2010-06-16 42 1 8 REPS 0 0 2010-06-16 The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 9.00 am and read prayers. 5467 Bills R4345 5467 Bills R4344 5467 Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request. 5467 Business 5467 5467 5467 09:01:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 0 Mr PRICE —I present the report relating to committee and delegation reports and private members’ business on Monday, 21 June 2010. Copies of the report have been placed on the table. The report read as follows— Pursuant to standing order 41A, the Whips recommend the following items of committee and delegation reports and private Members’ business for Monday, 21 June 2010. The order of precedence and allotments of time for items in the Main Committee and Chamber are as follows: Items recommended for Main Committee (6.55 to 8.30 pm) COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTS Statements 1 JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON TREATIES Report 111: Treaties tabled on 25 November 2009 (3), 4 and 24 February 2010. Time allotted—5 minutes. Speech time limits— Mr K. J. Thomson (Chair)—5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins] The Whips recommend   that consideration of this should continue on a future day. 2 JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON TREATIES Report 112: Treaties tabled on 9, 10, 16 and 29 March 2010. Time allotted—5 minutes. Speech time limits— Mr K. J. Thomson (Chair)—5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins] The Whips recommend   that consideration of this should continue on a future day. PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS Notices 1 MS KING: To move: That the House: expresses: the gratitude of the Australian nation to the service personnel and civilians in Rabaul and the New Guinea Islands for their services in the defence of Australia during World War II; and its regret and sorrow for the sacrifices that were made in the defence of Rabaul and the New Guinea Islands and in the subsequent sinking of the Montevideo Maru on 1 July 1942; and conveys its: condolences to the relatives and loved ones of the people who died in this conflict; and thanks to the relatives for their forbearance and efforts in ensuring that the nation remembers the sacrifices made. Time allotted—10 minutes. Speech time limits— Ms King—5 minutes. Other Member—5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] The Whips recommend   that consideration of this should continue on a future day. 2 MR ANDREWS: To move: That the House: notes that: there are around eight million Coptic Christians living in Egypt; freedom of religion is a universal human right; Egypt is obliged under international law to ensure the protection of racial and religious groups and individuals; and Coptic Christians in Egypt continue to suffer religious persecution and discrimination; and calls upon the Egyptian government to guarantee that Coptic Christians and members of other religious communities and minorities enjoy the full range of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Time allotted—25 minutes. Speech time limits— Mr Andrews—5 minutes. Other Member—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins] The Whips recommend   that consideration of this should continue on a future day. 3 MS GEORGE: To move: That the House: congratulates the Government on delivering major initiatives to help working women, including the introduction of Paid Parental Leave, the successful implementation of the Fair Work Act 2009 and increasing the access to and affordability of child care; and condemns the: Coalition for its lack of real support in these areas; and Opposition for its failure to support these initiatives that benefit working women and their families. Time allotted—20 minutes. Speech time limits— Ms George—5 minutes. Other Member—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins] The Whips recommend   that consideration of this should continue on a future day. 4 MR HAWKE: To move: That the House: recognises the lack of adequate transport infrastructure in North West Sydney; condemns the NSW Government for its under-funding of transport infrastructure in North West Sydney during the last 15 years; acknowledges that the current lack of transport infrastructure: inhibits the economic prosperity of North West Sydney; imposes significant financial burdens on the residents of North West Sydney through excessive toll charges; and results in a high level of motor vehicle usage and has a detrimental environment impact for North West Sydney; notes that the Federal Government provided only $91 million for planning of a West Sydney Metro railway as part of its funding through Infrastructure Australia and no funding for North West rail link; and calls on the Federal Government to provide funding for the immediate commencement of a North West rail link. Time allotted—20 minutes. Speech time limits— Mr Hawke—5 minutes. Other Member—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins] The Whips recommend   that consideration of this should continue on a future day. 5 MS NEAL: To move: That the House: congratulates the Australian Women’s Football Squad, the Matildas, for its spectacular victory in the 2010 Asian Football Confederation Women’s Asian Cup over its rivals from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on Sunday 30 May 2010, specifically: captain Melissa Barbieri, and players Casey Dumont, Lydia Williams, Emma Wirkus, Danielle Brogan, Ellie Brush, Kim Carroll, Clare Polkinghorne, Karla Reuter, Thea Slatyer, Laura Alleway, Joanne Burgess, Tameka Butt, Lauren Colthorpe, Heather Garriock, Elise Kellond Knight, Aivi Luik, Collette McCallum, Caitlin Munoz, Ellyse Perry, Sally Shippard, Emily Van Egmond, Amy Chapman, Lisa De Vanna, Kate Gill, Samantha Kerr, Leena Khamis, Kyah Simon, Servet Uzunlar, Sarah Walsh, and coach Tom Sermanni; praises the Matildas for its inspirational leadership to young Australian women and encouraging them to participate in football; and acknowledges the Matildas’ role in the growth of the sport. Time allotted—remaining private Members’ business time prior to 8.30 pm. Speech time limits— Ms Neal—5 minutes. Other Member—5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] The Whips recommend that consideration of this should continue on a future day. Items recommended for House of Representatives Chamber (8.40 to 9.30 pm) COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTS Presentation and statements 1 PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY Review of Administration and Expenditure: No. 8 – Australian Intelligence Agencies. The Whips recommend   that statements on the report may be made—statements to conclude by 8.50 pm Speech time limits— Mr Bevis (Chair)—5 minutes. Other Member—5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] 2 PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON CORPORATIONS AND FINANCIAL SERVICES ASIC Oversight Report. The Whips recommend   that statements on the report may be made—statements to conclude by 9 pm Speech time limits— Mr Ripoll (Chair)—5 minutes. Other Member—5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] 3 STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS Hackers, Fraudsters and Botnets: Tackling the Problem of Cyber Crime. The Whips recommend   that statements on the report may be made—statements to conclude by 9.10 pm Speech time limits— Ms Neal (Chair)—5 minutes. Other Member—5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] 4 PROCEDURE COMMITTEE Building a modern committee system—An inquiry into the effectiveness of the House committee system. The Whips recommend   that statements on the report may be made—statement to conclude by 9.15 pm Speech time limits— Ms Owens (Chair)—5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins] 5 JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON MIGRATION Immigration Treatment of Disability. The Whips recommend   that statements on the report may be made—statements to conclude by 9.25 pm Speech time limits— Mr Danby (Chair)—5 minutes. Other Member—5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS Notices 1 MR KATTER: To present a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to provide that governments’ acquisition of property and restrictions on the exercise of property rights can only be undertaken after the provision of compensation on just terms. (Constitution Alteration (Just Terms) 2010). Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 5 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Report adopted. 5470 Delegation Reports 5470 5470 09:01:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 0 Mr PRICE —by leave—I present the report of the Parliamentary Delegation to United Nations and Other International Agencies in Europe, 7 to 18 October 2009, and 121st Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Geneva, 19 to 24 October 2009, and seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. QI4 Price, Roger, MP Mr PRICE —It is with some degree of sadness that I apologise for the lateness of the report but, as you would be aware, Neil Bessell, a Senate officer who has been part of the furniture for many years in terms of IPU delegations, has not been well in recent times. I would like, on behalf of this delegation—and, I suspect, on your behalf, Mr Speaker—to place on the parliamentary record our deep appreciation for the contribution that Neil has made to IPU delegations as the delegation secretary, over many years. His knowledge of the personnel of the IPU has been second to none and he always has a special knack of making every delegate feel special. He is so well organised that all the delegates’ needs were taken into account. He is one of those dedicated officers of the parliament who really excel in their service to the parliament. Mr Speaker, as you know, you started the tradition of visiting United Nations organisations. On this occasion the delegation proposed a resolution on world global food security. We had, as an officer attached from the department, Mr Eric Van der Wal, and I would like to express the delegation’s appreciation for his outstanding contributions. The briefings that occurred prior to our departure, from DFAT and from the department of agriculture were second to none. We only realised how good they were after the event. That was particularly so in my case, as I had a steep learning curve to navigate in terms of understanding the issues. I am pleased to say in relation to the IPU that, together with Uganda, we submitted a resolution—an emergency item—that was accepted. I am pleased to say that I was appointed a rapporteur and a member of the drafting committee. At the end of the day I believe that we passed a very worthwhile resolution. I might say it requires, amongst other things, that the parliament submit an annual report on our progress towards combating the global food security issues. Prior to going to the IPU in Geneva we visited a number of UN organisations. In Italy we visited the FAO, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, and in particular the Global Crop Diversity Trust, with its seed bank, which was established in February 2008 in Norway. I regret to say that, although Australia has an outstanding record as an early contributor and supporter of it, our country is yet to lodge any of our unique seeds in this food bank. Since our visit, I am pleased to say, in the last budget in New South Wales $15 million has been allocated for a new repository at Mount Annan in Western Sydney for New South Wales’s unique seeds but I think progress in Australia in conserving our unique heritage of native and cultivated seeds has some way to go. In Vienna the delegation visited specific programs of the UN Office of Drugs and Crime as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency. I might say that they were very pleased with the resolution that the IPU had adopted at Australia’s instigation. That was in Austria. At the foreign minister’s invitation, we were the first parliamentary delegation to visit Slovakia. We were hosted there by the deputy speaker of the assembly. We got to meet a number of the committees in Slovakia and we had a really good discussion about the differences in the way our two parliaments operate. In France we visited the OECD and we had a very good lunch with Australians who were working in various eclectic organisations. I would like to record on behalf of the delegation the assistance that was provided by our ambassadors: Amanda Vanstone in Rome, Tim Fischer at the Vatican, Mr David Ritchie, who is the ambassador to France, Michael Potts, who is the ambassador to Austria, and Mr Christopher Langman, who is Australia’s Permanent Representative to the OECD. I would like to make particular mention of our consul-general in Geneva, who provided valuable assistance as we negotiated the text of the final draft resolution. Last but not least, I pay tribute to Senator Judith Troeth, who was the deputy leader of the delegation, for her outstanding work. Senator Troeth and other committee members fully participated in the various sessions of the IPU. I commend this report to the parliament. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I thank the Chief Government Whip and member for Chifley and associate myself with his remarks, especially those about Neil Bessell. 5471 Bills R4392 5471 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Albanese. Bill read a first time. 5471 5471 09:09:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The bill proposes amendments to the Radiocommunications Act 1992 (the act) to: give the independent radiocommunications regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) greater flexibility in the time frame in which it can commence reissuing spectrum licences; allow the ACMA to issue class licences in the same spectrum space allocated or designated for spectrum licences (coexistence); and vary the treatment of certain ministerial determinations and directions made under the act. In the late 1990s, the government commenced auctioning a number of spectrum licences to support a market based approach to licensing of the radiofrequency spectrum. The licences had a 15-year tenure, flexible conditions and were fully tradeable. Australia was amongst the first countries in the world to issue licences on this basis. Many of these licences are now used by telecommunication carriers to provide mobile phone and wireless access services to millions of Australians. The first of the 15-year licences are due to expire in 2013 with the remainder by 2017. The act requires the ACMA to publish a notice advising which spectrum licences are due to expire within the next two years and inviting expressions of interest in the spectrum. The ACMA is also restricted from issuing draft spectrum licences as part of their marketing plan until two years prior to licences’ expiry. Incumbent licensees have consistently called for greater certainty about licence reissue. Without such certainty it is claimed that there will be a reluctance to maintain investment in infrastructure and service provision with potential adverse impacts on coverage and service quality. The bill amends the act to remove the current timing constraint which restricts the ACMA to publishing notices about expiring spectrum licences and publishing draft spectrum licences to two years prior to licence expiry. Removing this time constraint will provide greater flexibility for the ACMA in terms of when it can commence licence reissue processes. The ACMA would still be required to seek expressions of interest for spectrum licences prior to expiry. The bill also amends the act to permit coexistence of class licences and spectrum licences in the same spectrum band. New technologies are being developed that could greatly increase the technical and productive efficiency of spectrum use. Such technologies are intended to allow devices to share spectrum with traditional radiocommunications without harmful interference. Over time there will be widespread adoption of new technologies in a range of devices that would be readily available in Australia. These new technologies may be authorised by the ACMA under class licences. Under current legislation, in bands subject to spectrum licensing, the only way to accommodate these new technologies is through a third-party authorisation by the incumbent spectrum licensee. To date, experience shows this to be problematic. It is important that the Australian radiocommunications regulatory framework be sufficiently flexible to meet such challenges and to enhance the effective management and allocation of spectrum. The bill makes additional amendments to clarify the operation of provisions relating to the variation of existing class licences to coexist with spectrum licences in the same spectrum allocation. The bill includes safeguards. Before applying any coexistence provisions involving class licences in a spectrum licensed allocation, the ACMA would be required to develop adequate safeguards through consultation with industry. The ACMA would also need to satisfy itself that the new technologies coexist without unacceptable interference to primary services and are in the public interest. The amendments on coexistence will not affect current spectrum licences and licensees; they will only affect new or reissued spectrum licences issued in the future. The bill amends the act to make ministerial determinations, specifying classes of services for which reissuing the same licence to the same licensee is in the public interest, legislative instruments that are not subject to disallowance. These determinations will, however, be published on the Register of Legislative Instruments. Delays from the possible disallowance of a determination could have a material negative impact on conducting licence reissue discussions with incumbent licensees, particularly those licences which are due to expire in mid-2013. The bill further amends the act to make written ministerial directions to the ACMA concerning spectrum access charges legislative instruments not subject to disallowance. The measure is consistent with existing provisions in the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 that instruments of this kind are not legislative in nature. The amendment will also protect commercially sensitive pricing information relating to the licence reissue discussions from being published before ACMA reissue processes are completed. Consistent with current practices, it is expected that the ACMA would make known the prices paid for reissued licences. I commend the bill to the house. Debate (on motion by Mr Andrews) adjourned. 5473 Bills R4393 5473 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Dr Emerson. Bill read a first time. 5473 5473 09:15:00 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation and Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs 1 0 Dr EMERSON —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Mr Speaker, the bill amends the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947 to allow Australia to accept the changes to the terms and conditions of the New Arrangements to Borrow of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) adopted by the IMF executive board on 12 April 2010. The New Arrangements to Borrow is a voluntary set of credit arrangements between the IMF and a number of its members. Australia, through the then Treasurer, played a role in the development of the New Arrangements to Borrow and we have been a participant in the New Arrangements to Borrow since its inception in 1998. The purpose of the New Arrangements to Borrow is to act as backstop to the normal quota-based resources of the IMF, by providing the IMF with recourse to borrow from its members when supplementary resources are needed to forestall or cope with an impairment of the international monetary system, or to deal with a crisis that threatens the stability of the system. The turbulence in the global economy and financial markets in recent years has seen the IMF provide substantial support at short notice to countries with balance of payments needs. In doing so, it has drawn heavily on its available resources and, additionally, has relied on ad hoc and temporary loans from a small number of its members. On 2 April 2009, G20 leaders in London committed to an expanded and more flexible New Arrangements to Borrow, as part of their global plan for recovery and reform. This provided a significant boost in confidence. It is important that Australia does its part in delivering on this commitment. Under the expanded New Arrangements to Borrow, the IMF will be able to borrow up to approximately special drawing rights (SDR) 367 billion, significantly increased from the existing SDR 34 billion. Australia’s share of these expanded credit arrangements will be around SDR 4.4 billion, worth around A$7.5 billion, up from our existing SDR 801 million line of credit, worth about A$1.4 billion, that was established in 1998. In the event that the IMF calls on the New Arrangements to Borrow, a drawing under Australia’s credit line would be through a loan to the IMF, to be repaid to Australia in full, with interest, within five years; as it was on the only previous occasion on which the New Arrangements to Borrow was activated to support Brazil more than a decade ago. In addition to expanding its size, this bill will reflect the agreed amendments to make the New Arrangements to Borrow more flexible and a more effective crisis management tool. Among these changes, the predictability of the IMF’s access to the credit arrangements during crisis periods will be increased. Strong governance structures will be retained, requiring the agreement of a large majority of participants before the New Arrangements to Borrow can be activated. The IMF played an important role during the global financial crisis in restoring more normal conditions in financial markets, but the global economic recovery is not yet assured. Australia’s prosperity will rely on a return to strong and stable growth in the world economy. Rapid implementation of the New Arrangements to Borrow would be a strong statement of our commitment to that recovery and would improve confidence within financial markets. Further details of the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Andrews) adjourned. 5474 Bills R4396 5474 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Dr Emerson. Bill read a first time. 5474 5474 09:20:00 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation and Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs 1 0 Dr EMERSON —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill will clarify the eligibility of partnerships for the Tradex Scheme and remove redundant provisions. The Tradex Scheme was introduced as a streamlined program for providing relief to businesses paying customs duty and GST on imported products that are to be exported or incorporated into other goods that are to be exported. Currently the Tradex Scheme Act 1999 (the act) requires an applicant for the Tradex Scheme to be a ‘legal’ person who proposes to import goods. The Acts Interpretation Act 1901 provides that a person generally includes a body politic or corporate as well as an individual. While a partnership is a relationship recognised by the law, it is an unincorporated body. Coverage of partnerships under the Tradex Scheme is therefore unclear. While partnerships were not explicitly referenced in the legislation, they were not, and are not, intended to be excluded from the Tradex Scheme. This bill seeks to clarify this position in law. The bill also contains a minor amendment aimed at removing redundant parts of the act consistent with the government’s objective of reducing the regulatory burden. The Tradex Scheme will continue to provide real benefits to Australian industry and improve our international competitiveness as a trading nation. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Andrews) adjourned. 5475 Bills R4398 5475 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Garrett. Bill read a first time. 5475 5475 09:22:00 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts 1 0 Mr GARRETT —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill amends the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005. It allows the setting of additional criteria for registration of a product in the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Scheme. To understand the context of the proposed changes I will first give an overview of the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Scheme (known as the WELS Scheme). The scheme was established by the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 and is part of the COAG agreed National Water Initiative. The WELS Scheme is also supported by complementary state and territory legislation to ensure comprehensive national coverage. The WELS Scheme’s objectives are to: Conserve water supplies by reducing water consumption Provide information for purchasers of water use and water-saving products and To promote the adoption of efficient and effective water use and water-saving technologies. The scheme aims to achieve these objectives by requiring that all water-using products specified under the scheme are registered and labelled to indicate their assessed water efficiency when offered for sale. The labels indicate the water efficiency rating of a product, on a scale from zero to six stars, with six stars being for the highest-performing products. The labels inform purchasing decisions in the same way as energy rating labels on electrical appliances. The minister for the environment determines which products are WELS products, and the standard to be met by them. WELS products that must be registered and labelled are showers, toilets, urinals, taps, dishwashers and clothes-washing machines. I will now briefly explain for the benefit of the House the origins and intents of this bill. While plumbing products are subject to the WELS Scheme, plumbing products are also subject to the WaterMark Certification Scheme which operates under normal state and territory plumbing regulation. WaterMark testing and certification is intended to ensure that products are fit for use and will not threaten the safety of the reticulated water supply. WaterMark certification is required before a product can be legally installed, while WELS registration and labelling is required before a product can be sold. This regulatory difference means that in some cases consumers can unknowingly purchase plumbing products that, while legally available, are not able to be legally installed. In addition, the presence of WELS labels on products which are not WaterMark certified may be misconstrued by consumers as suggesting that the products are broadly government endorsed and are fit for use. In 2007, following an extensive public inquiry, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage recommended in its report, Managing the flow: regulating plumbing product quality in Australia, that the Australian government ‘make the necessary changes to establish WaterMark certification as a prerequisite for compliance with the WELS Scheme’. The government agreed in principle, subject to further examination as to how the recommendation could be most efficiently and effectively implemented. The government also wished to avoid inappropriately expanding the Australian government’s responsibilities relating to plumbing regulation. Following subsequent examination of these issues I am satisfied that the government can achieve the committee’s objectives through this proposal. The proposed amendment will introduce a general provision enabling additional plumbing requirements, such as those established by the states and territories, to be included in the WELS Scheme by ministerial determination. Once the bill is enacted, I propose to make a determination under that provision which will make WaterMark certification a prerequisite for all plumbing products required to be registered under the WELS Act. The industry strongly supports this amendment, which will provide positive outcomes for consumers and plumbers, with only very minimal impacts on the requirements for WELS registrants. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Andrews) adjourned. 5476 Bills R4397 5476 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr McClelland. Bill read a first time. 5476 5476 09:27:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr McCLELLAND —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Introduction Late last year the government adopted the strategic framework for access to justice to inform and shape future reforms to the federal civil justice system. The framework is made up of five principles: accessibility, appropriateness, equity, efficiency, and effectiveness. The Civil Dispute Resolution Bill 2010 is all about seeking to resolve disputes at the most appropriate level. It encourages parties to resolve their disputes at the earliest possible opportunity, and to do so, where possible, outside of the courts—promoting a move away from the often stressful, expensive and adversarial culture of litigation. In introducing this bill, I would like to acknowledge that the bill implements key recommendations made by the National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council in its 2009 report, The resolve to resolve. The council, or NADRAC as it is commonly known, is an independent body that provides me with policy advice on the development of alternative dispute resolution and promoting its use. NADRAC’s members represent a broad range of experience in the area of dispute resolution across a number of organisations including legal and dispute resolution practitioners, the courts and government. Obligation to take genuine steps The key element of this bill is to encourage parties to take ‘genuine steps’ to resolve their disputes before commencing proceedings in the court. This will be achieved by introducing a requirement that an applicant, when filing a matter in the court, will also be required to file a genuine steps statement, outlining the steps they have taken to attempt to resolve the dispute. Where a party has been unable to take steps to resolve the dispute prior to filing the matter in court, the statement must outline the reason why that is the case. An obligation will also be on a respondent to file a statement, either agreeing with the applicant as to the genuine steps that have been taken, or disagreeing and outlining the steps they consider to have been taken. This simple process will encourage parties to give more consideration to resolving their disputes at an early stage and to be accountable if they have not responded to the other party’s genuine attempts to resolve the dispute outside the court system. How the obligation will operate What this means for matters that do progress to a court is that, through the information contained in the genuine steps statements, the courts will be better informed about the real issues in dispute, the relevant documents and what processes parties have already utilised in attempting to resolve the dispute. At this point, a court can exercise its existing case management powers, to order parties to undertake any other steps it considers will be useful to attempt to resolve the dispute. The bill recognises that the effective resolution of disputes is a matter for parties, the courts, and lawyers. Lawyers will therefore be required to advise their clients of the requirement to file the genuine steps statement, and to assist their clients to comply. By encouraging parties and lawyers to seriously attempt to resolve disputes before they contemplate litigation, there will be an improvement in the early resolution of disputes. Early resolution of cases, where possible, will leave the courts free to deal efficiently with matters that really require the courts’ determination. Last year, the parliament passed the Access to Justice (Civil Litigation Reforms) Amendment Act 2009, which amended the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. The amendments were to impose an overarching purpose to facilitate the just resolution of disputes according to law, and as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible. This bill complements those objectives. What are ‘genuine steps’ The bill takes a flexible approach to the definition of ‘genuine steps’. It will include any action that a party makes in order to try to resolve a matter or narrow the issues in dispute. This could involve: writing to the other side outlining the issues in dispute, and how you think they should be resolved exchanging relevant documents and information in a timely and cost-effective manner agreeing to participate in a discussion where parties can present their views about what the dispute is really about and what the important issues are for each of them, or undertaking an alternative dispute resolution process such as mediation, conciliation or arbitration. Importantly, all the while, parties will be focussing and narrowing the real issues in dispute. The bill allows parties to tailor the genuine steps they take to the circumstances of the dispute and does not mandate what steps parties must take in any particular matter. Where genuine steps are undertaken and are successful, the matter will never reach court; it will be resolved. And this ultimately is the objective of the bill. But where matters do progress to court, the time required for judicial determination should be reduced, saving time, costs and distress for parties, the courts and the public. The bill does not force parties to abandon legal claims, or force settlement. As NADRAC noted at paragraph 2.51 of The resolve to resolve report, to which I have referred: Participants must have the ability to say ‘I’ve given you a fair hearing and have listened to what you’ve had to say, I cannot agree for the reasons I’ve outlined and I continue to believe that my position is justified. I therefore propose to terminate the process’. The important consideration is that the disputant has attended the process and has shown their commitment by staying for a reasonable period to listen to the other participant and to put their own view. Nor will the conduct of pre-action steps and confidentiality of discussions, negotiations or ADR be in issue, as the requirement to provide a genuine steps statement does not require or for that matter authorise parties to seek to adduce evidence of confidential negotiations. Application The bill will apply to all general federal law matters in the Federal Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court. Particular matters have been excluded from the bill’s operation. For example, proceedings under the Native Title Act 1993 and the Family Law Act 1975 where significant dispute resolution methods are already in place. The bill also exempts particular types of matters where ADR is not appropriate such as in the case of proceedings involving civil penalties provisions and appeals to the federal courts. These exclusions have been made on the basis that undertaking steps would not be appropriate, or that through the use of an existing process, attempts to resolve the dispute and narrow the issues have already been made. Conclusion In conclusion, a well-equipped and better functioning justice system that is able to help people when they most need assistance, advice and guidance is a fundamental goal of the Rudd government. This bill, in combination with the significant access to justice measures announced this year, goes a long way to achieving that outcome. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Andrews) adjourned. 5478 Bills R4395 5478 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr McClelland. Bill read a first time. 5478 5478 09:36:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr McCLELLAND —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Introduction The Service and Execution of Process Amendment (Interstate Fine Enforcement) Bill 2010 implements a decision of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General to establish a framework that enables states and territories to register interstate court imposed fines that have a cross-border element. States and territories will be able to enforce interstate fines in accordance with the laws of their own jurisdiction. They will no longer be able to enforce interstate fines by apprehending and imprisoning the fine defaulter. The measures within this bill provide a cooperative solution to one of the challenges posed by our federal system and are consistent with the federal government’s continuing commitment to resolve legal disputes using appropriate means. SEPA amendments Specifically, the bill will repeal part 7 of the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (SEPA). Part 7 sets out the existing scheme for the recognition and enforcement of interstate court-imposed fines. This scheme relies exclusively on apprehension and imprisonment for enforcement. Currently, states and territories that wish to pursue fine defaulters across borders must do so by issuing warrants of apprehension and imprisonment. These warrants are then transmitted to the jurisdiction where the fine defaulter resides. Upon receipt, that jurisdiction can execute the warrant and apprehend the fine defaulter. If the defaulter does not pay, he or she will be imprisoned to ‘serve out’ the fine. This reliance in the government’s view on apprehension and imprisonment is no longer appropriate. All states and territories have introduced alternative, less punitive, sanctions to enforce fines. For example, state and territory laws now allow for fines to be enforced by more targeted measures, including by cancelling drivers licences or by issuing community service orders. The bill will remove from SEPA any provisions which are inconsistent with state and territory laws that rely on these alternative sanctions. Under the new scheme, a state will be able to request the registration of a fine in the state in which the fine defaulter resides. Upon registration, that state will be able to enforce the registered fine in the same way as it would enforce a locally imposed fine. When the fine has been paid, the payment will be transferred back to the state or territory which originally imposed the fine. I understand that, while a number of states and territories have now completely removed their courts’ authority to issue warrants of apprehension and imprisonment in relation to fine defaulters, some jurisdictions still allow the apprehension and imprisonment of a fine defaulter as a measure of last resort. The bill will confirm that this is no longer an option for enforcing an interstate fine, regardless of whether a state or territory law still permits fines to be ‘served out’ in their own jurisdictions. The amendments will also impact upon how Commonwealth fines are enforced against offenders who move between jurisdictions, because these fines will be enforced as ‘interstate’ fines in accordance with the new part 7 of SEPA. Legislating to enable more targeted remedies and allow what are essentially civil matters to continue to be treated within the civil justice system is entirely consistent with the government’s access to justice framework. In particular, the bill promotes the application of proportionate responses and early intervention as the preferable approach, rather than allowing matters to escalate. Conclusion In conclusion, this bill will enable the states and territories to establish a scheme to recognise fines quickly, simply and efficiently and to enforce them in another jurisdiction using the most appropriate means. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Andrews) adjourned. 5480 Bills R4378 Cognate bills: 5480 Bills R4379 5480 Bills R4388 5480 Bills R4387 5480 Debate resumed from 15 June, on motion by Mr Gray: That this bill be now read a second time. 5480 09:41:00 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 1 0 Mr MELHAM —In the time remaining to me in this debate on these electoral and referendum bills I wish to concentrate on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2010. This bill contains provisions that will restore the close of rolls period to seven days after the issue of the writ for an election and will repeal the requirement for provisional voters to provide evidence of identity before their votes are admitted for scrutiny. This bill arises out of recommendations from the inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters into the conduct of the 2007 federal election. When the coalition were in government we saw legislation that disenfranchised people and that basically presumed them to be guilty. There were allegations made of widespread fraud without any evidence being placed before the committee, or anywhere indeed, to sustain that, yet tens of thousands of voters were disqualified in terms of their right to vote. On page 47 of the report Dr Kathy Edwards is quoted as saying: In Submission Number 205 to the Inquiry the AEC also assured of its ability to meet the high volume of enrolments made during the seven day close of rolls period in a fashion that protected against fraud and insured the integrity of the Electoral Roll. This Submission was not referred to or quoted in that part of the JSCEM Report that dealt with this particular issue. It is important to emphasise that concerns regarding this matter do not come from the body charged with the responsibility of administering Australia’s electoral processes, i.e. the AEC, and, in fact this body is confident of its ability to meet its statutory requirements in this respect. The abolition of the seven-day rule was not something that came from the AEC; it came from the political parties opposite—the Liberal and National parties—and it was done for pure political advantage. It was not done because there was any evidence of widespread electoral fraud. It is a disgrace that so many voters lost their right to have their vote counted in an election, particularly a close election, because of the base politics of the opposition. I think this bill goes a long way to remedying the problem. Our recommendation on page 51 does stand up to scrutiny. We are in effect saying that we have faith in the Electoral Commission to update enrolments. We need to give people in a modern society, where there is a lot of changing of address, adequate time to change their enrolment details so that their vote can count. The opposition allows the rolls to close on the same day that the writ is issued. At the last election, because there were two public holidays in two different states, there were three days allowed for it. Bring the evidence of electoral fraud to the committee, bring the evidence to the Electoral Commission, and then you will have some credibility in your arguments. The last time this system operated was in 1983, when Malcolm Fraser caused a snap election and disqualified hundreds of thousands of people because the rolls were closed on that day. It was as a result of that disenfranchisement in that election that the seven-day period was brought in. The other matter is provisional enrolments. That is when people roll up on election day, their name is not on the roll, they fill out their ballot papers, they put them in an envelope and they sign it. We now require proof of identity from them by way of a drivers licence. If they do not produce that, their vote does not count and there is a table on page 60 of the report that shows the devastating effects of that particular provision. The table shows that, as a result of a number of changes to the provisional vote provisions, many tens of thousands of votes are not counted. Provisional votes from 1993 to 2007 are shown in figure 3.3. Back in 1993, there were 66,458 votes rejected and 44,886 admitted. In subsequent elections—in 1996, in 1998 and in 2001—the numbers roughly broke even. There was a change by a few thousand in how many were rejected and how many were admitted. In the 2004 election, 90,366 provisional votes were rejected and 90,512 were admitted. In 2007, what happened was that 143,470 votes were rejected and 24,212 were admitted—a massive turnaround. The argument that these votes were fraudulent and were being admitted into the system can be dismissed very quickly, because the people who fronted up at the polling booth had to sign an envelope. The method of checking whether the person was a particular person, if there was doubt, was that the Electoral Commission would compare signatures with the original electoral enrolment form lodged or a variation of an enrolment form. Those votes were not just admitted willy-nilly. When scrutineers—and I have scrutineered in many an election—questioned a signature, the procedure within the Electoral Commission was to pull out the historic file and compare signatures. There was a check, and there has been not one piece of evidence placed before past committees that demonstrated that fraud was being perpetrated by provisional voters on any scale, if at all. The reason these votes were made harder to admit into the count was that, when you look at provisional votes, traditionally the itinerant vote favours Labor. This was the hanging chad of Florida, where safety net provisions were removed from the Electoral Act to disqualify voters from having their vote counted. It was not about fraud but was because in relation to a lot of those votes Labor did better out of provisional votes than did the coalition. That is a disgrace, and that is why that provision as it once stood needs to be reinstated. We are not dealing with 10 votes or 100 votes here; we are dealing with 70,000 votes in this instance. That is the estimate of the difference, and the table shows it. (Time expired) 5481 09:49:00 Fletcher, Paul, MP L6B Bradfield LP 1 0 Mr FLETCHER —I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this package of legislation, the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2010 and related bills. This is a debate about several important changes to the rules governing our electoral process, and nothing could be more important to the proper functioning of our democracy. All of us involved in the political process rightly take pride in the operation of the Australian democratic system. The work of the Australian Electoral Commission is absolutely central to that, but obviously it operates under rules laid down—laws laid down—by this parliament. This is the second time I have risen to speak on some of these measures, in view of the fact that these measures were included in the original bill put forward earlier this year—the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill 2010. At the time, coalition speakers made it clear that we disagreed with—we were opposed to—some of the key provisions in that bill. We note that some of those objectionable provisions have now reappeared in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill (No. 2). There has been a little bit of repackaging, but the repackaging has not changed our position. The measures we were opposed to when the original bill was brought