Great War, in 1919. She lived through the Depression. She worked for a small period of time as a maid in a hotel before she married my father. She was a very bright and intelligent woman but, like many women of her generation, left school at 12—although they wished her to stay on—because she was needed to help on the family farm in western Queensland. She looked after her children through World War II, the fifties, the sixties and the seventies and she even made it into 2010. She was a woman who not only cared for her family and believed that her priority was to be a mother who stayed at home and cared for her children but also believed that those children, particularly her five daughters, should always have better opportunities than she had had in her lifetime. She encouraged all of us to get an education, all of us to get a tertiary education and all of us to make the most of the opportunities that she and my father had worked so hard to give us. She believed very strongly that her sacrifice should see that we truly fulfilled our potential. She was also a fierce supporter of Labor governments. Indeed, being a woman of the bush, she constantly reminded me that in her experience of growing up in the bush it was not necessarily just conservative governments but also Labor governments that gave farmers, whose contribution was valued not just for their role in the sustenance of our country but also for their financial contribution to the country, the support they needed when they truly were struggling. She always reminded me of the role that Labor governments played in supporting those who were in need, and I cannot think of any more fitting tribute in saying goodbye to her than to be standing here as a woman in the first Labor government to introduce paid parental leave. This legislation is, as I said, significant not only because of what it puts before us but also because of the way it has been detailed and administered by the minister. It is fair and equitable because it targets low- and middle-income earners. Under this scheme, something like 85 per cent of parents will be better off than if they had simply chosen the baby bonus. It is important because it does not preclude women who choose to stay at home and not participate in the workforce from receiving assistance—they will still be able to access the baby bonus and family assistance. It also gives all women who are working the same amount of money. It acknowledges the support that families need at a time when one partner at least is at home caring for a newborn baby and provides everybody with a guaranteed $543.78 per week for 18 weeks. Importantly, this paid parental leave can also be passed on to a partner. Since the age of 21 I have been a mother, and in all that time I have been either studying or working. Unlike my mother or, indeed, my older sisters, I was the beneficiary of a Medicare scheme that supported me when I had small children with all sorts of ailments. I was also the beneficiary of affordable and available child care. But today we see another milestone reached. When I was pregnant with my second child, I had the great privilege of being a member of the Brisbane City Council—that is, an elected councillor in local government. I was fortunate that I had a partner who was very supportive of a work-life balance and, although I was an elected official and the amount of time I could take off to support our first child together was limited, he was able to take time off. It was important because it meant not only that I could continue to fulfil my role but also that my husband was able to bond with our newborn baby. That was his first child, and although she is 18 next week and has provided him with many challenges along the way, the bond between them is more significant because he had that opportunity to be at home. It is wonderful that, as a result of this legislation, many fathers will not only be able to share that same bond but also be able to do so in a climate of greater financial security if that is what the family chooses, and I would certainly say that that is an important thing. As you would appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker May, my being an elected official having contractions in the council chamber and having to get a pair the next day because I was in labour was a fairly nerve-racking way to introduce a father of two to staying at home and looking after a child. Nevertheless, it was right for our family at the time and I think it has improved the relationships that both of us have with our two children. What is also important about this legislation is that it provides administrative simplicity and certainty for employers and employees. This scheme will be administered either directly through the Family Assistance Office or by employers where they have an employee taking paid parental leave who has worked for them for 12 months or more prior to the birth or adoption of the child. It is important that the eligibility criteria outlined in the bill be mentioned, because once again the minister’s attention to detail has been very important in this area. You are eligible for the leave if: you are the mother of a newborn child or the initial primary carer of a recently adopted child, you have met the paid parental leave work test before the birth or adoption occurs, you are living in Australia and an Australian citizen or permanent resident, and you have an income of less than $150,000. I fully support this income test, because I acknowledge that this is a taxpayer funded scheme and that, although the government needs to support and promote the right of women to flexibility in the workplace, this should not be done to the extent that the taxpayer is unnecessarily burdened. I also believe that that limit represents a reasonable balance in acknowledging the need for financial support. Also significant about this scheme is the fact that the working parents eligible for leave include those who work full-time and part-time, those who are seasonal or casual workers, those who are contractors or self-employed and those who have multiple employers. I make that point because the vast majority of people who make up the casual workforce are women. To make sure that casual workers are included in this scheme is not easy to do, because you have to have calculations around hours worked and period of time in full-time work or the equivalent, and I pay tribute to the minister because she has managed to come up with a formula that does acknowledge casual workers and allow them to have access to the scheme. While supporting this legislation, I am very concerned about the amendments moved by the Leader of the Opposition and his position on paid parental leave. Many of my colleagues have already outlined their concerns about the opposition leader’s policy—not just his policy but whether we can actually believe his policy. We have heard comments like ‘over his dead body’ and the fact that, whilst we are one of only two OECD countries that do not have a paid parental leave scheme, this was never a priority for the previous government in the many long years that they controlled the government benches. What I am more concerned about is that the Australian community cannot really be certain that, even though the amendments are moved and it is supposedly the policy the opposition leader puts forward, we can believe him. The Australian community should be concerned about whether this is simply, as many have said, a grab for more support from women in the electorate or some way of trying to balance his bike-riding, budgie-smuggling image with a man who cares for women and their families. His policy is simply not fair. The reality is that if you are going to pay six months paid parental leave to any woman—six months of their $150,000 income; effectively paying up to $75,000—by putting a tax on industry, what you are saying is that the very people who need financial support the most, the middle- and low-income workers in this country, will be supporting high-income earners through an increase in consumer prices and through their taxes. Not only is that unfair in terms of the way that the finances of the Leader of the Opposition’s scheme are arranged but also it does not acknowledge the fact that something like 70 per cent of high-income earners who are women currently have access to paid parental leave as opposed to less than 25 per cent of low-income earners. So not only is it financially irresponsible and it imposes a great big new tax that is not fair and equitable; it does not acknowledge the discrepancies that this legislation is trying to address by creating a fairer, more equitable and broad-based Paid Parental Leave scheme. I would warn people who may be attracted to the idea of receiving six months of their income. We know full well the opposition leader’s history on industrial relations. We know full well his support for Work Choices legislation. We know full well that he was part of a government that sought to strip conditions from working people in this country rather than enhance them. So I would be very suspicious about someone like that who guarantees six months paid parental leave. I would also say to women and men: just think about what he is going to do to the rest of your working life. You might get six months paid parental leave, but what happens when you go back to work? What happens to your job security? What happens to your income security? What will the opposition leader’s policies do to your superannuation? What will they do to your penalty rates and all of those added working conditions that particularly working families rely on to maintain the work-life balance, which we all know is a struggle when you are trying to bring up a family? So do not be seduced by six months of income that is paid for by a big new tax on industry that ultimately low-income taxpayers will pay for. Also be very mindful of what that will mean for the conditions that you have in employment for the rest of your life. I commend this legislation. I thank the minister. I pay tribute to all the women who have gone before her and have campaigned for this. I am very proud to be Mum’s daughter and to be voting in a Labor government for paid parental leave. 4632 20:12:00 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 0 Ms MACKLIN —I would like to thank all of the members who have contributed. Some have made outstanding personal contributions, as you just have, Kerry. Congratulations to you and to your late mother as well. I really appreciate the contributions of all of the people who have participated in the debate on what is a very significant piece of legislation. This debate has been about both the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the related Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. In a moment I will go through some of the specific issues that have been raised during the course of the debate, but at the start I want to make some general remarks. These bills will introduce Australia’s first national government funded Paid Parental Leave scheme from 1 January 2011. This is landmark economic and social reform for Australian families and for Australian businesses. Our Paid Parental Leave scheme is fair to both businesses and families. It will provide 18 weeks parental leave pay at the national minimum wage to the primary carer of a newborn baby or adopted child. Our scheme will be transferable between parents who share the care of their child, allowing both mums and dads to spend time with their newborn babies. That is what this is all about: mums and dads having more time to spend with their newborn babies. Paid parental leave will give more babies in our country the best start that they can have in their lives, being cared for by their mums and dads. This scheme has been very carefully considered. It is practical, fully costed and will be fully funded out of consolidated revenue, not by imposing a new tax on Australian business, like the scheme proposed by the opposition. Australia is one of only two OECD countries which has not had a comprehensive paid parental leave scheme. When this bill is passed and becomes law, for the first time we will catch up with the rest of the developed world and finally have a paid parental leave scheme that we can all be proud of. Our scheme has several complementary objectives. First and foremost is the objective to enhance child and maternal health and the development of the child by enabling mothers to spend longer caring for their newborn child. The Productivity Commission estimated that this scheme would increase the amount of time new mothers can spend with their babies to around six months. Second, we want to facilitate women’s workforce participation. This will improve Australia’s productivity. Modelling by Econtech released last week by the Deputy Prime Minister says that the government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme could lead to an average increase of 1.9 per cent to baseline GDP to 2040. These are real economic benefits arising from paid parental leave. The third objective of the scheme is to promote gender equity and encourage work and family life balance, especially for women, who for so long have been juggling family responsibilities with their careers and the challenges of working life. Taking time off work to look after a newborn child is now a normal part of a woman’s working life. This Paid Parental Leave scheme has been developed after a report and recommendations from the Productivity Commission. Once again, I thank them for their very considerable efforts. The report followed extensive consideration and consultation with a range of groups over a two-year period. We have designed a scheme that balances the needs of all the different parties involved and also delivers very real benefits to families and real benefits to business. I will now go to some of the specific issues that were raised during the debate. Opposition speakers have called this landmark reform inadequate. They say we should have gone further. This is extraordinary, coming from a party that had 12 years in government to introduce paid parental leave but did nothing. In fact, as we are all very familiar with now, the Leader of the Opposition was so against paid parental leave that he said it would happen over his dead body. So basically you just cannot believe anything that the opposition says on paid parental leave. What we have heard is that the opposition wants to introduce a very big tax, a new tax, on business that will, of course, hurt families. By contrast, the government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme is fair for families and fair for business. It is fully costed, fully funded and affordable. It will cost around $260 million a year in net terms. The opposition, by contrast, has proposed a $3 billion a year alternative, funded by a very, very big new tax on business. And let us be clear: this is not just going to be a tax on business; this tax will flow through the economy and put up prices for families. Economic modelling by the Treasury has shown that the opposition’s proposed tax on business, which would fund their paid parental leave scheme, would reduce growth and investment while adding to inflation. So, far from helping families, the opposition’s scheme would increase the cost-of-living pressures on all Australians and hurt the economy. The Leader of the Opposition, during the second reading debate, managed to make two completely contradictory arguments that seem to me to be at the heart of their position on paid parental leave. First he critiqued the government’s scheme as a social security measure rather than a workplace entitlement, and then he went on to criticise our scheme for involving businesses in making the payment of parental leave pay to eligible employees. It is precisely because we see paid parental leave as adding to the workplace entitlements for working parents that we are asking employers to provide parental leave pay to their eligible long-term employees in exactly the same way that they currently pay them other workplace entitlements. We want paid parental leave to be considered a normal part of employers supporting women to take leave from work after birth to care for their child. We see parental leave as a benefit to the community, and ours is a government funded scheme as a result. The government is only requiring employers to be the paymaster for their long-term employees, and employers will of course reap the benefits through retention of skilled staff. The Family Assistance Office is making payments to other parents. There is no requirement for employers to pay people who will not return to work for them. This balances the interests of parents and employers. Our scheme is fair to all parties. During the debate, members highlighted that women on low salaries do not generally have an entitlement to employer funded parental leave. It is true that low-income women are the big winners from this scheme, as the member for Bonner highlighted in her remarks. That is why passage of this legislation is so important. There are far too many Australian mothers missing out on parental leave. In relation to superannuation and paid parental leave, the government has said that we will review the scheme in two years time, and the introduction of superannuation will be one of the matters considered. This is the approach to superannuation recommended by the Productivity Commission in its final report. The Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill introduces transitional provisions for employers who will have six months to adjust to the scheme. Business will not be required to pay parental leave until 1 July 2011, but they can choose to participate earlier if they wish to do so. To provide this transitional time for business to adjust to the scheme, the Family Assistance Office will provide parental leave pay during the first six months to claimants who are not paid by their employer. To make it easier for employers, we have designed the scheme so that the Family Assistance Office informs them of their role. They will not be required to work out if their employee is eligible. All of this will be done by the Family Assistance Office for employers. The Family Assistance Office will send sufficient funds to the employer before the payment date so that employers will not be out of pocket and payments will not affect their cash flow. There will be no need for business to change their payroll systems because full funding will be provided before the payment date so that payments can be made in line with their existing pay cycle. Workers compensation premiums will not be payable on parental leave. I make it clear that employers cannot absorb parental leave pay into existing employer funded schemes and withhold parental leave pay owed to an employee. Where an employee has an existing entitlement to paid parental leave under an existing industrial instrument, it is enforceable as provided for under that instrument. The Paid Parental Leave Bill establishes a separate statutory obligation on an employer to pay an instalment where the relevant conditions are satisfied. An employer must pay an instalment of parental leave pay if required under this bill. Meeting this obligation under the Paid Parental Leave Bill does not offset an obligation under an existing industrial instrument. Finally, we have had a number of speakers mention payroll tax. We have been working with the states and territories for some time now and they have all been given copies of the bill. The Deputy Prime Minister has written to them to obtain final advice about whether parental leave pay would already be exempt under existing legislation or whether they would need to amend their legislation before the scheme begins. They have been asked to come back to us with their final advice on the matter as soon as possible. Our intention is clear: paid parental leave will be exempt from payroll tax. The Paid Parental Leave scheme introduced by these bills is landmark reform for Australian families. This Paid Parental Leave Scheme is based on sound evidence, rigorous analysis by the Productivity Commission and consultation with a wide range of stakeholders over two years. Of course, as a result of that, the scheme balances many interests and we do believe that we have these balances right. Women will get 18 weeks of parental leave pay to help them take more time off work. These payments are funded by the government, not by any new taxes or levies. Payments will generally be made by employers just like other leave entitlements. Any costs involved in paying employees will be tax deductible for businesses. The Australian people get an affordable scheme which will help to increase women’s workforce participation and alleviate the impacts of an ageing population on the workforce. Australian families have waited too long for a national paid parental leave scheme and, with this bill, we are finally catching up with the rest of the developed world. It has been a long campaign for many, many people. I particularly take this opportunity to thank the hardworking staff of the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs along with their colleagues in the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, the Department of Human Services and Centrelink. Delivering this scheme would not have been possible without their considerable commitment. It also has been very important to have the support of my parliamentary colleagues and I particularly thank the Deputy Prime Minister, especially in her role as the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. I also thank the Minister for the Status of Women. Both have had a long-term commitment to the development of paid parental leave. Their hard work, along with that of countless other women, has finally made this policy a reality. This is a scheme that is delivered for Australian families by a government that believes in paid parental leave, a government that wants to support Australian families and Australian business to make sure that the future is a better one for all the babies who are going to be born and benefit from this landmark development of paid parental leave in Australia. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Abbott’s amendment) stand part of the question. 20:32:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. BC Scott) 74 Adams, D.G.H. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.S. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. 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. Georganas, S. 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. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Zappia, A. 55 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. Forrest, J.A. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Jensen, D. Keenan, M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Neville, P.C. O’Dwyer, K Pearce, C.J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Secker, P.D. * Simpkins, L. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. * denotes teller Question agreed to. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Order! It being past 8.30 pm the proceedings are interrupted in accordance with standing order 34. The proceedings may be resumed at the next sitting. 4636 Petitions 83Z Irwin, Julia, MP Mrs Irwin —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, and in accordance with standing order 207, I present the following petitions: 83Z Mrs Irwin 191 4636 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: the plight of the Klue family who immigrated to Australia from South Africa as State-sponsored business immigrants in December 2007. Due to circumstances over which they have had little or no control, residence in Australia has been denied. As State-sponsored immigrants, they have no personal right of appeal. Only the State can appeal, and it is not State policy to do so. Consequently they are left without remedy. The Klue family operate a successful commodity store business in Buderim, Queensland as required under the conditions of business sponsorship, but in such a way that they have endeared themselves to the community. They are self-sufficient in every way and net contributors to the economy. We the undersigned, regard them as exactly the sort of immigrants Australia needs. We therefore ask the House to: recommend that the Department of Immigration review the case of the Klue family and take action to correct any irregularities that may remain, for the express purpose of helping the Klue family to remain in Australia. 191 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 191 citizens) 83Z Mrs Irwin 44 4636 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the National School Chaplaincy Program, built on the excellent history of school chaplaincy in Australia, which was introduced by the former Coalition Government in 2007/08 with a commitment of $165 million for its first three years. It was endorsed by Prime Minister Rudd who said “they (Chaplains) actually are providing the glue which keeps school communities rolling”. The program offers pastoral care and spiritual guidance to all. Chaplains necessarily have religious beliefs which underpin their work. These beliefs are representative of the school communities the chaplains work in and they do not hinder chaplains from working with those of other beliefs or none. It operates in 1915 schools and enjoys strong support among principals, schools and in the community generally. The Rudd Government has extended funding for the program, at a reduced level, until the end of 2011, after which time there may be no more funding despite the program’s social benefits, sound administration and strong community support. Malcolm Turnbull has announced that if elected, the Coalition would continue funding the program in its current form, at its current level of $165 million over 3 years. We therefore ask that the Rudd Government continue funding for the National School Chaplaincy Program in its current form. 44 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 44 citizens) 83Z Mrs Irwin 49 4636 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives We the below being Christians and voters resident within Australia wish to draw to the attention of the House that education departments within this country are not allowing the teaching of intelligent creation of the beginnings of man in state schools. We request legislation to allow biblical truth back into all of our education systems 49 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 49 citizens) 83Z Mrs Irwin 3234 4637 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives The Petition of the Tamworth and District Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Tamworth Regional Development Corporation, their Directors, members, and businesses and community of Tamworth and the Tamworth region Draws to the attention of the House: The Australian Defence Force Basic Flying Training School (BFTS) has been operated by BAE Systems Australia (BAE) in Tamworth, NSW since 1999. For seven years prior to that, BAE had conducted the Army flying training in Tamworth. The current contract is due to end soon and there has been a request for tenders. There is therefore the risk that the BFTS is relocated. BFTS contributes in excess of $20m to the local economy and employs around 135 local people. A relocation of BFTS will therefore have a serious impact on Tamworth’s local economy and create a substantial loss of jobs in the area, both directly and indirectly. Furthermore, a relocation of BFTS would be extremely costly in terms of having to replicate the existing Tamworth facilities elsewhere. BAE is the only company in NSW participating in the Interim Basic Flying Training tender, which, if successful will ensure the BFTS stays in Tamworth. We therefore ask the House to: Consider the significant contribution that Tamworth and its regional communities have made to the success of the Army Flying Training and then the Australian Defence Force Basic Flying Training School over the last 18 years and therefore support the BFTS remaining in Tamworth. 3234 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 3,234 citizens) Petitions received. 4637 83Z Irwin, Julia, MP Mrs Irwin —A ministerial response to a petition previously presented to the House has been received as follows: 4637 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter of 11 February 2010 to the Minister for Health and Ageing, the Hon Nicola Roxon MP, seeking a response to a petition regarding aged care for the Chinese speaking community. I am responding as the Minister for Ageing. Each year, new aged care places are made available for allocation in each state and territory, based on their population projections and the current level of aged care provided through the Aged Care Approvals Round (ACAR). The places across aged care planning regions seek to achieve a balance in the provision of services between metropolitan, regional, rural and remote areas. The process for planning the annual allocation and distribution of new aged care places is set out in the Aged Care Act 1997 (the Act). The objectives of the process are to provide an open and clear planning mechanism and to allocate places in a way that best meets the identified needs of the community, including those people living with special needs. The current national planning benchmark is set at 113 operational aged care places for every 1,000 persons of the population aged 70 years and over, to be achieved by June 2011. These 113 places comprise 48 high care and 65 low care places. In each state and territory, Aged Care Planning Advisory Committees (ACPACs) are established to provide advice to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing on how the new places should be distributed among aged care planning regions each year. The Committee considers population projections, data on supply and demand and also input in relation to identified aged care needs and geographic locations from federal, state and local government, community groups, individuals and organisations. A Committee may identify a geographic location, special needs group and/or key issue as having a particular focus if the Committee believes that the identified need is not being met through existing or planned services. This is then reflected in details published in the regional distribution which form part of the Essential Guide for an ACAR. Community groups, organisations and/or individuals have the opportunity to make submissions to the ACPACs to help them form their recommendations. The identification of a special needs group or groups, indicates that the relevant Committee has identified this category of people as having a particular focus in the ACAR. Under the Act, people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (CALD) are identified as one of the prescribed special needs groups. Therefore, applicants in the ACAR are required to demonstrate how they will tailor their service delivery to meet the particular care needs of people from this special needs group. Applicants must also provide evidence of the links they have established with relevant communities and key organisations to facilitate the provision of culturally appropriate aged care in this circumstance. The 2009-10 ACAR was launched on 30 January 2010, and applications closed on 15 March 2010. In the ACAR, aged care providers in Victoria were able to apply for 1,490 residential places. Of these, a ‘pool’ of 375 residential aged care places were available to all regions within the state addressing, amongst other matters, the provision of care for people from Chinese, Croatian, Indian, Spanish and Sri Lankan communities. In addition all the metropolitan aged care planning regions identify people from non-English speaking backgrounds as a focus for the 2009-10 ACAR. Providers in Victoria also had the opportunity to apply for 428 Community Aged Care Packages, 338 Extended Aged Care at Home packages and 210 Extended Aged Care at Home Dementia packages. Of these, over 90 per cent focus on, amongst other matters, the provision of care for people from CALD backgrounds. In addition, the 2009-10 ACAR also offered up to $160 million under stage two of the Rudd Government’s Zero Real Interest Loans initiative. Round one of this initiative sought to encourage proven providers, through the provision of low cost finance, to establish or expand aged care services in areas of high need. Eligibility has been extended to providers seeking to cater to the needs of people from CALD backgrounds. Applicants also had the opportunity in the 2009-10 ACAR to apply for $41.6 million in capital grants to construct or upgrade residential aged care services. The Community Partners Program provides grants to individual organisations to promote and facilitate increased and sustained access to information and services for people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities with significant aged care needs. Under the Community Partners Program, more than $15 million in funding was made available over three years to successful organisations starting in 2009-10. As part of the competitive selection process, 11 community organisations targeting the Chinese community around Australia were approved and will receive a combined $2,120,468 in funding over three years. Of these, five community organisations in Victoria have been funded a total of $918,120 over three years to provide services such as cultural briefings, referral services and translations, and establish partnerships between aged care providers and communities. These organisations are: Chinese Community Social Services Centre Inc; City of Greater Bendigo; Geelong Ethnic Communities Council Inc (or Diversitat); Gippsland Multicultural Services Inc; and Migrant Information Centre Ltd (East Melbourne). Recently the Government provided terms of reference to the Productivity Commission to conduct an inquiry into the care needs of older Australians over the next 20 years. The terms of reference include reference to meeting the specific needs of groups including those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. The Commission has been asked to provide its final recommendations by April 2011. Further information about the inquiry can be found on the Productivity Commission’s website located at www.pc.gov.au. I appreciate you taking the time to write on this matter and trust this information is of assistance. from the Minister for Ageing, Mrs Elliot 4639 4639 20:37:00 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 1 0 Mrs IRWIN —Tonight, I am pleased to take the opportunity to report further on recent activities by the Petitions Committee. Last week I spoke about interstate hearings conducted by the committee in April. These were arranged to follow up on matters raised in petitions that had been presented to the House. Last week I referred to two matters that we discussed at our hearing in Sydney. Tonight I will refer to another issue from the Sydney hearing, as well as hearings in Brisbane and Melbourne in April. In Sydney we considered a petition asking the House to recognise lymphoedema as a serious medical condition and to include it in the Enhanced Primary Care Program. Ms Cecily Miner spoke to us about the very serious impact that lymphoedema has on sufferers. I can say that I was aware of the disease in general terms but, until then, I did not realise how complicated it was to diagnose, and to treat—much less to live with. The matters we considered in Brisbane were a mixture of national and regional in nature. We heard from petitioners regarding the state of the Warrego Highway, which is a major transport link between Brisbane and Darwin. We also heard from petitioners calling for the construction of a Toowoomba bypass to provide for safer and more efficient transport between Brisbane and the west. That petition had been signed by approximately 27,000 petitioners, so it is clearly an issue that is on the minds of people in that region. Something that seemed to be at the heart of both petitions was decentralisation in South-East Queensland and the growth that has occurred in recent years, particularly in Toowoomba, which 23,000 vehicles now pass through each day. Petitioners also spoke to us about the impact on local infrastructure, particularly the Warrego Highway, from coal mining and ethanol and gas production. They also mentioned the impact of the continuing role of Dalby and Roma as major centres for cattle sales. I am pleased that the petitions process enables these issues to be known about more widely. We also heard from supporters of a petition that is on more of a national issue—although the major supporters of that petition were Queensland based. The petition sought information regarding the sinking of the Montevideo Maru in World War II and the tragic loss of more than 1,000 Australians. Tragedies like this, no matter how long ago they occurred, never lose their impact on the families and friends of those who were involved. When the committee met with petitioners in Melbourne a few weeks ago, we spoke to organisers of a petition about live animal exports to the Middle East. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Order! The time allotted for petitions has expired. 4639 Committees 4639 4639 4639 20:40:00 Parke, Melissa, MP HWR Fremantle ALP 1 0 Ms PARKE —On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, I present the committee’s report entitled Examination of the annual report of the Integrity Commissioner 2008-09, together with evidence received by the committee. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. HWR Parke, Melissa, MP Ms PARKE —I am very pleased to speak tonight on the tabling of the Joint Standing Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity’s report and its examination of the Integrity Commissioner’s annual report for 2008-09. The 2008-09 annual report is the third annual report of the Integrity Commissioner and covers the second full year of operation. Of course, ACLEI commenced operation on 30 December 2006, midway through the 2006-07 financial year. The committee’s review of the annual report is one of its important recurrent responsibilities. As the committee chair, I am happy to say that the 2008-09 annual report reflects an agency that has matured and is now firmly embedded in, and positively influencing, the Commonwealth integrity and law enforcement environment. The previous reporting period, 2007-08, was characterised as a time of consolidation, in which ACLEI transitioned to corporate autonomy and refined its assessment and investigation expertise. During 2008-09, ACLEI emerged as a more externally focused agency. This was evident in two ways: first, ACLEI demonstrated its growing expertise through its contributions to key government priorities—the Commonwealth Organised Crime Strategic Framework, for example—as well as to the integrity processes of the agencies under its oversight; second, ACLEI actively focused its efforts to ensure it is informed by, and responds to, broader policy challenges. ACLEI’s contribution to the Australian Law Reform Commission’s review of secrecy laws is one example of this. Since ACLEI commenced operation in December 2006, the agency has experienced a steady increase in potential corruption issues notified and referred. This trend shows no signs of abating. The committee therefore welcomes the transfer of an additional $1.6 million over four years to ACLEI announced in the 2010-11 budget. This additional funding will undoubtedly augment ACLEI’s capacity to assess potential corruption matters and complete investigations in a timely manner. Notwithstanding this injection of funding, the committee remains concerned about the resourcing pressures on ACLEI, the consequent workload pressures on ACLEI staff and the impact of these upon timeliness of investigations. The committee has therefore reiterated its recommendation from previous reports that ACLEI’s funding be increased. Intelligence gathering is integral to the work of ACLEI. The committee notes the progress ACLEI has made in establishing sound relationships with state and federal intelligence sources, facilitating a trusted basis for the exchange of data. The report notes, however, the importance of ACLEI gaining access to Commonwealth information and intelligence databases in a more timely and streamlined—and, ideally, cost-neutral—manner. The committee has also encouraged the consideration of options that may give the Integrity Commissioner greater capacity to prohibit the disclosure of information in certain circumstances in order to protect the integrity of investigations. In particular, the committee suggests that consideration be given to incorporating a provision in the LEIC Act that allows for a prohibition on the disclosure of information invoked under sections 75 and 76 of the act. The committee continues its support for the proactive approach ACLEI has taken to corruption deterrence and prevention and notes the value of the activities it undertook in 2008-09. These included: corruption risk reviews of the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Federal Police, which culminated in the very useful report Resistance to corruption; presentations to AFP and ACC staff to help instil a culture of integrity; and the identification of corruption risks during investigations, and the transmittal of this learning back to the agency. ACLEI has developed into an organisation that, although still small, is highly effective and well respected by the agencies it oversees and by those in the integrity community. The committee hopes to soon learn of the government’s response to its recommendation, made in the first part of its current inquiry into the operation of the LEIC Act, that ACLEI’s jurisdiction be immediately expanded to include the Customs and Border Protection Service. Given the corruption risks inherent in a law enforcement agency like Customs, it simply makes good sense to provide this increased oversight and such a measure, I understand, would be welcomed by the Customs service itself. I take this opportunity to commend the Integrity Commissioner and his staff for their hard work and dedication during the reporting period and for the production of an informative annual report. I also state in this place that the committee is fully satisfied with the information sharing, cooperation and responsiveness it has received from the Integrity Commissioner and his staff since the inception of ACLEI and looks forward to a continued positive working relationship. Finally, as always, I thank the hard-working committee secretariat for their assistance in producing the committee’s report. 4641 20:46:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 1 0 Mr HAYES —As a member of the Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, I too would like to make a comment on the annual report of the Integrity Commissioner. It is important to realise that corruption can take many forms. It could be a conflict of interest, improper associations, nepotism or cronyism. It could be the abuse of office or the abuse of power, perjury, inappropriate disclosure, the fabrication of evidence, fraud or theft. These are possibilities that occur with the transmission of power. Traditionally, the way of dealing with those matters would be very much a reactionary model. Dealing with corruption would take the form of awaiting the processes of the judicial system. If a suspect was first investigated and there was sufficient evidence, a charge would be laid before the courts. Court proceedings would eventually involve a verdict. One way or another, that would be evidence or otherwise of corruption. Since 2006, with the establishment of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, there has been a bipartisan attempt to have a very proactive model to look at integrity within law enforcement. ACLEI itself oversees the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission, particularly in instances of alleged corruption within those organisations. Having said that, I know from my involvement with those bodies that the AFP as well as the ACC have very fine internal integrity processes, and they are to be complimented on that. But, when we increase the powers of organisations such as the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission and when we give them coercive powers, particularly in respect of the latter, it is only proper that we take all practical steps to ensure that that power is not abused and that integrity is uppermost in the minds of people who exercise that power on our behalf. This process is important not only for public safety but also for public confidence in our systems of law enforcement. Given that organised crime costs this country between $10 billion and $15 billion a year, it is reasonable to expect that the tentacles of organised crime can easily find their way into corrupt practices within various organisations, regardless of who they are administered by. ACLEI has a direct responsibility not simply to ferret out criminal acts within the Australian Federal Police or the Australian Crime Commission but also proactively to set the standards of proper conduct within those organisations. Since late 2006, ACLEI has identified a steady increase in potential areas of corruption within those organisations. As a consequence, it has enhanced its own intelligence-gathering capacities as well as employing good collaborative relationships between other federal and state intelligence services. I too welcome the additional funds which have been allocated to ACLEI in this budget, an extra $1.6 million over the next four years. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Order! The time for statements on this report has expired. 4642 Bills S748 4642 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr John Cobb. 4642 20:50:00 Cobb, John, MP 00AN1 Calare NATS 0 0 Mr JOHN COBB —In a joint media release on 20 October 2009, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Health and Ageing stated they were scrapping the ban on imported beef from countries which have had BSE outbreaks and beef would be allowed in from BSE infected countries from 1 March 2010. There has been widespread concern about this decision not only from Australian beef producers and retailers but also from Australian consumers. The coalition has taken a strong stance against simply opening our borders to whoever wants to import beef into Australia. We received strong support from around the country, with many echoing the sentiments of the General Manager of the Dairy Beef Alliance, Peter Wilkinson, in his letter to the minister for agriculture, Tony Burke. He said: As the GM of a beef company producing in excess of 10,000 head annually for both domestic and export markets … I find it unacceptable that we are legally required to comply with NLIS while the government is happy to lower the bar for imported beef which could end up on the shelf beside our product. It has to be made very clear that Australian beef is the safest in the world and the coalition is committed to ensuring that remains the case. This is why the coalition has given notice of the Food Importation (Bovine Meat Standards) Bill 2010, which will ensure equivalence to Australian production standards, require the government to undertake an import risk analysis and require country of origin labelling for beef and beef products imported into Australia. The coalition believes that at the very least the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries must demand equivalency with current Australian standards, which would mean that any country which has had a BSE outbreak must have an equivalent to Australia’s National Livestock Identification Scheme, or NLIS, in place before they can import beef into Australia. Under the Rudd government, Australian beef producers will have to produce beef to a higher standard than imported beef from countries which have had a BSE outbreak. Our industry legally requires an NLIS to sell beef to Australian consumers and it is ridiculous to suggest that we should lower the bar and allow beef in from countries which have lower food safety and quarantine standards than our own producers. I was recently in Brazil and the United States talking to agricultural officials, beef processors and producers who all said they were aware of Australia’s NLIS and are jealous of it as a food safety, disease control and marketing tool. However, due to domestic politics a similar system will not be introduced in either country anytime soon. The United States has abandoned its central plank in its BSE control measures, namely the National Animal Identification Scheme. On 5 February the United States Secretary of Agriculture announced that he had scrapped the national identification scheme in favour of a state based scheme which the USDA website states will ‘only apply to animals moved in interstate commerce and be administered by the States and Tribal Nations to provide more flexibility’. The USDA website states: The new framework focuses only on animals that move interstate. So, small producers who raise animals and move them within a State, Tribal Nation, or to local markets, as well as to feed themselves, their families, and their neighbors are not a part of the framework’s scope and focus. This is clearly not equivalent to the standards enforced by legislation on Australia’s beef producers. Chief executive officer Ron DeHaven says that the American Veterinary Medical Association cannot endorse Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack’s new approach to animal disease traceability because there are simply too many unanswered questions. He said: As I understand it they will let each state and tribal nation more or less develop their own program. So I’m concerned about interoperability between fifty or more different systems. Will one state be able to talk to another state as an animal moves through interstate commerce? Bruce Knight, the United States Department of Agriculture’s marketing and regulatory undersecretary in the final years of the Bush administration, fears that abandoning the NAIS model will undercut US efforts to obtain a negligible BSE risk rating from the World Organisation for Animal Health. The coalition has been concerned about the lack of consultation and the secrecy surrounding the government’s decision to abolish the ban on beef imports from countries which have had a BSE outbreak. I commend this bill to the House Bill read a first time. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—In accordance with standing order 41(d), the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 4643 Private Members' Business 4643 4643 20:55:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 1 0 Ms KING —I move: That this House acknowledges the Australian Government’s significant achievements in improving the economic position of women. It is a pretty extraordinary anomaly that, in this day and age, women on average still earn less than men and save significantly less for their retirement. Women make up just over half of Australia’s total population and more women than men are now educated in secondary schools and in universities. More women than men graduate from university with bachelor degrees. More than 30 per cent of Australia’s small business operators are women. And of course this government has a Deputy Prime Minister who is a woman and eight other women in ministerial or parliamentary secretary positions. We also have the highest number of women ever in our parliament today. Australia has a female Governor-General and three women on the High Court. I am proud to say that this government has shown clear and unequivocal leadership—long overdue—in introducing practical measures to improve equality between women and men. New initiatives in the 2010-11 budget are a key part of our ongoing efforts to progress the long-term security of women. First, there is superannuation. Increasing the superannuation package guarantee to 12 per cent by 2020 is a big win for women. It will generate more super savings for women. It lays the groundwork for economic security. It helps provide certainty and peace of mind. We have improved equity for low-income earners by reducing contributions taxes for those on a marginal rate of 15 per cent or below. This means that, in 2012-13, one million women will be eligible for the up to $500 low-income earners superannuation rebate. Sixty per cent of the recipients of this rebate will be women. We are also helping over-50s top up their super balances when they are most able to do so by keeping their $50,000 concessional contributions cap. What will this mean in real terms? Because of the government’s reforms, a woman aged 30 now and on average weekly earnings with a broken work pattern will have an extra $78,000 upon her retirement. In anyone’s language, that is a stronger and fairer superannuation scheme. These reforms are the next step in the government’s agenda to improve the economic security of women. And this has been a feature of all three budgets that this government has delivered. A second issue is Australia’s first Paid Parental Leave scheme. This is a clear win for women. It will help working women during the crucial early months of their baby’s life and help women stay connected to their workforce and their careers while they have children. And, being fully funded, it will continue to encourage and support family friendly workplaces, particularly in the important small business sector. Thirdly, there is the Fair Work Act 2009, which restored fairness to the industrial relations system. It makes it easier for women and men to balance their paid work and family lives. It delivers pay equity. It is a fact that more women continue to be in low-paid jobs. Fundamental measures like a fairer safety net and facilitated bargaining are essential to women’s economic security. Under Work Choices, AWAs stripped away conditions like overtime and penalty rates without any compensation to employees. Women working full time on AWAs took home, on average, $87.40 per week less than their colleagues working on collective agreements. We got rid of the Work Choices rip-off. Fourthly, the Rudd government is investing $273.7 million to support the introduction of the new National Quality Framework for early childhood education and child care. When Australian parents make the decision to place their children in child care they deserve to know that they are receiving high-quality care and education wherever they live across Australia. The Australian government is committed to ensuring that families have access to high-quality, affordable child care. We have invested $14.4 billion in this sector over the next four years to help more than 800,000 Australian families annually. Better child care means more women will have more options in regard to work. Finally, this government has delivered a significant increase for pensioners and carers. We have delivered $100 a fortnight for single rate pensioners. Seventy-two per cent of single rate pensioners are women. This will make a real difference in the lives of many women. There has been a long and vibrant history in this country of singular voices raised in support of the rights and welfare of women. But it was only 44 years ago that the bar on married women being permanent employees in the federal public service was lifted and a mere 27 years ago that Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. There is still more work to do, but I applaud this government for its strong commitment to improving the economic lives of Australian women, and I commend this motion to the House. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Is the motion seconded? DZP Bird, Sharon, MP Ms Bird —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 4645 21:00:00 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 0 Dr STONE —I just cannot believe that we are being asked to stand up tonight and acknowledge the government’s achievements in improving the economic position of women, because all of the statistics, all of the commentary out in the community today, and of course all of the despair and worry of women is about the fact that their economic position under this Labor government is deteriorating. The member for Ballarat began by calling our attention to the gender pay gap. This is the difference in wages paid to men and women doing the same work or work of equal value. Under Labor, since the Rudd Labor government has come into power, this pay gap has widened. It has got worse. And in the developing nations, the OECD comparators, we find ourselves almost a joke in that we have amongst the highest-educated women in the developed world, but we have the biggest gender pay gap. It is 17 per cent on average today. Women are only paid 83 per cent of the same wages that men receive for work of equal or comparable value. The finance and insurance industry pay gap is on average 31.9 per cent, the pay gap for female CFOs and CEOs is about 50 per cent, and getting worse. Women are only about 8.3 per cent of board directorships; two per cent of CEO roles and 10.7 per cent of senior executive positions are held by women, and under Labor it has got worse! Our government boards reflect their total failure to address an area of board position appointments under their control. Board positions under Labor are more likely to be male. I just find it extraordinary that the Making it fair report, with more than 60 recommendations to improve this situation, still languishes on the minister’s desk gathering dust. And then we move to paid parental leave. Yes, it is essential for women. The scheme introduced by Labor is a disgrace. That is why, when we come into power, we will change it and deliver to women a replacement salary or minimum wage, whichever is the highest, and superannuation. As the member for Ballarat said, women are absolutely discriminated against in the workforce with their come-and-go career breaks because they are the major carers in our society, and did Labor put superannuation into their Paid Parental Leave scheme? No, they did not—in other words, they are perpetuating the problem of superannuation continuity for working women. How can they stand up and ask us to celebrate that fact? I have to say that I am ashamed every time I think about how this government is representing women today. Yes, 73 per cent of single age pensioners are women, and that is not going to change as long as we have Labor perpetuating the problems for working women. Women in work need child care, very often women between the ages of 20 and 40. What has this government done to child care? Let us look at it: they have cut the childcare rebate from $7,778 to $7,500. They said it is only about rich parents. No, it is not; it is about parents who have at least a baby or toddler in care four or five days a week paying the average childcare fees. They hit that cap very quickly, and so this government has made child care less affordable. It has introduced a national quality framework, along with COAG, which we know will increase costs of child care up to $22 per day. This government does not care; it slashed childcare rebates. It has also made it very hard for rural and remote women to survive and get child care. If you are in Western Australia in the wheat belt, particularly if you are from the towns of Darkan, Dalwallinu, Cunderdin or Corrigin, forget it! Those towns do have child care right now, but unfortunately their child care does not have the sort of demand for 48 weeks a year, eight hours a day, Monday to Friday. They are part-time centres, but they are excellent centres and they make it possible for women to work in those small rural wheat belt towns in Western Australia. They are also places that give their children a break from the social isolation they often experience in such small communities. What has this government done? The minister, Kate Ellis, has said: ‘Look, we’re not so sure about you. We’re not going to give you ongoing registration as a childcare centre. We’ll give you six months if you’re lucky.’ How can you employ paid professional staff on that basis? And you cannot go instead and set up a family day care centre because Labor slashed the $1,500 start-up payment in this budget. In particular, it has also slashed the remote area family day care start payment of $5,000. That starts in July. Family day care is an extraordinarily valuable service for families. No more start-ups for them and, unfortunately, that particular service, family day care, was also where a lot of women started their small business careers—working from home with their own children, being able to provide professional child care. This government does not care. It has slashed, done away with, those day care start-up payments. I have to say in relation to Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency, there is no money for them either. (Time expired) 4646 21:06:00 Bird, Sharon, MP DZP Cunningham ALP 1 0 Ms BIRD —I am very pleased to rise to support the member for Ballarat’s motion before the House tonight, and I have followed with interest the member for Murray’s comments. I should indicate that I was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment and Workplace Relations that brought down the Making it fair report, a report on pay equity and associated issues related to increasing female participation in the workforce. I say to the member for Murray: I find the opposition’s new-found enthusiasm for dealing with these issues of great interest and somewhat amusing in the context that we saw, for 12 years, that so little was done on the things that the members of the opposition now complain we are not doing enough on. In the evidence that we took during the Making it fair inquiry, it was quite clear that one of the outstanding issues over years in Australia that had not been addressed—if we want to make OECD comparisons—was the lack of a paid parental leave scheme. It was something that, when they were in government, the opposition clearly had very little interest in; in fact they often expressed an active lack of interest in introducing a paid parental leave scheme. I am pleased to see that the member for Murray is so passionate about it. I did not hear her being quite so passionate on that issue when the coalition had the government benches and I did not hear her insisting on a scheme that is in fact even bigger— EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr Stone —Better? DZP Bird, Sharon, MP Ms BIRD —No, not better—I will have that argument with you. In fact, you might want to talk to some of your National Party colleagues, who also have a view about the equity of providing women who work in cities and earn a good income paid parental leave that reimburses them for those opportunities and denies justice to women who work in country areas and do not have the capacity to earn the same income. EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr Stone —I’m sorry, country people have the same need to work as metro people. DZP Bird, Sharon, MP Ms BIRD —I suggest to the member for Murray that, rather than arguing across the table with me, she could continue that debate in her own party room, where I understand it has been raging with some considerable disagreement. The importance of a paid parental leave scheme is that it provides equity to all women who apply for it—that is exactly what the government’s scheme does. I was listening to the debate on the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 earlier in this place and I welcome the newfound enthusiasm of those opposite for a paid parental leave scheme. However, as they struggle within their own party room to find a scheme they can all agree on, one can only be thankful that they have finally realised in this modern age that it is something they should actually support. I also take the opportunity to point out how important the report found the issue of superannuation and retirement incomes for women to be. Many women— EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr Stone —Where is your report? Why isn’t the minister dealing with it? DZP Bird, Sharon, MP Ms BIRD —I did not interrupt the member for Murray once while she was speaking; I would appreciate the same respect. In terms of superannuation, the report made it clear that the over-the-lifetime income of working women was one of the major issues contributing to the pay equity gap in Australia. That is because women quite regularly have a form of broken employment that means that they do not actually have the capacity to accumulate superannuation at the same rate as men. Also, because, sadly, we have one of the most gender segregated workforces in the world, they are quite often in the lower income types of jobs, which are often casual and part time. So, over a lifetime of working they often end up with around only 60 per cent of the superannuation that males accumulate. Furthermore, women do tend to live longer than men—unfortunately, some of my colleagues may think. If you look at single-income homes of people in the retirement age bracket you will often see women living by themselves. Their having to sustain themselves on significantly less super is a real issue. The government’s commitment to the low-income super contribution rebates, which provide an opportunity for those earning up to $37,000 a year to take benefits of up to an additional $500, as announced in the budget, on top of the existing co-contribution payment scheme, is important to encourage people on low incomes and incomes based on casual and part-time employment to put away more for their super. I also think it is really important that we maintain and deliver on the commitment to raise the superannuation guarantee from nine to 12 per cent. It is well overdue, and it will make a huge difference for those on low incomes in particular at the point at which they retire. In fact, by the time she retires, a woman now aged 30 who has broken employment will have $78,000 extra. (Time expired) 4647 21:11:00 O’Dwyer, Kelly, MP LKU Higgins LP 1 0 Ms O’DWYER —In his maiden speech to parliament, former Prime Minister Paul Keating said: In the last couple of years the government— meaning the coalition— has boasted about the increasing number of women in the workforce. Rather than something to be proud of, I feel it is something of which we should be ashamed. Then, as now, the coalition is well ahead of Labor in advancing the economic and social role of women in Australia. So many of Labor’s pronouncements these days are breathtaking in their audacity, and this motion is no different. The success Australia has had to date in improving the economic position of women has very little to do with this government. Insofar as this government has been successful in creating positive outcomes for women it is because it has continued the policies of the previous, coalition government. Where it has not—where it has deviated—we have seen an undermining of the economic position of women. This government has made promises that it now refuses to honour. This is a massive problem for everyone, but for women in particular. Before the 2007 election, Labor promised that they would be economic conservatives. They said that they would be prudent with our money and that, in their words, ‘this reckless spending must stop’. Instead we see spending with reckless abandon through botched government programs and billion dollar cost blowouts. The government promised to build an additional 260 childcare centres. They hailed this announcement as a solution to the double drop-off that was a crisis for Australian families. Not only have these 260 childcare centres not been built, but Labor has scrapped the idea before they have even finished their first term. Now they say they will build a total of 38 childcare centres—though, given it has taken all of this time to complete just three, the women of Australia should not hold their collective breath. By contrast, the Howard-Costello government delivered for the women of Australia. Apart from building a strong economic foundation for this country, the coalition also implemented important reforms that remain central to Australia’s social policy framework today. The baby bonus, implemented in 2004, provided one-off payments to families to assist them in making the necessary changes to work and family arrangements as a result of the birth of their child. The greater flexibility provided by the bonus increased fertility, with the number of babies per woman rising from 1.77 to 1.81 in 2005, breaking a 40-year decline. The childcare tax rebate introduced by the coalition remains an important policy that gives working mothers greater flexibility in managing work and family life. It removes the pressure from families by helping them meet the financial costs of child care. But in this year’s budget, as my colleague has outlined, Treasurer Wayne Swan announced that the current childcare rebate of $7,778 per child will be slashed. Indexation of the limit has been scrapped and the rebate has been frozen for the next four years. The government knows it will have difficulty keeping inflation under control and it has ditched indexation as a pre-emptive measure. The coalition superannuation co-contribution scheme was also vital in assisting women in planning for retirement. It matches the contributions of employees each year and ensures that women are able to supplement their retirement savings over the course of their career. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Order! The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Higgins will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 4648 Private Members' Business 4648 4648 21:15:00 Vamvakinou, Maria, MP 00AMT Calwell ALP 1 0 Ms VAMVAKINOU —I move: That this House: notes: the pledge, first made by Australia in the year 2000, to spare no effort to free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanising conditions of extreme poverty, to which more than a billion are currently subjected; that with only five years until the international goals to address extreme poverty are due, there is now an urgent need to recommit ourselves to this task; and that our actions of the past 20 years have already succeeded in halving rates of extreme poverty, and within a generation we can and will make poverty history; and welcomes the ‘Make Poverty History’ campaign to ensure that we do our fair share to achieve all the Millennium Development Goals. Recently the Australian parliament hosted the Make Poverty History Road Trip, whereby our young Australians from cities across Australia came to Canberra, where they were welcomed by one of the largest gatherings of parliamentarians I have seen during my time as a member of parliament. There was a series of addresses, including a welcoming address by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Stephen Smith. The strong presence of MPs at that function denotes just how important the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals are to this parliament. In particular, it also reflects the amazing work done by the Make Poverty History campaign. I have had a longstanding commitment to the global campaign to end poverty and I fondly recall being permitted or allowed—or rather tolerated—by former Speaker Neil Andrew to sit in the chamber with a T-shirt on which was printed with the words ‘Make Poverty History’. I want to take this opportunity to thank former Speaker Andrew for his tolerance, as we all know that T-shirts with slogans are outside the standing orders. He recognised, as I am sure you do, Mr Deputy Speaker, the importance of having to convey such messages in ever-creative ways in this chamber. This is an issue which is important to me and my work because my social and political commitment to justice, in all its forms, is the objective that continues to drive my own passion for politics. The reality is that these forms of justice cannot be achieved when extreme poverty continues to hold down generation after generation of people across the globe. My commitment—and no doubt this parliament’s commitment—to advancing policies and ideas that will help us achieve our Millennium Development Goals is on the public record, and I will continue to work, as I am sure my colleagues will, towards helping ensure that we all do our fair share to achieve these goals. It is encouraging to see that the Make Poverty History movement in Australia and around the world has not been just a fad, built around a Live Aid concert or a one-off charity event, but has become an ongoing and systematic campaign which is helping translate its objectives into the policies of government. Through such campaigns, spearheaded by an army of young Australians such as those we witnessed during parliament some weeks ago, we have seen the rates of extreme poverty decrease considerably. We can also be proud of our aid efforts in the Pacific, which have assisted in wiping out the crippling effects of polio in our region. I was pleased that the most recent federal budget included a commitment to increasing the level of development and humanitarian assistance to the tune of half a billion dollars. This increase is important because it recognises that as we move beyond the current global economic environment we do not leave behind the world’s most vulnerable people. In recognising the importance of these additional funds, which build on previous increases of similar magnitude, I would like to note —and I am sure I am not alone in this—that Australia can do more to help better achieve the goals to which it has committed itself. This recognition is important because it is not a campaign about charity, but one of justice. It is about our responsibilities. We, in benefiting from the global economic system from which the poorest of the world suffer, owe it to them to help them lift their standards of living so that the egalitarian values that drive our own development can be reflected across the globe. So, while each of us in this House has our own social, political and economic visions of the world which we would like to see for the future, I think we need to recognise a certain reality. Imagine for a moment a world where one per cent of humanity controls 40 per cent of wealth. Imagine a world where one financial institution alone is provided with enough money that could have gone towards eliminating malnutrition in the world, enough money to provide education for every child, enough money for water and sanitation for all, and indeed enough money to reverse the spread of fatal diseases. Imagine a world where a campaign against war includes a level of funding so that, instead of the blood, sweat and tears of vulnerable children, men and women, it could all be used to feed some of the very children who die from wars. That world is our world. We must imagine the possibilities of a different world and create it and, in making history, we need to make poverty history. I want to commend the work of all those involved in the Make Poverty History Road Trip, and I hope that this road one day leads us to a more inclusive world free from the abject and dehumanising conditions of extreme poverty, to which more than a billion of our fellow men, women and children are currently subjected. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Is the motion seconded? HW8 Symon, Mike, MP Mr Symon —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 4650 21:20:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 0 Mr HUNT —I offer my thanks and congratulations to the member for Calwell for her motion today. The abject and dehumanising impact of poverty on more than a billion fellow souls—that is what this motion is about. That is what we, as a parliament and as people who are part of a broader global community, recognise and focus upon. We know that of all the people who have lived throughout history in all of the different societies we are amongst the most fortunate. We are amongst those who live with a rare standard of living. It has been our fortune and our blessing to live in this place in these times. By comparison, the reality of economic life for the vast majority of people throughout the vast majority of history has been cruel and crushing. There has been great joy amidst that process but the nature of economic life and physical life has been crushing for so many people for so much of history. What we are witnessing at this moment, however, is the fastest movement at any time in humanity’s course of people from poverty to economic circumstances which are far preferable. That is something which is welcome, but it is a rate of progress which is nevertheless too slow, which is nevertheless not what we seek to achieve, which is nevertheless still going to fall short of the Millennium Development Goals to which Australia first committed itself, on a bipartisan basis, in 2000. These goals—although in part they have been met, although in part they have been progressed—remain as relevant today as ever before. Whether it is education, health, access to clean water, women’s rights or the economic opportunity for people to make something of their own lives, to give themselves the best shot at the life of their choice, the tasks are real, germane and present. I am proud to have been part of the previous coalition government, to have played a very small role, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in the aid program and to have witnessed programs such as the Indonesia reconstruction program—the creation and development of thousands of schools to help people in Indonesia have the opportunity to read and write, to engage in economic activity, to be part of that world which benefits from having education—clean water programs in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos and education programs for women in the Philippines. All these things are good things. Many of these things have been continued by the current government. We will have our points of disagreement over specific programs or quantum or effectiveness, but the direction, the heft, the weight, of history is about Australia as a country contributing to the achievement and improvement of the Millennium Development Goals. These are profound human tasks and responsibilities. I come back to where I began. We are amongst the very fortunate few in all of history. So many people for so much time have lived in such abject poverty that to live as we do, with all the accoutrements of the modern age—whether it is lighting, refrigeration, hygiene or any of these things—means it is our task, our duty, our responsibility, to do all that we can to provide a way forward for others. There is a paradox, of course, in that development on a grand scale in China, India, Indonesia and Russia brings with it the challenge of emissions. The paradox of development and global environmental impacts is one that we must resolve as a society and as a globe. I commend the member for Calwell for this motion. It is important. It is important that this parliament can debate it in a bipartisan way but it is important that we step beyond this parliament and that we remember the people of Africa, Asia, Latin America and parts of the Middle East who live in abject poverty, who do not have that to which we have become accustomed and that with which we are blessed. (Time expired) 4651 21:25:00 Symon, Mike, MP HW8 Deakin ALP 1 0 Mr SYMON —I speak in support of this motion that calls on Australia to make poverty history and to recommit ourselves as a nation to this urgent task. In the few minutes that I have it is impossible to relate to all eight Millennium Development Goals, so I will only concentrate on MDGs 1 and 4. Goal 1 is the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger, with targets of halving, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than $1 per day and, in the same time frame, halving the number of people who suffer from hunger, along with achieving full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people. We need to do more and quickly, with 1.4 billion people still in extreme poverty and just five years to go to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. More than three million people continue to live in extreme poverty in the Pacific region. Goal 4 is the reduction of child mortality, with a target of reducing by two-thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the mortality rate of children under the age of five. In 1997, more than 12.6 million young children died from largely preventable or treatable causes. In 2008, that figure was still around 8.8 million, eight years after the Millennium Development Goals were set. Eighteen of the 29 developing countries in the region are not on track to achieve goal 4, which is reducing child mortality by two-thirds. I think that one of the biggest problems confronting the global community is the lack of awareness by people who live in wealthy countries of the real and constant daily issues and effects of poverty in developing countries across the globe. That is why the work of organisations like TEAR, Micah Challenge, Make Poverty History and other campaigns by community groups who operate in the sector are so important. With local events, there is the opportunity to speak to people firsthand and to bring their feedback and ideas to this place. Last Saturday, 29 May, I attended an MDG related forum with the Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance, Bob McMullan—who I note is here tonight—at TEAR Australia’s ‘Survive Past Five’ fifth birthday party, in Nunawading, to talk about progress towards the Millennium Development Goals, in particular MDG 4. After games for the children and speeches for the adults, we got to blow out the candles and cut the fifth birthday cake, which symbolised all of those children in the world who did not survive until their fifth birthday. Also I was presented with this wonderful chain of cardboard cut-out children, which is very nice—there are actually 90 of them there that they put together for me—to bring to this place to show people that locals actually care about the subject as well. Of course, there are much larger events than those that happen locally, but it is good that they do happen locally and that people get out there and get the message across. Last September, Micah Challenge held their fifth birthday party here in Parliament House, with that giant card. As everyone knows, Australia is still a long way from meeting its goal of contributing 0.7 per cent of our gross national income to official development assistance so that we can meet the MDGs. This year’s budget predicts that our percentage will be 0.33 per cent of GNI, which translates to around $4.39 billion. Just imagine what could be done if we doubled that. The Rudd government has so far increased by nearly $1.2 billion Australia’s ODA from the $3.17 billion that we inherited in the last Howard budget of 2007-08. But it was only as recently as 1984 that the Hawke Labor government was funding ODA at the rate of 0.44 per cent. What happened after that? The rate dropped. It was not only under coalition governments; it also dropped under previous Labor governments. It is on its way back up now, and that is a good thing, but it is going to take a lot of work for Australia ever to get to the 0.7 per cent. I will continue to advocate for greater funding to meet Australia’s commitment to meeting the MDGs, and I thank the member for Calwell for moving this motion in the House. Debate interrupted. 4652 Adjournment 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 9.30 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 4652 4652 21:30:00 Briggs, Jamie, MP IYU Mayo LP 0 0 Mr BRIGGS —I rise this evening to put on the record a major issue of concern to many residents in the Adelaide Hills, in my electorate. The Australian Rail Track Corporation is planning to construct a 2.1 kilometre crossing loop at Ambleside in the Adelaide Hills just near Verdun to increase the productive capacity of the Adelaide to Melbourne rail freight line. As part of the Rudd Government’s nation building stimulus package, the Australian Rail Track Corporation was allocated $76 million in funds to upgrade seven existing crossing loops on the Adelaide to Melbourne rail freight corridor. The construction of a new loop is to accommodate the projected increases in rail freight traffic throughout Australia and will eventually result in up to 30 trains passing through Verdun on a daily basis, which will in turn result in trains idling on the crossing loop outside the properties of local residents at regular times. Local residents living in Verdun are deeply concerned about the project as it will lead to increased noise pollution, damage a very special environment, risk heritage buildings and increase an already serious threat from bushfire. The rail freight corridor through the Adelaide Hills has the steepest gradients in the world for rail freight movement, and the noise produced by trains in navigating this track is significant. The gradients and sweeping bends cause extreme noise that can be heard some two or three kilometres away. To put this into context, noise produced from freight trains is exempt from the state environmental protection laws and therefore local residents whose properties lie adjacent to the track often experience noise well in excess of 100 decibels. In real terms, this is louder than a 747 taking off in your backyard. This is of deep concern considering that it is commonly acknowledged among ear, nose and throat specialists that noise levels of anything over 75 decibels can damage a person’s hearing if he or she is exposed to it regularly over a prolonged period. There is also the inherent risk of bushfire, with a number of residents already having had fires caused on their properties by red-hot brake shoes flying off freight trains into overgrown shrubbery which the ARTC is failing to maintain. An example of this occurred in January this year, the day after a catastrophic bushfire alert was issued. This could lead to potentially disastrous situations, especially considering freight trains are allowed to operate on bushfire days classified as catastrophic by the South Australian Country Fire Service. It is fair to say that I, Isobel Redmond—who is the leader of the South Australian Liberal Party and the state member for the area—the Adelaide Hills Council and the local residents have all been extremely disappointed with the Australian Rail Track Corporation’s consultation process, which has been patchy at best and deliberately evasive at worst. Property owners directly affected by the project have also had difficulties in their discussions with ARTC representatives, often having their questions left unanswered or in some cases receiving conflicting advice. In conjunction with Isobel Redmond, I am seeking assurances from the ARTC and the Rann state Labor government that its development proposal will be subjected to a full public consultation process and that a comprehensive environmental impact study will be undertaken. It has been disappointing to learn that some Rail Track Corporation officials have arrogantly dismissed residents’ concerns and apparently said that they will ‘lose’, that the Rail Track Corporation will ‘win’ and that the residents will just have to learn to ‘live with the track’. Given this type of behaviour, it is even more important—as I am sure that the member for Port Adelaide, who is at the table, will understand—that the Rann state Labor government ensures that this development application is given full scrutiny. The increased freight traffic through this part of the Adelaide Hills will also have a huge impact on the road traffic from all train level crossings from Nairn through to Wingfield, including the electorates of the member for Boothby and the member for Adelaide, and we will certainly make that well known. Isobel Redmond and I are therefore pushing both for a wider study into the impact that increasing freight traffic will have on road congestion throughout Adelaide and for this study to be undertaken as a requirement of the overall development approval process being undertaken. It is my very strong view that the building of this loop should not go ahead; rather, the money should be saved and put towards a long-term project aimed at getting the freight line out of the Adelaide Hills. The loop in its current location makes no sense and in fact increases the very real danger of bushfire. It will damage a precious environment and have a massive social impact. I stand with the residents of the Adelaide Hills against this proposal. (Time expired) 4654 4654 21:35:00 Bird, Sharon, MP DZP Cunningham ALP 1 0 Ms BIRD —I take the opportunity in tonight’s adjournment debate to put on record my strong support for the Rudd government’s program to introduce more computers into schools and to indicate my very great concern that the opposition has announced that if it wins government its intention is to scrap this program. As a former high school teacher myself, I am very passionate about the importance of this program in our schools. There is no doubt that for young people entering the world of study and work after leaving school the capacity to work effectively with computers is significant, no matter what they end up doing. Obviously it is not difficult for most of us to imagine that undertaking university study, no matter what subject you are studying, requires skills in research and the use of computers. It is also the case that in this day and age even students who are going to do, for example, a VET course—a vocational education course—also have components of their study that rely quite heavily on computer-based skills. Indeed, a plumber who came to my house only a couple of weeks ago and who had his apprentice, who was also his son, in the back seat said to me, ‘He’s in the back seat because the computer has to sit on the passenger’s seat.’ As he gets calls, he utilises his computer to make quotes and provide information to people, and he said that it is an important part of the toolkit for him. The students who are going on to vocational study or indeed into apprenticeships and traineeships certainly need to be computer literate, as do young people who go straight into the workforce. There are very few occupations in which familiarity and comfort with the use of computers is not an important component. Add on to that how important computers are in our lives—in our home lives in particular. Many people now do their banking online, organise engagements with government departments and local councils online and, indeed, do their shopping online. The variety of activities for which we rely on a computer are increasing and will continue to increase. So it is really important that young people not only are technically capable of using a computer but also understand its capacities and limitations. My committee, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Training, has a current inquiry about school libraries and school librarians. As we go around and talk to people we hear an amazing amount evidence about the savviness of young people with computers and, in some ways, about their naivete of the information and the resources they use on those computers. We talk about many of the challenges for young people in their lives. At the moment as a society we struggle with cyber-bullying and some of those kinds of issues. Some young people doing research for a school assignment think that, when you Google something, all of the things in the long list of references are reliable because they are on the internet. Our need to teach them to engage with that information, be critical about it, analyse it and use it is very important for modern citizens who use computers not only in the workplace but in the broader community. I am very passionate about the importance of having a computers in schools program. I was thrilled in the lead-up to the last election when my party committed to the program. I am very pleased about it rolling out. In my own area, over a number of rounds of computer announcements, we are seeing over 2,000 computers going into local high schools. I was a bit bemused to see my colleague the member for Gilmore in question time today interjecting loudly on the Deputy Prime Minister. As I understood it, her complaint was that they had not rolled out fast enough and there were not enough of them. I would just like to draw to her attention that the opposition’s policy is to cut off the scheme. The complaint that she was making, that she was unhappy with the speed with which the computers had arrived, is to me in contradiction to her own party’s position, which is to cut the scheme off. It would be a very false economy if the opposition were to do this. It might be a cheap and easy way for them to drop $700 million, but this money is critical to the future of young people, critical to the future of education and critical to equity. Some young people have access to computers at home and often have access to their own laptop and yet there are an awful lot of young people who do not. If we are concerned about equity and fairness, we would not scrap this scheme. (Time expired) 4655 4655 21:40:00 Coulton, Mark, MP HWN Parkes NATS 0 0 Mr COULTON —I rise tonight to speak about the Productivity Commission inquiry into gambling and the effects its recommendations may have if implemented on the community throughout regional Australia. Gambling addiction is one of the challenges that we face as a nation. I support any measures that are taken towards harm minimisation and helping those who are in the grip of this terrible dependency. But I speak tonight on behalf of the many clubs that operate in my electorate. People who live in larger metropolitan areas might not realise the important role that these clubs play. They are major sponsors of a whole range of sport. Many of them have their own bowling greens and golf courses; they support football teams; they have tennis courts; some even support chess teams. Quite often they are the only venue for entertainment in town. They are responsible for bringing in acts from outside the area that these people would not get to see on a regular basis. I am concerned that there will be a move by some in this place, and maybe some in the other chamber, to restrict poker machines and, indeed, make them illegal and ban them altogether. While I personally have not played a poker machine since they took the handle off them and I am no particular fan of them, I believe that it would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. There is the amount of community capacity building that clubs put in and their sponsorship. It is a place for the community to gather. In my rounds as a local member, I have been to school presentations in the auditorium of the local club because it was the only venue in town that can handle an occasion like that. Indeed, my wedding some 29 years ago—our anniversary is on Sunday—was in the auditorium of the local club. It was the only venue in a small country town that could accommodate a community gathering of that nature. I urge people in this place to take a cautious approach. Clubs have taken a responsible attitude to managing gambling. Managers that I have spoken to in the last few months have told me that they closely monitor their patrons. They have put rules in place for limitations on the amount of money that can be drawn from an ATM on a day or the amount of money that can be drawn on a cheque. Particularly in the smaller areas, many of the patrons are known to club staff. If addictive behaviour or excessive behaviour is noticed amongst their clientele there is a mentoring process. Club managers have discussed different ways that is managed. To give you some idea of the amount of the contribution that clubs put in, one club in my electorate—the RSL Club in Dubbo—has indicated to me that its community contribution last year in donations to local sporting, aged care and community organisations was in excess of $400,000. That is just one of the clubs in the city of Dubbo, but one of dozens—probably hundreds—within my electorate. It is important that these clubs are nurtured. Indeed, Clubs NSW has indicated that if some changes are brought in to restrict the clubs’ revenue, as many as 11,500 jobs could be lost right across New South Wales. That is a consideration that needs to be addressed. Finally, I do realise that gambling needs to be addressed, but I would like to recognise the wonderful contribution that clubs make to regional Australia. (Time expired) 4656 4656 21:45:00 Vamvakinou, Maria, MP 00AMT Calwell ALP 1 0 Ms VAMVAKINOU —Tonight I rise to speak on a very important issue in my electorate that continues to be a serious concern to local residents. This issue relates to the Tullamarine landfill—a hazardous waste landfill referred to by local residents as the Tullamarine toxic dump. I have been following the toxic dump issue for a number of years. In fact, my community within the surrounds of the suburb of Tullamarine has rallied for the closure of this insidious site for over a decade. In the nine years that I have been the member I have come to know personally many of the people involved in the Terminate Tullamarine Toxic Dump Action Group. These are people who are tirelessly advocating on behalf of our local residents. This campaign has been a difficult and emotional journey for the people of Tullamarine and their friends and supporters. This is because too many promises and commitments were made regarding final closure and decommissioning of this landfill, so much so that its continued presence in our neighbourhoods has left all who have fought so hard bewildered and rightfully angry. I acknowledge the efforts of locals such as Alan Free; Kaylene Wilson, who is President of the Terminate Tullamarine Toxic Dump Action Group; Harry van Moorst, Director of the Western Region Environment Centre; Helen van den Berg, Secretary of the Terminate Tullamarine Toxic Dump Action Group; Russ and Maureen Nilsson; Graeme Hodgson; Peter and Pam Munro; Helen and John Patsikatheodorou; and, of course, all others who have worked selflessly and tirelessly to lobby the state government and the EPA to finally rid the community of this open sore. The community has been deeply concerned about the years of inaction in bringing about the closure of the toxic dump and the very nature of the activity on that site, which is of a poisonous and toxic nature and which may be linked to serious health issues, as indicated in a recent community survey. My constituents have suffered for no other reason than having had their neighbourhood become an area which ABC News recently, quoting environmentalists, described as probably the most hazardous waste landfill site in Australia. A preliminary health study launched on 12 May, commissioned by the Terminate Tullamarine Toxic Dump Action Group on behalf of residents near the Tullamarine hazardous waste landfill, identified five cancer-ridden clusters within just four kilometres of the Tullamarine landfill. Following the launch of the health study, ABC News reported that the study found that people living within 200 metres of the landfill had a quadrupled cancer rate compared with that of people living in surrounding suburbs and indeed greater Melbourne. These results are not abstract projections; they simply reflect the stories of local residents. Russ and Maureen Nilsson, along with their eldest son, Glen, are one such story. Glen has unfortunately been forced to give up his job as a paramedic because he is currently fighting for his life as a result of contracting multiple myeloma. Mrs Nilsson herself, having been diagnosed and treated for follicular lymphoma, now has to deal with tumours in her stomach. Local residents are all too aware of these stories and the many more which have long gone unnoticed. It is time their voices and concerns were reflected in the decisions which ultimately impact on their lives. To date, there have been no calls for monetary compensation. Instead, the focus has been on protecting the health and lives of local residents, as well as the future of the area. That is why I want to go on the record here in the House not only as supporting the reasonable demands of the local residents but also to outline them. These demands are as follows. The first is that the Environment Protection Authority provides the peer reviews that purport to vindicate the EPA’s decision to use what is clearly an out-of-date design for the capping of the landfill site. It is crucial that a better-quality cap, more reflective of the advances made in design from that developed a quarter of a century ago, is used. This negligence has created a leaking landfill, which has already pumped hazardous, contaminated, oily liquids into local creeks, and all of these are difficult to extract. The second demand is that the toxic oils be removed to the maximum extent achievable. The third is that a definitive independent health study be undertaken, one which looks closely at the cancer rates within the vulnerability zone around the landfill site. The final demand is that air-quality monitoring be extensively undertaken. It is high time that those who have long profited from the toxic dump assume their responsibilities to the community, which is now facing potentially serious health concerns. 