forward we remain opposed to. There are two measures in particular on which we think the case for change has simply not been made. The first of those measures is to change the current arrangements so that the rolls would not close until seven days after the issue of the writs. The second of those measures is to remove the requirement for declaration voters to produce identification. Our opposition to these measures reflects a degree of suspicion about the motivation of the Labor government in bringing forward these changes to the existing procedures. I am sorry to say that, when you look at the track record of the Labor Party on electoral matters, it is not unblemished. A gentleman named Mike Kaiser came to the attention of people interested in telecommunications policy, as I am, when he was recently appointed to the role of head of government relations at the NBN Co, putting him in the remarkable position of being responsible for government relations for a company in which the government is the 100 per cent shareholder. Mr Kaiser was recommended for that role, it has become evident, by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy. At an earlier stage of his career, Mr Kaiser was the State Secretary of the Labor Party in Queensland. He was then a member of the Queensland parliament, until he abruptly retired from his position following an appearance before the Shepherdson royal commission, which dealt with certain irregularities which had occurred some years before. In particular, it emerged that Mr Kaiser, a Labor member of the Queensland parliament and former state secretary of the party, had enrolled at an address that he later conceded he had never lived at. It is very unfortunate that somebody holding a position of responsibility in one of the major political parties in our nation should engage in such conduct. It is the proven and regrettable experience that such conduct occurs from time to time, and that informs the degree of caution and intelligent scepticism with which those of us on this side of the House look at measures proposed to change the arrangements under which elections in Australia are conducted. There are, regrettably, examples of people falling prey to the temptation to fiddle the system. Of course, it is not just officials of the Labor Party; people can fall prey to temptation to cast votes in circumstances where they are not entitled to. If that occurs, it undermines confidence in our electoral system. Therefore, it is very important that our electoral system build in appropriate measures to prevent such behaviour. When we have clear evidence on the record that people do, from time to time, fall prey to temptation, it is very important that our electoral system build in appropriate measures to protect against such conduct, to protect the integrity of the system under which votes are cast and tallied. Unfortunately, people casting votes which they are not entitled to cast is not the only evil we need to guard against. We also need to guard against activities which are designed to confuse voters and to trick them into casting votes which would have a result different from what the voters intended. In the by-election in Bradfield held in December 2009, we saw a troubling instance of this. The Christian Democratic Party put up nine candidates, all under the same party name, all endorsed by that party, and the result was that there were 22 candidates in total on the ballot paper. As a consequence, a significant number of voters had their intentions frustrated and ended up casting informal votes. They were defeated by the complexity of correctly completing a ballot paper with 22 names on it. I am therefore fully supportive of the provision contained in one of the bills in this package which would prevent a party from nominating more than one endorsed candidate for a House of Representatives seat. As the member for Goldstein said when he spoke earlier in this debate, there are a number of sensible measures in this package of bills which we are happy to support, but there are also measures which we do not support because we think they are ill-conceived. It is unfortunate that the kind of behaviour I have just described in the Bradfield by-election, behaviour calculated to confuse and even to mislead voters, is not restricted to minor parties. Again, it is unfortunate to have to note that the Labor Party has been involved in a very serious example of such behaviour, which we saw in the recent South Australian state election. If you turned up at a polling booth to vote and a person approached you wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the message ‘Put Your Family First’, what would you expect was the identity of the party supported by that person—particularly having regard to the fact that there was a party in Australia known as Family First which was running candidates in that election? You would expect, quite reasonably, that the person wearing that T-shirt, coming towards you to hand you a how-to-vote card, was from the Family First party. In fact, the unfortunate reality, the distressing reality, is that the people wearing these T-shirts were participating in an operation designed to mislead and confuse voters—an operation conducted by the Labor Party, an operation explicitly sanctioned by the state secretary of the Labor Party in South Australia. The whole exercise was cynically misleading. It was designed to trick people into casting a vote which would benefit Labor, people who very likely had no such intention and thought they were casting their vote in a very different way. It is a shameful episode in Australian electoral history. Accordingly, on this side of the House we look with a certain scepticism at Labor’s proposed measures in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (How-to-Vote Cards and Other Measures) Bill 2010. These measures are put forward supposedly to demonstrate that the Labor Party has now seen the error of its ways. We are, frankly, sceptical and, as other speakers have indicated, we believe these measures need further scrutiny. We do not think that this was an episode which reflects any distinction at all on the Labor Party and we think that further work is required on this front. We also look with scepticism at the measures contained in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill (No. 2). These two measures, which I have already referred to, are designed to reverse important safeguards introduced under the Howard government—safeguards designed to ensure and protect the integrity of our electoral system. The first of these measures concerns the closing of the rolls seven days after the writs are issued. This would be a change from the current law, which says that the rolls close when the writs are issued. This typically occurs three to four days after an election is called. The consequence of the current procedure is that the Australian Electoral Commission has at least seven days in which to verify new enrolments and four days in which to verify changes of address. This period is of considerable value, we believe, in allowing the Electoral Commission to identify and discount fraudulent enrolments. The change which is proposed—extending the enrolment deadline by another seven days—will remove the capacity for the Electoral Commission to conduct this verification process because the time lines will have become so compressed. We acknowledge that this factor—that is, having adequate time to conduct verification—must be weighed up against the down side, which is that some people will miss the enrolment deadline. We note, however, that in the 2007 election, when the current deadline provisions were in place, the number who missed the close of rolls was 100,370, a 40 per cent reduction on the number who missed the deadline in 2004, when the law said that the deadline was seven days after the issue of the writs—that is to say, when the law was what the current bill proposes it again become. We believe that certain responsibilities attach to the privilege of being an Australian citizen. One of those responsibilities is to get onto and maintain one’s enrolment on the electoral roll. There are regular public information campaigns conducted to encourage Australians to enrol. For example, the Australian Electoral Commission mount a campaign directed at those who are approaching the age of 18, encouraging them to enrol for the first time. Recently I attended a forum at Killara High School with 16-, 17- and 18-year-olds which was conducted under the auspices of the AEC’s campaign and which was designed to encourage those young people in attendance to get on the roll and to inform them about the responsibility of voting which they would shortly exercise. So we do not accept the argument that the rolls should be kept open for a further seven days after the writs are issued in view of the fact that claims about the numbers of Australians who are disenfranchised as a result are overblown and that the clear consequence of this change would be to reduce the AEC’s capacity to check for fraudulent enrolments. On this side of the House we attach a high priority to being able to take measures to prevent fraudulent enrolment. We think it is prudent to attach such a priority to it in view of the clear experience of fraudulent conduct in the Australian electoral system. Sadly, as I have noted, the Labor Party and people acting on its behalf have, from time to time, been involved in such conduct—and I have given some examples. The second measure in the bill which we do not support is the measure which will change the act so as to remove the requirement that identification be provided by persons wishing to cast a provisional vote. We are wholly opposed to any measure which would weaken the proof of identity requirements. These provisions are an important deterrent, acting to prevent citizens from failing to maintain their enrolment and from seeking to engage in multiple voting. We also note that the persons to whom the identity requirements apply are persons who have failed to meet the requirement to maintain their enrolment at their current address. We are deeply sceptical of the method which has been proposed to confirm the identity of individuals in these circumstances. That proposed method is for the returning officer to compare the signature on the envelope collected when the vote was cast with the signature of the elector held in the Australian Electoral Commission’s records. We think this is an unreliable measure and an ill thought through measure, and we do not support a change to the law in this fashion. On this side of the House we attach the highest importance to maintaining the integrity of the electoral roll, and we view with prudent scepticism measures which in our view would compromise that important objective. Another measure in this package of bills which we are opposed to is the measure which would change the existing postal vote process, which works well. We are concerned that this has been slipped in by the government, by the Labor Party, with a view to accruing electoral advantage. This was not a matter that was considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, and the proposed requirement that postal vote applications be sent directly to the Australian Electoral Commission is a change to the current procedures. We do not believe the case for the change has been effectively made. We believe that the current postal vote procedures work well. Certainly, the coalition parties have been able to work effectively to encourage Australians to cast a postal vote and to exercise their democratic right. We are suspicious that the motives of the Labor Party in proposing a change to these arrangements have nothing to do with the integrity of the roll, nothing to do with the efficacy