4657 4657 21:50:00 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 0 Dr SOUTHCOTT —I rise to speak about some of the infrastructure requirements which are currently being neglected in my electorate. There are three principal infrastructure requirements. The first of these is the main east-west Adelaide-Melbourne freight line. This line runs through metropolitan Adelaide as it goes from Murray Bridge to Adelaide through Salisbury and out to Two Wells. It runs along a track that was laid in the 1880s and which is characterised by tight curves and steep inclines. It has many railway crossings, particularly on major roads such as Cross Road and Main Road at Glenalta. As a result of a derailment in 2004 and community concern about the increase in freight, I proposed a feasibility study to look at ways of improving the amenity of the route as well as alternative routes. I was pleased that this was adopted as part of our 2007 transport policy—to have a $3 million feasibility study—and I was also pleased that this was matched by the ALP. As a result of this feasibility study, a discussion paper was released in October 2009. This discussion paper looked at the option of doing nothing as well as five other options, including upgrading the existing line and the preferred option of the community I represent, which is option three—looking at a northern bypass going from Murray Bridge to Two Wells. As a result of the submissions received for that discussion paper, GHD have prepared a report. The report was due to be with the federal Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government in early March 2010. Both the federal member for Mayo and I have written to the federal minister for transport asking him to release the GHD report and also the government’s response to it so that members of the opposition, but more importantly members of the community, can have an idea of what action, if any, the government is planning for the future of the freight line. As the member for Mayo said earlier, it appears that the government is already pre-empting the results of that study by proceeding with passing loops in the Adelaide Hills. The second major issue is the intersection of South Road and Sturt Road. In 2006, the Rann Labor government promised an underpass at South Road and Sturt Road. Four years later there is nothing. In 2007, Kevin Rudd and his transport policy promised to fix South Road and Sturt Road with either a grade separation or a flyover. Almost three years on, again there is nothing. But, worse than that, the money that was allocated for this project has now been reallocated to other projects. So this is a classic Kevin Rudd broken promise—three years on, no action and the money allocated for this project allocated to other projects. The third important priority for my community is to address the Oaklands railway crossing and Diagonal Road and Morphett Road. This has been a major concern of the community and, with the building of the new State Aquatic Centre and the upgrade at Westfield Marion, it is expected that traffic management at this intersection will need more attention. The state government in 2008 gave $12.6 million for this intersection and there is still a problem. Pat Conlon’s media adviser has told us that the state government is committed to a $42 million overhaul of Diagonal Road and Morphett Road from 2011. I know well enough not to rely on the words of a media adviser as the messenger. That is one of the lessons from the South Australian state election. But I call on the Rann Labor government and the Minister for Transport, Patrick Conlon, to release the costings that would be required for a grade separation at the Oaklands Crossing. That is what the community are looking for and so far all we have is a record of failure on that intersection. (Time expired) 4658 4658 21:55:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 0 Ms RISHWORTH —I rise tonight to talk about some matters of concern to the people in my electorate of Kingston. Over the last two weeks we have seen from the opposition a budget response which was less than adequate to my local electors. First of all, we have seen the opposition propose to discontinue the Trade Training Centres in Schools Program brought in by this government. This is very, very concerning to my local electors because a lot of young people have expressed to me and their parents that they do not necessarily want to find a traditional path to university but want to upskill and get a trade. The trade training centres announced and started to be delivered by this government would be put at jeopardy if the coalition was to get re-elected. It is particularly concerning to the schools in my electorate, especially those that were announced in round 2, where they have been promised and have committed to trade training centres but have to meet certain requirements and milestones to get ongoing money. The coalition have said that, if they were to be elected, they would discontinue this program and there would be no money in the forward estimates. The schools in my electorate have got together to coordinate some really top quality trades training. Mount Compass has put together a program, along with Hallett Cove R-12 School, Reynella East High School, Willunga High School and Wirreanda High School. There has been huge uncertainty in the electorate because of the threat by the coalition to discontinue this project. But this is not the only project that the coalition have said they would discontinue in what has been become known as the pass-the-parcel budget reply. They have also said that they will cut the Building the Education Revolution program. This has been a very popular program in my electorate. It has delivered incredibly important infrastructure, whether it be a multipurpose hall, a library or classrooms, to the southern suburbs of Adelaide. They have needed investment in infrastructure and this project has done that. But, as we have heard, the coalition will discontinue this project if they are elected. This puts in jeopardy the building program at Flaxmill Junior Primary School, Reynella East Junior Primary School, St John the Apostle’s School, St Martin de Porres School and Hackham South Primary School, just to name a few. This is a serious issue in education that the schools in my electorate are facing. But the coalition have not just said they will discontinue the Building the Education Revolution or the trade training centres. They have also said they will discontinue the digital education revolution. Once again, this program which the Rudd government committed to in opposition and which it is delivering in government has provided over 120,000 kids across Australia with laptop computers. Many schools have received their first and second rounds of computers and are waiting for the final round to be delivered to ensure that they reach a 1:1 ratio. But we have heard from the coalition that they will discontinue this program. Schools in my electorate that are still waiting for the next round of computers include Southern Vales Christian College, Woodcroft College, Willunga, Waldorf School, Tatachilla Lutheran College, Cardijn College, Christies Beach High School and Reynella East—the list goes on. They will not get the same technological IT benefits that other schools have been getting delivered in the electorate if the coalition are elected. The coalition pose a real threat to the education of my community. I know in my electorate that schools and school communities have welcomed these education programs. For the first time in many, many years, a government gets elected and delivers real educational outcomes for the students in the southern suburbs of Adelaide and the coalition pose a true threat to these programs. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 10 pm, the debate is interrupted. 4659 22:00:00 House adjourned at 10.00 pm 2010-05-31 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott) took the chair at 4 pm. 4660 Constituency Statements 4660 4660 16:00:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP 0 0 Mr BILLSON —Today, in the few minutes available to me, I want to touch on some very important issues for the Dunkley community around law and order, personal safety and security. These issues have been key priorities for the community I have represented for a number of years now. Together we have been able to achieve some gains in this area and show the way forward for what we need to do in the future. The installation of CCTV technology in Main Street, Mornington, has been a particularly positive influence and has helped combat antisocial behaviour and small-scale criminality. We are pleased to see that crime statistics in those areas have diminished accordingly. What is most frustrating, however, is that it has been nearly 30 months since the Howard government provided just short of a quarter of a million dollars to Frankston City Council to implement the next stage of the CCTV strategy that we developed together for the main city in the community that I represent. Thankfully, CCTV technology is in place and has been operating for some time—and operating very successfully—at the taxi rank which services the nightclub area in Frankston. But it has been operating on one of the council’s own poles. What is not happening, what is not operating and what is still sitting in boxes waiting to be installed is another half dozen CCTV cameras, which are destined to be deployed around the railway precinct and the bus interchange area. Our impediment to installing and having this technology available to support law enforcement and public safety initiatives in Frankston is the fact that Jemena will not allow the council to use the poles. Here you have an organisation that is happy to appear to be a public utility when that suits them, happy to benefit from pricing declarations issued by the government, but, when the time comes for that organisation to be part of a community effort to respond to a key priority, where are they? They decline the use of these poles for the CCTV cameras. They say that the council can use them now but they need to have some unlimited liability relating to the deployment on the poles. It really undermines our collective community effort. We have a non-operational police vehicle for the Frankston area, with the support of Honda; we have trader watch pads initiatives to combat theft of boats; we have had some progress with CCTV in Frankston; a great activity in Mornington, as I have touched on; and calls for more of that work in Mount Eliza, Seaford and on the foreshore in Frankston. I call on Jemena to be a genuine part of the community and help to see these cameras get up. Jemena needs to either get out of the way or find a way forward to get these cameras deployed. We also need to tackle the fact that Frankston seems to get associated with any act of criminality that goes through Frankston court, and is covered by court reports, relating to the south-east of Melbourne. Let us rename the Frankston court the ‘Southern Metropolitan Court Complex’ so that, if some charges are being pursued through the courts in a facility that just happens to be in the city that I represent, people outside do not think the cause of that criminality also came from the city. It is a simple change that we need to make now. (Time expired) 4661 4661 16:03:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 0 Mr PERRETT —I rise to speak about a matter raised by one of my constituents, David Forde. David Forde is a real community activist. He is a member of the Lions Club, Amnesty International, the RSL and a lot of other clubs. The report he brought to my attention is put out by the Australian People for Health, Education and Development Abroad, known as APHEDA. The report involved 14 people going to the Middle East in March 2010, including Evan Moorhead, the state member for Waterford, just to the south of me, and Wendy Turner, who I also know well. This report came as a result of the tour visiting Lebanon, Jordan, Israel and, more importantly, the occupied Palestinian territories—the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. I rise to speak about this report also in the context of a very recent news report brought to my attention about up to 16 people being killed and more than 30 people injured when troops stormed the freedom flotilla that was making its way towards Gaza early on Monday, according to the Israeli army radio. This event was obviously staged to bring attention to what has been going on in Gaza, as sometimes occurs when people are under pressure—maybe like standing in front of tanks in Tiananmen Square—an event which unfortunately resulted in 16 people being killed and more than 30 people being injured. Back to this APHEDA report: the group toured a lot of the Palestinian areas I just mentioned, particularly the West Bank and East Jerusalem. As many people would know, since 2002, there has been a 700-kilometre long, nine-metre high wall, in some parts fortified and electrified, being constructed throughout the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This is obviously not a situation which is going to result in a harmonious community. Certainly the people from APHEDA who toured this area talked about the experience of Palestinians trying to go from one part of Palestine to another and having to go down a road which is an Israeli-only road. They talked about how even people in the delegation who had a name which might have been Palestinian were particularly singled out, even if they had Australian passports. They were singled out simply because their name sounded Palestinian. One part of the report states that the group witnessed the Palestinian town of Qalqilya, which is almost entirely enclosed by the barrier, with the only entry and exit point controlled by the Israeli military. Very often, as reported to the group, this access point was closed and they witnessed the sheer poverty imposed on the people of the town through economic starvation. This is obviously a major concern. (Time expired) 4661 4661 16:06:00 Farmer, Patrick, MP 00AMO Macarthur LP 0 0 Mr FARMER —In 2007 the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme underwent the most significant reform since its inception in 1948. These well-thought-out reforms were developed by the then health minister, Tony Abbott, and were designed to redirect the discounts which had been going to the pharmacists from the pharmaceutical manufacturers. The reforms were projected to save more than $580 million over the first four years, growing to $3 billion over the next 10 years. Two years into the reform process, three independent analyses projected that the savings will be in excess of $6 billion over 10 years. The government’s own recent analysis of the conservative parameters also showed that the savings could range from $3 billion to $5.8 billion. The bottom line is that the full impact of the reforms two years into the 10-year process is unknown but is well in excess of anything the government could have imagined. The Rudd government has negotiated a memorandum of understanding with one sector of a large industry reportedly holding a policy gun to the sector’s head and has made an agreement on policy initiatives with wide-ranging ramifications for the entire industry. The industry sector included in the agreement has negotiated a policy which looks after its interests while having a damaging impact on other sectors not included in the MOU discussions. The MOU and the policy itself are flawed and dangerous. With the export of jobs overseas impacting access to quality, affordable medicines, the procedure undertaken by the government to reach the MOU is unfair, questionable and anything about consultative. In a nutshell, very poor public policy has resulted. This flawed policy and the procedural fairness of the policy development need to be examined closely and not just passed unchallenged by the Senate. The necessity to balance the government’s budget should be secondary to good public policy. The Senate should refer the legislation to the Senate committee so that this unusual, unfair procedure for public policy development can be scrutinised. This will allow parties not consulted on the MOU to provide input to avoid the unintended major problems that will result as a consequence of lack of consultation with the parties impacted by the MOU. This is just another example of the ineptitude of the Rudd government, its highly irregular approach to public policy development and the disdain with which it holds our leading export industries. It is a desperate attempt to balance a badly managed budget. 4662 4662 16:09:00 Collins, Julie, MP HWM Franklin ALP 1 0 Ms COLLINS —I rise this afternoon to talk about the GP superclinic at Clarence in my electorate. I was fortunate on Saturday to announce the successful tenderer for the major construction of the GP superclinic, VOS Construction and Joinery. I want to put on record my congratulations to them for winning that contract. VOS are expected to go on site the next few weeks. In February this year I, together with the Parliamentary Secretary for Health, Mark Butler, commissioned the preliminary works and we are now in a major construction phase of this $5.5 million GP superclinic. It is an election commitment that we are delivering on in Clarence in my electorate. The state government is also building an integrated care centre with the GP superclinic, representing a total of $18 million of investment in this clinic in my electorate. We have been talking to local communities and having public consultations about the types of services that may be available at this clinic. There will be walk-up services—they will take any patient that walks through. We are talking about having some minor burns and cuts facility at the GP superclinic, because the local community has said that that is what is required. But what is a bit disconcerting is some of the commentary around the GP superclinic and this investment in our local community. In particular I am a bit disappointed in one of the media reports about the GP superclinic in our local Mercury. The editorial today talks about the GP superclinics and whether there is any value in them. I want to put on the record what Dr Emil Djakic, President of the Australian General Practice Network—who is in fact a Tasmanian—told ABC radio: It is absolutely critical that the Australian government continue to work towards reorientating away from a very hospital-focused health care system and funding to re-empowering general practice. That is what our GP superclinics are about. In this year’s budget we announced further funding for GP superclinics but also funding for existing GP practices to invest in new technologies and to upgrade their buildings and their services for local communities. I think it is really important that we understand where these GP superclinics and general practice fit into the larger scheme of things. This government have been investing in health reform and we have been talking about the health system as a whole. The GP superclinics have not been done in isolation; they are part of an integrated system. They are about local care in local communities to take the pressure off our major hospitals. Certainly in my electorate it is going to be very warmly welcomed by those constituents that I have been talking to in recent days. That is why we are building this investment and why we are funding more in this budget. But it is a shame that the Liberal opposition, if elected, plans to discontinue this further investment in the GP superclinics and the further investment in GP practices. (Time expired) 4663 4663 16:12:00 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 0 0 Mrs GASH —Last week New South Wales Premier Kristina Keneally directed her RTA to no longer make any mention of projections to extend the F6 highway that runs from Sydney to Wollongong. She is not interested in maintaining infrastructure in the Illawarra to keep up with population growth. Last week, also, the federal minister for roads, Anthony Albanese, came on local radio and confirmed his government was not interested in contributing to the upgrade of the Princes Highway in the Illawarra and South Coast and will not be chipping in any money. As far as this highway is concerned, the New South Wales Labor government has admitted it has run out of money to support South Coast residents, and the federal Labor government has come out and confirmed it is equally uncaring about South Coast residents. Both Labor governments have turned their backs on South Coast residents. To add insult to injury, Labor has selected a candidate for Gilmore who does not even live in the electorate. This should hardly be a surprise when you have a look at the track record of Labor candidates being parachuted into Illawarra seats in recent times. A few weeks ago on the ABC, Andy Gillespie, local trade union identity, was railing against the parachuting of Lylea McMahon into the state seat of Shellharbour. Throsby is having a candidate parachuted in to replace outgoing member Jennie George. So it begs the question: if they don’t care about their own party members and what they might have to say, how much do they care about the people they are purporting to represent? The real story behind the debate over the Princes Highway is not about finding the money—both the federal and state Labor governments have hauled out billions to fund their pet projects as it suited them; the real story is all about Labor’s hidden agenda. It is about lip-service and growing power, the lack of sincerity and a lack of commitment to the people of the Illawarra. They have been taken for granted for so long and it is becoming glaringly obvious that they will continue to be. We always seem to end up at the bottom of the food chain as far as Labor governments go, so it was with some surprise that Anthony Albanese could come on local radio last week and spruik that the coalition was not funding the Princes Highway. It has probably escaped him that his government and the New South Wales Labor government have committed billions to roadworks within Sydney and northwards, while at the same time snubbing the Illawarra and South Coast. It has escaped him that it is he who is in government and that as a federal roads minister he is the best placed person to approve funding for the Princes Highway and the upgrade of the F6. Instead he chooses to carp about the coalition, using spin and distorting and manipulating the facts. The fact is that, during our term in government, we delivered $68 million in additional funding to the upgrade of the Princes Highway on the South Coast, and the Leader of the Opposition recently committed another $20 million, if elected to government. The state opposition has also committed and reaffirmed its commitment, time and time again, of an extra $200 million for remedial work along the Princes Highway, from Wollongong to the Victorian border. But, even in the face of the facts, Labor continues to twist the truth and drag its heels in providing funding of any substance to the Illawarra. It is not only roads that are chronically underfunded; it is hospitals, schools, police, community service—and the list and waste goes on. Mr Albanese’s statement on 2ST last week was a pathetic and nasty attempt at raw politics, absent of any commitment towards the Illawarra and in denial of the situation with local party members. It is a case of constant blunders and blah, blah, blah. 4664 4664 16:15:00 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 1 0 Ms OWENS —On Saturday I attended the opening of the Parramatta Mosque. There are over 5,000 people of Islamic religion in the Parramatta electorate and some 50,000 in surrounding electorates and yet we have not had a mosque in Parramatta until earlier this year. For some seven years people have been praying at the town hall and every Friday some 700 to 800 people would come from surrounding offices of Sydney’s second CBD to the town hall for Friday prayers. It was well and truly a multicultural gathering of people from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. The sessions were conducted in English. The same group of people who had organised that Friday prayers for so long at the town hall have now managed to open the first mosque in Parramatta. While attending that opening I was reminded that just last month the state government listed two Australian mosques on the State Heritage Register. One was the Auburn Gallipoli Mosque, just down the road in Auburn, not only because of its unique architecture but also for its connection to our Turkish community, which, in 2008, celebrated its 40th anniversary of settlement in Australia. Also of great interest was the mosque in Broken Hill, which was built in 1887. This of course was not the first mosque. Credit goes to Moree for its mosque, built in 1882. Quite a few mosques were around in the 1880s. In fact Broken Hill had two, but the one in the north is still standing. It was built like the other mosques of the time of the cameleers, who built the overland telegraph. There is probably no major development in inland Australia from that time in our history that was not made possible by the people who came to Australia from Afghanistan, Turkey and that part of the world that is now known as Pakistan. That particular mosque is intrinsically tied to the experiences and contributions made by people from another world over a century ago. I had the privilege of meeting some of the descendants of those cameleers, seventh generation Australians, who are extremely proud of the contribution of their ancestors. The Parramatta Mosque, unlike the Auburn Gallipoli Mosque, will probably never be known for its architecture. It is situated in a fairly ordinary looking high-rise building but I hope it will be known for the support it will provide to people of the Islamic faith who work and live around Parramatta. Those of us with Muslim staff know of the importance of the Friday prayer room. In recent years the Islamic community in and around Parramatta, people who reflect the multicultural diversity of the region—people whose families come from, among others, Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, parts of China and Europe, India, Afghanistan, Iraq, Malaysia, Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt—came together to raise $1 million to contribute to the purchase of the building. A substantial loan still remains. My Muslim community joins other communities which have managed to raise funds to build places of worship—the Buddhist temple in Granville, the Hindu temple in Roseville and the Sikh temple just to the north. I congratulate Neil Kadomi and his team who worked so hard to make this mosque a reality and I wish them all the best. 4665 4665 16:18:00 Haase, Barry, MP 84T Kalgoorlie LP 0 0 Mr HAASE —I rise today to raise awareness of the lack of common sense and leadership being shown by federal and state governments in addressing the issue of cane toads. This foreign species was introduced to Queensland in 1935 to control the cane beetle. Kimberley Toad Busters is a community group, with 3,500 members, receiving meagre funding from the governments of Western Australia and the Commonwealth. Donations are also made by the public and volunteers themselves. Between February and August 2009, 22,046 toads were collected and euthanised, using carbon dioxide. In that time this group volunteered 16,268 hours. It is now 2010 and the federal government has effectively given up the fight and is concentrating on saving the wild life from the cane toads, using methods such as relocating quolls to cane-toad-free coastal islands rather than removing the actual toads. In the face of this defeatist attitude, Kimberley Toad Busters, led by Lee Scott-Virtue, continue their valuable work on the ground, removing cane toads from the environment as well as gathering important research data. The inability of the state and federal governments to agree on a standard method for euthanasing cane toads is hampering the efforts of the Kimberley Toad Busters. Carbon dioxide euthanasia, developed over five years in the Northern Territory, is the most humane method of euthanasing cane toads, suitable for large volumes of cane toads on overnight toad busts. Cane toads become immediately anaesthetised when exposed to 100 per cent carbon dioxide. Cane toads are kept exposed to carbon dioxide for a minimum of four hours to ensure they have all died, whilst remaining anaesthetised. This method has now been brought to a halt by the Department of Environment and Conservation based on laboratory observations of the euthanasing of just two cane toads. Since early 2009 Kimberley Toad Busters have been trying to obtain a Regulation 4 Authority for entry into state and national parks to catch and euthanase cane toads. However, entry has been denied because one of the requirements of entry is the use of the Department of the Environment and Conservation’s approved methods of euthanasia. In 2009 Kimberley Toad Busters were advised by the conservation department to consider carbon dioxide as an anaesthetic and then to use a secondary technique such as blunt trauma to ensure an effective humane kill. Blunt trauma, pithing or decapitation, which are all secondary techniques, are not supported as a suitable method for euthanasia, given that volunteers find these methods quite abhorrent. The volunteer group is made up of both quite elderly and very young volunteers. Toad busting is an activity that has brought many members of the communities together from all walks of life. Now we have the national parks protecting—(Time expired) 4665 4665 16:21:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 0 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —I am speaking today about unemployment on the Central Coast and the unemployment problems that my area has historically had. If you go back to the last recession in the 1990s, unemployment was over 15 per cent on the Central Coast. It is remarkable that,  with the impact of the global financial crisis, we have been able to keep unemployment on the Central Coast down to around 6.3 per cent. That is with a global downturn in growth whereas in 1992, when the last downturn occurred, there was global growth—there was a recession in only Australia and some other countries around the world. If we had reached the same levels of unemployment on the Central Coast as we did 1992, that would have seen a further 11,000 people out of work. Those people have been able to be maintained in work on the Central Coast. This is largely because of the government’s stimulus package. I want to talk about two aspects of that in particular. Firstly, I want to talk about the school-building program. Over 106 schools have had new buildings constructed out of the school-building program on the Central Coast, from libraries to classrooms through to halls. Over 5,000 local staff have been employed on those 106 buildings. Bovis Lend Lease, the contractor, has told us that 98 per cent of those employed on these building sites have come from the Central Coast. That is one of the major reasons we have been able to keep unemployment lower than in previous recessions. We have not only created jobs by putting in this money but created these jobs locally. Without that, over 5,000 people would be looking outside the area for work who are not looking outside the area at the moment. The Central Coast has one of the highest levels of people with trade qualifications, many of whom have to go to Sydney or Newcastle for work. They have been able to find work on the Central Coast. It is not just those with a trade; it is those who are looking to go into trades or are part way through a trade qualification. I recently met Rob, an apprentice who has been working at Tacoma School. He was in the third year of his apprenticeship. He had been out of work for six months but then got a job through this program. So that program has kept jobs on the Central Coast. The second aspect I want to talk about is Kickstart. We have seen over 335 new apprenticeships brought on, compared with 210 in the previous year. It is something that this government is very proud of and, as you would have seen from the budget, we will be extending it. The idea of getting people trained in trades is very important to the youth of the Central Coast. It is a shame that the opposition have said, in their budget reply, that they will be cutting it. This government is about jobs; the opposition are about opposing issues. 4666 4666 16:25:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 0 Mr HUNT —I rise today to set out a five-point plan to achieve improvements in the towns of Koo Wee Rup and Lang Lang. These two magnificent towns are within my electorate of Flinders. They are at the top of and to the north-east of Western Port. The local residents are tremendous people. I am fortunate to have worked with many of them on projects such as the new community centre in Koo Wee Rup, the new memorial in Koo Wee Rup, the rural transaction centre, the medical centre and doctors for Lang Lang. These are all important things. There are five points to the plan I want to set out. The first is in relation to gas for Lang Lang. That has been achieved. I am happy to say we have ticked that off. That was something we worked towards and achieved. It is a positive outcome for local residents. The second relates to a truck bypass for Koo Wee Rup. Anybody who knows the town of Koo Wee Rup knows that the heart of the town needs a bypass. It is clogged with up to 1,500 trucks a day. I have stood in the centre of town and seen the trucks not just block traffic but also create risks to motorists and pedestrians. The town will benefit—there is no question about that. The town’s ambience, quality of life and economic health will benefit from not having its centre clogged by trucks. We have at the moment a draft plan with a draft preferred route, but we have not got agreement on that from the state. They have now deferred for three or four years funding for that bypass. That is something which, along with my state counterpart Ken Smith, we will fight to have brought forward by the state. The third element is reticulated natural gas for Koo Wee Rup. This has been successful in Lang Lang. This is another clear goal, objective and outcome we want to achieve. In a town as big as Koo Wee Rup it has been an extraordinary oversight in history that there has been no reticulated natural gas. The fourth element of the plan relates to Kooweerup Secondary College. The school council president, Graeme Broderick, told a local newspaper last week that the school has been neglected by the state government and needs considerable support to bring it up to scratch. The fifth point I want to raise is again in relation to the town of Lang Lang. It is very clear that Lang Lang itself, with up to 600 sand trucks and other trucks a day, also needs a bypass. We will work towards this project. (Time expired) 4667 4667 16:27:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 1 0 Ms GRIERSON —I rise to update the House with some good news on the Lambton Family Medical Centre, which I have raised in the House before. The centre was closed at very short notice—24 hours. The patients and staff were not formally notified. The records were transferred and there was a loss of doctors and loss of continuity of care. The good news though is that tomorrow the Lambton Family Medical Centre will be reopening. Patients were very active and vocal after the closure. They gave the very strong message to Primary Health Care, which had been the manager/owner of the original practice, that they were not pleased with the unannounced closure, with the insensitivity shown to the needs of many older patients who frequent the Lambton medical centre, with the inability of patients to access their records and with being asked for photo ID and payment. Some of the older patients have never had a licence and do not have a passport. The handling of these processes by Primary Health Care was insensitive and of course distressed many people. The work of GP Access, my staff and I, the local media and hundreds of constituents who turned up on the streets outside that centre has brought about a better outcome. But this event does raise some very important issues for all governments to consider. The Rudd government has responded to some of those. The first is the notification of closures. The second is the management of patient records. The third relates to the commercial arrangements that people enter into that restrain trade. To restrain trade when there is already a shortage of GPs seems to me to be unconscionable. The fourth relates to litigation. I urge Primary Health Care Australia again, as I have done personally, to drop any legal action and allow the Lambton Family Medical Centre and its previous doctors to continue in practice without the threat of legal action hanging over anyone’s head. Primary Health Care is a major deliverer of GP services in this nation; it can and should, at its Charlestown Centre, now focus on delivering good patient care from that centre and desist from legal action around the Lambton Family Medical Centre. I would also like to say that some of the peak bodies that I wrote to have responded and there is now a draft code of conduct that goes to some of those issues. I urge the profession to make sure that draft code of practice and conduct is strongly enforced and always values patient centred care. I would like to say a big thank you to the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and Nicola Roxon, the health minister, who shared great interest in this situation. Our e-records announced in the budget—and I urge the opposition to consider passing that legislation—give patients control over their records, something which is sorely needed. The other infrastructure grants, nurse practitioner grants and diabetes plans announced in the budget are all aimed at assisting the local GP to survive in a very competitive world. I thank everyone involved and send my best wishes to the Lambton Family Medical Centre on its reopening tomorrow. (Time expired) 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded. 4668 Bills R4361 Cognate bills: 4668 Bills R4360 4668 Bills R4359 4668 Debate resumed from 27 May, on motion by Mr Swan: That this bill be now read a second time. 4668 16:31:00 Secker, Patrick, MP 848 Barker LP 0 0 Mr SECKER —When I was speaking on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 and related bills last week I noted that this budget actually projected a $40 billion deficit on top of the $53 billion deficit from the previous year. That works out to about $4½ thousand debt for every man, woman and child in Australia and contrasts quite markedly with the former Howard coalition government, where we actually left $45 billion in the kitty, which was nearly $2½ thousand dollars in favour of every man, woman and child. There is quite a strong contrast between the finances of this government compared with the previous. It is interesting that the Labor government has not put the NBN, the National Broadband Network, on the balance sheet, instead saying that this is a commercial project. However, the government will have to take out loans for it. These will be loans that the taxpayer will have to pay back. Labor is cheating the Australian public and bending the truth about what money will be spent, so we have that on top of the other debts as well. This is a government that cuts corners and lies to sell itself as an economic conservative. This government takes the taxpayer as a fool. It is time everyone saw through the Prime Minster, Mr Rudd, and learned the truth about his plans for their money. The Howard government in contrast had a broadband program in place, an OPEL contract that would have seen high-speed broadband delivered to homes all around Australia and certainly in a much better way for rural people. Unfortunately, the Rudd Labor government scrapped this program, took the money and offered this half-baked wasteful legislation instead. Let us start with the promises that this government could not follow through with and that they broke very carelessly. It is up to at least 52 at this stage, so I can only detail a few of those. There was the promise to build 226 childcare centres across Australia. The reality is that only 38 were built and the rest have been scrapped. It is an incredible fallacy to make employers, employees and families believe that they would have more childcare centres but then rip them off undeniably and only give them 38. In fact a country town called Keith in my electorate is struggling currently because the only childcare centre facility shut down a week ago. Where is the government’s promise on child care? How can a town like Keith be left with no childcare facility whatsoever when Labor stood up and promised to build more than 226 childcare centres? The Keith childcare centre was given a month’s notice, so the government has known about this for five or six weeks now and has not found a solution. It is interesting to note that, when the ABC childcare centre problem came up, there was a guarantee by the government; but, this being the seat of Barker, in the township of Keith, there is no solution. There was also a promise to build a trades training centre in each of the 2,650 high schools in Australia. There are currently only 12 trades training centres in operation nationwide. How is this ‘investing in our students’? How is this making sure that Australia becomes a skilled workforce in the future? It is not. The government also promised that every student in years 9 to 12 would have a new computer. Of course, when they came into government they changed that and said every second student would have access to a computer. Many parents and students were sucked in by this promise. For many families, buying a computer is out of reach. So in comes the Rudd government promising that students would have computers. The prospect was exciting and there is no doubt that people voted on the basis of that promise. But it was a blatant lie. The Prime Minister pulled people in and then broke his promise. In my electorate of Barker that promise has been nowhere near fulfilled. Under the newly constituted rules there should be nearly 6,000 new computers in schools in the electorate of Barker but there are actually fewer than 600. That is a great improvement—not! Prime Minister Rudd also promised that he would invest in our schools. Labor said that they would ‘build a revolution’. Julia Gillard, the Minister for Education, has had to do the most embarrassing thing for her credibility and call an investigation into the whole debacle. They have wasted billions in taxpayer dollars and there has been a lack of consultation. They have barged in and told the schools what the Labor government thinks they need most. I have a project in my electorate that showcases the waste and mismanagement which the government calls Building the Education Revolution. Down in the south-east of my electorate, in the town of Millicent, is St Anthony’s Catholic school, a great little Catholic school. I was there a week ago. They had a BER project built—a $2 million gymnasium. But the government did not think it necessary to consult the public as you would normally do. In fact, the government legislated so that the local and state government planning powers were not used. The problem with that gymnasium is that it towers over the front of someone’s house. When the residents open their front door they see a great big building looming over them instead of the decent view that they used to have. Who would want to buy that house now? How will the owners recoup their losses on their investment? They may not be able to sell the house because of the lack of a view. This project is under investigation as part of the task force the government has set up to investigate rorting and taxpayer funded blowouts. A government school in Naracoorte, South Australia, had to use contractors from Adelaide, some 350 kilometres away, to build their school hall because they were not allowed to use local contractors. They built their hall at 2½ times the cost per square metre of the hall at the private school down the road, which was built using local contractors and avoiding the state government bureaucracy and rip-offs. I have listened to Labor member after Labor member talk about BER and about GP superclinics. I think we have two GP superclinics that are actually in operation in Australia. The government have promised more, but what hope do we have of that promise being fulfilled? I have heard members talk about their own electorates, as they should, and where their projects are up to. But I have also heard excuse after excuse about how great the funding is. They say they trust their project and that it will be outstanding—once it is built, once it is finished! Is it due to start soon at all? What an embarrassment for these members! Mr Rudd made some very heroic statements regarding the budget. He claims that he will have a surplus in three years. The way he proposes to do this is with his superprofits mining tax. This tax uses Rudd logic. He honestly believes that he can introduce a cigarette tax and it will reduce smoking, but then he announces this great big new tax worth at least $9 billion a year and says that mining will increase not decrease. This is breathtaking. He says that the mining giants need to pay their way. What about the small local businesses like the one I have in my electorate, Mulgundawa Salt? This business has been around for 140 years. It employs 18 staff and has invested quite a bit of money recently in upgrading technology and machinery. It is a small and environmentally friendly operation. It does not dig holes in the ground. It uses groundwater to crystallise the salt from the water. If this operation was based in Victoria it would not be classified as a mine, but in South Australia it is and in Queensland it is and Mulgundawa Salt will be in great danger of going under if this tax is brought to fruition. This tax is poorly thought through, rushed and there has been insufficient consultation with industry. I think it is really interesting to note that when they talked about the offshore PRT, the petroleum resources tax, they said people had an idea that the sky would fall in, but it took two years. There were two years of consultation from the time the thought was introduced to when the legislation came through and a lot of things were changed, so to have the Treasurer today in question time quote speeches from 1984, talking about a situation that was quite different from when the legislation came in in 1986, is stretching the truth. I believe that Labor has had to come clean to the Australian public a number of times lately. The Home Insulation Program has failed miserably and four people have unfortunately died as a result, 146 homes have burnt down and there are possibly 100,000 houses around Australia that are electrified. Just this week the Prime Minister refused to meet with the installers that were rallying at Parliament House. He hid in his office, hid from his mistakes, hid from the damage he has done to the families and to the businesses. Is this the sort of person we want leading our country? I was contacted by many concerned residents in Barker about the government Green Loans Program. There were blowouts in the number of assessors that were trained nationwide yet in rural areas such as Barker there are not enough assessors. There were hold-ups on the assessments and householders were waiting for their assessments, but the department ended up with a massive backlog. There are assessors that are owed money by the government and assessors that are now unemployed. It is a total mess. We have all these failed programs, all these wasted taxpayer dollars, the reckless spending, the lack of basic consultation and the inability to roll out programs smoothly and successfully. The government’s list of failures is truly amazing. It is time that the taxpayer started to take notice of what Labor are doing with their money, held them accountable for their mistakes and demanded better answers. This budget, with its holes, hidden slush funds and figures that do not add up, is a total disgrace. What has been presented to the Australian public is a misleading budget that is built with rotting boards. It will collapse under the slightest bit of pressure. There is no way that the government will be able to achieve a surplus with a budget that is built on hopes and dreams. I was not expecting much from this budget, but I must say even I was surprised at the fib of a budget that was presented to the Australian people. 4671 16:43:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 1 0 Ms GRIERSON —I rise to speak in support of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 and related legislation which supports the Rudd government’s 2010-11 federal budget, the third budget this government has now handed down. This year’s federal budget is a thorough exercise in responsible economic management. When you take a look at some of the worst-case scenarios that were being projected in the darkest days of the global financial crisis, what this budget will do for our economy is remarkable and very reassuring. With this budget it is projected that Australia will return to surplus in 2012-13, three years ahead of schedule and ahead of every major advanced economy. Many of our trading partners and international colleagues across the waters will take decades to pay back their debt. It is very sobering. Net debt in Australia is now expected to peak earlier and lower, at just 6.1 per cent of GDP, half the level expected one year ago and less than one-tenth of the average across the major advanced economies. In fact, it is the lowest debt of all advanced economies. The budget deficit of $40.8 billion is almost $6 billion less than the forecast of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, MYEFO, and more than $16 billion less than expected one year ago. In this budget we have seen all spending offset over the forward estimates, and real payments growth has been held to below two per cent, meeting our strict fiscal rules. We have extended this fiscal strategy to continue building surpluses and achieve a rapid reduction in net debt. We will maintain the two per cent cap on real spending growth on average until the surplus reaches one per cent of GDP. With this budget, we will also further strengthen the economy, help families and secure and sustain real future growth. We can convert the successes we have already had during the global financial crisis into a stronger, more secure economy for working families and for all Australians. Our strict spending limits help to ensure that we get back to black within three years, three years earlier than originally expected. Our tax reforms will broaden and strengthen the economy, ensuring all sectors grow in a sustainable way which benefits all Australians, evening out the boom and bust cycles which we have seen so badly handled by governments in the past. The proceeds will be invested into superannuation savings and national savings, as well as individual savings; into new infrastructure, particularly in mining communities; and into tax cuts that will create jobs and help small business grow and thrive. This will add 0.7 per cent to long-run GDP and boost wages by 1.1 per cent. The success of the stimulus programs and our responsible approach to the economy will also deliver a $7.3 billion boost for health and hospitals. We have hankered after health reform in this nation for far too long. One would have thought that, with the global financial crisis and the recession—which we avoided, fortunately—it would have been off the radar and off the agenda. I am delighted and very proud that we will deliver on health reform. We will also deliver $661 million for skills and training, and do not ever underestimate that. In past recessions and downturns in the economy, the people who have borne the brunt of that have usually been our youth, the younger generations. We have seen them ill-equipped, untrained, rejected from workplaces and placed on those long unemployment queues. This time, though, so much has been invested into skills, training, apprenticeship support and scholarships and funded places at universities. I said to a group of high school students just the other day I would have hated to have had to stand in front of them ashamed and guilty that they were abandoned because of a recession. Not under this government. They have been front and centre. We have invested in them and I know that investment will be returned to Australia’s economy, into our sound social existence and contribute to the harmonious society that we all value. This budget also invests $652 million into renewable energy. In my electorate we track that, every cent, very closely. It has been a tremendous boost to our economy and to developing opportunities for the future to have been able to take advantage of the Rudd government’s investment into renewable and clean energy. I will not go on about the Clean Energy Innovation Centre national headquarters in Newcastle or the Australian Solar Institute national headquarters in Newcastle—I have done that over and over again. We will also in this budget deliver a $6.6 billion boost for infrastructure. It is important to note some of that will be as a result of the resources superprofits tax. My electorate is the biggest coal export port in the world by volume. We, the Rudd government, have already invested over $1½ billion into the rail track in my region. We know that the mining sector has invested $7 billion, but government cannot keep bearing that cost as well unless we find some tax reform measures to do that. We will also deliver a third round of personal tax cuts and a standard tax deduction for work expenses, assisting people with tax returns. We will deliver those last tax cuts, as well as some tax cuts for small business and less red tape. The tax cuts will allow an investment into better superannuation, with tax breaks on interest and a boost in national savings. In the budget we have been able to devote more money to protecting our troops and our borders. Of course the tax on resources superprofits, just like in the petroleum sector, will assist us to do those things. By securing further economic prosperity with initiatives such as the tax reform measures, everyone will benefit. In my electorate of Newcastle, there is always a little bit of a cargo cult mentality: people want to see a big item for them in the budget. Well this budget is a big item for all Australians: better health services, paid parental leave in 2011, national quality standards in child care, tax breaks on savings and small business, increased superannuation savings, a standard tax deduction and more flexibility for pension payments et cetera. All those reforms are aimed at sustaining a quality of life that I think all Australians do anticipate will continue in spite of an ageing population and in spite of a global downturn. The Rudd government has also promised that this budget will focus on improving health services in the community, as I have said. I would like to see the implementation of those new measures that will strengthen patient access, strengthen access to records, strengthen existing training for GPs and nurses and allow GPs to invest in infrastructure improvements and to employ practice nurses in their surgeries. This year’s budget also delivered genuine support for general practice all around the country. The diabetes plan in particular favours a GP who will manage someone with diabetes for the long term, who is going to look at their holistic health needs—not the drop-in, drop-out clinics that we too often see. The money for more superclinics is also welcome, and I have already been approached by GPs in the Thornton area of my electorate—which has a very fast-growing population—who would like very much to be part of applying for a superclinic in that region. So the 2010-11 budget was a great win, particularly for health care. I know that will be welcomed by my local constituents. It is also, though, a great win for small business across the country, which will reap the rewards of the tax cuts and incentives that are there. To be able to automatically get a tax return and write off equipment under $5,000 will be an incentive for investment for the future sustainability of small businesses. It is also a great win for the 8.4 million Australians who will benefit from increasing the super guarantee to 12 per cent. However, to see all these benefits flow onto the people of Australia we do need something that sometimes seems unattainable here, and that is for the opposition to see sense. We need those on the other side of the House and, in particular, their leader, Tony Abbott, to see sense in the debate surrounding the resource super profit tax. All of these budget initiatives, every one of them, is an investment into the sustainability of our future economy, and they all greatly rely on the successful carriage of the RSPT through the Senate. This worries me, because we have seen in the past—with the CPRS, for instance—how ready and willing this opposition is to block the passage of such important legislation. These big measures and big policies do deserve—and I think the public would like to see—some bipartisan support. But already we see the opposition waging a scare-mongering campaign and, unfortunately, they are backed to the hilt by the mining industry in this regard. We hear the same old arguments, ‘The sky is falling, we are all doomed’—the same arguments we saw with the CPRS, which they would not support once their leadership changed. According to the doomsayers, the proposed tax will scare away the mining industry, and in doing so ruin our economy. Well, tell that to the people of Newcastle and the Hunter. Mr Baldwin, the member for Paterson, tried to assert that in question time the other day, only to be caught out very badly because the Newcastle Herald, which is circulated from the Central Coast right up through the Hunter Valley and throughout Newcastle, came out in support of the resource tax, understanding it as we do because we see before our very eyes the magnitude of mining investment; we see those returns. We have always been the ones, too, who experienced the busts in those cycles. We are delighted to see this time a way to sustain booms to make sure they are investment into the future economy. Many key stakeholders feared that the profits based tax introduced in the 1980s on the petroleum industry would ruin that industry. Having had the great privilege of going to Barrow Island and seeing the Gorgon project in progress, I know that that is not the case, and the RSPT will not be any different. The tax has been specifically designed by the government to grow the mining industry and boost investment and jobs. It will see the people of Newcastle, whom I represent, and the rest of Australia get a fairer share of the resources they own—resources that are finite; once they are gone, they are gone for ever. Mining companies will still earn healthy profits net of tax. Investment in marginal but viable projects will be more likely to go ahead, as they will attract a lighter RSPT than the current uniform imposition. When it comes down to it, Australians own our natural resources and they deserve a fair share of the superprofits mining companies make during the booms. Before the last mining boom, the Australian people were receiving about a dollar in every $3 of mining profits through royalties and charges. But, at the end of that boom, the return to the public purse had declined to just $1 out of every $7. There was also very little contribution to skills, something that saw our economy prejudiced greatly. The government wants to restore the Australian people’s share of mining profits closer to where it was in the early 2000s. The company and small business tax cuts that will be funded by the RSPT will allow more sectors of our local economy to gain a direct benefit from the boom. The mining industry itself will benefit, with the proceeds of the tax being used to set up a new $5.6 billion infrastructure fund to tackle capacity constraints. We have watched our local coal terminals expand—and they certainly are expanding; we call the one on Kooragang Island near Newcastle ‘Legoland’—it has been an amazing spectacle to see such growth in the industry. As I have said, it has seen commercial investment of $7 billion and it is not stopping. Just as the NCIG coal terminal has been completed, the plans for another one are underway. Just as Port Waratah Coal Services have finished three terminals, T4 is also in the planning stages. The RSPT will help to keep mining exports flowing out of the Port of Newcastle and it will sustain jobs. In the long run, this tax will lead to more investment, more activity and production, and more employment. It is of vital importance that this tax goes ahead to secure our nation’s future and to sustain our economic wealth—wealth that belongs to all Australians. There has been some suggestion that investment will depart from Australia. We know that that is not true. I have had the great privilege to visit Mongolia, and it is a country that I support in their endeavours to strengthen their independence, to prosper democracy and to prosper an economy that assists its people. But when you see that you have to travel for many hours through the Gobi Desert in four-wheel drive vehicles with no roads, no rail, no port, no infrastructure in sight, temperatures that get down to minus-50 degrees and up to plus-50 degrees, and coal and resources that are 2½ kilometres deep in the landscape, you know that this tax is not going to distract people from investing in Australian mining and its wealth of mineral resources. So I am pleased to see that many commentators have come through supporting our tax in the media and in particular supporting the growth in superannuation that it will bring about. It has only been through the responsible economic management of the Rudd government and the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, that we have been experienced a miraculous economic performance. The primary injections of the economic stimulus plan, coupled with the targeted expenditure of the 2009-10 federal budget have guided us and will continue to guide us through the worst of the downturn. Nowhere has this responsible economic management been demonstrated more than in my own electorate of Newcastle. Just last week, the Hunter Valley Research Foundation released figures showing that the Hunter region is experiencing a record number of workers in jobs. During April, over 313,600 people went to work in the region. This broke the previous record of workforce participation, which was set only the month previously. So it is plain for everybody to see that in my community the local economy is in good shape. In fact, our official unemployment rate has dropped to just 4.3 per cent, down from five per cent the month before. It is significantly lower than the state average of 5.8 per cent. Just in case you are thinking that mining is the biggest contributor there, the biggest employment group in the electorate of Newcastle is now professionals. It is quite interesting to see the diversification of our economy and how much that has been assisted by the Rudd government’s investment particularly in innovation. It is interesting to note that the strongest jobs growth occurred, as I said, in education and health industries, which again points to the diversification of our economy. This strong performance has been in no small part due to our government, and I am very grateful for that. Since taking office, we have seen over $1.37 billion invested in the electorate, and that does not include the benefits that will flow from the $1.6 billion Hunter Expressway. Economic stimulus spending alone accounted for around $150 million, supporting infrastructure projects that went directly back into the local economy, supporting local jobs and funding local projects. Just last week, I visited a restaurant in my electorate, Scratchleys on the Wharf, to meet a young apprentice, Steve, who is employed under the Kickstart apprentice program. Steve was just one of the almost 500 young Novocastrians employed under the Kickstart program since it began last year to combat the global financial crisis. As I said earlier, our youth have not been betrayed by this government. The Kickstart program in particular is aimed at people aged 19 years and under. As a result of that program we did not see any dip in the take-up of apprenticeships in this group. So successful has the program been in Newcastle and across the country that we have now extended the intake period to November this year and tripled the bonus for employers taking on apprentices to almost $5,000. Across the country, tens of thousands of young Australians will continue to benefit from this amazing program. It was lovely to be with the Deputy Prime Minister as she opened a local BER project—a school hall. We met an apprentice there, Jacob, who had previously been unemployed—a young surf-lifesaver, but unemployed—who took up an apprenticeship because of the BER. It was also lovely to meet a young woman, Alana, who was working as a community consultant with the BER program. Alana had come back from overseas because work had dried up there, and she was able to get a full-time job in the BER program in my electorate. So we have been investing in the skills of this country to sustain our economic success, and young people have been some of the beneficiaries. So that is another big tick for the Rudd government’s responsible economic management. I would just like to repeat that this year’s federal budget is an example of responsible economic management and the timely and effective handling of the global financial crisis by the Rudd government. We are the only country to have avoided recession. We have the second-lowest unemployment of all advanced economies. We have the lowest debt of all advanced economies. We will be back in the black in three years, three years earlier than anticipated and before any other advanced economy. So this budget is a tribute to the Rudd government. It represents the investment in the future economy of this nation. It sustains growth and it sustains quality of life for all Australians. Newcastle has particularly benefited—most deservedly, I have to say. I recommend this budget to the House. 4675 17:02:00 Cobb, John, MP 00AN1 Calare NATS 0 0 Mr JOHN COBB —I rise to speak on the budget of 2010. As a matter of fact, in the days leading up to the budget, I said in my electorate of Calare that this was a wonderful opportunity for the Rudd Labor government to show not just the electorate of Calare but rural and regional Australia that it actually does care about the consequences of its actions in that region, that it actually did care about what happened regarding health, water, infrastructure and transport, outside of the big cities. Let’s face it, the very first actions of this government was the finance minister—within weeks of taking office—slashing $649 billion, from memory, of programs from the then budget of 2007-08. It is interesting to note that, out of $649 billion that he slashed, some $420 million came out of regional Australia. That is something like three-quarters of all the money he took, and it came out of regional Australia. In their very first budget, the Rudd government reneged on the Bells Line of Road engineering study. They talked about the inland rail, but it certainly was not there the other day. They withdrew, in the last budget, a billion dollars from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. I mentioned that in our part of the world the budget was a good time for the Rudd government to make good on their hospital and health promises. The hospital problems were all, if memory serves me correctly, supposed to be sorted out and fixed up by June—not June as in next month, but June last year. I reminded them just prior to the budget that it had been announced that Bathurst was losing its private hospital, which would have a huge effect on the whole central west, and that Forbes and Parkes had been promised new hospitals. There were great opportunities for the Rudd government to show they were serious about hospitals, they were serious about health and they were serious about rural and regional Australia. Urban water is also an issue in our part of the world as well as health, but I think what I probably spat the dummy over was what has happening with regard to cancer centres of excellence. The whole area from Lithgow, just west of the Blue Mountains, all the way out to Cobar and Broken Hill was totally ignored and told they could not have a cancer centre of excellence but the town of Gosford and the region around it could. Forgive me if I am wrong—and I am not wrong—but when the Prime Minister announced the cancer centres of excellence program and guidelines he conceded that, in certain instances of cancer detection, country people were three times more likely to die within five years of being diagnosed than the people in big cities. Yet he and the Minister for Health and Ageing saw fit to give Gosford a centre of excellence in preference to one in western New South Wales when Gosford is a big city under the Rudd government’s own guidelines. I do not suppose that had anything to do with the fact that the seat of Robertson is the third most marginal that Labor holds in Australia. Heaven forbid that that should be an issue in this program! And no-one would think it strange, I am sure, that people from Lithgow and all the way out to Cobar have got to cross the mountains or travel for up to 10 hours to get to a cancer centre of excellence, over and above the sorts of things that Orange, Bathurst and Dubbo can provide. People in Gosford are almost within a taxi ride of Newcastle and Sydney, are they not? Far be it from me to deny the people of Gosford—but prefer them in terms of need to all the people out there? Anyway, it seems obvious that that is something a Prime Minister could have fixed up, not to mention the need for a 24-hour helicopter service for emergencies. I did ask for that prior to the budget, given that areas like Wollongong, 12 minutes flying time away but with less calls than Orange, already had one. No politics there either, I am sure! So we had had expectations, for more reasons than one. When the budget actually came out, the Labor Party, strange to say—surprise, surprise—had paid little attention to regional Australia and even less attention to these opportunities in Calare. The residents of regional Australia were not only ignored, they were punished. How were they punished? The Prime Minister came up with the great big new tax on mining. It is going to hurt regional Australia. Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, people in regional Australia realise this more than anybody else. In my electorate of Calare we happen to be lucky in not being able to be a magnificent agricultural area but we do have very serious mines. In the current or ‘old’ electorate of Calare we have Cobar and in the new electorate we will have Lithgow, as well as Cadia at Orange, Parkes and other smaller mines. Mining is the only thing that has kept us strong through the eight to 10 years of drought. Portions of the media label the mining sector as ‘the goose that laid the golden egg’. I think this analogy is simplified and quirky, but it points in the direction of many, many more serious issues. The Minerals Council estimates that there are 4½ jobs supported by every direct employee of the mining industry. However, I think it is impossible to calculate how far that influence extends, in the same way that in regional Australia it is impossible to calculate just how far the influence of the agricultural sector extends on jobs and income. These two sectors keep our people together. One has been totally ignored, if not denigrated; the other the government intends to punish in a big way. There are thousands of direct and indirect jobs. It does not matter whether it is a corner shop or a coffee shop—whatever it might be—the wages of mining have a huge effect on our ability not just to have a lifestyle but to have a good one; not just to have a job but to have a good one. I do not see that we have any less right to that than people in the cities. It is just that our people live with these issues. Our people know that this tax is a tax on them directly; this is not some fanciful figment of the imagination for the Prime Minister to rave on about in a theoretical way. To us, this is life—this is jobs, this is our future. I cannot believe that anybody could go into a tax like this. One can only assume they are either stupid or they simply did no research into how far it would go. This hurts small business. The number of small businesses in Cobar, in Parkes, in Orange, in Bathurst and in Lithgow attached to the mining industry are just incredible. As the leader of the coalition said the other day, if the exploration side of this was so good, why isn’t every other business in Australia putting its hand up for a similar tax? This is a budget which can only cause grief to the best industry we have got out there in regional Australia and totally ignores the other big industry out there in regional Australia. Once again, it ignores it, and I will say more about that little later. It also ignores the need for greater investment in regional infrastructure—roads and rail. The only mention of my part of the state was that they are going to put a few sleepers under the Parkes-Broken Hill line. That is all well and good, but I would not put that as any great infrastructure; I would put that down as normal maintenance. Otherwise there is not going to be much heading across to Perth, Darwin or Adelaide. The minister for road transport and everything else he is the minister for might puff his chest out—he actually mentioned that in parliament the other day. If it did not do it, there would not be any trains running, so I do not really see that a huge win for anybody except a few people cutting sleepers. These days they are not even doing that. Something we committed to as part of AusLink in 2007 was a $10 million bypass for the town of Orange. Currently it does not matter what it is—semitrailer or whatever it might be; a house on the back of a semitrailer—pretty much everything has to go down the main street of Orange. It is a pretty ridiculous situation. We committed $10 million to pay the majority of what the council needs to finish the northern bypass. As a result of us committing to that, the then opposition under the now Prime Minister committed to the same thing. That was a great commitment and I was very pleased to hear it, especially as they won government at that time. The only problem is that, after three budgets, they still not have put a cent up for Orange City Council to do that. That is no small thing. On the Mitchell Highway and the entrance to the Golden Highway and heading both out to Parkes, Forbes and Cowra, it is no small thing for the amount of heavy traffic that passes through a lot of people all the time. Once again, when it comes to road funding, the federal government is as bad as the New South Wales Labor government. They are only interested in metropolitan Australia. They do not want to spend a cent towards putting a decent road across the Blue Mountains. They are not even interested in funding the engineering study we committed to in 2007. Also, despite the government’s protestations of, ‘Yes, we’re going to keep it going,’ the inland rail has been forgotten. There is no mention of it in this budget. I guess we really should not be surprised. As I mentioned, there is a need for urban water, as well as what Senator Wong is doing to Australia’s irrigation industry. There was no mention of urban water anywhere in the budget or, if there was, there was certainly no mention of it anywhere outside of Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane. As I started off by saying: this budget was a great big opportunity for the Rudd government to show that it is a government for all Australians. I can almost hear the words of the Prime Minister when he took office in November 2007: he was here for everybody. We are waiting for him to be here because, if there is one thing that this budget did, it did not give funding to anything west of the Blue Mountains in New South Wales. In terms of agriculture and rural Australia, the government, in its very first budget, knocked $60 million out of CSIRO. Most of that was taken out of agriculture. The government cut $40 million from the last budget by getting rid of Land and Water Australia. That was another $40 million out of R&D. Also in the last budget they removed 130 jobs from AQIS. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry talks about R&D as though he is its messiah, but he has never been known to do anything other than take money from it. Obviously, he has a real problem with anything to do with productivity. In fact, going on the terms of reference of the Productivity Commission’s inquiry that is looking into government funding towards the levy, whereby the government matches all our rural industries dollar for dollar, it is quite obvious that the minister does not like providing funding unless it is towards something to do with climate change or the common good. Productivity gains have occurred in Australia because we are the best innovators around and because of R&D. We have a trade advantage overseas because of our biosecurity measures. Our beef can compete with American beef on their shelves because our beef has a longer shelf life, despite it having travelled from here to there. This is because our R&D is so good. We need to be aware that the Productivity Commission is currently looking at the levy. The inquiry is obviously designed to cut down the government’s commitment to match rural industries dollar for dollar. That is a disgrace and a shame. This will rebound on our industries forever if the minister for agriculture goes ahead with it. The Productivity Commission inquiry into drought basically said, ‘Get rid of drought.’ Okay, there is a little trial in Western Australia but that is not a drought program; it is just an efficiency program. That is well and good, but to call it a drought program is an insult to agriculture. When you have a look at the facts, the government ignored water. What Senator Wong is doing to water and what the government is doing to mining and agriculture in our country mean that this is not a government with any great concern or any great moral values when it comes to anybody who lives outside the major cities. The major cities are going to be the ones who suffer when we have to once again pay back a huge debt. Last time we were in government it took us 10 years to pay back $96 billion. Heaven knows what we will have to pay back this time. I hope Australia can put a halt to this situation before we get back to debt levels which will once again take us a decade to pay back. 4679 17:19:00 Vamvakinou, Maria, MP 00AMT Calwell ALP 1 0 Ms VAMVAKINOU —I am pleased to speak this evening in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 and the cognate budget appropriation bills, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2010-2011 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011, which support the 2010 federal government budget. What a contrast between the economic environment in which this budget was delivered in 2010 and that in which the previous budget of 2009 was delivered. We went from our economy being in a vulnerable position, with a budget forged in the most challenging of global economic circumstances since the Great Depression, to a budget formulated in a position of economic strength. These circumstances are the result of a fiscal policy reflective of a government directed by the highest standards of responsible economic management, a government willing to put forward tangible social and economic programs that not only helped us avoid a recession in the immediate term but delivered on-the-ground projects to prepare our nation and our community for the future. When I spoke to the previous budget of 2009, I did so in the knowledge that it was the Rudd government that would be responsible for ensuring that the people of my electorate of Calwell would continue to play an active part in the economic life of this nation. I did so knowing that it was the federal Labor government’s economic and social policies that would serve to protect my constituents from the full brunt of what even the former Howard government Treasurer, Peter Costello, described as an ‘economic tsunami’. What allowed this economic tsunami to circumvent Australia were the measures undertaken by the Rudd Labor government’s economic stimulus plan which, through a nation-building package, delivered huge investments to communities across Australia. I am very proud to see that these huge investments, particularly in my electorate of Calwell, strengthened our local economy, helped families across the board and will serve to help us secure much-needed growth into the future. The constituents of my seat of Calwell were amongst the highest recipients of federal government funding, with over $142 million for over 170 projects having been delivered. The amount of social and economic capital reflects the federal government’s commitment to communities across Australia, a perfect example of which is my electorate of Calwell. There is no doubt these investments have helped avoid what would have been a huge rise in unemployment and the closure of many small businesses which ultimately form the backbone of our economy in both the local and national context. Instead of a contraction in our national economy we have in fact seen economic growth of 1.4 per cent. While other advanced economies have gone backwards, Australia is moving forwards. Through measures in this budget, the government will seek to halve peak debt and get the budget back into surplus in three years time. That is three years earlier than previous projections. With the unemployment rate on its way down, this budget is important because it delivers much-needed tax concessions for working people, for seniors and for small business owners. Following the budget announcements, many of my constituents approached me and made phone calls to my office. While they acknowledged the ongoing investment in our local community, they also wanted to know how measures in the budget translated for them on the ground, in their homes, in their neighbourhoods and in their communities. I will go first to the tax cuts that were announced. Those tax cuts alone mean that, at the end of the day when the third round of tax cuts takes effect, people will no doubt have more money in their pockets to spend, to save, to invest or to put towards things which are important to them and to their family budgets. So, with necessary infrastructure investments needed for the sustainability of our modern economy having been provided, workers have also now been provided with added support that is much needed, particularly by lower income earners and those who will even benefit from relatively modest increases in the money they earn. There are certainly many low-income earners in my electorate of Calwell and I know that this measure, in particular, is very important to the way in which they manage their daily life and expenses. I am also conscious of those who in the name of economic flexibility—and I refer to the former Howard government—had ignored matters for far too long. These are the underemployed in our community, which the previous government only remembered when it came to stripping away their rights at work. These are workers who are most vulnerable to economic fluctuations. Thanks to the 2010 federal budget these workers will be able to earn up to $16,000 and not have to pay income tax, which is up from $11,000 in the 2007-08 federal budget. Along with other initiatives this will have a direct impact. Who are these people that will benefit? They are the working mums who often have to work part-time. I mention working mums because the reality is that they are ultimately the ones who, in juggling home and work, often miss out. It is our role as a socially progressive government to address this reality, and this budget seeks to do just that. In supporting workers in my electorate of Calwell, whose jobs were protected by the timely action taken by the government to avoid what would have otherwise been a crippling recession, the Rudd Labor government is also supporting the 10,290 small businesses in Calwell who will enjoy the tax breaks. That is much needed support for small business owners who form the backbone of the economy that drives growth and prosperity in my electorate of Calwell and also across Australia. When we are looking towards an economy that will be in surplus three years ahead of time, when we are looking towards providing Australians with an economic recovery that will be sustainable into the future, this government has given businesses, such as the 10,290 small businesses in my electorate, much needed tax relief in addition to a cash flow boost and a strong incentive to continue to invest in productive assets. As the opposition, of course, likes to whip around its scare campaign against the resource super profits tax it is denying the 10,290 small businesses in my electorate as well as some 720,000 small businesses across Australia their much deserved and much needed tax breaks. The coalition fails to understand that government has a responsibility to ensure that the economic opportunities from our resources boom benefit all Australians. As mining companies and their executives take advantage of our resources we need to ensure that, through sustainable management of our resource wealth, communities across Australia receive their fair share of the economic pie. The flow-on effects of this important government policy will give employees a stronger and fairer superannuation guarantee of 12 per cent of their salaries and wages, which will strengthen the economic environment in which 8.4 million Australians will one day retire to. In giving something back to workers in small business this budget also looks to our senior citizens who are an integral part of our community. The tax changes will increase the income threshold for eligible senior Australians both for singles and for each member of a couple. In doing so the government acknowledges the contributions that our senior Australians have made throughout their working lives to make Australia what it is today and does so while recognising their continued input into the economic life of communities across Australia. It is important to recognise that these announcements are able to be delivered only as a result of the decisive action taken by the federal government. It is action which kept our economy strong during the global recession. We are able to deliver to working Australians precisely because the government’s fiscal policy provided the basis from which workers were able to retain their jobs and precisely because circumstances allowed small businesses to continue operating and to therefore continue employing people. Expanding on this and in light of our productive capacity and sustainable growth I very much welcome the announcements of the new Skills for Sustainable Growth strategy. In improving the quality and accessibility of training, Calwell job seekers will receive language, literacy and numeracy support to address the barriers to sustainable employment and local workplace productivity. Under this program eligible job seekers will receive up to 800 hours of free accredited training and, in a diverse electorate such as mine, this will be of particular benefit to our young and newest Australians as well as to our Indigenous Australians, who have long been affected by the scourge of unemployment. At a time when Australia will be cheering the Socceroos’ endeavours in the 2010 FIFA World Cup, I am pleased to say that our local junior athletes, as a result of the 2010 budget, will receive assistance in achieving their sporting dreams, as announced by the Minister for Sport, under the Australian Sports Commission’s Local Sporting Champions grant program. The up to $18,000 available for youth sports stars wanting to compete in state and national events provides our community in Calwell with 24 individual grants and two team grants. Put simply, the chance to tap into this funding program has been doubled for our junior sports stars, which I know will help provide these young athletes with much-needed support in what can often be the most exciting and challenging times of their sporting careers. It will also provide support to parents—and I know this from having spoken to young people in the program’s administration last year—because parents are often very much burdened by the costs related to running their kids around to training and so on. None of us, I am sure the chamber would agree, would want to see our budding superathletes of the future miss these opportunities because their families could not afford to sustain their training. With regard to the continuation of the government’s strong commitment to innovation, I would like to draw on some reflections I have made in the past in this chamber. As Chair of the House Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Innovation—and of course, importantly, as the member for Calwell, which has a very large manufacturing base—I work closely with the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, and we assist by examining, reporting and making recommendations regarding areas of policy that affect these industries. As such I would like to take this opportunity to commend the minister for his continued efforts, which are aimed at ensuring that strong and viable science, research and manufacturing industries remain an integral part of our national economy and our social framework. The textile, clothing and footwear industry employs over 45,000 Australians across the country, generating exports that are worth $1.6 billion, as well as contributing $2.8 billion each year alone to our national economy. The employment patterns within this industry, particularly in regional economies, ensure that entire communities across Australia are strongly supported by the development of these industries. My electorate is one such community that would obviously benefit greatly from the government’s commitments. That is why the initiatives and programs introduced by the Rudd Labor government are crucial to promoting capital investment and innovation aimed at ensuring that Australian made products continue to be a driving force for our local, regional and national economy. Through an additional $5 million, which brings the total level of funding for the government’s Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Capability Program to $35 million over five years, more companies will be able to access this program. Importantly, by reducing the total eligible expenditure of projects from $1 million to $500,000, it addresses the issue identified whereby companies were finding it difficult to get funding support for smaller projects. I would also like to take this opportunity to express my full support for the budget’s inclusion of a commitment to increasing the level of our development and humanitarian assistance to the tune of half a billion dollars. This increase is important because it recognises that, as we move beyond the current global economic environment, we do so in the company of the world’s most vulnerable. In Australia in particular we are all aware that we have managed to avoid the sorts of economic pitfalls that have befallen other countries. I think we have a moral obligation to assist them and do our bit at a level that is reflective of our wealth, so I welcome that measure. In closing, I want to say that the delivery of this budget was made possible not only because among the major advanced global economies Australia was the only country to avoid recession, not only because we were able to produce the second lowest unemployment and not only because we maintained the lowest debt and deficit but also because we did so while maintaining our AAA credit rating. Importantly, we did so while also maintaining our rights at work; the Rudd Labor government did not use the working rights of Australian people as a scapegoat for the upheavals in the global economy. And, importantly, we do so with record investment in long-term infrastructure projects for Australia’s long-neglected roads, rail and ports. Through the Roads to Recovery program, the Hume City Council, in my electorate, will receive an extra $894,331 to assist with the maintenance and upgrading of local roads. This is in addition to the additional $89 million allocated to the ongoing Western Ring Road upgrade project, which I know will relieve a lot of the traffic congestion associated with the area immediately adjacent to my electorate. The budget before us is good for our economy, it is good for working Australians and their families, it is certainly very good for pensioners and senior Australians, it is good for businesses and it is good for the long-term social and economic viability of communities right across Australia and, in particular, my electorate of Calwell. It is on this basis that I welcome the government’s announcements and commend the bills to the House. 