of our voting system and everything to do with an attempt to change the current calculus in terms of which side of politics has been more effective in using the existing postal vote provisions to give Australians an opportunity to vote and to cast a postal vote. We are opposed to that measure as well as to the other measures that I have spoken about in my remarks today. We think the measures to which we are opposed go in the wrong direction. We think they will reduce the integrity of the electoral roll rather than increase it. We think they will undermine the effectiveness of the Australian voting system and the record of integrity in that system, in which all of us take pride. We consider therefore that these measures should be opposed. (Time expired) 5485 10:09:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 0 0 Mr NEVILLE —This is a very interesting debate and one to which I attach a lot of importance. It deals with the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2010, theElectoral and Referendum Amendment (Pre-poll Voting and Other Measures) Bill 2010, the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010 and the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (How-to-Vote Cards and Other Measures) Bill 2010. In essence it gets down to a number of important adjustments or would-be adjustments in these four bills. As the member for Bradfield said, this has to be motivated not by what is of political advantage to one side or the other but by what upholds the integrity of the electoral process, the rolls that are used to define who is entitled to participate in that process and the various recording and counting mechanisms that are part of coming to a final figure on election day. For some time now we have had various people saying that we can simplify this and we do not need to do that. All the measures being looked at in these bills are there for a reason. Let me take you back to another incident that the member for Bradfield spoke about, and that was how certain personnel associated with the Labor Party, particularly in Queensland, rorted the rolls. That saw a number of members of state parliament resign or be dropped from important positions within the ALP. Quite frankly, they were enrolling themselves or other people at addresses at which they were not resident. There is good cause to believe that went on quite extensively over the years. I can remember my former colleague the member for Petrie as she was at the time, Teresa Gambaro, telling me how she went out and checked some of the mail that had been returned to her office. She found that in a number of circumstances the mail came back from vacant blocks of land. In one instance 20 items had come back from a single address. Obviously in her electorate people had been busy putting in false claims for enrolment. We have elections in Australia—and I have been the victim of one of these—where seats are won or lost by margins of less than 100 votes. In my instance, it was 69 votes and on recount 64. So I have always taken a profound interest in these matters. In these bills there are two particular issues that we should watch with a great deal of interest. The first one is that the government wishes to restore the closing date for enrolments to seven days after the issue of the writs. On the surface of things that sounds innocent enough; it used to be that in the past. But it did not allow the Electoral Commission sufficient time for scrutiny and effectively at the last election the then government, the Howard government, reduced that to three days. The outcry from the ALP was that we were depriving people of being able to enrol to exercise their franchise, to which I would make the observation that for all federal elections in Australia we live on a three-year cycle. We all know when a federal election is coming up. The papers are alive with it for the six or seven months before the date of an election. We all know what is going on—we are all aware that an election is getting close and the polls are read and interpreted with frenzy—so it hard to believe that people do not know that it is time either to get themselves on the roll or, if they have shifted their place of residence in the intervening three years, to have that corrected. But what is even more telling is that when we compare the number of people who missed out under the seven-day rule with the number of people who missed out under the three-day rule—I am quoting rounded figures for illustrative purposes—under the seven-day rule approximately 170,000 people missed out in the 2004 election but under the three-day rule only 100,000 people missed out. You would have to ask yourself whether the shortness of time was actually an advantage. Under the seven-day rule people can put it off for a few days and say, ‘I might do it then,’ or, ‘I might do it on Friday.’ But under the three-day rule they knew that, if they wanted to be on the roll and had been dilatory over the three years or they had not got around to changing their address or whatever it might be, they had three days to get themselves organised. My view is that the three-day rule focused the mind. People went in and enrolled and fewer people missed out than under the old rule. You can understand, then, why the opposition will oppose this measure and will seek to stay with the existing rule that was introduced in 2007. We oppose it not just for that reason but also because, as the member for Bradfield very elegantly proposed, it gives the Australian Electoral Commission time to scrutinise any fraudulent applications. The second issue is the requirement of proof of identity when a person is seeking a provisional vote. The provisional vote is the most problematic of all our forms of voting. It is when a person comes into a polling station to vote and their name is not on the roll. In most instances, with fair-minded people who generally attend to their business, they should be on the roll. However, they may have been dropped off by some clerical error, they might not have been at home when the AEC was checking addresses or for some other reason they have been left off the roll. They fill out a form stating the reasons, it is witnessed and, if that is validated, the vote is counted. At the 2007 election we brought in a rule that people had to identify themselves, and the ALP railed against this. Why would you rail against that? Ninety per cent of people who go to a polling booth to vote go in a car. Sure, a few people might live handily to a polling booth and walk there or go on a tram or bus, but about 90 per cent or so drive to a polling booth. It may not be a great distance, but they get in the car and drive there, which is evidenced by the number of cars you see around polling booths on election day. To do that, you are required by law to have your drivers licence on you. It is not a great deal of inconvenience to ask a person to produce some form of identity and for them to whip out their drivers licence and say, ‘I am Bill Smith; here is my drivers licence.’ That they cannot produce identification is also interesting. I have made a study of this over the years and I always provide my scrutineers with a list of addresses from which mail has been regularly returned. Isn’t that an enlightening thing? If you are getting correspondence back from an address, one of the reasons it may have occurred is that someone fraudulently enrolled at that address. Isn’t it funny that, when things have been returned from that address many times, suddenly that address becomes activated in provisional voting? It makes you wonder if that has not been a sleeping—for want of a better expression—voter, a dual voter. I have noticed over the years how, despite the fact that, as electronic means of recording things has improved, as the electronic wizardry that is available has improved and as our electoral officers and the AEC have improved, provisional voting has increased rather than decreased. Why would that be? Nobody can give me an adequate explanation. For example, when I first became the member for Hinkler back in 1993 there were 275 valid provisional votes admitted to the count. By 2004 that had gone up to 527—it had nearly doubled. The character of the Hinkler electorate had not changed that much between those dates because it was essentially the cities of Bundaberg, Gladstone, Childers, and some shires of Burnett which changed off and on over the years. Of more recent times it now includes Hervey Bay. But up to that point, the electorate was somewhat stable and there were no big variations in the character or demographic of the Hinkler electorate. Yet the number of provisional votes increased at a time when you would think the trend would be for a reduction in them. But wait for this. As I told you, last time, in 2004, the numbers were 527 votes. Once these new measures had been placed on provisional votes in 2007, that figure dropped to 83. Isn’t it strange that it would drop to 83? One hundred and fifty-two people came to the booth and were asked to provide further proof of identity and, as you know, people who are rejected at the polling booth on that day for lack of evidence of identity are still allowed to vote providing they come to the AEC office some time in the following seven days and validate their identity. Of the 152 who were asked to return only 38 did. Isn’t that an interesting figure? Only one in four bothered to come back to validate their vote. For this great sacred vote that the member for Banks was thumping his chest about, only a quarter of the people came back to exercise it. If you look across Australian at the 33,900 people so affected, only one in five people came back. So you really question how many of those were fraudulent votes. How many of those were people who could not identify themselves? Yes, I know some of them would have been lazy. I know that some, having seen the outcome of the election, probably said, ‘I cannot be bothered.’ But a high proportion, I submit to you, did not find the voting thing so sacred that they would go down to the electoral office and validate their identity. So I think the opposition’s position on this is quite defensible. Another measure that I, as a country person, applaud—and it has support from both sides of the House—is the method of recording postal votes, essentially for country people but for all people. In the past, as you know, you had to have your postal vote date marked essentially by 5 pm or 6 pm on the day before polling, on the Friday, because most post offices do not work on the Saturday. What was happening—and I see the member for O’Connor here and he would be aware of this—was that you would have mail runs out in the middle or at the end of the week and quite often the mail contractor would take letters back for people on stations and outlying communities to the central post office for that area, and on the Monday morning after the weekend the letters would be stamped. If your letter was your ballot paper, your postal vote, and it was date stamped on Monday morning at 9 am or 9.15 am your vote was invalid. Under this provision, although you will still have to have your postal vote envelope witnessed, the date that you put on that envelope containing that vote will be evidence that you recorded that vote prior to the close of the poll. The fact that someone then witnesses it is likely to make it fairly difficult to manipulate the date. For example, I know that when people come to me and ask me to witness something and then they want me to change the date, I seize up immediately. I hate pre-dating or post-dating anything I witness. In fact, I just do not do it. I think that most people who witness a postal vote would not be a party to any pre-dating stunts. So I think that is a pretty good measure too. It allows a lot of country people whose votes would have been ruled out to have their votes count—and I understand that in the seat of Deputy Speaker Scott, Maranoa, that occurred on quite a regular basis. So I think that is a good measure. I also support, as does the opposition, a lot of other measures for getting uniform rules for mobile booths which go to nursing homes and the like, and I think that is very important. There used to be some great rorts that went on there. It was not so much in federal elections, I must say, because most poll clerks were quite strict in federal elections about keeping the scrutineers and the political parties back at the door of the room and, if the frail person in bed wanted assistance, then the poll clerk was asked to provide it. I think those are good, sensible measures that stop others saying, ‘Oh, yes, I was around the other day with the how-to-vote card—wouldn’t you like me to vote for you?’ Those sorts of stunts went on and I am pleased that this regulates how that will be conducted in the future. There is also the matter of allowing blind voters to be able to vote in a semiprivate way, and I think that is a good idea. I will not go into it for the sake of time but I also commend any measure that removes dodgy how-to-vote cards. I think the case of the ALP in the South Australian state election is shameful and I hope that all parties would seek to remove that practice from future federal elections. The electronic management of rolls is, I think, a good move. There is one other matter that I oppose, and that is that it be mandated that all postal vote applications go directly to the AEC. The previous method of allowing political parties to record those and take them to the AEC never caused any trouble from my office. Every day at 9.30 or 10 am those postal vote applications were taken to the AEC. We took great pride in the way we did it. We have always had a good relationship with the AEC. We have always sent lists of the dead letters to the AEC. (Time expired) 5489 10:30:00 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 0 0 Mr TUCKEY —It is interesting to contemplate that, on advice I received from a senator the other day, there are something like 70 bills, some I would imagine of considerable importance, yet to be debated in the Senate over the remaining seven days, counting yesterday, of these sittings. Suddenly the government brings to us, in a process of political convenience, something that interests only members of parliament, depending on their special interest at this late hour, and no doubt they will try to promote this to a point of priority in the Senate in these remaining days when there are serious issues to be considered concerning the government of the country. I could give a significant number of examples. The first question to be asked in this place is what is this electoral legislation all about? Why, when an election is imminent, would the government be proposing to change the rules by which people vote when there have been no significant complaints registered by the Australian people about those rules? Significant changes were made by the previous government in the interest of gaining more security and propriety in our voting processes. The public are now well aware of them. They know that it is wise to take with them some form of identification. In modern society people would generally never leave home without it so why, now that they know those things, do we want to change the rules again? We can only ask who believes there is an advantage for themselves or who wants to open the door for corrupt practices? I want to deal, as I have in past debates on these matters, with some of the examples that are commonly available. Above all else we are again hearing the argument, in this case from government members, previously as opposition members, that measures be included in the act which contradict the fundamental principles of the act. Part VIII of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, section 101(6), says: A person who fails to comply with subsection (1), (4) or (5) is guilty of an offence punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding 1 penalty unit. What does section 101(5A) tell us? It states: … every person who is entitled to have his or her name placed on the Roll for any Subdivision whether by way of enrolment or transfer of enrolment, and whose name is not on the Roll upon the expiration of 21 days from the date upon which the person became so entitled, or at any subsequent date while the person continues to be so entitled, shall be guilty of an offence … The law which we are proposing to amend today makes it an offence to fail to register to vote once you have turned 18—and of course there is legislation here which takes the matter to high farce, suggesting that it is necessary for young people to commence registering at age 16. Why not make it 10? Why not make it at birth? The reality is that the law, as it prevails, gives those young people the opportunity during their 17th year to comply with the law, yet arguments are promoted here each day that we should be sympathetic to people who break the law in this instance by giving them a special opportunity to correct matters to which they are legally obliged to attend when those circumstances arise—first, when you turn 18 or, second, in the year before you are 18. The House is wasting its time saying it can be during the ages of 16 or 17. As I have said, why not include it in a kid’s first writing lesson? That seems to be how ridiculous the proposal is. I cannot understand why the parliament is wasting its time on this issue. The fundamental issue is that if you are legally obliged to register, if you are legally obliged to advise the Electoral Commission when you change your address, and that occurs frequently, why then is there any need to give people a catch-up opportunity? Arguably, all of those people who turn up in the proposed seven days after the calling of an election should be charged and convicted because it is not a mistake, it is not a delinquency; it is a breach of the law. So why would this parliament be legislating for that purpose? There is no reason other than to so overcrowd the Electoral Commission in the lead-up to an election, when it has enough work to do, that it cannot properly assess whether they are bogus applications or are for real. Under the existing legislation, that occurs progressively over the electoral cycle. That is what the law decided, probably when the act was first proclaimed in 1918. There has never been a reason to change it and there will be no reason to change it, unless this country moves to voluntary voting, and I do not hear much about that. So we have working legislation that clearly addresses opportunities for corruption—and the government want to go back to the future. There can only be one reason, and that is that they perceive some political advantage, because within their ranks are people, whom I will quote, who are prepared to break the law. Within a legitimate electoral roll there are people who for various reasons, often religious, do not vote. Also, we have yet to discover how, with printed rolls, without computerisation, we can prevent persons voting at different venues in the same name. That opportunity still exists. In the Labor mantra, it is referred to as ‘Vote early and vote often.’ So what was recorded on 6 November 2000 in the Courier-Mail in Brisbane? It concerned a major scandal in the state government which resulted in the resignation of the then Deputy Premier, Mr Elder, who resigned after being caught out placing other people and himself on a variety of electoral rolls where they were not eligible. This was done to improve their chances of preselection to parliament. A fellow called Kaiser—who has just got a $400,000-a-year job working on the government’s National Broadband Network—had to resign from office because of his involvement in that scam. On 6 November the Courier-Mail reported how a Labor official, a member of the 1987 federal election campaign team, revealed that he and other ALP supporters had cast numerous votes for a particular candidate of the Labor Party. This was quoted in the paper and never challenged; there was no defamation application or anything of that nature. This Labor member recalled: On polling day in Fisher there were many female names on the rort list, but a lack of women in on the scam. “But we got a young girl of 16 from Young Labor who thought it was quite exciting. She voted 14 times.” The Deputy Speaker, who is the member for Fisher, might be interested to know about that. She voted 14 times and she was two years too young to vote. What does that say about persons having to produce identification, if only to prove that they are entitled to a provisional vote, when they are not enrolled? Young people cannot get into an entertainment venue these days without producing identification. I do not see them protesting on the footpath. Numerous airlines with whom I travel insist on me providing identification to justify my electronic booking. And of course we now all have photographic drivers licences. The previous speaker pointed out that you are virtually legally obliged to carry your drivers licence when you drive your motor car—and what percentage of the population walks to a polling booth? This provision would re-establish the rorting of provisional votes by saying that a signature is good enough identification. Who, in the counting of millions of votes, or even thousands of provisional votes, is going to be the expert who approves the correctness of a signature? Why would you go to that particular process at the time of applying for a provisional vote, when it is simple to produce identification, typically in the form of a drivers licence? If you have just come up from the beach and you have not got it in your pocket, you have two options under the present law. One is to formally apply and return to the relevant authority within seven days to prove that you are the person you claim to be. But there is another option. Polling booths are never very far away from your home, and you typically choose the closest one to go to. So go home and get your drivers licence and come back. There is no law against that. You are not struck out on the grounds that you cannot identify yourself formally when you first walk into the polling booth, if you are a genuine person believing you are on the roll. What is it all about? I can tell you what it is all about. It has been evidenced time and time again. The provision applied in the seat of McEwen at the last election, and that election was eventually decided in the High Court, so close was the outcome. The debate centred on, I think, 200 provisional votes for which people had applied but then not returned with the appropriate identification. Who were they? They were not lazy people; the votes were dodgy. Eventually they were struck down by the High Court. The High Court could work it out. They struck these applications down because of people’s failure to identify themselves as provided for by the law, and the seat was eventually won by fewer than 20 votes, I think. It is important that we have integrity in the voting system. It is important that people comply with the law and register immediately they are eligible to vote or transfer their residence presumably to another electorate. It is just patently silly to bring to this House an argument that young people should have two years in which to register prior to them turning 18 when, unfortunately, most of them fail to do so while they are 17. It is not that they are not informed. Politics is now an issue that is taught in schools, and so it should be. Unfortunately, occasionally, I think kids are told how to vote and that, of course, is