4683 17:36:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 0 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —The message of the budget was twofold. Firstly, responsible management of the economy has seen Australia weather the global financial crisis better than most other comparable economies—a fact almost totally ignored by those opposite. The savings and policies identified in this budget are targeted to get the budget back into surplus in 2012, three years ahead of schedule. The second message is that the proceeds from the resource super profits tax will go straight back into building a stronger, broader economy by cutting business taxes, especially for small business, boosting retirement savings and investing in vital economic infrastructure. Let us just remind ourselves about how Australia has travelled in these difficult economic times. I sometimes think that we in Australia appear somewhat isolated from the impact the world economic crisis has had, and continues to have, throughout the world, most particularly in the USA and Europe. It is not because Australia is economically isolated from the rest of the world—indeed, to the contrary. The reason Australia has performed so strongly compared to many other comparable economies is largely because the Rudd Labor government acted so decisively to stimulate our economy as private capital evaporated. The stimulus strategy sought to inject spending and investment into the economy as retail spending and private infrastructure investment began to decline significantly. The stimulus worked and kept our economy out of recession. Significantly, in partnership with Australia’s employers, employees and unions, it kept Australians in work. But do not just take my word on this, immensely proud though I am of the government’s record with the stimulus matters that we introduced. The OECD’s latest economic forecasts are a timely reminder that our decisive action during the global recession has put our economy in a position of strength, from which we can reform the tax system and boost competition in the mortgage market for the benefit of families, workers and small business. The OECD has revised upwards its growth forecast for Australia and now expects GDP to grow by 3.2 per cent in 2010 and 3.6 per cent in 2011, one of the strongest growth outlooks of all OECD economies and well above the growth forecast for the OECD area as a whole. I know it might sound a little bland to listen to those figures, but they are comparably very impressive. I congratulate this government and our community on being able to achieve these forecasts. On the employment front, the OECD expects Australia’s unemployment rate to fall by 4.8 per cent by the end of 2011, dramatically lower than the eight per cent unemployment rate expected for the OECD area as a whole. The OECD also welcomed the government’s disciplined budget, stating: … in view of the stronger economy and fiscal restraint, the Government now expects to balance its budget by 2012-13, three years earlier than previously anticipated. The national accounts for the March quarter will be out soon—on Wednesday of this week, I believe. It was this same release last year that revealed Australia had avoided a technical recession, one of only two advanced economies in the world to do so. This achievement sparked a revival in confidence which underpinned a recovery in private demand which would see Australia go on to record growth of 1.4 per cent in 2009 in year average terms and become the envy of the developed world. So what of the resource super profits tax announced in the budget and now the source of so much shrill commentary by the big end of the mining industry? A whole host of dire scenarios is being presented by the big mining companies, ranging from allegations that they will be the most heavily taxed of all mining concerns in the world to being forced to put projects on hold, the loss of thousands of jobs, and declining returns to shareholders and superannuation recipients. Of course, any evidence that is contrary to these dire predictions is dismissed as untruths. Surely, there could not be a lot of self-interest at play here—surely not! A local example surfaced in my own daily newspaper today when the editorial writer for the day had this to say in reaction to some negative comments from a mining company and an opposition media release about the RSPT. He said: I must admit I was initially sold on the whole ‘they take the resources which belong to all of us’ argument, but have soured on it following the reaction from local industry players. Well, blow me down! Because some industry players do not like the prospect of increased taxes, the government’s rationale for the tax and the Treasury modelled benefits from it do not seem to carry the same weight. Why is this? Laurie Oakes, on 29 May in the Hobart Mercury, put it incisively when he wrote: The mining industry campaign is certainly over the top, and difficult to counter. When mining companies devalue their own shares by forecasting dire consequences from the tax, people tend to believe them. In other words, they talked their own share prices down by this ridiculous scaremongering campaign that they have unleashed. I think Ross Gittins’s piece in the Sydney Morning Herald of 26 May, headed ‘Let’s mine bright ideas and stop being shrinking violets’, goes some way to identifying what the real issue is with regard to the RSPT and the big mining companies’ misinformation campaign against it. Mr Gittins, no favourite or favourer of the Rudd government, argues that the traditional Australian cringe factor lies at the heart of their attack and the hope that Australians and the government will accept this. If the RSPT goes ahead, they argue, they will cancel their projects and take their money somewhere else. Mr Gittins says: Oh dear, don’t desert us. Please! Know what their— that is, the big mining companies— problem is? Australia, being one of the world’s leading mining nations, is a world leader in designing taxes that increase the public’s take without discouraging mining activity or otherwise damaging the economy. He goes on: The resource super-profits tax is a state-of-the-art tax, designed by our leading economists not to do all the bad things it’s being accused of. It’s a close relative of an earlier Australian invention, the resource rent tax, developed by Professor Ross Garnaut and others … Mr Gittins further goes on: The big international mining companies are fighting it partly because they fear that, once its success has been demonstrated, it will be copied by other countries. And they’re fighting it by trying to press our cringe button: if no one else is doing it, it must be a dumb thing to do. As Ross Gittins goes on to show, in so many areas Australia has led the world. And that was no dumb thing to do. Last week saw some of Australia’s foremost economic authorities endorsing the resource super profits tax and destroying key planks of the scare campaign being run against this important reform. Remember, it is a reform—a reform of the tax system that is long needed. Even the mining industry recognises this. Twenty leading economists published an open letter. They are quite happy to have their names in the newspaper publicly endorsing this scheme, this tax proposal. They described it as a more efficient and equitable system of sharing the value of exploration and mining rights. HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr Katter interjecting— 849 Sidebottom, Sid, MP Mr SIDEBOTTOM —The member for Kennedy would remember that I am assisting him in the House by speaking now. I know he will listen to what I have to say. He regards me, I hope, as a considerate person. He will consider what I have got to say and take it on its merits. The 20 economists, who include former ACCC chief Professor Alan Fels, made it clear: There is no reason to expect a net contraction in mining over the longer term as a result of replacing royalties with the proposed resource rent tax. This is because a tax on economic rent of non-renewable resources is a more efficient way of raising revenue than taxing mining production (royalties). It makes sense. But it does not seem that those opposite are prepared to use sense in their arguments. Last week we also saw thoroughly debunked the myth that the RSPT would push up consumer prices. When asked about that particular part of the scare campaign, another of the 20 economists, Professor John Quiggan, said: I think that’s about the least defensible. The reason that there are super profits to be taxed is because of high world prices for these minerals that are set on world markets. So there’s no reason at all to think that the tax is going to affect the world price of these minerals, and therefore that that’s going to feed in any way into Australian consumer prices. This was the point made by Treasury Secretary Dr Ken Henry, whom those opposite want to vilify, at Senate estimates last week, when he said that a profits based tax would not impact on consumer prices, although cutting the company tax would have a beneficial impact for consumers. Of course this has not been recognised by the big mining companies, who will benefit from the lower company tax rate. By the way, I would like to add that those opposite, in their non-tax plan, will penalise the mining companies because they will not support a decline or a reduction in the company tax rate. Indeed, Treasury figures based on modelling from independent firm KPMG Econtech show the impact of the government’s tax plan on prices as follows— 10000 Schultz, Alby (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr AJ Schultz)—Order! Is the member for Braddon willing to accept a question from the member for Kalgoorlie? 849 Sidebottom, Sid, MP Mr SIDEBOTTOM —No. I need the time. I do not need to be interrupted by the member for Kalgoorlie. As I was saying, the Treasury figures, based on modelling from independent firm KPMG Econtech, show the impact of the government’s tax plan on prices as follows: food, lower by 0.9 per cent; clothing and footwear, lower by 1.3 per cent; housing, lower by 1.1 per cent; transportation—member for Kalgoorlie—lower by 1.7 per cent; and communications, lower by 1.4 per cent. 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr Haase —Substantiate that. 849 Sidebottom, Sid, MP Mr SIDEBOTTOM —I do not need to substantiate it. That is from the modelling not just of Treasury but also of KPMG Econtech, the independent modellers. But that would not mean anything to those opposite. They just need to promote hearsay and the nay-saying of the big mining companies and that is enough. Of course it is; it always is when you have a scare campaign running. Under the government’s tax proposals, the average worker—listen to this!—will be an extra $450 a year better off. Under the opposition’s tax plan, if that is how you can describe it, there will be no mining tax, no company tax cut and a 1.7 per cent tax increase for large companies. That would leave the same worker about $100 a year worse off. Tut-tut! Further, Labor’s tax plan will eventually boost GDP or economic output by 0.7 per cent whilst the Abbott plan would reduce GDP by 0.2 per cent. And there is more. I will throw some kitchen knives in for you as well. Investment is modelled to increase by 2.1 per cent under the government’s plan but fall by 0.55 per cent under Abbott’s. In addition, inflation will be affected. Consumer prices will be 1.1 per cent lower with the government’s taxation mix but 0.25 per cent higher with the coalition’s. Finally, average real after-tax wages are predicted to rise by 1.1 per cent under the government’s plan but would fall by 0.25 per cent under the Abbott-Hockey-Robb plan. Of course, we do not hear this in this debate from those opposite. They cannot defend their so-called tax proposal, particularly the 1.7 per cent tax on large businesses to pay for their uncosted paid parental leave scheme. Early last week the Treasurer delivered a ministerial statement to the parliament discussing, amongst other things, the truth behind some of the myths peddled by some in the mining industry, how we will invest the proceeds of the RSPT and the posturing we have seen from some industry figures since the announcement of this vital economic reform. There has been much comment from mining companies in recent weeks about the supposed retrospectivity of the RSPT. These claims are clearly misleading, as the RSPT will apply to mining profits from 1 July 2012. It does not apply to past profits. It would help a more informed public debate if companies clearly distinguished between retrospective taxation, which this proposal is not, and taxation of existing projects, which is their actual complaint. Let’s make two points specifically related to this. The first is that complaints that the RSPT should not apply to existing projects are really an argument that governments should never change tax rates. That is not a sustainable proposition for any government any time but it is especially unsustainable when the tax share of the mining profits has fallen, regardless of what measure you use, so dramatically in recent years. As Macquarie Bank economist and interest-rate strategist Rory Robertson said last week: … only the most naive investor could have imagined that the final prices the mining sector receives from world markets for publicly-owned resources could increase by multiples over a decade and yet governments effectively would keep selling those same resources to mining companies at the same old low prices. Indeed, as Robertson points out, every city-based household knows that its local government rate payments will trend higher over time even if the home was bought many years earlier. Similarly, owners of rural property know that the government rates and rents are linked directly to the latest assessed value of the property and that if that value doubles then payments to the government will tend to rise in proportion. The second point is that the report of the tax review recommended that existing projects be included, and for very good public policy reasons. To exclude existing projects would of course create significant distortion of investment, as prospective projects and existing projects would be on an uneven tax playing field. I quote from Mr Robertson: Mining companies have also made the argument that the RSPT should be differentiated by commodity. They argue that different commodities have different revenue, cost and therefore profit profiles. Some require more investment to extract, some less. Mining companies have used this to argue that the RSPT should apply at different rates for different commodities. But this analysis fails to grasp perhaps the most important design element of the RSPT. The fact is that, by design, an RSPT already differentiates by commodity. As a profits based tax the RSPT already takes account of the different revenue, cost and profit profiles of the different commodities. It also contains very generous treatment of investment. It therefore takes account of the different investment levels needed to develop different economies. The government is using the proceeds of the RSPT to provide a much needed cut in the company tax rate from 30 per cent to 28 per cent for all Australian companies, with a head start for small business. This is a really important economic reform for Australia because it will help us stay competitive at a time when the company tax rates are falling in other countries, particularly in our region. It will also help boost growth and real wages over the long run. Independent modelling shows that together with the RSPT, the cut in the company rate will boost GDP by 0.7 per cent and lift investment by 2.1 per cent. By contrast, an alternative plan to lift the company tax rate by 1.7 per cent on taxable company incomes over $5 million a year will actually reduce GDP by 0.2 per cent and cut investment by 0.5 per cent according to the Treasury and that means according to the so called tax plan of the opposition. 4687 17:56:00 Katter, Bob, MP HX4 Kennedy IND 0 0 Mr KATTER —With all due respect to the worthy member for Braddon, he said that the opposition are indulging in scare tactics. If I was the Labor member, I would be scared because if you think that you are going to convince the miners of Australia that you are going to hit the mining industry with a 40 per cent tax and that is not going to affect their jobs then you truly believe that the abominable snowman comes from Baduri. I have seen some incredible thought processes convincing themselves that this is going to be good and trying to convince the Australian nation that this is going to be good. Let it be understood that the average Australian understands that the governments of Australia—of both political persuasions—completely destroyed manufacturing in this country. They went to a free trade regime when no other country on earth went to a free trade regime or even anything even remotely resembling a free trade regime. But they insisted upon going to a free trade regime as some sort of example setting for the rest of the world. We were going to be the wunderkind of the world. The previous speaker, the member for Braddon, quoted all of these economists. I call them slithering suits out of Sydney. We see them pontificating every night on the television and in the newspapers. We have to judge them upon their merits. They have lauded the government for introducing free-trade policies. Let us have a look at manufacturing. There are three great divisions of the Australian economy, the productive side of the Australian economy: manufacturing, agriculture and mining. Let us look at manufacturing. I emphasise that all of the economists and all of the so-called people that are in the field of money in Sydney and Melbourne said this was going to be wonderful for us. The ORANI model was produced by the Productivity Commission. I cannot remember the exact figures, but they ran something like this: if we removed motor vehicle tariffs then there would be a 20 per cent intrusion over 10 years. There was a 50 per cent intrusion over five years. Mrs Orani, the wife of one of them, should sue for defamation as a result of her name being used on such a report. There were people who stood up in this place and said how wonderful it would be for us. The whole reason for this free trade was that it was going to cut the price of a motor car. If I remember correctly the price of a motor car then was about $16,000 and within 10 years it had doubled in price. It had not gone down in price; it had doubled in price. Mr Deputy Speaker Schultz, you were in the processing of agricultural product. In actual fact in agriculture the processing element has been historically bigger than the actual farming element in agricultural production. We pleaded with the government not to deregulate the wool industry, and one side of this parliament said, ‘We have to accept it because it is market realities,’ and the other side said, ‘It’s a good thing in the long run.’ John Maynard Keynes, the greatest economist probably of all times, said, ‘In the long run we will all be dead.’ So we sank down to the second lowest manufacturing sector of any country in the OECD with the exception of Turkey—hardly a great economic model to follow. Manufacturing was destroyed in this country. We saw motor vehicle manufacture fall from pre free trade where 72 per cent of the vehicles driven in Australia—prior to Mr Keating’s wonderful free trade initiatives—were Australian made. Now only 12 per cent of Australia’s motor vehicles are Australian made. When all of us were young people, our fridges, stoves, airconditioners and television sets were made in Australia. None of those things are now made in Australia. Manufacturing in this country effectively, as a generalisation, ceased to exist completely. We listened to these people telling us how wonderful the brave new world will be for us and we realise now that those decisions were disastrous in the wool industry. When the industry was regulated, the price doubled over the next three years; when it was deregulated, it halved over the next three years. There cannot be a more definitive statement. In 1990 when Mr Keating, in his wisdom, deregulated that industry, 10 per cent of this nation’s income came from wool. It was bigger than coal. That is in 1990. That is not exactly ancient history. Most of the people in the parliament were here in the early 1990s. We have wiped out manufacturing so we can move on to agriculture now. I have just mentioned the wool industry. I remind the chamber again that seven years ago Australia became a net importer of pork. I think everyone in this House would have eaten pork somewhere in the last week. Four years ago—it may have been three—we became a net importer of fruit and vegetables and last year we became a net importer of seafood. It does not matter what set of statistics you want to look at, whether it is in nine to 25 years time, this nation will be a net importer of food. Let me say to you, this nation will not be able to feed itself. That is the implication of those figures. Manufacturing has ceased to exist, agriculture is going down the chute at 100 miles an hour. Let me again be very specific. Wool numbers are down 60 per cent. Cattle numbers are down around 20 per cent. In the sugar industry we close two mills every five years. That is three. The wheat industry is very much dependent upon seasonal climatic conditions, so I will not use that as an example and in dairying—which quite amazes me because I would not have thought that people would just stop drinking milk—but of course the manufacturing side of the industry has pulled it down about 15 per cent as well. There are your giant four agricultural industries. They are on desolation row. You have no manufacturing. Your agriculture is vanishing. What do you have left? You have mining. I come into this place not like other people. I am one of the few who had copper dust—not coal dust, but copper dust—under my fingernails. I worked as a labourer at Mount Isa Mines and I was briefly a union rep there. I worked my own mines—I found them, I developed them myself and I produced copper from them. Prior to coming into parliament I was in the process of floating by own mining company. I know the mining industry intimately. I was Northern Development Minister and then Mines and Energy Minister in the Queensland government. Nobody in this country knows mining better than I do. Whether my kids were fed or not depended on whether I made the right decisions in mining. In the mining industry, nine out of every 10 prospects will lose money—big money—so you have got to make enough profit on the 10th prospect. All of these great slithering suits from Melbourne and Sydney and all the very foolish people in the Labor Party are telling us how wonderful this mining tax is for us. I will give members of the Labor Party a word of advice: do not tie yourself to a sinking ship. To identify yourself with this cause is to simply chain yourself to the Titanic. Let me explain. The profits on the 10th mine have to cover the losses on the other nine. If there are not going to be any ‘super profits’ on the 10th mine then you will not have enough profits to cover the losses on the other nine prospects. So people will not mine in this country. They will go to a country where they can make super profits on that 10th mine. I should not have to tell anyone in this place that the metals market is a roller coaster. In 2006 the price for zinc was $4,000 a tonne but last year it was $1,000 a tonne. You had to be able to make enough profit in 2006 to carry you when the roller coaster goes down to $1,000 a tonne. But you would not be able to do that because the upswing of the roller coaster is truncated by the stats. If you cannot see that, there will be a terrible political price. I actually think the government has done a very good job with the economy to date. I think the opposition are very misguided in criticising the government for spending money at the outbreak of the financial crisis. It is a great shame to see all of that good work destroyed by advice from Treasury that is simply flawed. Obviously, the man has not spoken. If you think there is no problem, why would the head of BHP—a person who has never really picked fights; he is not a confrontational person—suddenly become very confrontational? Why would Mike Davis, the head of Xstrata, take time off to talk about Australia when he is addressing the European Chamber of Commerce? Why would Mr Albanese, the head of Rio Tinto, take time off to talk about Australia when he is addressing the American Chamber of Commerce? Clearly, these people are not happy with this decision—to the point that they do not care about antagonising the government. They have nothing to lose in this country, so they might as well go for broke. The political implications of this for the ALP will be diabolical. I wrote an article for the Financial Review some years ago—I think I was still in the National Party at that stage, but I might have just left—saying that the National Party in Queensland was going to pay a diabolical price for their failure to stand up to the powers that be in a number of areas. I said on the day before the state election that they were going to suffer a massive loss, and they suffered the worst loss in Queensland political history bar one. So I warn the current government in the same way. This is not to be nasty or threatening. They must simply understand that, in mining, nine out of 10 mines are going to lose money big. Therefore, you have to make a great profit from the 10th mine to cover the others. You have to make enough money on the upswing of the roller coaster to cover the downswing of the roller coaster. Let me move on. Every mining company is going to bring in every one of their employees and contractors in and tell them: ‘We’ve been hit with a 40 per cent tax, fellas. If you think that is not going to affect job opportunities for yourself and for your kids, you don’t deserve to have a job in mining.’ That is what the bosses are going to say to them. When the bosses told them the IR legislation was going to be good for them, they did not believe the bosses; they believed the Labor Party. But this time they will believe the bosses, not the Labor Party. It is not like the old days, when the miners were great supporters of the Labor Party—far from it. The people working in mining today are far more sophisticated than the miners of the past. They have far more sophisticated attitudes. We saw that in electorates like Dawson, in North Queensland, when interest rate increases were threatening. With the Labor opposition under the leadership of Mark Latham, those people swung very strongly against the ALP in that election—and the member for Dawson had a very handsome majority of about 14 per cent. Just as they swung over to Labor over interest rates, when the IR legislation came in they swung violently back the other way—and Labor now holds Dawson with a four per cent majority. Anyone who thinks there will not be an effect in the mining areas is kidding themselves. Do you want me to name how many seats in New South Wales are partially mining seats and also marginal? The other factor is that we have not had a lot of competition on the world stage. America and Europe have completely mined out their mines—the easy stuff, and even the hard stuff, has been taken away. America is mining coal at a depth of two kilometres. We would not dream of doing that in Australia. I say this to illustrate that the easy stuff in America and in Europe has gone. They are sophisticated economies that have heavily mined their land in the past. The countries that have not been mined are Brazil, the two Mongolias, all those other countries to the west of the two Mongolias, Kazakhstan and Russia. Brazil has traditionally had very unstable government. Mongolia has no infrastructure and virtually no government and is very remote. Russia, of course, was communist. Russia is no longer communist; it is a happy hunting ground. It is very much larger in area than Australia. Because it is a bigger country, there will be much more minerals there. You could almost put it in terms of tonnes of minerals per square kilometre. Brazil is a much bigger country than Australia. Even if you take out the super-wet belt of the Amazon, it is still a much bigger country than Australia—and it has not been touched. The two Mongolias and Kazakhstan are also much bigger than Australia. So we will now have dramatic competition from countries that are much bigger than us and will have much greater mineral wealth than we have. So, on top of everything else, there are alternatives to mining in Australia. Next year or the year after, BHP will mine more coal in Indonesia than it does in Australia—the leading coal exporting country on earth. For those who are unfamiliar with mining, there is a thing called transfer pricing. I always thought Mitsubishi was the classic example of this. They sold silicon to themselves in Japan for $55 a tonne and the Queensland government bought it back as optical fibre. It does not cost a lot of money to transform the almost pure silicon, which we were exporting, into optical fibre, but we were paying $2 million a tonne for it. That is a simple example of transfer pricing. If you think that, when we bring this tax in, they ain’t gonna go to transfer pricing, you would believe in the tooth fairy! People have the hypocrisy to say, ‘Oh, we’re standing aside and letting all this money go overseas.’ I pleaded and shouted in this place for something to be done, and I had a defamation action brought against me because of my efforts to try and stop the takeover of our mining companies by foreigners. But the governments of Australia—the ALP government and the Liberal-National Party government—sat on their hands and watched as the six giant mining companies of Australia were flogged off to overseas companies. This was to help the stock market—the great sacred God of modern society. Governments sat there and watched BHP, the great Australian, flogged off. They sat there and watched Western Mining Corporation flogged off. They sat there and watched CRA flogged off. They sat there and watched Mount Isa Mines flogged off. They sat there and watched Normandy Mining flogged off. They did nothing. In not one single case did they do a thing. Now that all the profits are flowing overseas—and very great profits, indeed—they are going to try and close the gate after the horse has bolted. Coming from the cattle industry, I know that that is a pretty useless thing to do, Mr Deputy speaker, let me tell you. The governments of Australia, with their enlightened policies on manufacturing, have destroyed the manufacturing industries of Australia. People hate politicians, but that was not true when I was a young bloke. I felt great awe and reverence for some of the men of Australian politics—men like Sir John ‘Black Jack’ McEwen. Ask anyone in the street what they think of Mr Howard. Ask anyone in the street what they think of Mr Keating. I deeply regret to say this, because I personally like the current Prime Minister— (Time expired) 4691 18:16:00 Parke, Melissa, MP HWR Fremantle ALP 1 0 Ms PARKE —I rise today to speak in support of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2010-2011 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 that underpin the Labor government’s 2010-2011 budget. It is a budget that continues the Labor tradition of prudent economic management and necessary economic reform of unlocking productivity and locking in fairness, of making big-picture reform without fear or favour and of responding flexibly to prevailing economic conditions while remaining steadfast in the pursuit of our shared national interest. There is no better indication of the government’s commitment to these values and of its adherence to these qualities than in the 2010-2011 budget and in the relationship between this budget and its predecessor. Last year the government responded to the most profound economic crisis since the Great Depression by embarking on an economic stimulus package that would both fuel and cushion the Australian economy. This action achieved its twin purposes. It underwrote the strength of the Australian economy, which grew 1.4 per cent in a period when the other advanced economies taken together contracted by 3.2 per cent. It did so by creating long-term improvements in our schools, on our roads and in our local communities through the Building the Education Revolution program, the Commonwealth-local government partnership of the community infrastructure program and black spot funding. It prevented the long and lasting damage that would have occurred without the government’s nation building stimulus, it prevented the recession that would have occurred without the government’s action and it kept hundreds of small and medium businesses alive that would have gone to the wall without the support of government stimulus. In the last few weeks, I have visited Harmony Primary School, Spearwood Alternative School, Palmyra Primary School and Beaconsfield Primary School. In each case, I have met with staff, parents and P&C representatives who are looking forward to having the use of extensive new facilities in the next few months. In many cases, this much needed additional capacity and amenity represents the first significant capital works to have occurred at schools in my electorate in 20 years or more. For some schools, the new facilities will provide their first all-weather assembly space. I am also aware of primary schools that are having their buildings equipped to cater for their involvement in the fantastic Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Program. The Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program has achieved a similarly successful provision of short-term emergency economic stimulus in the form of long-lasting community improvements. Under this program, the City of Fremantle installed solar panels on the roof of its community leisure centre. The City of Cockburn undertook extensive work to improve access and facilities at Bibra Lake—a beautiful and ecologically vital wetland in the heart of my electorate. The City of Melville put forward a range of projects, including waterwise improvements to the irrigation system used for the public golf course. The town of East Fremantle made improvements to disability access at community sports facilities and also undertook heritage restoration work. Mr Deputy Speaker, when you consider the varied nature and benefits of all these projects—renewable energy, disability access, heritage conservation and improvements to environmental protection and public open-space amenity—and you then multiply this across Australia’s 700 or so local governments, you begin to see how the federal government’s action has reached into every corner of this country to support economic activity, to save jobs and to create much needed improvements to public infrastructure. When I recently attended the opening of the refurbished Locke Park rotunda in the town of East Fremantle, the contractor who had undertaken the heritage restoration work told me that without the funding to local government projects he would have been forced to lay off five or six employees. I have heard the same thing many times in the last 12 months from workers and business owners alike. It is crystal clear that the government’s decision to make good the collapse in private demand that followed the global financial meltdown has had a direct and dramatic effect in the Fremantle electorate, especially in the south and south-east where unemployment has been comparatively high. It is through this response, in cooperation with a go-ahead private sector and the resilience and optimism of the Australian people, that Australia now has the second lowest unemployment rate of all the major advanced economies. It is through this decisive response that unemployment, which was forecast to peak at 8.5 per cent, instead peaked at 5.8 per cent and is projected to return to less than five per cent. That is a remarkable achievement. It means that some 220,000 Australians were kept in work. It means that the personal heartache and financial trauma that would have occurred in Australian households in the absence of government stimulus was avoided. That achievement, the maintenance of economic growth and employment strength in the Australian economy and the prevention of widespread economic harm to the Australian community, should not be overlooked or underestimated. Through the steps taken by this Labor government in partnership with state and local governments across Australia, with the goodwill and enterprise of Australian business and with the optimism and hard work of the Australian people, we have done remarkably well in remarkably difficult circumstances. Now, a year later, the 2010-11 budget moves to address the short-term deficits that were necessary to keep the Australian economy going forward at a time when most other advanced economies were going under. It charts our passage back to surplus in three years, which is three years earlier than originally forecast. In that way, this budget builds on the achievements and meets the responsibilities of the government’s 2009-10 budget. The responsibility is to contract spending growth and to match any new spending with new savings, and we have done that. The way forward is to continue to address this government’s agenda for positive change when it comes to the 21st century challenges in health, productivity and energy policy. Among those forward-looking changes, I am happy to highlight the following: the introduction of Australia’s first Paid Parental Leave scheme; the introduction of a resource super profits tax, which will ensure all Australians benefit fairly from the development of resources that belong to all of us, in the form of a tax scheme that will assist smaller companies and exploration projects; an unprecedented national health and hospitals reform package; a new instalment in the distinctly Labor project of providing adequate superannuation savings; and a further $650 million in renewable energy development as part of our $5.1 billion Clean Energy Initiative. These are all big picture initiatives that build from Australia’s world-leading position of economic stability and address the national and global challenges that we face in the decades to come. The resource super profits tax is simply intended to restore balance and fairness to the arrangements that govern the use and development of commodities that belong to all of us and that we ought to manage as assets held at least partly in trust for the generations to come. The public share of resource industry profits has fallen from $1 in three to something like $1 in seven within a decade. That is simply not a fair balance between providing an incentive and a reward for resources companies on the one hand and ensuring that all Australians now and in the future benefit from our shared inheritance on the other. I note the proposed mining tax is supported by 20 leading economists and academics in a statement released on 26 May that says, inter alia: … the current public criticism of the proposed tax has been dominated by misinformation. Mining is different to other industries in that it uses and depletes natural resources. Some return on those resources should flow to the Australian public. The proposed mining tax is also supported by the former head of the Minerals Council of Australia, David Buckingham, who has stated: Given these profits are made principally from the exclusive right to exploit a non-renewable resource owned by the Australian people, such tax rates are far from unreasonable. Mr Buckingham also pointed out the scare campaigns of the past on the petroleum resource rent tax and native title legislation. On those occasions also there were threats of lost jobs, projects, exports and national income. It was claimed that those proposals would ruin our economy. Of course, as he noted, nothing of the sort happened. Mining and petroleum industries went on to grow and prosper. It is pertinent to note that the Minerals Council itself submitted in November 2008 that there should be a shift away from state based royalty charges to a national profits based tax. Australia’s natural resources are our common wealth and they are not inexhaustible. It is therefore entirely fair and appropriate that all Australians benefit from the exploitation of these natural resources, and that is why the government will apply the proceeds of the superprofits tax to build infrastructure in places that desperately need it, including in resource rich states like my home state of WA, and to support an increase in compulsory superannuation. In my electorate of Fremantle the measures this budget contains in relation to health and superannuation are very welcome. The provision of $950 million to increase the capacity of emergency departments and to support the new standard requiring that patients presenting to emergency be admitted, referred, treated or discharged within four hours will improve the critical service provided by the emergency department at Fremantle Hospital. This is in addition to the $417 million to improve after-hours access to GP and primary care services and the $523 million for the training and support of Australian nurses. I also welcome the $19.2 million investment that the government is making to upskill more than 4,000 aged-care workers nationwide, and I know this already includes funds to train 23 new aged-care workers in my electorate of Fremantle. As part of the government’s general commitment to productivity improvements and carbon emission reduction, this budget makes a further investment of $1 billion in rail freight infrastructure. Rail freight continues to be underutilised in Australia, despite the fact that it offers very significant environmental, safety and amenity benefits in comparison to road transport. As a former community lawyer, I wholeheartedly welcome the provision of an additional $25,000 for the Fremantle Community Legal Centre. This funding is a small but important part of the largest injection of Commonwealth funding for legal assistance services in more than a decade. From 1 July additional funding in this area over four years includes: $92.3 million for legal aid, $34.9 million for Indigenous legal services and $26.8 million for community legal service programs. Having had the experience of providing assistance to people who cannot afford private representation and having had the experience of seeing the kinds of very difficult legal and personal issues that people have to confront and resolve—especially people who are disenfranchised, or newly migrated, or experiencing family breakdown or economically disadvantaged—I know that this additional capacity will make an enormous difference. On this issue, I would also like to draw attention to the government’s new Access to Justice web portal, which is designed to enable people to find legal information and legal advice services in their local area. This forms part of the government’s Strategic Framework for Access to Justice and is an innovative 21st century component of the Commonwealth’s $1.2 billion for legal assistance services over the next four years. I am glad that this budget with its strong emphasis on the domestic bottom line and on domestic capacity building nevertheless continues this government’s trajectory towards a higher level of international aid. The commitment in 2010-11 is for $4.3 billion, which is consistent with our path towards 0.5 per cent of gross national income by 2015-16. In the medium term I hope that Australia and other countries can reach the UN-endorsed contribution level of 0.7 per cent of GNI. I commend the Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance for his work in this area, which naturally has been in keeping with the incredibly high standard of service that he has given to this parliament and to this country for many years. I encourage all members to see the address that the parliamentary secretary, the member for Fraser, gave at the Australian National University last week on our engagement with Africa. The parliamentary secretary highlighted that Australia’s increased assistance ‘is about contributing more effectively to achieving the Millennium Development Goals and being a good international citizen in a world that is becoming ever smaller and more complex’. Before leaving the subject of foreign aid, my attention has been drawn to a speech made by the member for Melbourne Ports during this debate on the appropriation bills in which the member was critical of the $12.7 million Australia gives to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, the agency responsible for the Palestinian refugees. The member stated, inter alia, ‘We need to look more closely at the endemic waste, corruption and misappropriation of funds that has plagued UNRWA and this kind of funding over the years.’ The member made similar claims in his speech last year on the appropriation bills, to which I responded in a letter directly to the relevant minister and copied to the member. However, given that the claims have again been made from a parliamentary platform and are now being circulated on the internet, I feel it is necessary to make a brief response in kind. My own interest in this matter arises from my experience of having worked directly for UNRWA in Gaza for 2½ years and from a desire to protect the work and reputation of a respected and longstanding organisation and its staff, who are good and committed people of integrity working in exceedingly difficult and dangerous conditions. UNRWA’s work is subject to regular independent audits and reviews. This extensive oversight includes a biennial audit by the United Nations Board of Auditors, which is an outside and independently constituted organisation. UNRWA is also subject to regular reviews and inspections by the donor community, including the European Commission, the United States General Accounting Office and the State Department and the UK Department for International Development. I note that the US, EU and the UK remain three of the largest donors to the agency and continue to provide strong support for it. As I stated in my letter last year: Australia can have no reason to doubt UNRWA’s long-standing commitment to and ready participation in the auditing of its finances and practices in response to the legitimate desires of donors to scrutinise how their funds are being used. The Agency is a moderating and neutral force. If UNRWA can’t pay salaries, if it has to lay off staff, or to close schools and health clinics, the alternative to the population in Gaza will be the services offered by the local authority. It is surprising that people who are concerned about Hamas don’t seem to realise that if it weren’t for UNRWA schools, all children in Gaza would be attending Hamas-run schools. Ultimately, UNRWA is not the problem and it is not the solution. The solution lies in the political sphere. In the meantime, one of the—if not the—most effective ways of providing badly needed humanitarian assistance—food, cash, jobs—and human development assistance—education, health care, relief and social services, infrastructure and protection—is by supporting UNRWA. Australia’s generous contributions to UNRWA are extremely important, and I am assured that the Australian government maintains its full support and commitment to UNRWA. Labor went to the last election promising to maintain a strong Australian economy and promising to position this country for the future. At the last election, we promised to address the policy neglect of the previous government in areas like education, housing infrastructure and health. We promised to withdraw our troops from Iraq, to apologise to the stolen generations and to introduce national numeracy and literacy standards for the benefit of the schoolkids of this generation and of those that follow. But, above all, we promised that our reform agenda would be built on the foundation of a strong economy, because a strong economy is essential to jobs, is essential to opportunities for young Australians and is essential to our capacity at all levels to protect, nourish and expand our common wealth. That is Labor’s essential credo: to maintain and improve the things we all share; to maintain and improve public education, universal health care, fair working conditions, a strong safety net, superannuation and the environment. Those things belong to all of us. They are the bedrock of Australian society, of everyday Australian life and of Australian values—fairness, opportunity, cooperation, innovation and tolerance. Managing a strong economy puts families and individuals in a position to best pursue a productive and fulfilling life according to their own interests and on their own terms and it puts government in a position to safeguard and enhance the public goods that we all share. In recognising the balanced achievements of this government, it is nevertheless important to remember that the opposition said it could not be done. The opposition said our abolition of Work Choices would damage the economy and cause unemployment to skyrocket. The now opposition leader said paid parental leave would be implemented over his dead body. The shadow Treasurer said that returning the budget to surplus in four years would be a good effort and something this government would be incapable of achieving. The truth is that we have delivered world-leading economic performance at the same time as we have delivered a return to fairness in the workplace. Those opposite said it could not be done—and we have done it. The truth is that we have delivered one of the strongest economies in the OECD, with the first pension reform in more than a decade and while making a huge investment in renewable energy development. We have managed an economy with the lowest government debt of all the major developed economies. In this budget, we have set the course for necessary tax reform, with 12 per cent compulsory superannuation, reduced company taxation, better treatment of small business asset write-offs and changes to support lower-income Australians with an increase in the low-income tax offset to $1,500 and a decrease in the tax that applies to interest on savings. We have delivered one of the very few OECD economies to avoid recession, with an agreed deal on national health and hospitals reform, landmark funding support for after-hour services, nurse training and the personal and systemic efficiencies inherent in a voluntary system of electronic health records. All of these things have been achieved against a background of events that no-one predicted at the end of 2007. These achievements—the world-leading economic management and the forward-looking reforms—have occurred against the background of a global financial crisis in 2008-09 that literally wrecked a number of major developed economies. Right now, the shock waves of that crisis continue to threaten the European economies. This instability only underlines the need for the prudent economic management that is a feature of this budget. In the tradition of Labor governments, this government has undertaken the hard task of changing things for the better, even though change is always the toughest political road. It was the Hawke-Keating Labor government that introduced compulsory superannuation, and now we have set the course for an increase in compulsory superannuation from nine per cent to 12 per cent. It was the Hawke-Keating government that introduced the family assistance package in 1987, and now we are proud to introduce Australia’s first comprehensive paid parental leave scheme. It was the Hawke-Keating government that established Medicare as the national universal health care system, building on the Whitlam government’s revolutionary Medibank initiative, and now we have put in place a national health and hospitals framework that acknowledges and tackles the demographic changes ahead. That is our story. It is a good story and I am happy to tell it. I commend the Treasurer, his staff and his department for this balanced, responsible and forward-looking budget and for the incredible achievements of the last 18 months. 4697 18:36:00 Hull, Kay, MP 83O Riverina NATS 0 0 Mrs HULL —I will have less than five minutes to speak before 90-second statements come on—and I suggest I will have to finish my speech tomorrow—so it will not be easy for me to cover the issues in the appropriation bills that I need to cover, including mental health cuts. I will speak on budget portfolio statement 2010-11 budget related paper No. 1.11 and the issue of mental health on page 313. As we go through these pages, commencing at page 313, we find significant reason for regional Australia to be enormously concerned about the intentions of the minister and the government, particularly in relation to the cuts in mental health services and the transfer of funding out of one pot and into another. This will have a disproportionate impact on regional Australians. I recognise that the minister has had to back down on her decision about when these health cuts will take effect. These cuts have now been deferred for nine months, so perhaps the minister can take a look at this. The minister has decided to defer the starting date for these cuts. I would like to discuss how mental health works in regional Australia and why I think the minister has erred in her attempt to assist on mental health. In fact, what she has done has made things excessively worse. I am not talking about very small regional communities that do not have access to a whole host of allied health services and social workers and psychologists. I am talking about large inland cities. I come from a large inland city, Wagga Wagga, and I might start my explanation of my concerns by explaining just how the process works in mental health when you are in a large regional inland city. When a client presents themselves to a community health team and they are initially assessed, if they are not considered a priority—that is, they are not considered to be at risk of harm—then the client will be referred out to a social worker or to a psychologist through the division of general practice or a doctor’s surgery. The mental health team will always refer clients— 10000 Thomson, Kelvin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr KJ Thomson)—Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed on a future day. 4697 Statements by Members 4697 4697 18:40:00 Coulton, Mark, MP HWN Parkes NATS 0 0 Mr COULTON —Tonight I rise to speak on behalf of the farmers in an area in my electorate who have formed an organisation known as the Central West Drought Action Group. These are farmers from the Mendooran, Dunedoo and Mudgee part of New South Wales. Last week they got the news from Minister Burke that their application for an exceptional circumstances declaration was denied on the recommendation of the NRAC. On behalf of those farmers, I would like to ask the minister to reconsider and to personally intervene. Tonight I have sent the minister a letter cosigned by the shadow minister for agriculture, the Hon. John Cobb, pointing out that I believe that these farmers were not given due consideration. The problem with the methodology is that, because the farmers have been in 10 years of drought, when it comes to identifying the exceptional circumstances of a one-in-25-year rainfall event they miss out, because the average is much lower because of what happened in the previous 10 years. The irony of this situation is that, if they had had the same application 10 years ago, when they were in much more financial— (Time expired) 4698 4698 18:41:00 Zappia, Tony, MP HWB Makin ALP 1 0 Mr ZAPPIA —Earlier this month, as part of National Volunteer Week, I hosted a morning tea and provided certificates of appreciation to some of the volunteers in the Makin electorate. One of the sectors that I acknowledged on the morning was those people who volunteer their time to serve on local school councils. Outside the school communities they serve, and sometimes even from within the school communities, these people receive little recognition for their efforts. Schools today are under enormous pressure to meet budgetary constraints while simultaneously providing students with the best educational outcomes and best student services possible. We also expect schools not only to educate children but to care for and help raise them. School council members play a crucial role in the provision of services at schools. Not only are they there to provide feedback and advice to the principal on a range of relevant school issues, but they are always first to roll up their sleeves and participate in working bees; work in school canteens; help organise sports events and community open days; monitor road crossings; and transport children to and from school outings, sports events and the like—the list goes on, and I could use many other examples. As a regular visitor to schools in my electorate, I see for myself the immense contribution that school council members make in ensuring that children get the best possible experience in school life and the best possible education outcomes. This government has made lifting the education standards of the nation a priority policy area of government. The delivery of additional resources and implementation of government policies will be enhanced because of the added value in every school from school council members and school volunteers. (Time expired) 4698 4698 18:43:00 Hawke, Alex, MP HWO Mitchell LP 0 0 Mr HAWKE —I rise tonight to speak about the successful year of The Hills Swimming and Life Saving Club in my electorate of Mitchell. The club was formed in early 1967 with the name ‘The Hills Amateur Swimming Club’. The word ‘amateur’ was, of course, compulsory in those days. In 1998 it was changed to ‘The Hills Swimming Club’, and then, in 2006, to ‘The Hills Swimming and Life Saving Club. It is based centrally in Baulkham Hills and run by a fantastic committee of volunteers. It used to be the biggest swimming club in New South Wales, with over 700 members in the seventies. The lifesaving club, of course, is affiliated with the Royal Life Saving Society, whose headquarters is in my electorate of Mitchell. Classes have been held for the first season this year I want to offer congratulations on the presentation this year of the Derek Emery trophy to Eleanor Marshall and the Denis Robertson Award to Chelsea Podrow. One hundred and ninety-five club records were broken in the 2009-10 season. The club captains for swimming this year are Andrew Payne and Eleanor Marshall. The club captains for lifesaving are Ben Fishburn and Tiarna Jones. It was fantastic to attend the presentation, along with around 200 parents and committed volunteers. Club membership is growing. It is such a fantastic club, and I want to congratulate all of the parents, the hardworking coaches and staff at the club, the committee, the dedicated volunteers, the swimmers and, of course, the life members—the life members being Graham Taylor, Alan Kerruish, Pauline Alan, Bernie Boyle, Marilyn Tobin, Damian Hofman and Melanie Williams. This is a fantastic club. It fits in with the fine tradition of volunteerism in my electorate, and I endorse it thoroughly in the 2009-10 season. 4699 4699 18:44:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —I am pleased to congratulate the Queensland Times, the only daily newspaper in the electorate of Blair, on its new era with the launch of its new-look premises on 28 May 2010. Queensland Premier Anna Bligh joined civic, political and community leaders at the opening of the new QT Centre at West Ipswich. For most of its existence the QT has been based at Ellenborough Street, Ipswich in the CBD. The Queensland Times has a long and proud history as a provincial newspaper in the Queensland community. QT general manager Steve Portas said, ‘A paper like the QT is owned by its community’ and that is absolutely correct. Stuart Sherwin, the editor, was there with many other past editors. Its origins can be traced back to the Ipswich Herald on 4 July 1859. Ever since then it has diligently, ferociously and fearlessly reported the news, sometimes penetrating the Ipswich community in a way that politicians do not always appreciate. Important events such as the commencement of the railway line from Ipswich in 1864, the Box Flat mine disaster in 1972, the 1893 and 1974 floods were all covered by the Queensland Times. Queensland Times campaigned extensively for the separation of Queensland from New South Wales and also agitated strongly that Ipswich should be the capital of Queensland. A ‘terrible’ event happened when Brisbane was selected as the capital many years ago. (Time expired) 4699 4699 18:46:00 Wood, Jason, MP E0F La Trobe LP 0 0 Mr WOOD —As the member for La Trobe I have the opportunity to meet inspiring members of my local community. Last year I met eight-year-old Lavinia Martin who described to me her struggle with type 1 diabetes, otherwise known as juvenile diabetes. I was deeply moved by her story. Type 1 diabetes is unpreventable. It is often diagnosed in childhood or young adulthood, although the disease affects adults too. It affects one in 148 people. Lavinia is a fantastic ambassador for type 1 diabetes and together we organised an inaugural Teddy Bears Picnic and we raised nearly $8,000 for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation in Australia. It was a fantastic day. Children with their teddy bears laughed their way through the afternoon enjoying train rides, competitions and kicking the footy with Western Bulldog star recruit Sam Reid all in the name of that fantastic cause. As I said, we raised $8,000. I would like to thank Jo Martin and Julie Levin who combined forces to organise the event and many thanks to Berwick Nissan and Benno’s Cafe Restaurant for being the major sponsors and also the wider community of Berwick. My next goal is to push for a commitment from both the government and the opposition for $40 million to go towards a national clinical trial network in Australia. This is one of the diseases for which we all need to get behind finding a cure. It is very sad to see what is happening to young people in particular. I recommend that we find a cure. (Time expired) 4700 4700 18:48:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 1 0 Mr GEORGANAS —Today is 31 May and it is World No Tobacco Day. It is a day when we as a nation encourage all our friends, neighbours, work colleagues and people around us to quit the habit of smoking. I feel very passionate about this subject because I used to smoke a packet and a half a day and today it is exactly six years since I quit. I am very proud to be celebrating those six years of being smoke-free. The member for Braddon informed me a minute ago that he gave up on 26 June 1986, 24 years ago. I congratulate him for being smoke-free. Like most smokers, I started when I was very young, a teenager as I assume the member for Braddon did as well. We all know that approximately eight out of 10 new smokers are either children or adolescents. We all remember going to the cinema and seeing the healthy and athletic images of the Marlboro man and we all wanted to emulate him. I am sure we all remember that very vividly and we remember other people smoking as well. When we think back, boy how wrong were we? Apart from that everyone lived in a society where most people smoked so I decided it was a good idea and took it up at a young age. But then we did not know what the devastating facts and the effects of smoking were and that over 20,000 people die every year from smoking directly, 350 people die each and every week. These days every smoker knows the facts, but because the addiction is so powerful all of the information in the world is not always enough to make you stop smoking. (Time expired) 4700 4700 18:49:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —Previously I have spoken in the parliament about the problems involved with foetal alcohol syndrome and the permanent damage to unborn children that results from the abuse of alcohol during pregnancy. Yesterday the Sunday Times reported that the number of mothers who are presenting at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Perth with drug addictions and with babies who are also addicted to drugs has increased substantially. It is an absolute tragedy because this involves permanent damage to unborn children. I have often said that I think there should be more adoption in this country, particularly in cases where children are in circumstances of such great adversity. What I worry about now is that by the time a child is born often the damage is done. I think we need to have a debate in this country about what more can be done and our concepts of early intervention when we are faced with these sorts of problems in the future. This is something which we need to be aware of and we need to try to address in our schools, but we also need to look at other ways in which we can tackle this major problem. 4700 4700 18:51:00 Parke, Melissa, MP HWR Fremantle ALP 1 0 Ms PARKE —Around 80 per cent of Australia’s live sheep exports—approximately four million sheep—are shipped out of the port of Fremantle in my electorate each year. I receive up to 20 emails, letters and phone calls a week from constituents who are concerned about the trade on animal welfare grounds and because of the lost economic opportunities to create local jobs and increased income from processing the animals in WA and exporting the meat to the ever-expanding overseas sheepmeat market. The public demand for phasing out the live export trade in Fremantle has been such that last week on 26 May the City of Fremantle Council passed a resolution calling on the state and federal governments to bring stakeholders together to work towards a plan for the medium-term transition from live export to onshore processing. In the meantime, I think everyone would agree that, while the live animal export trade exists, it is essential that we have enforced minimum animal welfare standards. Unfortunately the Western Australian Barnett government has failed dismally in this regard. A six-person animal welfare unit established by the previous state Labor government three years ago has been slashed to just one officer, expected to monitor all livestock matters in a state of 2.5 million square kilometres. If we as a community cannot have confidence that minimum animal welfare standards are being adhered to, it makes the case for transition to the meat export trade even stronger and more urgent. I present a petition initiated by the Handle with Care coalition of animal welfare organisations, led by the World Society for the Protection of Animals, or WSPA, calling on the government to end the export of live animals for slaughter. 10000 Thomson, Kelvin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr KJ Thomson)—Order! The member’s time has expired. The document presented by the member will be forwarded to the Petitions Committee for its consideration and will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms with standing orders. 4701 4701 18:53:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 0 0 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —I rise this evening to record my absolute disappointment upon discovering that this Rudd Labor government has completely ignored the Landsborough Highway. It is a national highway that runs through the Labor seat of Flynn and connects Kennedy and the seat of Maranoa. This Rudd Labor government has provided no funding for any major upgrades for the Landsborough Highway since coming to government three years ago. The forward estimates in the budget show that it is not intending to spend any money on this highway for at least five years, should it be re-elected. The Landsborough Highway runs for 1,000 kilometres, from Morven in southern Queensland up to Cloncurry. It forms part of a long route between Brisbane and Darwin. It is that vital link for the agricultural livestock industry. It is a vital link for the defence forces, transporting from northern Australia to southern Australia. It is a popular route for tourists and grey nomads. It will also play a key role in the development of the Galilee coal basin, the project that will support up to 5,000 jobs—that is, of course, if the project does not get stalled by this Rudd Labor government’s super profits tax. This is a road which will continue to play a vital role in transporting goods across the great expanse of Central Queensland and it is in desperate need of an upgrade. I drove the highway recently with my LNP colleague the Leader of the Nationals, Warren Truss. We crossed a bridge over the Barcoo River which is literally sagging, but it seems it is not a priority for this Rudd Labor government. Only a Liberal-National coalition government will put it back on the agenda. (Time expired) 4702 4702 18:54:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 0 Ms SAFFIN —I rise to talk about the ABC radio services in Page, and I will read some excerpts from a letter I wrote to the Managing Director of the ABC, Mark Scott: Dear Mark As one of the members of parliament who actively lobbied, and did so without prompting, for ABC funding, and did again following your briefing in Canberra in a meeting with ABC New South Wales director, Mike McCluskey, I am very concerned at the suggestion there could be cuts— 10000 Thomson, Kelvin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr KJ Thomson)—Order! It being 6.55 pm, in accordance with standing order 192A the time for members’ statements has concluded. 4702 Private Members' Business 4702 Debate resumed, on motion by Mrs Gash: That this House: acknowledges: that the safety of our children should be of paramount concern for all governments; the irrefutable evidence from studies conducted both in Australia and overseas, that the use of lap/sash seatbelts on buses will save lives and reduce injuries in the case of accidents or sudden braking incidents; that currently, hundreds of thousands of Australian school children in non-urban areas, travel daily to school on buses that are not fitted with seatbelts; and the urgent need to provide increased safety for bus passengers travelling on non-urban roads in Australia; seeks the amendment of Australian Design Rule (ADR) 68/00: so that the only exemption is for route service buses operating on urban roads; to remove the current exemption for any bus with a seat height of less than one metre; and to read: ‘all buses operating on non-urban roads and highways must meet the requirements in this rule’ ensuring lap/sash seatbelt protection and all safety features within ADR 68/00, presently afforded to coach passengers, apply to any bus travelling on any high speed road, highway or dirt road; calls on the State and Territory Governments to support mandating the use of seatbelts on buses; No. 162—31 May 2010 29 directs the Government to legislate the above amendments to ADR 68/00 by January 2011 and ensure compliance on all affected routes by January 2020, beginning with all new and replacement buses; and directs the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to place lap/sash seatbelts for non-urban bus travel on the agenda at each and every Australian Transport Council meeting until certification of all buses used on non-urban roads in Australia meet the safety standards of ADR 68/00. 4702 18:55:00 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 0 0 Mrs GASH —I would like to begin by acknowledging the work of Glenda Staniford, president of the BUS Action Group, and Jan Shaloub, who are in the gallery here tonight—thank you for being here, ladies. The BUS Action Group was formed in March 2001 in my electorate of Gilmore following the tragic death of a 15-year-old boy in a bus accident near Sussex Inlet on the South Coast of New South Wales. I stand in this House today experiencing a sense of deja vu which takes me back to August 2001 when my former colleague and friend Kay Elson, the then member for Forde, put up a private member’s business issue to this chamber calling for seatbelts to be fitted to all new school buses. She said: ‘If we do not, we will be having this same debate in five, 10 or 20 years. I just hate to think of whose sons, daughters and grandchildren will have to pay the ultimate price in the meantime.’ Regrettably, we are facing the same debate, and since then more than 24 families have paid the ultimate price and have lost loved ones in fatal bus accidents, including three school bus victims. Many hundreds more families are paying a lesser price, but are still suffering from the long-term effects of trauma and injuries sustained by the survivors of over 75 serious accidents involving 38 school buses. In the past the federal government left it to the states and territories to determine where route buses without seatbelts can be used. The New South Wales government took the National Risk Guidelines for School Bus Routes for endorsement to the Australian Transport Council meeting on 18 November 2005, supposedly to achieve uniform national standards for bus safety. In an act of gross hypocrisy by federal, state and territory ministers, these guidelines were made voluntary, and even if states and territories use them there is no required action, such as installing seatbelts, even on the most hazardous bus routes. This farce was just a stalling tactic, as in some states there have been no safety improvements. New South Wales, which took the proposal to the Australian Transport Council, have done nothing in four years since the guidelines were endorsed, and have not even released their classification of high-risk school bus routes, which were determined in January 2008. Following vigorous lobbying of both federal and state governments, the Howard government provided a funding subsidy of $40 million in 2007 under the Seatbelts for Kids program, to assist coach companies to fund the installation of seatbelts in school buses. We all felt relieved that this problem was going to be addressed. However, less than $2 million has been spent ever since the funding was made available. Only 79 school buses across Australia have been specially fitted with seatbelts. A few weeks ago in Perth 23 pupils were injured in an urban bus crash. The next day more pupils were reported injured in a school bus crash near Ipswich in Queensland. On 11 May two school buses collided in the Blue Mountains, in a 40 kilometre an hour zone. Even at that speed 40 pupils were injured. These are just some of the accidents reported. The incidence of school bus crashes has been amply demonstrated and accepted by governments at every level, yet governments are dragging their feet. It was hoped that a voluntary program supported by funding would be an adequate incentive to hasten fittings, but this is proving not to be the case. The Royal Australian College of Surgeons trauma committee, in response to the Australian Transport Council’s discussion document on bus safety said: Although we agree with the research that a serious casualty crash has a low probability of occurring, the probabilities should one occur of serious injury and mortality are extremely high. We would therefore predict a devastating bus crash as one of the most likely mass casualty events that could occur in Australia. Evidence of the value of seatbelts reducing the incidence of injury has been amply demonstrated since Australia introduced the compulsory wearing of seatbelts in 1972. Can the minister explain why federally he enforces strict safety standards for coaches, as in Australian Design Rule 68/00, but allows state and territory governments to use any bus on any road without the same Australian Design Rule 68/00 safety standards? Is Minister Albanese aware that many buses used for country school bus runs and charter hire are still of the same fatally flawed design as those involved in the Kempsey and Grafton bus disasters in 1989 in which 55 people were killed? DOTARS claim that an Australian Design Rule cannot define where a bus can operate—that it is a state and territory government responsibility. Yet ADR 68/00 presently has an exemption for route service buses, therefore the exemption can be amended to mandate ADR 68/00 safety requirements for non-urban bus travel. This was the original intention, as per the regulation impact statement for ADR 68/00, ‘Occupant protection in buses’, which says: The proposed regulation is to provide improved occupant protection in buses and coaches other than city route buses by the fitting of three point seat belts to all passenger seats. This states the intention, but a poorly worded exemption has allowed state and territory governments to continue using unsafe buses with seats lower than one metre in height to be defined as ‘urban route service buses’ which are therefore allowed to operate anywhere, even on highly dangerous non-urban roads. I call on Minister Albanese to change the exemption so that the route service buses cannot operate outside urban and city areas without ADR 68/00 safety compliance. The transport minister can do more but refuses to, even though parents continue to lobby for his intervention to legislate changes to existing Australian Design Rule 68/00, which currently provides seatbelt safety legislation for coaches. ADR 68/00 coach compliance in 1995 has resulted in a fantastic safety record: no seatbelted coach passenger has died since. Hundreds of rural school buses travel on the same roads and highways as coaches, so why hasn’t the minister done anything about rectifying this anomaly where coach passengers have seatbelt protection but bus passengers do not? This is not just about school buses; any ordinary bus can travel on high-speed Australian roads carrying passengers without seatbelt protection simply because the bus has low back seats—that is, less than one metre in height. This unsafe bus travel has caused many deaths and serious injuries to bus passengers in just the past eight years. The minister is aware of this and has done nothing to rectify these unsafe practices. A 1995 Federal Office of Road Safety report, Analysis of improving occupant protection in existing buses, conducted an analysis of bus crashes between 1987 and 1994, with estimates of injury reduction. They examined 18 non-urban bus accidents and overwhelmingly determined that fatalities, serious and minor injuries would have been reduced by almost half: 45 deaths instead of 95. Buses manufactured for urban use are being used for non-urban bus travel. This is highly dangerous and it is unacceptable that the minister can allow this unsafe practice to continue. As the percentage of non-urban school bus travel is approximately 15 per cent of total school bus travel, a three- to five-year compliance deadline is easily achievable and must be set with federal, state and territory government assistance. The cost to fix seatbelts has been exaggerated in government reports by including metropolitan urban buses. Upgrading non-urban rural buses to Australian Design Rule 68/00 safety standards is cost effective. I call on the minister to amend Australian Design Rule 68/00 so that the only exemption is for route service buses operating on urban roads, by removing the current exemption for any bus with a seat height of less than one metre and by amending it to read, ‘All buses operating on non-urban roads and highways must meet the requirements in this rule, ensuring that lap-sash seatbelt protection and all safety features within Design Rule 68/00 presently afforded to coach passengers apply to any bus travelling on any high-speed road, highway or dirt road’; and by calling on the state and territory governments to support mandating bus seatbelts. Further, I call on the government to legislate the amendments to ADR 68/00 by January 2011 and to ensure compliance with the amendments by school buses and all affected routes by 2020, beginning with all new and replacement buses. This gives ample lead time. I also ask that the federal transport minister place lap-sash seatbelts for non-urban bus travel on the agenda at each and every Australian Transport Council meeting until there is certification that all buses used on non-urban roads meet the safety standards within Australian Design Rule 68/00. It is clear from the snail’s pace of uptake that a voluntary code on this issue is not going to work; therefore, the only practical and responsible course of action is to mandate the installation of seatbelts on school buses, coupled with the withdrawal of funding assistance, by January 2020. I again thank the BUS Action Group for taking the time to travel all the way from Ulladulla to be here in the House tonight. Thank you, ladies. 4705 19:05:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 0 Ms SAFFIN —Firstly, I would like to congratulate the honourable member for Gilmore on bringing this matter before the House and giving it an airing. I do not have sufficient information or details about the operation of some of the technical aspects of the motion, particularly the Australian design rule that the honourable member talked about in the scheme, to commit, but I can certainly commit to the intent of her private member’s motion. I welcome the honourable member’s visitors from the bus action group who are in this place to hear this discussion tonight. You are most welcome. The honourable member for Gilmore said that governments have left it to the state and territory governments. I researched this issue today, but that is another area where I would need some particular information because I am not clear on who has the actual power. I think it is with the state and territory governments, but I will turn to that later when I mention some of the other actions that the states have done, particularly Western Australia, which I found in my research. I am not sure what legislative power, either formally or coercively, exists in this area. I am mindful when we discuss such issues to go gently in my speeches, but I realise that such issues also demand strong action to try to correct some areas. Families who have lost loved ones in bus and car accidents do listen to and read what we say in this place and it is never my intention at all to add inadvertently to anyone’s grief when we are talking about fatalities, particularly of children. I will try to stick to the facts in speaking about road safety, including for buses, which is what we are looking at tonight. My licence is endorsed for driving small buses up to a certain size as long as it is not for a commercial use. I used to drive them a lot with children, babies, a lot of women and some men. I was thinking of it recently because I was asked to do it again when people needed to get from A to B and they did not have transport. They knew I had that endorsement. When I used to do it it was a tremendous responsibility to have the safety of those people in my hands, particularly the children. I have enormous respect for bus drivers who do this day in and day out, particularly driving over some of the roads in my area of country New South Wales which can be even more challenging. I am mindful of that. When I was asked recently to do it I did say yes because it looked like they would not be able to get from A to B—it transpired that I did not have to—but I was a bit apprehensive about it. I was thinking of the responsibility. I know some of the roads from having travelled in New South Wales. I remember once visiting a place where the school bus driver, a local woman, used to stop the bus because the bridge was unsafe. She got the kids to walk across the bridge before she drove across the bridge and put the kids back in the bus and continued on. We helped get the money to fix that bridge. It was so clear that that had to happen. I have campaigned on issues of safety over the years. One issue I particularly took up was the speed zones going past schools. I had a big fight, particularly with the Roads and Traffic Authority in that area. I fought tooth and nail. I know there are a lot of people who have fought on that particularly issue in different parts of New South Wales at different times. I first got involved in it when Wal Murray was the minister for roads at state level. As the honourable member for Gilmore said tonight, things go slowly, and too slowly when we are talking about the safety of kids. All of these areas have taken time trying to get the states and territories on board. I still think 40 kilometres per hour is too fast past schools, but I am not sure I will get it any lower. AK6 Gash, Joanna, MP Mrs Gash —We just want seatbelts. HVY Saffin, Janelle, MP Ms SAFFIN —I know, we do want seatbelts. That took years. We will have to keep lobbying. I had a look at some of the research before I came up here and looked particularly at children in buses. I do not have the information that the honourable member for Gilmore has, but I found that the issue of safety with children around schools is still primarily in the area of pedestrian safety. It does not mean that things do not happen in buses, because they clearly do. Road trauma is a major public health problem facing this country. We know that. Last year 1,509 people died on our roads—1,509 people too many—and 33,000 people were seriously injured. It is particularly heartbreaking when it affects young people. Research and work around road safety in Australia has been going on for some 40 years. Despite the terrible rate of accidents we have, it has actually halved over that period, even with all the cars and buses we have on the road. That is due to tougher laws, better policing, improved driver training, better road design, extensive education campaigns, new vehicle technologies and, yes, seatbelts. Like a lot of members in this place, I was around when seatbelts were not the law. We used to drive without them and never thought about it. When they came in they clearly showed a correlation in the prevention of preventing deaths and serious injury. Decisions as to which type of bus is most suited for a particular service is regulated by state and territory governments. They have responsibility for the service regulation and the road rules. The fitting of seatbelts also rests with state and territory governments. In 2005 the Australian Transport Council approved the voluntary national guidelines for risk assessment of school bus routes that the honourable member raised tonight. That is what the state and territory governments use for assessing school bus routes. They are currently progressing their own arrangements. The honourable member wants that speeded up. In my research I found a report from the Sunday Times from 11 February 2010—I am not sure if you saw it; this was in Western Australia. It said: EACH of the State’s school buses has now been fitted with seatbelts, Education Minister Liz Constable announced today.         …         …         … “Western Australia is the first State in the nation to make seatbelts mandatory for buses used to transport public school students. I did not think it was mandated in any state or territory. I must admit that when I found that I was a little bit surprised. It probably gives some hope. I looked at South Australia and read some information. I do not have anything on New South Wales, but I do know it is not mandatory in our state. I know that but I do not have the details. The government of South Australia announced in 2006 that it would fit seatbelts to all new school buses—I am not sure about old school buses—and that private operators would be required to tender. This is similar to what happens in Queensland. The program introduced by the previous government, which the honourable member was a member of—was announced in September 2007. That program has prevailed and the government is supporting the program. (Time expired) 4707 19:15:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan IND 0 0 Mr JOHNSON —I am pleased to speak in the parliament on behalf of the people of Ryan, as I have done in this place over the last nine years. I look forward to the honour of continuing to do so as the Independent member for the electorate of Ryan, following the election in the months ahead. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my colleague Joanna Gash, the member for Gilmore, who has moved this motion concerning seatbelts in buses. It is an important motion. I speak to it on behalf of all those mums and dads, grandparents and, indeed, all the families and people of Ryan in three contexts. I speak on their behalf by saying that we should do something about seatbelts in buses, firstly, in the context of a father. I am the father of a 3½ year-old. My little 3½ year-old Ryan Andrew Johnson is the most precious thing to me on this planet. Of course, like all dads and, indeed, all parents, I think we would do anything for our children. We would lay down our lives for our children. That is the power of parental love. It is certainly so in my case. So I speak first of all as a father. I speak to this motion secondly as a citizen of this country. Of course, in coming into this place, we wear a particular hat as members of the federal parliament representing the views and perspectives of our constituents, but we are still citizens of our country. The Prime Minister of this country is a member of the Australian Labor Party but, as I am a citizen and a taxpayer of this country, he is also my Prime Minister. So I also speak to this motion as a citizen. I speak to this motion thirdly as a member of the parliament and as the people’s representative in Ryan. They are the three headings that I would like to address the motion of my colleague in the parliament the member for Gilmore and to very strongly commend it. I would also like to acknowledge and pay tribute to the supporters and friends in her electorate who have been waging this campaign for, as I understand it, many years. Seatbelts in buses is a very important thing to fight for. As I said, I am a father first of all. To me, having a child wearing a seatbelt on a bus makes eminent sense. It is clearly something that can add to the safety of my child and, indeed, to that of any child who is sitting on a bus. It makes sense that a child wearing a seatbelt on a school bus or on any bus for that matter is more likely to have their life preserved in the terrible situation of an accident or, at the very least, if they are injured, to be not so terribly injured as they might well be without wearing a seatbelt. We should all pay attention to this factor. The second context in which I speak to this motion is as a citizen of this country. Seatbelts in buses is one of the good things that I would like to see implemented throughout the country. My electorate of Ryan includes the western suburbs of Brisbane. It is essentially a metropolitan seat. However, it stretches to the far west of the city of Brisbane, which, for anyone who knows the western suburbs of Brisbane and the Ryan electorate, includes many dirt roads and schools that are far away from the city. It is a good 90 minutes drive from the centre of town to the very far flung corners of the Ryan electorate where there are schools and where there are school buses picking up kids and taking them to their homes. As a citizen of this country, I think it is an admirable thing to install seatbelts in the buses in metropolitan Brisbane as well as in the rural towns of our great country. The third context in which I speak is as a member of the parliament. I think these kinds of motions, these kinds of worthy issues, are there for all of us to come together on and to speak as one on in promoting these kinds of causes. These causes should not be political. These causes should not be partisan. These causes save lives. These are the kinds of causes that enhance the quality of our representation and the quality of our body politic. I want to end my remarks in this short presentation by paying tribute again to the member for Gilmore. She is one of the finest members of this parliament. In so doing, however, I also want to pay tribute to one of our former colleagues, Kay Elson, the former member for Forde. In a speech in this parliament on 20 August 2001, she initiated a motion to have seatbelts in buses in Queensland. I would like to end my remarks by paying tribute to her and saying that we will continue to pursue the cause of seatbelts in buses, because it makes eminent good sense. (Time expired) 4708 19:20:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 0 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —I rise to speak on the motion by the member for Gilmore concerning seatbelts on buses. In so doing, I say ‘Good evening’ to our guests from the BUS Action Group from Ulladulla. The member for Ryan was quite right. On 20 August 2001 I stood in this place to support the then member for Forde on a motion with very similar sentiments to those outlined by the member for Gilmore. I do congratulate her on her motion and on the substance of the motion itself. I am really wondering what happened in that decade because, when I look at a number of the so-called state road safety websites, I am very surprised by how little comment there is supporting seatbelts on our buses, particularly those used to transport our schoolchildren. That is a great pity. I fully appreciate the argument of the industry when they say that this is a major cost factor, but new buses come with new standards and new requirements. Governments, both state and federal, are always raising the bar on the safety and technical requirements of these buses, so it should not be news that we would mandate that these buses contain seatbelts. One of the other issues is that, if you cannot allow more students on a bus than can be seated, that is going to have serious cost imposts. I appreciate the argument, but it must of course lead to questions not just of general safety but of sheer comfort for students on buses. In 2001, that infamous year, I actually did a survey of students in Circular Head on issues relating to buses. I know that I may get different responses today, but I do wonder whether they would actually change much in substance. One of the things they talked about was that the buses were uncomfortable—three and four to a seat. They even went on to say—and I think this brings out some of the issues here, not just for comfort but for safety as well—‘If we went to school from grade 1 to grade 12 on the bus, we would sit in uncomfortable positions of three to a seat for two hours a day, five days a week, 40 weeks a year for 12 years.’ This equals, according to their survey, 200 full days—that is, 24 hours—sitting cramped in a bus seat over a student’s school life. So they are uncomfortable and they feel unsafe because of the lack of comfort in the bus. What I found interesting, though, is that when they were surveyed back in 2001—and I am sorry this is so old—the one thing they split fifty-fifty on was whether they should have seatbelts. They were really concerned that they were uncomfortable and they were worried about behaviour on the bus. Behaviour, I would add, may be affected by whether they are wearing a seatbelt, quite frankly, because if they are wearing one they are at least fixed hopefully in a sculptured seat designed for them. That is a very important safety issue as well. But they were really concerned about behaviour more than anything. That does raise the whole issue of school buses, not just for seatbelts. I do support the advocacy of mandatory regulations for seatbelts. 10000 Vale, Danna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DS Vale)—Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 41. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Braddon will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 4709 Bills R4312 4709 Debate resumed from 22 February, on motion by Mr Kerr: That this bill be now read a second time. 4709 19:25:00 Kerr, Duncan, MP RH4 Denison ALP 1 0 Mr KERR —The Parliamentary (Judicial Misbehaviour or Incapacity) Commission Bill 2010 establishes the independent Parliamentary (Judicial Misbehaviour or Incapacity) Commission. The commission is designed to assist the parliament in the exercise of its constitutional responsibility if instances of alleged misbehaviour by or incapacity of any justice are referred to it by either this House or the Senate. The bill should be read together with the proposed standing order ‘Address for removal of federal justice’ published in my name in the Notice Paper. If the bill becomes an act it will be incumbent on the House and the Senate to adopt such procedures to ensure that the processes in this bill are not triggered for trivial reasons or without procedural fairness. Because the time for this debate is limited I will not repeat remarks I made when introducing the bill to the House on 22 February 2010. I would request that that speech be referred to as explaining this bill for the purposes of its interpretation as if it were incorporated in this second reading debate. Judicial independence is an essential bulwark against all excess of power. Yet, as the Chief Justice of the High Court has recently affirmed, the authority of the law and the legitimacy of the judiciary depend upon public confidence. If no settled and transparent process exists to respond to instances of alleged serious wrongdoing by or incapacity of federal judges and magistrates we gamble with that confidence. The drafters of our Constitution protected the independence of each justice appointed under chapter 3 by guaranteeing them secure tenure—originally for life, now to the age of 70—while authorising their removal for cause for proved misbehaviour or incapacity. Professor Blackshield observes that section 72 ‘has a double purpose: to ensure that no-one but parliament can remove a judge from office, but also to ensure that parliament can’. The exercise of that power requires the concurrence of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Sadly the Murphy affair more than 30 years ago demonstrated how singularly ill-equipped our parliamentary procedures were to discharge that weighty responsibility. We have made no improvements since then. For those who question why we must act when serious allegations against federal judicial office holders are rare and when no immediate allegation against a judge is in prospect there are two answers. The first is that the time to ensure the balance is right. In ensuring both fairness and rigour, when nothing controversial is on the horizon, we can be dispassionate and uninfluenced by partisan considerations. The second is that the number of federal justices appointed under chapter 3 has grown exponentially. Human nature being as it is, as the number of federal justices now exceeds those of many states, instances requiring the attention of the parliament will almost certainly arise. We should be ready for that and armed with a fair and just mechanisms that are known in advance both to the parliament and to the judge before any issue of controversy explodes. It is quite implausible that either the House or the Senate could deal with serious allegations against a justice without the assistance of a preliminary investigation of a body of the kind proposed by this measure. Parliament should not risk being again left to adopt ad hoc responses shaped in the heat of crisis. I refer members who desire a more comprehensive account of the rationale for this bill to an excellent paper by Tom Browne prepared as part of the Australian National Internships Program. That paper appends a comprehensive literature review. I thank the shadow Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis SC, who has worked with me to refine this legislation. It has been improved by his input. I understand he will sponsor the amended bill in the Senate after its passage through this place and has obtained the support of the opposition party to that end. It is sensible that a measure such as this will emerge as the product of the work of private members and senators who are also senior members of the bar rather than as a bill sponsored by the government. It makes it clear, if there was any suspicion, that this is not pursued by the executive to chasten the courts. I also express appreciation to my colleagues in the caucus who voted to allow me to introduce this bill as a private member. I thank the Attorney-General for making available to me the expertise of his department and the drafting skills of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel respectively to suggest and draft amendments to the bill to better ensure its consistency with other legislation. I thank the Clerk of the House and his officers for their assistance with the first draft of the bill. I thank the Greens and the Independents I have discussed this bill with for their acceptance of the necessity for it. I thank the Leader of the House and the Whips for recognising the importance of allowing time for this debate and its resolution. Finally, I foreshadow that on the third reading I will be moving the agreed amendments standing in my name. An explanation of those amendments is included in the supplementary explanatory memorandum. I seek leave to table the supplementary explanatory memorandum and the ANIP paper that I referred to. Leave granted. 4711 19:30:00 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP 0 0 Mr RUDDOCK —May I first make it clear that the opposition intends to support this measure. Reference to my colleague in the other place, the shadow Attorney, was well taken and I thank the member for Denison for his cooperation with the opposition in the consideration of this matter. I listened very carefully to his remarks and it seemed to me the most important observation of his that it was a sensible measure that should emerge as the product of the work of private members and senators who are also senior members of the bar rather than a bill sponsored by the government and to make it clear if there was any suspicion that it was not pursued by the executive to chase in the courts. This is an unusual measure in that context but I think that well explains why the bill is coming forward in the way in which it is. The purpose is to fill a longstanding gap in the constitutional provisions concerning the removal of judges for proven misbehaviour or incapacity under section 72(ii) of the Constitution. It has never been the case that there is a mechanism for establishing the veracity of allegations that might result in the conclusion of misbehaviour or incapacity. This bill is designed to fill that gap. It will establish a body to be known as the Parliamentary Judicial Misbehaviour or Incapacity Commission to hear serious complaints and make recommendations to the parliament, in other words to ensure that the relevant section of the Constitution is adhered to but on the basis of having the parliament having before it information which will enable it to come to a sensible conclusion. It was the case some time ago involving Mr Justice Murphy in the early 1980s that highlighted the need. I can well recall the consideration as to how the Senate was to obtain advice to assist it in reaching conclusions in relation to the allegations that were being made. Of course, our federal judiciary has expanded significantly in recent years. There are a large number of federal court judges, from the High Court to the Federal Court, the magistracy and the Family Court. There will probably be a military division shortly as well. When you look at the very large number of people involved it is surprising in a sense that these issues rarely arise. Perhaps I should say it is not surprising, because I think it reflects very highly on the quality of our judiciary. I can say as a former Attorney that matters of this sort were not raised with me about members of the judiciary when I was in that office. There is a matter that the member for Denison and I are familiar with but I do not think it went to incapacity or misbehaviour. I could vouch for the fact that we do have a situation in which it is rare that issues of this sort should arise, but I think the point has been made that if it is to arise it is better that a method has been already established rather than the parliament has to turn its mind afresh to establishing the question of how it is going to obtain the evidence. In other words, it will give clear guidance to assist the parliament in how to determine whether alleged misconduct is proven and therefore warrants the removal of a judicial officer. It is that absence of a known and transparent process that had the potential to undermine confidence both in the parliament and the judiciary if we had not addressed it. Let me make it very clear: when the matter is considered, perhaps in the chamber, as to whether the bill should be passed, it has the support of the opposition. It is a matter that the shadow Attorney will be addressing in the Senate by moving to support the proposed legislation. I thank the honourable member for bringing the matter before us; I think he has done a service to the nation. 10000 Vale, Danna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DS Vale)—Order! The time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 4712 Miscellaneous Debate resumed, on motion by Mr Neville: That this House: acknowledges the: unquestionable bravery of 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (6RAR) at the Battle of Long Tan in Vietnam on 18 August 1966 and the singular heroism of units in the face of overwhelming enemy numbers, especially that of D Company; and well deserved upgrade of a number of decorations: Major Harry Smith (from Military Cross to Star of Gallantry, ie, Distinguished Service Order equivalent); Lieutenant Dave Sabben and Lieutenant Geoff Kendall (from Mentioned in Despatches to Medal for Gallantry, ie, Military Cross equivalent); and strength of D Company 6RAR (as at 18 August 1966) which has the right to wear the former Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation Emblem; deplores the loss of documentation which has deprived 12 other Australian combatants from receiving appropriate recognition; calls on the Australian Government to convene a further inquiry to assess and document by eye witness reports, cross examination and other sources, the known courageous action of combatants on that day with particular reference to the 12 soldiers involved; and seeks appropriate remedy, by way of award, to those unjustly treated. 4712 19:36:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 0 0 Mr NEVILLE —On 18 August 2008 I was at the cenotaph in Hervey Bay. Lieutenant Colonel Harry Smith, who had been ill, was visited by seven of his colleagues—locals and visitors—who went up with him to lay wreaths on the cenotaph for Long Tan Day. There was nothing particularly spectacular about this, but, as those eight men stepped back from the cenotaph, the gathered crowd broke into loud and sustained applause. To me, they were emblematic of Australians who have for many years felt that many injustices in Vietnam have not been attended to. I want to talk about one of those instances tonight. It is 18 August 1966 in the partly deserted village of Long Tan, four kilometres east of the Australian base at Nui Dat. It is mid-afternoon; 11 Platoon is out on patrol with D Company 6RAR, and they engage the enemy. They kill one and the rest take flight. What they did not know, and nor did their commander, Lieutenant Colonel Harry Smith, the man at Hervey Bay I spoke about, who was then Major Harry Smith, was that they had contacted the forward units of two and a half to three thousand Viet Cong and regional and North Vietnamese regulars. There were only 105 men in D Company, and they were engaging two and a half thousand. So the odds were over 20 to one. The Vietnamese units came forward to see what was going on, a battle ensued and Major Smith had to send out 12 Platoon and 10 Platoon to try to get 11 Platoon back. Eventually, at about 6.10 pm, he got all his units together. Ten minutes earlier, a helicopter had dropped to them ammunition wrapped in blankets. Let me divert for a minute. Prior to this, support having been called for, A Company came forward with 10 APCs, seven of which were heading towards the battle. About a kilometre short of Long Tan they too met a group of Vietnamese of company strength. They took them on. One particular man whom I know in Bundaberg rolled off his APC. He and his machine gunner lay on the ground, then got up and went straight into the face of the enemy, firing at them as they went. When their ammunition ran out they went with bayonets. It was such a convincing assault that the company of Vietnamese withdrew—turned and ran, actually. Then they came on to the battle. By the time they got to the battle proper it had been completed. Major Harry Smith and his men—105 of them—took on wave after wave of battalion strength enemy who tried as they would to pierce the perimeter. Not once did they cross the Australian perimeter and, in fact, some of the battle occurred at the range of only 15 metres. While all this was going on, Harry Smith was directing the battle. He was on his belly in the filthy mud, with Captain Morrie Stanley, a New Zealand officer who was directing the fire from the 24 guns that were behind them. He directed fire into the rubber plantation at Long Tan, all 24 guns firing at once—3,500 shells—you can imagine the devastation that caused. The effect of all this was that the enemy eventually broke off the engagement at a quarter to seven that night. The 11th Platoon had already lost half its number, either wounded or killed in the initial encounter. So in effect you had 80 Australians taking that fight off. But as Harry Smith himself says, nine of the 12 men that he wanted recognised for that engagement and who have been denied that recognition, were right in the front line. Three of them came up with the APCs with A Company. Why do I feel so strongly about this? They were recommended for awards, and in fact two senior officers received DSOs. Harry Smith’s likely award, originally to be a DSO, was downgraded and he received the Military Cross. Two of his lieutenants, Sabben and Kendall, were downgraded to MIDs, and his 12 men that he recommended did not receive awards, including one who was killed in action. Unbelievable stuff. There was a review, as there is at the end of all conflicts—what is called the end-of-war review—and still these men’s awards were not upgraded. Again, what is even more disturbing is the fact that another review was held under Generals Abigail and Gower and Brigadier Warner in 2008. They restored Harry Smith’s award to the equivalent of a DSO, the Star of Gallantry, and the two lieutenants’ to the equivalent of the Military Cross, the Medal of Gallantry—but again, nothing for the 12 soldiers. There was a further review by a professor, a warrant officer who had not been in Vietnam and who had no Vietnam experience, and a former lieutenant colonel who had a staff posting in Vietnam. They again recommended against these awards. What had happened was that instead of those awards being kept for the end-of-war review, they were destroyed, and there is evidence that they were destroyed. But there is eyewitness evidence that these men acted with conspicuous bravery, and Harry Smith can tell you in intimate detail even today what each of them did. There is no justification at all for those men not receiving awards. Madam Deputy Speaker, do you know that in the Vietnam War there were 726 awards, 61 going to private soldiers, and only 35 medals? In 1984 the Military Historical Society of Australia, in a paper on awards during the Vietnam War, said that the majority of awards were given to those people furthest from the action. What an absolute disgrace. I would like to go into more detail on this. I saw the reaction of fellow Australians at the cenotaph in 2008 at Hervey Bay. I know Harry Smith and his integrity. I know that these men fought with conspicuous gallantry and I am calling tonight for a further inquiry. I do not care what form it takes. Perhaps we should take it into the parliament and do it as a Senate inquiry. But this injustice cannot be allowed to continue and I will not rest until it is addressed. We go there on Long Tan Day, we put our hands on our hearts, we talk about the glories of what happened in Vietnam and yet we deny awards to 12 people who were seminal to the battle being won. It is a disgrace. (Time expired) 4714 19:46:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 1 0 Ms KING —I rise today to speak on the motion of the member for Hinkler as someone who has a longstanding interest in this issue. The Battle of Long Tan on 18 August 1966 is one of the legendary battles in our wartime history. The battle saw the 105-strong Delta Company, 6th Battalion RAR, defeat the Vietcong force, estimated to be up to 2,500. The outcome was 254 Vietcong casualties, with some reports of up to 1,000 killed, and three enemies captured. Australia suffered 18 casualties with a further 24 soldiers wounded. It is difficult to comprehend how anyone in Delta Company survived a battle between 105—with three New Zealanders there as well—on one side and up to 2,500 on the other. During the Vietnam War there was an understanding that a Vietcong attack on the Australian base at Nui Dat was imminent and the attack came on 17 August 1966 when the Vietcong attacked the Australian base by mortar and rocket. Bravo Company was sent out to patrol the suspected Vietcong base on the night of 17 August and were later relieved by Delta Company around midday on 18 August. Delta Company made contact with the Vietcong at 1540 hours when they were patrolling a rubber plantation in Long Tan. Following the initial contact, the Vietcong and Australian Army soldiers would be in direct contact with each other for many hours. During this time the soldiers were surrounded by enemy battalions firing mortars and automatic weapons. President Lyndon B Johnson awarded D Company, 6RAR with the US Presidential Unit Citation and I read a brief extract from that: While searching for Viet Cong in a rubber plantation northeast of Ba Ria, Phuoc Tuy, Province, Republic of Vietnam, D Company met and immediately engaged in heavy contact. As the battle developed, it became apparent that the men of D Company were facing a numerically superior force. The platoons of D Company were surrounded and attacked on all sides by an estimated reinforced enemy battalion using automatic weapons, small arms and mortars. Fighting courageously against a well armed and determined foe, the men on D Company maintained their formations in a common perimeter defence and inflicted heavy casualties on the Viet Cong. The men of D Company still wear that Presidential Unit Citation. The issue of proper recognition of Long Tan veterans first came to my attention through representations from Bill ‘Yank’ Akell, one of my constituents. As I have said to him often, when he first came to tell me that instead of receiving the Republic of Vietnam’s Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation he received a doll I thought he was joking. Mr Akell is one of the most humble men that I have met. He is a true gentleman who is softly spoken and he is a much loved member of our community. Mr Akell enlisted in the Australian Army on 14 May 1964 and he was a member of the 105-strong Delta Company. As part of the battle, Mr Akell, a signaller, was tasked with rushing alone from company headquarters to 10th Platoon to deliver a spare radio set to platoon commander, Geoff Kendall. The 10th Platoon radio had gone off the air and it was vital that communication was restored between 10th Platoon and company headquarters. Mr Akell had heard that the 10th Platoon’s radio was out and on pure instinct knew that he had to resolve the matter urgently. He knew that without radio communication 10th Platoon was unable to request artillery or to update company headquarters with vital information. Situated in company headquarters, Mr Akell picked up a spare radio and ran blind looking for 10th Platoon. He weaved alone through the terrain in search of the platoon. He was alone in Long Tan under heavy enemy fire for over 10 to 15 minutes in search of his fellow soldiers. While in search of the platoon, Mr Akell made contact with two Vietcong soldiers who he subsequently killed. Finally, he reached the platoon. Mr Akell played a vital role in ensuring communication was resumed between the platoon and company headquarters. When you realise that Bill was just 19, it is pretty extraordinary. This is one of a number of stories from the Battle of Long Tan. Mr Akell and D Company were not evacuated until later that night. As a further sign of true courage, the battalion, lead by D Company, were assigned back into the area the very next day. Following the battle, the South Vietnamese government awarded those involved with a unit citation and singled out 20 individual soldiers who would receive various levels of the Vietnamese Gallantry Cross. Bill was one of those 20 soldiers. At the last minute the Australian ambassador intervened, with the citation and medals not being awarded. On the day these soldiers were set to receive recognition, they instead received cigar cases and dolls. I have spoke in this House about the Battle of Long Tan on a number of occasions. In particular in opposition I, alongside the then member for Cowan and the member for Brisbane, pursued the issue of the Palm Unit Citation and the awarding of military medals. I must admit to some disappointment that we had so little support at the time from the then government on the issue. I am certainly pleased to hear the member for Hinkler’s voice raised on this issue, albeit now from opposition. I am very proud to have been part of the actions of the Australian Labor Party on this issue, both in opposition and now in government. On 14 August the government announced that D Company 6RAR commander, Harry Smith, would be awarded the Star of Gallantry. We also announced that platoon commanders Dave Sabben and Geoff Kendall be offered the Medal for Gallantry. This announcement was in response to an independent review into unresolved issues of recognition. As part of this review we also announced the approval for soldiers in D Company 6RAR to wear the Republic of Vietnam’s Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation Emblem—a decision that was contrary to the recommendations of the independent review panel. The Rudd government referred all unresolved concerns regarding individual awards for Long Tan to the newly established independent Defence Honours and Awards Appeal Tribunal—the tribunal we established at arms length from government to inquire independently into these and a number of other matters relating to military recognition. The establishment of the tribunal was a 2007 election commitment of this government. As a result of the tribunal’s inquiry, they recommended that Flight Lieutenant Cliff Dohle be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and that Delta Company 6RAR be awarded the Unit Citation for Gallantry. The government accepted the recommendations of the tribunal. It took a change of government to resolve many of the issues regarding the recognition of D Company. I understand that for commander Harry Smith that recognition for those Australians who fought in the Battle of Long Tan is an outstanding issue. I certainly commend my constituent Bill Akell in his endeavours to support Harry Smith in his ongoing actions to seek recognition for those in Delta Company. This was a real battle, which has affected real people and their families. The Battle of Long Tan will always be remembered as one of the most significant engagements during the Vietnam War. It is of course not the only battle of Vietnam, but the bravery and courage of our Australian soldiers in such demanding circumstances will not be forgotten. I would like to finalise my comments on this motion with some words from Mr Akell. He states: If you believe it is just for a Government to send a military Unit off to war with restrictions in place to limit the number of decorations for bravery its members can be awarded, then you need to do nothing. But, if you believe that Colonel Smith’s 40 year fight for military justice for his men is due for a rightful conclusion, then I ask that you support this motion. While I respect that the government has taken the decision to accept the recommendations of the independent Defence Honours and Awards Appeal Tribunal and I understand the importance that this process be independent of government, I do on this occasion wholeheartedly support the motion by the member for Hinkler. 4716 19:54:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —We used to say in the Army that no plan survives contact with the enemy. In listening to the contributions by the member for Hinkler and the member for Ballarat on this battle of Long Tan motion, I will dispense with the notes I have prepared for this occasion and go from a deeper place. Harry Smith once said in an account of the battle, ‘I’ve little time for the politics, theories or criticisms which detract from the outstanding performance of my company and all the supporting forces involved in the battle.’ How true that really is. Long Tan was a victory, there is no doubt about it, against overwhelming odds. There will always be a little bit of doubt about the size of the enemy force but I think that it is pretty clear that about 1,500 or more was always going to be the sort of number that is correct. Indeed, at the end of the battle there was debate as to how many Vietnamese or Vietcong soldiers were actually killed. Yet the Americans later found evidence from Vietcong records that they found in the field that suggested that between 500 and 700 enemy soldiers were killed. I think it is a testament to the courage and bravery of the Australian soldiers, particularly these 105 Australians and the three members of the New Zealand forward observer party, that this turned out to be a victory. It was a victory not just for those on the ground, it was a victory for all those that were in the support roles. We know that some 3,000 rounds of artillery were called in from all the batteries that were back at Nui Dat, including the Americans, the New Zealanders and the Australians. So we know that was the case. We know the desperateness of the fight on the ground, the monsoon conditions, the mist that was rising from the ground, together with the accurate artillery fire and the RAAF being able to drop ammunition from the helicopters directly into the defensive perimeter of the company. There were a number of soldiers killed that afternoon, 18 of them. I will read into the record their names in commemoration of their supreme sacrifice for our nation: Private Richard Aldersea of Perth, Glenn Drabble of Brisbane, Ken Gant of Brisbane, Ernest Grant of Thurgoona, Vic Grice of Ballarat, James Houston of Wallsend, Jack Jewry of St Mary’s in New South Wales, Paul Large of Wellington, Private McCormack from Launceston, Dennis McCormack from Adelaide, Warren Mitchell from Dalby, Douglas Salverton from Brisbane, 2nd Lieutenant Gordon Sharp of Tamworth, David Thomas of Bendigo, Private Francis Topp of Toowoomba, Private Max Wales of Goondiwindi and Private Colin Whiston of Sydney. And from the APC squadron there was Corporal Peter Clements of Cunderdin in Western Australia. All these men were 19 to 22. These were very young men. Some of them were national servicemen, some were career soldiers within the Army. They paid a great sacrifice. But it was a victory, there was no doubt about it. The Vietcong suffered greatly from that day and they never really controlled Phuoc Tuy province after that. Yet this was a battalion that had only been established for 15 months. I think the only real tragedy with regard to this victory was the way the recognition of bravery and courage was undertaken afterwards. I found it incredible in reading through the records that we see the brigadier of the taskforce was given a Distinguished Service Order—a brigadier. There is no way he was out there with a rifle, he was up there at the base. There is even some question regarding the battalion commander. There are some records which say that battalion headquarters came out with the APCs but other records say otherwise. There are a lot of questions that still remain about this matter. I certainly support the member for Hinkler’s call for an inquiry. Maybe we should do something in this parliament to look into this with a lot of detail. It would be good to see this matter finally resolved. I know there has been great work to make sure that medals have been forthcoming but I think we need to search for the truth of this matter a little bit further. 10000 Vale, Danna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DS Vale)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has now expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 4717 Debate resumed, on motion by Mr Champion: That this House: supports the Government’s action to boost national savings by gradually increasing the Superannuation Guarantee from 9 per cent now, to reach 12 per cent by 2019-20; and notes that the: Government’s approach to superannuation will achieve two main outcomes—greater adequacy and greater equity; removal of the tax penalties for superannuation contributions of low income earners; reforms to superannuation will benefit around 8.4 million Australians; and reforms will increase national savings and economic growth. 4717 19:59:00 Champion, Nick, MP HW9 Wakefield ALP 1 0 Mr CHAMPION —It is a great pleasure to speak on the issue of superannuation. I have spoken on it many times before. Let me say at the outset that one of the things we are dealing with here is the legacy of former Prime Minister Paul Keating. He has spoken many times on this issue and on the need for greater national savings and greater provisions for retirement incomes for so many Australians. I think that it is worth acknowledging his role today. The government’s superannuation plans do four main things. Firstly, they deal with the great, if you like, international economic challenge—that is, the inadequate savings of developed economies. Secondly, they help to rebalance our economy, which I think is a critical thing. Thirdly, they increase retirement incomes for Australians. Fourthly, they increase fairness and equity in our community. On the issue of the economic and national savings, one of the critical problems is that in Anglo-Saxon economies there is a tendency to not save enough and to consume a lot. That is mirrored by the developing world’s tendency to save more than they consume. This has led to the sorts of economic problems we have seen in the United States, where debt fuelled consumption binges have led to asset bubbles and ultimately to those asset bubbles collapsing. One of the ways of avoiding that is to have a high national savings rate and to invest those national savings in productive investments, and that is exactly what superannuation does. The government superannuation plans add $85 billion to our superannuation savings over the next 10 years and an incredible $500 billion by 2035. That is an economic buttress against future shocks. That is a way of making sure that the nation’s economic bounty is invested in productive long-term investments. That is good for individuals and it is good for the economy. The second thing our superannuation plans do is rebalance the economy. This is terribly important. There are a lot of debates about foreign ownership—particularly about Chinese investment and other foreign investment in Australia. One of the things superannuation does is ensure that there are adequate domestic savings to invest in productive Australian assets and indeed to invest overseas. Foreign ownership is always a vexed question, but one of the causes of foreign ownership is that we do not save enough. It is absolutely critical that superannuation is there to increase savings. The third thing is increased retirement income. I have met many individuals who have had inadequate savings. For an employee aged about 30, on average weekly earnings, the government’s changes will add $108,000 on average to their superannuation. For a woman aged 30 today who has an interrupted work pattern—which is typical amongst women, particularly if they have children—it will add another $78,000 in superannuation. They are tremendously important figures, and people know the difference, when they come to retire, that having those extra savings will make. Overall, the superannuation savings of 3.5 million Australians on low incomes will be boosted by $830 million over the forward estimates. This brings me to my final point, which is that the government’s superannuation changes increase fairness and equity in our community. That is one of the most critically important things, I think. We have a problem not just with the distribution of wealth between rich and poor but also with the distribution through the time of life when you get to spend it. Typically, when you are working, you do tend to have enough money in your pocket to get by. Unfortunately, when you retire, you often do not. This is not just about redistributing wealth from rich to poor or from capital to labour, but also from a time in your life when you have an abundance of income to a time in your life when you do not. That is a critical point. It is important for fairness, it is important for economic efficiency, it is important to the country and we can only hope that the opposition sees the light and supports the government’s changes. 4719 20:04:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 0 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion moved by the member for Wakefield. It is interesting to note that the government’s definition of adequacy is a percentage by which the government extracts from the pay of workers a sum on a mandatory basis. This government demonstrates through its actions in the economy and through its great big new tax on mining that Labor does not understand how superannuation adequacy depends on a strong and stable economy. Around 9.3 per cent of all superannuation accounts are invested in the Australian resources sector and since the great big new tax on mining was leaked to the media on 13 April over $20 billion has been stripped from mining investments of superannuation funds. This is a fact that the Rudd Labor government has been deliberately misleading the public on. On Friday the Treasurer came clean. He provided advice to Senator Ludwig that because of the great big new tax on mining, Labor’s great big new tax, there was a need to waste $38 million of taxpayers’ money on a propaganda campaign. The advice was: … the tax reforms involve changes to the value of some capital assets, they impact on financial markets. This contradicts the Prime Minister who told the House only on Thursday that the opposition and those in the private sector were ‘wrong, wrong, wrong’ for suggesting that Labor’s mining tax had any effect on financial markets and on superannuation balances. The member for Wakefield’s motion talks about the government’s approach to superannuation. This Labor government’s approach is to mislead and ignore any advice that contradicts their agenda unless and until it suits their purpose. To consider Labor’s approach to superannuation generally, I can refer to comments by the head of the government’s review into superannuation, Mr Jeremy Cooper, who was reported in the media today as saying: When you’re forced … to buy a product which is simultaneously complex and boring, it’s quite a rational thing to shrug your shoulders and walk away until you really need to pay attention. The government’s approach to superannuation has not been about asking workers and retirees to pay attention. If there is nothing to engage workers in their superannuation savings and encourage them to actively participate in their retirement, workers will still shrug their shoulders and walk away from engaging in super—a very important concept. The government would also be aware that the public are not even paying attention to their superannuation policy. But superannuants are paying attention to Labor’s great big new tax on mining. They are paying attention to how this tax is hurting their superannuation balances right here, right now—not in 2012 or 2014 or 2019, but here and now. Whilst both sides of the House want to increase the adequacy of superannuation levels, Labor has taken a very paternalistic approach. The government is not considering whether employees actually want to contribute an additional amount to their super balances. Instead, it is slugging businesses an additional three per cent on their payroll to pay for this increase. The former minister for superannuation, Senator Sherry, recognised this point when he promised before the 2007 election: We won’t be increasing the nine per cent superannuation guarantee for a number of reasons. I have said time and time again at many conferences to many people in the financial services sector, privately and publicly, that nine per cent is enough from the employer. It would be unfair to increase that nine per cent any further and we won’t not be doing it. ‘We won’t be doing it,’ were the words of the then the minister. This also follows the Prime Minister’s comment before the election—and a lot of things have changed since ‘before the election’, I must say. On Radio 4BC the Prime Minister said that the government would not change superannuation laws, ‘not one jot, one tittle’. Well, with this track record, how can the public believe one word of what this government says about superannuation? The member’s motion is only Labor’s spin in an area of policy that has been marked by just about more backflips and more misrepresentations than any other issue in which this government has failed. As the Treasurer has now admitted, it is the economy and superannuation balances that are paying the costs for this government’s approach. The cost is neither adequate nor equitable, and the coalition does not support this motion. 4720 20:09:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 0 Mr PERRETT —It was amazing to hear that the shadow minister against superannuation could not even go for five minutes. I rise to speak in support of the motion put forward by the member for Wakefield and thank him for his strong commitment to the future prosperity of his electorate and of all Australians. It is people like the member for Wakefield who recognise that more needs to be done to ensure all Australians can enjoy a comfortable and economically secure retirement. The Labor Party has a proud record when it comes to mainstream access to superannuation. Put in place by the Hawke and Keating governments, the superannuation guarantee ensures that millions of Australians will retire with a sustainable retirement income. But more needs to be done to ensure that in the future more Australians benefit from these tough, historic reforms. As the Rudd government faces up to the reality of an ageing and growing population, now more than ever we need to ensure that as many workers as possible can retire without the need for pension support from the government. That is why the Rudd Labor government is from 1 July 2013 gradually increasing the superannuation guarantee contribution from nine per cent to 12 per cent, reaching 12 per cent on 1 July 2019—not that far away. Also from 1 July 2012 a superannuation contribution of up to $500 will be provided for workers with incomes up to $37,000, effectively refunding the contributions tax they pay on their superannuation guarantee contributions. This kind of investment demonstrates that the Rudd Labor government’s strong commitment to the long-term security and prosperity of working families is to be acknowledged rather than just picked at by those opposite without actually putting up an alternative when it comes to superannuation. You will not see the benefits at the ballot box in six months time or whenever the election is held, but when working Australians reach retirement age 20 and 30 years from now they will be far better off because of the tough decisions made now. In fact, a 30-year-old employee on average full-time weekly earnings will retire with $108,000 more in their retirement savings thanks to the Rudd government’s long-term improvements to superannuation. A 30-year-old woman—those who tend to have the interrupted employment—will be $78,000 better off in their retirement. But the coalition wants to rob ordinary Australians of fair superannuation for the future. When I am talking about super I am not talking about Clive Palmer’s retirement income, but the retirement incomes of ordinary Australians. That is who the government makes decisions for. The coalition stands against this government’s reforms to increase the superannuation guarantee and incentives for lower income earners and those nearing retirement age. The opposition leader and the coalition do not fundamentally believe in compulsory superannuation. It was a Labor initiative back in the early nineties. You might well remember the sacrifices that workers made in forgoing wage increases to kick-start the process. Instead, the opposition would rather see Australians, even those on lower incomes, somehow save and invest for their own retirement. These changes are also good for our economy. In an age when we are saving less and less and putting more money on credit cards, superannuation, thankfully, is one way that we can ensure we do save the future. We have a record that is almost second to none throughout the world—certainly throughout the OECD—in saving with superannuation. By 2035 of the Rudd government’s boost to superannuation will deliver additional private savings of $35 billion per year and additional national savings of $19.5 billion. It will reduce age pension outlays by $3.5 billion a year. An extra $500 billion will be added to the pool of superannuation savings. The Rudd government is driving these reforms to boost retirement savings and deliver a fairer distribution of superannuation tax concessions. We want to ensure that more Australians can enjoy a comfortable retirement and help us prepare for an ageing population and the many challenges that that will present. We do not just make decisions for the short term, for the polls and for the electoral cycle; instead we need to make tough decisions for what happens over the horizon. These reforms ensure a strong and growing economy today to deliver the superannuation savings we need for the future and also, incidentally, help to build Australia’s record as a great manager of funds and attract funds from around the world. That was something that was laughed at during the election, but already we are seeing some great advances. I support this motion and once again thank the member for Wakefield for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I hope that the superannuation guarantee contribution will be supported by the next speaker from those opposite. 4721 20:14:00 Laming, Andrew, MP E0H Bowman LP 0 0 Mr LAMING —Far be it from me to rain on the parade of ashen-faced, first-time Labor MPs desperate to reconnect with their voter base while looking at Newspoll results. But let us be honest about this motion on superannuation and say that the measure of this government is not the fancy projections that its economists can generate for next 10 years. The measure of this administration is what it does this year for those working class families that it so often alludes to. The government has provided those families with a massive budget deficit—enormous government debt—that is getting worse, not better, and it will continue to do so next year and the year after. It is okay to prepare a budget that refers to 2014 but, honestly, what we are looking at is what is happening in this year. What we are looking at this year, of course, is uncontrolled spending. The best way a government can demonstrate its commitment to working Australians and their superannuation is to run a budget surplus. When a government runs a budget surplus it is empowered to offer greater superannuation contributions. The Rudd government is asking small business to pay the higher amounts while, at the same time, offering them miniscule tax cuts in 2013. I am definitely of the view that this administration will not be around to fill that promise. What happened to the days when governments talked about tax cuts sequentially, starting with the current year? If this administration has any form at all, it is for announcing changes for the years ahead but doing nothing in the current year. It is all well and good for the government to apologise to Indigenous Australians, but its fear of apologising for its own actions right now shows its true measure. What we have had from this government is rhetoric about national savings but conduct that has been the complete opposite to that. This government talks about national savings immediately before an election, but it has already engaged in the disproven exercise of writing $900 cheques to people in the hope of securing their support. The money is long gone that could have funded this superannuation increase, and now we are watching a government in demise and decline. It reminds me of those fabulous words, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, that I know you love just as much as I do: ‘Did they make you exchange your heroes for ghosts, your hot ashes for trees? Did they get you to exchange this hot air for a cool breeze?’ What we have seen in 2010 is a desperate pre-election struggle to reignite the class warfare for which that side of parliament is famous. It is picking on our own mining sector. It is using everyone’s taxes to fund its battle against Australia’s mining sector. It is a completely preformed and fabricated pre-election battle to feed into its own beliefs that anyone who has a little bit more in resources should be handing it over now to pay for its pre-election promises. I do not mind a government that looks five or 10 years ahead but the Rudd administration is simply unaccountable for what it does right now. That was no better exemplified than by the bizarre double twist with pike on election advertising. Mr Deputy Speaker, don’t you remember that waxy, polished, almost seductive face of the opposition leader in 2007 as he said: ‘You are all brothers. You are bearing witness to my words that there will be no pre-election advertising in the three months before an election.’ What do we do now in the final pre-rigor mortis struggle of that Prime Minister who will promise 10 years in advance anything on superannuation in a desperate move to retain his job? 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! There is a motion before the chair. The speaker needs to address the motion. E0H Laming, Andrew, MP Mr LAMING —I hear you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that I strayed slightly from one broken election promise to another, but it is easy to do when you have a government that has done it 52 times. It is easy to stray from one broken promise to another because this is a desperate, scurrying government that is looking for anything to energise its voter base. The three young Turks speaking to this motion are exemplars of any promise to retain power. The Prime Minister has simply run out of ideas. He is quite happy to talk about the 12 per cent that he will never deliver. He will not be there to deliver it. He is simply there to make aspirational promises for 2019. Small businesses around this country have not fallen for the government’s tricky 2013 tax cuts because we are looking for a government that acts in 2010. We do not have one at the moment, but I hope we do by the end of this year when the day of the election comes and, with it, the day of reckoning for the Rudd administration. 4722 20:19:00 Bradbury, David, MP HVW Lindsay ALP 1 0 Mr BRADBURY —Is anyone really surprised that those on the other side would come forward and oppose this motion on superannuation by the member for Wakefield, oppose a motion that supports investment in the retirement savings of Australians? It is little wonder, because those on the other side have always opposed superannuation. They opposed superannuation when it was first introduced, because their view of the world is that the superannuation industry should have stayed the way it was 100 years ago when it was largely the preserve of the very wealthy—white collar—those that were associated with the financial sector and those in the Public Service. We on this side believe that one of the great moves towards a more egalitarian and fairer Australia was the shift that occurred with compulsory superannuation. It was a shift that was first championed by the trade union movement in the eighties and a shift that was reinforced by the first compulsory system introduced by the Keating government. The opposition opposed superannuation back then for all of the reasons that they now oppose an increase in the superannuation guarantee. ‘It will put too much pressure on business,’ they say. ‘It will put businesses out of business.’ These are all the same arguments that we heard once before, but had we allowed those on the other side to carry the day this country and the people of this country would be much worse off than they are. Superannuation has grown to become a $1.1 trillion industry. It is one of the key reasons we weathered the financial storm of the global financial crisis. The member for Bowman comes forward and mocks the cash payments. He would have to be the only person— 1K6 Billson, Bruce, MP Mr Billson —Scoff! HVW Bradbury, David, MP Mr BRADBURY —that continues to scoff, as the member for Dunkley suggests, at the cash payments when all of the evidence, which is supported by economists all around the world, is that what was done here in Australia with the cash payments stimulated the economy and kept businesses moving. I invite the member for Dunkley to come and walk through the Penrith Plaza with me one day. Throughout the year that involved the stimulus payments, retail sales increased by 10 per cent in the Penrith Plaza. At a time when everywhere else in the world retail sales were in decline they were growing and they were growing because of the stimulus. But I do not want to be distracted by the member for Bowman. I pick him up on that point. I do not want to be distracted by his sideshow. I want to get back to the issue of superannuation. That is because, as I said earlier, those on the other side have always opposed it. There is no greater example of the strident opposition to superannuation of those on the other side than their very leader, the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has had many positions on many issues. You have to have a look at his positions and determine whether each position was one articulated in the heat of the moment or one that was carefully crafted—the gospel truth. But I will take a comment in this place, something that is recorded in the Hansard, as being something that is a little more than a comment in the heat of the moment. On 25 September 1995, the member for Warringah came into this place and stated: Compulsory superannuation is one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted by government on the Australian people. Those are hardly the words of someone that is lukewarm in their opposition to superannuation. This is someone who has been a consistent warrior against securing the compulsory retirement savings of working people to ensure that they have a decent standard of living in their retirement. That is what superannuation is about. It is about ensuring that, after having worked all of one’s life, one can move into one’s declining years or halcyon days, whichever way you like to look at it, with some confidence that one will have some sense of comfort in retirement. That is what we are about. We want to deliver that sense of confidence to people—that they will be able to retire with a comfortable standard of living. That is what those on the other side continue to call ‘one of the great con jobs foisted on the Australian people’. It is not a con job. It is essential and it is one of the key tenets of this government’s approach to ensuring that we are able to cope with the ageing population and secure adequate retirement savings for the people we represent. 4724 20:24:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP 0 0 Mr BILLSON —I am pleased to speak of behalf of many in the community in regard to the member for Wakefield’s motion before the parliament. It is a reminder of where we were before the election of the Howard government when then Prime Minister Keating used to run ads to try to convince people that superannuation funds grew on trees. It is that kind of shallow, poor, economic logic that is really at the heart of the concerns many have about this increase in the superannuation guarantee levy. I, from my modest background in the community I represent, think superannuation is a good thing. It is a good thing particularly when it is a preparation for people’s retirement savings and when the people who are planning to retire actually have some say over it. At nine per cent, Australians are in a position to prepare for their retirement, and there is scope and opportunity to increase those contributions if that is a pathway they choose to go down. What is interesting about the Rudd Labor government’s approach is that they say to working Australians, ‘No, we won’t give you that choice. We will compel this contribution,’ and then they run two quite contradictory, narrow-cast messages to the Australian public about just who is paying. You have some in this place wanting to say it is money coming from the mining tax—to quote the Prime Minister’s words, ‘wrong, wrong, wrong.’ Employer superannuation contributions come from employers. They make those contributions and are compelled to make those contributions. The Rudd Labor plan is to force them to increase those contributions by three per cent, which is effectively a three per cent payroll tax on all Australian employers that employ people for whom they have a superannuation guarantee liability. The irony is that the Rudd Labor government and its hackneyed Labor members refuse to turn their minds to where these funds are coming from. You have—at times when it suits—the minister for finance and the Assistant Treasurer trying to make it sound like the government is stumping up the money when nothing could be more false. Nothing could be further from the truth. You then have them talking to a business audience saying, ‘It will be a trade-off for wages and salaries.’ Then when they go out and talk to working people it is, ‘No, no, it’ll be paid for by the employer.’ These narrow-cast, dishonest and completely incoherent messages that the Rudd Labor government puts out underline the fact that they have no policy credentials whatsoever on superannuation. The Rudd Labor government must have understood that this was important. Why else would it have sent out shadow ministers prior to the last election? In a joint press release on 5 November 2007 Nick Sherry and Wayne Swan, who were so emphatic about the need to reassure employers at a difficult economic time that they were not going to cop another three per cent payroll tax, said: ‘Labor has made it clear on many occasions that it will not be increasing employers’ nine per cent superannuation guarantee payments.’ Well what was the shelf life of that promise? It is another broken promise; the undertaking on 5 November 2007 has not lasted to this day. Then there were the Prime Minister’s famous words when the concern of the Australian public was that the Rudd Labor team would mess with superannuation. He sought to reassure people. Remember that famous quote about superannuation changes? ‘No, no, no. Not one jot, not one tittle.’ This shows you the completely bereft nature of this Rudd Labor team in terms of consistent and coherent policy development. They cannot fess up and face the fact about who is paying. This is not money that grows on trees, as the Labor Party would have you believe. It is either coming out of the wages and salaries of employees or it is being paid for by employers. It cannot be anyone else; it is one of those two. If it is coming out of the wages and salaries of employees, then the Rudd Labor government needs to fess up to that fact and confront that simple truth that, at a time of increased cost of living— 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! The time allotted for the debate having expired, the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 8.28 pm to 8.40 pm 4725 Grievance Debate Debate resumed from 24 May. 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—The question is: That grievances be noted. 4725 4725 20:40:00 Ramsey, Rowan, MP HWS Grey LP 0 0 Mr RAMSEY —Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a grievance. South Australia has for many years been the cinderella state when it comes to the mining industry. Much of the early infrastructure of the state was based on the super-rich copper mines of Burra and Moonta. Iron ore was first mined at Iron Knob during the last years of the 19th century, and steel making commenced in 1941 with the establishment of a blast furnace. The sixties saw the development of the Cooper Basin gas fields and, in the early eighties, the great experiment of Roxby Downs was established, destined to become one of the world’s great mines—at least, that was until the Rudd government announced a great big new tax on mining. There have been a considerable number of smaller mines which have had regional impacts without powering the Australian economy. The reason South Australia, representing around one-eighth of the land area of the nation, has not enjoyed the same success as New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland is largely to do with the geology. It is worth noting that, as the seat of Grey covers most of the land mass of the state, it stands to reason that most of the prospective growth is in my electorate. Apart from the major copper and iron ore bodies I have just referred to, our mineral deposits are not sticking out of the ground waiting for someone to trip over them. In fact, most of South Australia is covered by a layer of sand and sediment hundreds of feet thick which, until the advent of magnetic surveys, made those deposits invisible. The first of the big finds of the modern era was Olympic Dam, now known as Roxby Downs. With its usual insightful vision, the ALP fought its establishment tooth and nail, and it was once described by the South Australian Premier, Mike Rann, as a mirage in the desert. Major new mines have been established—Jacinth-Ambrosia by Iluka, Prominent Hill by OZ Minerals, the Challenger gold project and uranium mines at Beverley and Honeymoon—and it seems we have just metaphorically scratched the surface. For many reasons these ore bodies are hard to find, which means they also present high-risk opportunities to the miner. Remote desert locations with no facilities at all, far from adequate ports, poor transport options and high development risks are not for the faint hearted. There are a string of prospective projects spread right across the electorate: coal to gas, copper, two new iron ore provinces, mineral sands and uranium, including the $20 billion plus expansion of Roxby Downs. We are on the cusp of great success, and now the Prime Minister and his Treasurer, Wayne Swan, have taken the low road to balancing their budget. Unable to control government spending, which has risen by 21 per cent in their three budgets, they have instead taken the low road and gone for a $9 billion a year tax on Australia’s most productive sector. Make no mistake: Kevin Rudd’s plan to slap a 40 per cent tax on mining profits threatens to derail the much anticipated expansion of the mining industry in South Australia and, of all South Australians, my constituents stand to lose the most. Every successive South Australian electoral redistribution has seen the seat of Grey extend further to the south because the population relative to the rest of the state has been progressively declining. Efficiencies in our traditional agricultural base have fuelled a drift to the cities. The loss of the shipbuilding industry and big reductions in the workforce at the steelworks in Whyalla, the reduction at the railway workshops in Port Augusta and efficiencies at the lead smelter in Port Pirie have all added to the relative loss of population. In effect, if you have no jobs, you have no people. The last 10 years have seen a reversal of fortunes as the mining industry has breathed new life into these communities and, in the case of Roxby Downs, actually created a new town. The mining industry is the industry offering hope to our Indigenous population. Mining companies have made significant investments in training, engaging and retaining an Indigenous workforce. Coober Pedy is anxiously awaiting announcements on the IMX Resources proposal nearby. The APY lands have encouraged exploration on some very prospective areas under their control, because they know that the only way their communities can make real advances is through their people getting jobs, and local jobs are the best of all. Mr Rudd’s great big new tax is a threat to all of this promise. Surely the government realises that you cannot just strip away profits and expect that all the sums will still add up the same. Every impediment you put in the way of development goes on top of the impediments that went before and makes possible approval that much harder. This tax will push every project that much closer to the point where it is not worth the investment risk. Every new project will now be seen through the filter of a new tax. BHP’s chief, Marius Kloppers, has said that it will be very difficult to approve the $20 billion-plus Roxby expansion under this tax. Failure to do so will be an enormous blow to South Australia and, in particular, my electorate. Other projects, including large iron ore deposits on Eyre Peninsula, coal to gas proposals in the north, uranium prospects, rare earth elements, and copper on Yorke Peninsula will all be assessed with a new bottom line. I cannot say whether individual projects will be abandoned or not. Even the proponents would not know at this stage. But I do know that some will be, and some is too many. Without this tax, South Australia should have been looking to increase its royalty regime. This tax will mean that, in the event that the Olympic Dam expansion goes ahead—and it must be said that that is far less likely now—then the state government will not be able to sit down with BHP and consider any changes, because from now on Canberra takes the lion’s share. The government proposes to take 40 per cent of company profits after they have already paid payroll taxes, wages, superannuation, WorkCover et cetera. The company will then have the opportunity to meet any interest on borrowings. What is left will then be subject to a 28 per cent company tax, resulting in a combined tax rate of 57 per cent. The country with the next highest effective tax rate in the world is the US, at 40 per cent. Canada has taxes at 23 per cent. How on earth can the government believe that this will not damage the Australian economy? How do they believe that a competitive tax disadvantage of up to 34 per cent will not lead to a lessening of investment in Australia and an increase in investment in countries like Canada? How can they honestly believe that six per cent is an adequate return on risk capital? Why would anyone invest in a risky venture for the same interest they can get at the bank? Why is it that shareholders and millions of Australians, either directly or through their superannuation funds, are taxed on projects where they have taken all the risks, where they have made investment decisions based on the best available information at the time only to find that the government is prepared to change the rules midstream? The coalition have a long history of opposing retrospective legislation, as indeed we did in the recent youth allowance debate. The principle is the same here. Already we have seen a string of cancellations and deferrals from the mining industry, including Oz Minerals at Prominent Hill, and Incitec Pivot have announced that they are suspending their drilling program in Queensland. OneSteel, the biggest employer in Whyalla and the second biggest steelmaker in Australia, has issued a highly significant statement. It reads: Our USD 400+ million investment in Project Magnet to convert the Whyalla steelworks to magnetite iron ore and allow the commercialization of our hematite iron ore reserves was based on an assessment of risk and reward at the time, including the tax system in place in Australia. To apply such a substantial change to the tax rules retrospectively is unfair to OneSteel and its shareholders and seriously damages Australia’s attractiveness as an investment destination. As presently proposed, the Resource Super Profits Tax will apply equally to resources sold and those consumed internally as feed to the Whyalla steelworks. This will require OneSteel to absorb a large new cost, placing the business at a significant disadvantage against its import competition. The reason the steelworks is located at Whyalla is its close proximity to low cost iron ore, and this continues to represent a key driver of the cost competitiveness of those facilities. The Resource Super Profits Tax fundamentally changes the economics of the Whyalla steelworks and threatens the viability and, hence longevity, of our steel businesses. The statement goes on to say that the six per cent threshold is simply not an attractive level of return for investors and will severely inhibit the company reinvesting in the industry. The threat to the viability of OneSteel is a threat to the future of Whyalla and the 22,000 people who live there and rely on it either directly or indirectly for their employment. This tax grab is ill conceived, a grab for easy money to plug an enormous budget black hole caused by a government which has no self-control, has enormous cost overruns because it cannot manage projects and is incapable of telling the electorate the truth. The tax threatens the very industry that has carried Australia through the global financial crisis and has a slow-burn element. Investment will not dry up tomorrow. Projects started will finish. Old mines will continue to produce. But, in the longer term, Australians will wonder how we allowed our opportunities to pass us by and wonder why this industry has not reproduced itself as current investment runs down. 4728 4728 20:50:00 Ellis, Annette, MP 5K6 Canberra ALP 1 0 Ms ANNETTE ELLIS —I want to take the time I have tonight to talk about the issue of disability—the issues for those living with disability, those who care for them, those who work with them and those who support them in their daily lives. We in this place all know, I am sure, that the challenges faced by people living with a disability or chronic illness are many, but I also have to say that the rewards for them can be simply wonderful if all of the support mechanisms are put in place that allow them to lead the sorts of lives that they would want for themselves. One of the many aspects of living with a disability or chronic illness that continue to occupy my mind is the question of accommodation options. For example, what options are there when a young adult living with a disability decides that they would like to live independently? I use that word ‘independently’ advisedly, as it can mean many things to many people. It can refer to someone planning to move out of home and live independent of their family or it can mean independently on their own, in another place altogether. It can mean living with a friend or a partner. There are many interpretations that we can put on it, but the main point to make is that, when a young adult in these circumstances decides it is time to live independently, what are their options? I would like to refer to two examples I am aware of in my own community. One of them is up and running and one is very much in very early planning stages. Before I get to that detail, I would just like to say a couple of things about this particular issue. I realise there are many and varied opinions both within the disability sector itself and more broadly in the community about what independent living means for people with a disability. Time will not allow me to go too deeply into this part of the discussion. However, I will risk saying this much: in my opinion it really should be the choice of the individual themselves, possibly with their family or friends as well, as to what sort of accommodation they would like. After all, those of us not living with a disability are able to make that sort of choice. So why can’t people with a disability make that choice as well? I referred to the variety of opinions out there in both the disability sector and in the broader community. Some people’s opinion is that if there are more than five or six, seven or eight or 10 people living communally, for want of a better word, it will somehow lead to an institutionalised view of the world. Others believe that a gathering of 20 might be unhealthy. Some people even have the view that a group house of four is not the optimal choice. From my years of work and my experience of interacting with people with disabilities, I have to say that I cannot accept any other argument than that the choice should be theirs. It has to suit their circumstances and their needs and their wishes, and we should allow that process to occur as openly as we can. I go back to the local cases of living with disability in my community and briefly talk about them. The first one is a facility—and I am using that word carefully; a house, in other words—that has been developed here in the suburb of Curtin. It is called Abbeyfield Curtin because it is modelled on the Abbeyfield model. Abbeyfield comes from the UK originally and is a housing model that was devised for people aged about 55 or over who, for one reason or another, could not or decided not to live on their own any longer. They do not have any enormous great need, they are not necessarily ill or frail—in fact, far from it—but they wish to have a communal life. We have three or four Abbeyfield houses in Canberra. They are also found in other parts of the country and in other parts of the world. The ones I have seen here in Canberra house around 10 people in quite independent circumstances within a very large, normal-looking house—from the road—with a parent or in this case a housekeeper, and they are very successful. Abbeyfield picked up the call from parents and families of young adults with intellectual disability here in Canberra who were desperately seeking some form of accommodation for their young adult children. To cut a very long seven-year story very short, Abbeyfield Curtin ended up being the first Abbeyfield house for disability in the world. It is now hopefully being copied in other parts of the country. I know that, after Abbeyfield Curtin opened here a couple of years ago, there were many inquiries from people in many different parts of this region and interstate who wanted to know how they had done it and how it was working. I am glad to report to the House that, to all intents and purposes, my information is that it is working extremely well. These young people have the benefit of a small community in which they are living, they are self-supporting and supporting each other and they go out together or independently. It is working extremely well. The other example I talk about is far more embryonic in its development. We call it the CLP or Community Living Project, and as the local member here I have been very pleased to assist with a range of meetings for nearly two years now for the CLP. This is a group of parents again of children of all ages who have disabilities such as severe autism and other types of disabilities and who are desperately seeking to know that in the future their children will have somewhere to live. The CLP is at the moment going through an exhaustive process, as these things do, to try to examine different ways and different models that they could seriously consider for future housing needs for their children. Again, there are opinions in the community about whether the CLP is striking the right chord or not. In my opinion, the CLP people and the children are the ones that should be making those decisions. They are the ones who know what they need and they are the ones who should be able to exercise those options. The CLP is only a couple of years old. I am really pleased to have the association that I do with it. I am hoping that over the coming months and years they will get to the point where they have a distinctive model they can take to government, both federal and local, to try and see whether something more can be developed from it. Advances have been made in recent years and attempts by government and community continue to try to address the whole question of living with disability. The impact of living with disability on the individual person, their family and friends, their carers, their employment possibilities and their lifestyle choices is enormous. It has ramifications right around the whole of that person and everybody associated with them. We can never do enough to understand the needs of these folk. I applaud always any efforts that go into this sort of work. We are all aware that the federal government has asked the Productivity Commission to investigate the idea of a national disability insurance scheme. I am Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family, Community, Housing and Youth and the chamber would be aware of an inquiry report that we tabled in the House in May last year on carers—who the carers are, the sorts of decisions they are making and the impacts that are happening in the lives of carers. It was through that inquiry that we became aware of the early stages of the work being done, particularly in this case by Bruce Bonyhady from Yooralla in Victoria, to try and get the debate moving on a national disability insurance scheme. The importance of this work by the Productivity Commission cannot be overstated. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of Australians who will be looking to this Productivity Commission inquiry with an enormous level of interest. I am hoping that that inquiry is going to come down with some findings that give us as government and as community the best clue we could ever get, the best direction we could ever get, as to how to work into the future to address the needs of people living with disability and chronic illness. Everything that has been done so far has worked to a degree, but nothing has been sufficient to begin to address it. So let us hope that the Productivity Commission can do the work that we are expecting of it and that we will benefit from it. (Time expired) 4730 4730 21:00:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —On Sunday I attended the 2,654th Vesak Day, or Buddha’s birthday celebration, at the Pho Quang Monastery in Marangaroo. I have appreciated the opportunity to participate in this celebration on two previous occasions and I thank the Venerable Thich Phuoc Nhon for his kind invitation. The Venerable Thich Phuoc Nhon is both the President of the Congregation of Vietnamese Buddhists in Western Australia and the Representative of the Overseas Office of the Congregation of Vietnamese Buddhists. I worked closely with the Venerable Thich Phuoc Nhon to assist Vietnamese Buddhists from America to obtain visitor visas to Australia earlier this year. I would also like to thank Thich Nu Bao Son, the Abbott of the Pho Quang Monastery, and the manager of the monastery, Thich Nu Huu Tinh, for allowing me to participate. I appreciated the opportunity to speak during the service and for the very kind introduction and thanks from Mr Thap Kim Tran, and the short notice but very well performed translation of my speech undertaken by Mrs Thuan Nicholls. When I spoke to the members of the Vietnamese Buddhist congregation, I spoke of Vesak, representing the birth of Gautama Buddha and his enlightenment and his passing. Although I am a Christian, I know that all Buddhists are inspired by Buddha’s example and seek to live their lives faithful to him. But I also see in Buddhism examples that inspire people around the whole world. I say this because, in the leader of the Free Buddhist Church in Vietnam, the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do, we have a courageous world leader. We have a Vietnamese man who has faced adversity and suffered throughout his life, and yet he remains resolute in the cause of freedom. It was therefore without any hesitation that I wrote to the Nobel committee to nominate Thich Quang Do for a Nobel Peace Prize for 2010. As I have said on many occasions in this parliament, there are many ordinary Vietnamese people that continue to protest for democracy, religious freedom and freedom of speech. The risk for Vietnamese people who protest in Vietnam is very great; they face imprisonment, torture and the seizure of property, or worse. There families also suffer through loss of income and other forms of persecution. Those who do fight this fight do so at great risk, and their courage is remarkable. I said on Vesak Day that it is a time when we can appreciate the bravery of the Vietnamese people, whether they be Buddhist or of another religion. I think that this is what we should do. I believe that this is particularly important and relevant because when Buddha was born he was given the name Siddhartha, meaning ‘he who achieves his aim’. From his name, for all those who have an aim, we can all derive strength and a willingness to pursue all that is good in the world, including causes such as the freedom of religion, freedom of speech and democracy. I would like to take this opportunity to speak of some more recent events that have taken place concerning the ongoing struggle for freedom, democracy and freedom of religion in Vietnam. In the last two weeks, lawyer Nguyen Bac Truyen was released after three and a half years in prison. He had been arrested in Saigon on November 2006 and sentenced to three and a half years jail, solely for his participation in an opposition political party, the People’s Democratic Party, which is committed to freedom, democracy and human rights in Vietnam.  While it is good news in the case of Nguyen Bac Truyen, other members of the People’s Democratic Party have been imprisoned, including Dr Le Nguyen Sang, attorney Tran Quoc Hien and Mr Doan Van Dien. Still serving a house-arrest sentence are Mrs Tran Thi Le Hong and journalist Huynh Nguyen Dao. Medical doctor and democracy activist Le Nguyen Sang was arrested on 15 August 2006 with three other leaders—American citizen Do Thanh Cong, Nguyen Bac Truyen and Huynh Nguyen Dao—of the People’s Democratic Party. He was accused of committing acts of ‘terrorism’ for publishing articles ‘hostile to the regime’ on the internet. He is serving a four-year sentence. 21:04:34 Tran Quoc Hien was chosen as the spokesperson for the United Workers-Farmers Organisation in January 2007. He was arrested two days later. A human rights lawyer, known for defending farmers whose land has been confiscated by the government, Tran Quoc Hien is also a prolific cyber dissenter. He has published online articles and short stories about life under surveillance. The Vietnamese government allege that Tran Quoc Hien and his associates incited demonstrations and ‘spread anti-government propaganda’. He is serving a five-year sentence. Those familiar with the issues in Vietnam would know that the digital media in the form of websites and blogging are used effectively by the democracy activists. It was recently reported that hackers from inside Vietnam attacked and crashed pro-democracy websites and have been using malware to monitor activists. The implication is apparent that the Communist Party of Vietnam’s government is responsible for these attacks. The Communist Party should, of course, understand that the cause of democracy will not be halted by such attacks. It is worth remembering that within Vietnam there are many pro-democracy advocates still being detained, including teacher Vu Hung; writers, Nguyen Xuan Nghia and Tran Khai Thanh Thuy; Ms Pham Thanh Nghien; Mr Ngo Quynh; attorney Le Cong Dinh; Mr Tran Anh Kim; Nguyen Tien Trung; Tran Huynh Duy Thuc; and Le Thang Long. These and many others faced baseless accusations and arbitrary detentions. Ngo Quynh participated in student protests supporting Vietnamese territorial sovereignty. He was arrested and beaten during the Olympic torch relay on 29 April 2008 when he tried to join a peaceful demonstration in Hanoi. On 28 June 2008, after visiting democracy activist Vi Duc Hoi, Ngo Quynh and fellow democracy activist Pham Van Troi faced physical abuse and public denunciation. They were beaten and subjected to psychological harassment by an organised group of approximately 300 Communist Party members and then taken to the police station for interrogation. On 10 September 2008 Ngo was arrested and detained until his trial and sentence on 9 October 2009 in Haiphong. What these few references to individual activists shows is that there are some key issues in Vietnam. This is, of course, a central issue of democracy: the right of people to determine their own future. There is a big difference between now and that sort of future. The aim is for a Vietnam where Vietnamese people can speak freely and where the government is accountable to the people and not where the people are accountable to the government. There is, of course, also the issue of the freedom to practise one’s religion without being hindered or persecuted by the government. This is also a matter of great importance to the Vietnamese people. There is also the issue of the freedom of speech so that citizens have the right to be critical of the government without fear of harassment as a result of that criticism. It is in regard to this issue that we have seen in recent years much activity from Vietnamese people concerned for the interests of the nation. I refer to the bauxite mines in the highlands and the 1958 relinquishing of Vietnamese claims on various islands in the South China Sea. In both these matters it is a strong view of Vietnamese activists that the Vietnamese government has sold out to China. Indeed, these are seen as matters of national interest, and the concern is that the Communist Party officials are the beneficiaries of benefits from the Chinese at the cost of the national interest of Vietnam. The activists are highly concerned about the environmental damage being done by the bauxite mines and that the national and local interests have come second to the Communist Party’s agenda. In particular, the mining activity has displaced local coffee and tea farmers and has also resulted in toxic waste red mud, a by-product of the refinement of bauxite. It is notable that another strong critic of the mining activities, the famous general Vo Nguyen Giap, has cited the results of a 1980 study which predicted great ecological damage would result. It is apparent that the pro-democracy and national interest activists see the alignment of the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam with China as of great concern and symptomatic of the failures of a non-democratically elected government. It is also notable that many of the activists that were arrested and detained in 2008 were seized in connection with protests against the passage of the Olympic torch before the Beijing Olympics, further suggesting that the close alignment of the Communist Party government in Vietnam with China is in fact distancing itself from the Vietnamese people. When we think of activists and protesters for democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of religion in Vietnam, we often think of high-profile leaders such as Thich Quang Do, Patriarch of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, or we think of Father Ly, the famous Catholic priest. Although these are two men who have suffered terribly for their cause, we should also think of those men and women who do not have the same profile but fight on as bloggers or by using other forms of non-violent protest. I have mentioned some of them already, but there are many more, and their families as well, that are never immune to the outcomes of an oppressive government such as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. To conclude in the same way I began, I say that Buddha was born with the name Siddhartha, meaning ‘he who achieves his aim’. There are many Vietnamese who have an aim of a better future, a democratic future for their nation. They can derive strength and a willingness to pursue all that is good in the world, including causes such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech and democracy. I hope that the Vietnamese people both in Vietnam and around the world achieve their aim for their homeland as soon as possible. 4733 4733 21:10:00 Bradbury, David, MP HVW Lindsay ALP 1 0 Mr BRADBURY —The former ADI site at St Marys is a 1,540-hectare parcel of land that spans the Penrith and Blacktown local government areas. The site is significant for its vast tracts of endangered Cumberland Plain woodland. It is also significant because over the next decade it will deliver more than 3½ thousand of the new homes required to meet the demand for housing in Western Sydney. The site has had a long and controversial history and has been the subject of much debate within the community. The former ADI site is surrounded by residential and industrial development. It began as a scattered collection of privately held parcels of land, where parts of the site were variously used for a range of agricultural purposes including grazing. In the early 1940s the site was consolidated and resumed by the Commonwealth for use as a munitions factory. The site continued serving this purpose for almost 50 years until, in 1993, ADI Ltd indicated that it would seek to redevelop the site for housing. In 1994, the Commonwealth, who owned the site through ADI Ltd and subsequently ComLand, established a joint venture with the developers Lend Lease. The Commonwealth continued to own the site through ComLand until it was sold by the Howard government to Lend Lease in 2004 for $165 million. The prevalence of Cumberland Plain woodland on the site saw a number of assessments of the significance of the bushland during the 1990s, culminating in the listing of 828 hectares, or more than 55 per cent of the site, on the Register of the National Estate by the then Australian Heritage Commission in October 1999. However, Sydney Regional Environment Plan No. 30, St Marys, only zoned 630 hectares of the site for preservation in a regional park, including 74 hectares of land not listed on the register, leaving some heritage listed areas unprotected. In 1997, Penrith City Council resolved to support the conservation of the entire site. The intention was to access Natural Heritage Trust funding and Federation Fund contributions from the Commonwealth government to retain the entire site in public ownership. However, the Federation Fund application was rejected in 1999. In 2000, the then minister for the environment, Senator Robert Hill, confirmed that the Howard government was seeking a development outcome on the site. This led to the council changing its position to pursue the more realistic objective of preservation of the heritage listed lands rather than the entire site. In 1999 I was elected to the Penrith City Council and, between September 2000 and September 2001, served my first term as mayor. As mayor I campaigned to secure the conservation of all the heritage listed areas of the site. I continued this campaign as the Labor candidate for the seat of Lindsay at the 2001 federal election. During the election campaign, the ADI Residents Action Group, who had formed in the 1990s when redevelopment of the site had first been mooted, stepped up their attempts to have the entire site preserved as a regional park. They also formed a Save the ADI Site Party to run a candidate at the election. The combined pressure that was brought to bear in a concerted community campaign of which I was proud to be a part led to the Howard government backing down and preserving all of the heritage listed land. This was later ratified in amendments to SREP No. 30, creating a 900-hectare regional park. This backdown came after the then member for Lindsay, Jackie Kelly, had spent the previous five years refusing to accept responsibility, dismissing the site’s future as a state matter, despite the fact that the site was owned by the Commonwealth government right throughout this period. In 2002, the Howard government provided its approval for the development by certifying an environmental assessment under the Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Act 1999. During the 2004 federal election, Ms Kelly promised more than $1 million for a vermin-proof fence on the ADI site, but following her election neither the funding nor the fence materialised. Following my own election in 2007 and upon making some investigations into Ms Kelly’s commitment on the fence, no trace of this funding could be found in any government budget or program. The vermin-proof fence was yet another example of the cynical way in which Ms Kelly and the Howard government sought to manipulate this important local issue. Between 2004 and 2009, the redevelopment of the former ADI site progressed. Today, the redevelopment of the eastern, central and western precincts has already begun, with the 900-hectare regional park at its centre. In 2004, Blacktown City Council approved the development of the eastern precinct of the site, which is now known as Ropes Crossing. It is already home to more than 740 people, with 510 housing lots sold. The Ropes Crossing Public School already has 60 students. In February 2009, the final amendments to the SREP 30 were gazetted by the New South Wales state government, allowing the western and central precincts to be developed. Those precinct plans were approved by Penrith City Council in March 2009. The western precinct, which will be developed first, has been renamed Jordan Springs. I understand that the majority of the first available lots have already been sold off the plan, and the first residents will move into their new homes in mid-2011. There is almost 70 hectares of employment land throughout the development, which is expected to create 5,300 jobs. The history of the ADI site is a case study in the struggle to find balance in a growing community. Striking a balance between managing the growth of our urban spaces and conserving our natural heritage is one of the biggest challenges that communities face right around the country. It is an even more pressing concern in growing outer-suburban communities like mine. Population growth brings with it the benefits of critical mass, greater demand for goods and services and the flow-on effects of more employment opportunities and greater wealth. However, population growth also brings with it a number of challenges that need to be appropriately managed. These include ensuring that people have somewhere to live and that the provision of housing is affordable and accessible; that supporting infrastructure like schools, hospitals, roads, transport links and sporting fields are provided in a timely fashion; and that our natural heritage is preserved and managed so that our future generations are able to enjoy it and participate in its ongoing conservation. Addressing these challenges is my focus. The time for saving the entire ADI site passed some years ago. With the site no longer in Commonwealth ownership and a legally valid approval for development issued eight years ago, the Commonwealth has no legal capacity to intervene in the development of the former ADI site. The Commonwealth is unable to ‘call in’ the development for a reassessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 as long as the activity on the site is consistent with the original approval. Even if the Cumberland Plain woodland was listed as a critical habitat, the Commonwealth has no penalty provisions available to it under the EPBC Act as the land is no longer in Commonwealth ownership. But there is more to our local natural heritage than just the former ADI site, and I have continued to campaign for balanced environmental outcomes in Western Sydney that also develop the infrastructure and new homes that my community needs. I was proud to have delivered on my commitment at the last election for a $15 million Cumberland Conservation Corridor fund. That $15 million was used to return into public ownership and dedicate as a nature reserve the former Airservices Australia site at Cranebrook, which was sold by the Howard government in 2004 to a private developer without any community consultation. The site had been recognised as one of the sites of highest priority for conservation in Western Sydney. As part of the same election commitment, the Rudd government also ensured that the significant stands of Cumberland Plain woodland on Commonwealth owned land at Orchard Hills and Shane’s Park, which form a corridor with the regional park on the former ADI site, are protected under the EPBC Act. This government has also delivered more than $4 million under the Housing Affordability Fund to bring forward the widening of the Northern Road from Andrews Road to just north of Sherringham Road. Delfin Lend Lease are obliged to deliver this important piece of infrastructure under their development agreement, but without the HAF grant the road widening would not have occurred for at least another five years. My commitment at the last election to deliver traffic lights at the black-spot intersection of Sherringham Road and the Northern Road will be rolled into these works, meaning that existing residents of Cranebrook and the new residents of Jordan Springs will have access to a higher capacity, safer arterial road five years earlier than they otherwise would have. I am advised that Delfin Lend Lease will begin the works in the second half of this year. By offsetting the costs of delivering the road upgrade, the HAF grant allows Delfin to pass on these savings to first home buyers, providing 250 lots in Jordan Springs that will be $20,000 cheaper and improving housing affordability. I am proud to have been a part of the fight to save the most environmentally significant areas of the ADI site and to be continuing to help deliver greater bushland conservation, greater housing affordability and better infrastructure for my local community. 4735 4735 21:20:00 Broadbent, Russell, MP MT4 McMillan LP 0 0 Mr BROADBENT —Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom, I know you personally understand the word ‘disappointment’ from a political perspective because we share that. I also know that when a child is holding an ice-cream in a cone—he has been waiting for it; he has gone into the shop with his parents; he has walked up; he has received the ice-cream; he has walked out of the shop; he has licked it for the first time—and then, plop, it falls on the ground, that is serious disappointment. I was told by Kelly Sexton, who works with Petro Georgiou, that her brother did exactly that when he was three, but it was worse. He not only dropped the ice-cream but he then stood up and slipped over in it. Kelly, as a young girl, thought it was very funny. You can imagine her three-year-old brother did not think it was funny at all. Disappointment can be one of the most hurtful emotions any of us can carry and try and deal with. I do not believe there is one person in the whole of this parliament that has not, at some stage, struggled with disappointment. Why would I be talking about disappointment tonight? I have been out in the electorate. I have had a fantastic time with the kids playing in Oliver! down at Wonthaggi. While I was there, who walks in but Michael O’Connor, brother of Brendan and a friend of mine. I said, ‘What are you doing here?’ He said: ‘My niece is in this play. This is my mum and dad.’ Grandma and Grandpa were there. The Oliver! program was fantastic—certainly no disappointment there. On the Saturday night I was with the Koo Wee Rup historical society talking about the town that I grew up in and painting a picture of the town as it was in the fifties and sixties. That was great, so there was no disappointment there. They might have been disappointed with the guest speaker, but there was generally no disappointment from my point of view. It was a great night with my dad and mum’s family and friends, reminiscing about what that small town was like in those years. It was quite different from today, of course. What I did hear from my community was a disappointment that I would not have expected in the first three years of a new government. These were the people that put this government in place. Having been around people all of my life—in business, in sport and in all the other activities I told you about the other day—I do have a feeling for the people and what they are feeling. What I got, right around the areas where I was on the weekend, was this uncanny, amazing disappointment with the Rudd government. I said to them: ‘What is your disappointment? Is it the pink batts?’ They said, ‘No, it is something that cannot be explained.’ What they are telling me is this. It was not the promise of cheaper groceries. They loved that, although it was not fulfilled. It was not the promise of cheaper petrol through Fuelwatch, which was not fulfilled and dumped. It was not the mother of all backflips with triple pike that we heard this week on government advertising when the Prime Minister, having said before the election, ‘No way this will happen under me,’ now disregards even the guidelines and says, ‘Now we have this national emergency on our hands.’ Suddenly we are talking about ‘national emergency’ in government advertising? The general community out there is saying, ‘This is not on.’ There is a greater expectation of government from the people of Australia these days. There is disappointment when a politician tells them that they are going to do something and then chooses not to do it, for whatever reason. I think the greatest disappointment is that it was not explained why there were backflips made which disregarded promises and overturned programs. You could say that perhaps it is Landcare. They love their Landcare and that $10 million has been taken off them. Perhaps it is the nurses they thought they were getting for their GP clinics, and they find out, ‘We’ve got $25,000 per nurse but they’ve taken all the procedures away from us.’ The GP clinic is actually going to be working at a loss for employing these nurses. Or is the nurse going to lose her job? I have a lovely email here from a practice that explains the whole situation and how it is going to affect them. If they employ five nurses they are going to end up with a $34,000 loss. I do not mind handing that on to you, Deputy Speaker Sidebottom, if you would like to look at it. I feel that the profound disappointment though comes from their overall picture of all politicians, not just this government, who they believe are saying one thing and then treating them as mugs. When the government’s ‘greatest moral dilemma of all time’, the ETS, was overturned, there would have been those within government ranks who actually thought that was great because that was a problem they did not have to deal with. In fact it was a betrayal to many, many people who believed in the promise, in the hope and in the expectation. It was like that kid with the ice-cream. He had hope and expectation: this was his ice-cream and he was going to lick it. He was going to love every bit of it, and off went the top of the ice-cream onto the ground. Kelly Sexton’s brother not only fell on the ground but slipped over and fell on his back. There are a swag of people out there who are seriously and undeniably affected by disappointment in this government. I am not saying they come to me because I am a Liberal politician and they want to complain to me. I am not talking about dealing with Liberal members of my party. I am talking about the people in the street who want to stop me, grab me by the arm and tell me how disappointed they are. Sometimes they have a direct reason for being disappointed and they feel that the government has not explained itself and has not said why or what it is doing. But the great disappointment is the backflips and what they see as the costs for schools that should have been cheaper, when there is shadecloth worth $250,000 being installed for $1 million. The public hate rip-offs. They hate being ripped off themselves and they hate their own government being ripped off. They know someone is pulling it somewhere. When you compare what the Catholic schools in our electorates have done with their money, and how well the program from the federal government has worked with them, with how the states have dealt with it though their systems, you see it is the complete opposite. If you do not believe me, go and check. I do not know whether it is different in other states, but the Catholic schools in Victoria have done a remarkable job with the money they have been given. They have some projects underway, some completed, and the schools look great. I am not a Catholic but I am very close to Father Bernie. We were stuck in the back row of the car park at his church because there had been a big funeral for John Benyon, who was a great guy, and Father Bernie and I could not get out to go to the cemetery. I said, ‘What’s this over here, Father?’ He said, ‘That’s the Julia Gillard driveway.’ I said, ‘What’s this over here?’ He said, ‘That’s the Julia Gillard new memorial hall.’ I said: ‘What about the old buildings down here? There is a bit of work going on down there.’ This school has been turned from a very ordinary school into a beautiful primary school. It is a magnificent primary school due to them. He said: ‘We’re getting the Julia Gillard refurbishment right through there. We love it. It’s fantastic.’ I am not going to step back from any of those things, but a lot of very small schools in my electorate feel like they have been dudded. I have not said anything on this issue. I have been trying to help them work through their problems, hopefully, as a good backbench member would do on behalf of his community. If the government is supplying a program, let us try and deliver it. Profound disappointment has become ingrained, and I believe that if Mr Rudd does not address this profound disappointment he is going to have great difficulty facing the people in a very short time. 10000 Sidebottom, Sid (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Sidebottom)—Order! The time allotted for the debate having expired, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 4737 21:30:00 Main Committee adjourned at 9.30 pm 4738 Questions in Writing 4738 1 1321 4738 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 Mr Ciobo asked the Minister for Housing, in writing, on 11 May 2010: In respect of the Government’s funding of projects in the electoral division of Moncrieff through the Social Housing Initiative—New Construction, Stage 2, for each project: a) what is the street address; b) what is the anticipated completion date; c) what is the estimated total cost; and d) how many dwellings are being constructed. 1 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women 1 Ms Plibersek —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Details of the Social Housing Initiative projects in the Electorate of Moncrieff can be found on the Nation Building Stimulus Plan site at: www.economicstimulusplan.gov.au/mycommunity/pages/default.aspx The information, which is publicly available, includes the number of dwellings being constructed and the estimated total cost.