to be abhorred. That is not the role of teaching. There are many things that we should encourage young people to take an interest in, including their future. It might be that they need to know how much money is being wasted on school buildings that they occupy. That is information that might eventually decide their vote. The next thing we will be told is that they should vote at 16. I think there is still doubt as to whether it was wise to reduce the voting age to 18, but that has happened and it is also now part of the law and I do not contest it. These are not good measures. Yes, the issue of how-to-vote cards is a scandal. Considering it was the Labor Party who practised it in South Australia, why should a Labor government be asking for further opportunities to run scams by way of provisional voting or by way of enrolment when, in fact, they have demonstrated now that they think it might be a good idea to fix up the how-to-vote cards. What is the fine? It is some thousands of dollars. What is government worth? If you want to buy a couple of seats by redirecting preferences on a how-to-vote card, contrary to the decision of the party who issues the formal card, I am yet to see just how an authorisation is necessarily going to assist. Quite clearly, if it is in large print and at the top of the card, there is some evidence with a ridgy-didge how-to-vote card that a Liberal, Labor or other voter can look at the card and say that it is legitimate. The dodgy one will not necessarily be authorised as it should have been in South Australia by the Labor Party. What if they get Bill Smith to do it? Who is Bill Smith? Can he go before the court and say: ‘I am a strong believer in Family First, but I had a belief that they should not have expressed their preference in the way they did’? Let me just say something in closing about preferences. In a multiple vacancy there has never been a credible preferential system. How can preferences that go upwards in a single vacancy go downwards in a multiple vacancy? In Western Australia they have reverted in local government—from whence I came to this place after 16 years, and I saw about 10 different attempts to put a credible preferential system into multiple vacancies—to first past the post and if there are four vacancies the voter ticks four squares. Think of that happening in the Senate. Suddenly senators would be, as the Constitution provides, responsible for their states. The current above-the-line system has handed the entire processes of the Senate to political parties. I think that is to the detriment of the meaning of the Senate in the Constitution. The reason each and every state got the same number of senators was to give them some protection in that house. I have used up my time and, of course, I oppose these measures with the exception of a couple of minor adjustments. (Time expired) 5492 22:50:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —I rise to lend support to some of the electoral bills in front of us and to not lend my support to others. In brief, the coalition welcomes the decision of the government to not proceed with its original electoral reform amendment close of rolls and other matters bill. There was a tradition held to by the previous government that controversial and non-controversial amendments were not put in the same bill. This government clearly does not follow that. It is pleasing to see, albeit under some duress, that the government has admitted the original error of its way and has now separated that original bill into four to allow controversial and non-controversial issues to be discussed and debated at length. Moving to the first of the four bills, the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2010, I think it is axiomatic to say that we will be opposing this bill. The closing of the rolls seven days after the issuing of a writ is a significant issue—a major threat to the integrity of the electoral roll. The previous coalition government moved to protect the integrity of the roll and moved to prevent any fraudulent enrolments. It did this by reducing the period between when an election is called and when the rolls are closed. Closing the roll at 8 pm on the day the writs for the election are issued, which is usually three or four days after the election is called, for people enrolling for the first time and for people re-enrolling gives the AEC an extra seven days to verify these new enrolments and an extra four days to verify changes of address. So closing the roll at 8 pm on the day the writs for the election are issued gives the AEC extra time to ensure the integrity of the rolls. At a time when the AEC is processing an enormous number, sometimes hundreds of thousands, of enrolments, these changes have greatly assisted the AEC. Under the old scheme, which Labor wants to take us back to, more than 520,000 changes to enrolment or new enrolments were submitted to the AEC in that seven-day period between the issuing of writs and the close of rolls for the 2004 federal election. Clearly Australians are a mobile people, and that is tremendous—a nation where people are free to come and go—but for the AEC to process that enormous number presents challenges. Official AEC figures also show that, under the coalition’s regime, the number of people missing the close-of-rolls deadline in 2007 was 100,370 compared with 168,394 in 2004. In short, what the coalition put in place is 40 per cent more effective than what Labor is proposing in this bill. The question has to be asked: why is Labor doing this? Under the previous regime, only 100,000 people missed the close of rolls compared with 2004 when it was 168,000 people. Where is the reform here? It is striking that this appears much like the Building the Education Revolution, Fuelwatch, GroceryWatch, the big new tax on mining and the failed pink batts program. There is no reform. This is simply going back to the past. We believe that the existing arrangements ensure that the electoral roll contains significant integrity and a high degree of accuracy. We are concerned that the extra time period allows for a return to a system which permits fraud to occur. We also believe that a return to the previous system will discourage people from making or maintaining their enrolment during the year. They will have the opportunity to delay such action until an election is called. The bottom line is that this change, historically, will see more people missing out on their vote. Let me move to the requirement for the production of identification by provisional voters. Again, this is longstanding policy and practice. The intent was to prevent fraudulent voting by people impersonating other people on the voting roll. We did that by requiring people claiming a provisional vote to produce an ID—to actually show who they are. If I had my way, I would require all Australians to turn up with ID at the polling booth. We require ID to take out a video. Why do we not require ID to vote—something that changes and directs the course of the nation? We are quite rightly opposed to any weakening of the proof-of-identity requirements for provisional voting. We do this on the ground that requiring identification is a deterrent to people seeking to engage in multiple voting. According to the AEC, 75 per cent of provisional voters actually showed evidence of identity when voting. Any proposal to weaken these rules, any moves to strip away the requirement to show identification, should be opposed. Indeed, the government should have moved to require identification from all Australians voting at a polling booth. All Australians have such identification. You cannot drive a car without it; you cannot get a Medicare card without it; you cannot get a tax file number without it; you cannot get a passport without it. There are so many things you cannot do. You cannot open a bank account unless you can prove who you are. Why should we allow a voting system in which people are not able to prove who they are? Accordingly, as Labor seeks to water down these provisions, it cannot be supported. I now turn to the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Pre-poll Voting and Other Measures) Bill 2010. This bill can be supported. Currently, prepoll votes are not classed as ordinary votes. There is a requirement for them to go through administrative checking in the week following the polling day. This clearly creates a significant and unnecessary administrative burden for the AEC. Seeking to class prepoll votes as ordinary votes will see them being counted on the night, leading to an earlier and more accurate result. This certainly makes a significant degree of sense. For the processing of enrolments, there is an administrative amendment which allows the AEC to transfer workloads within their organisation. This again makes a lot of sense. We support the change to electronic updating of voter records. Australians are doing more and more online. It is simple, it is easy and it is convenient for Australians to do. Allowing people who are already on the roll to maintain their records on the roll electronically without a whole heap of bureaucracy and paperwork seems to make a great deal of sense to me. If I can do my banking online and if I can trade shares online, surely I can update my electoral details online. The bill also contains a provision for single party nomination per seat, which makes an enormous amount of sense. I cannot see any reason why a political party would want to run multiple candidates in a single seat. The only reason you would do that would be as a tactical move to try and generate an informal vote. We support the idea of one candidate per political party per seat. Let us move on to the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (How-to-Vote Cards and Other Measures) Bill 2010, which I will refer to as the ‘how-to-vote card bill’. Clearly we will be supporting this, but we will be making a range of minor amendments when the bill moves to the Senate. It is instructive to pause and ask ourselves the question: how did a how-to-vote card bill come before the House? It would appear that it came about because of a deliberate scam by the Labor Party in the 2010 South Australian state election. That, I think, is a statement of fact. The South Australian Labor Party handed out how-to-vote cards which appeared to favour Family First. Indeed, the ALP handed out cards which purported to be official Family First how-to-vote cards but the preference order favoured the Labor Party. The card said ‘Vote 1 Family First’ because Labor knew full well that they did not have the numbers to win the seat, but the No. 2 preference went to Labor. I am led to believe that Labor operatives even came from interstate, wearing bogus T-shirts that indicated that they were Family First booth workers, to hand out the bogus how-to-vote cards. What I find deeply concerning is that this tactic is apparently not a one-off. It would appear to be a deliberate scam by the Labor Party, which they have used before in both New South Wales and Queensland. We see this when we look at the infamous cases of Webster v Deahm (1993) and Carroll v Electoral Commission of Queensland (1998). So I am pleased that, after 17 years of this perpetual fraud by the Labor Party, they have admitted that it is morally wrong and are now seeking to correct their moribund ways. This bill would require that all parties place the name of the authoriser and that of the party prominently at the top of the how-to-vote cards or face a fine. My only concern is that the fine is $1,100. After 17 years of corrupt practice by Labor in this area, one has to ask: how did they come up with $1,100 as the fine? Did they think: ‘We’ve been doing this for 17 years’—how many seats they have won this way we do not know—‘we have to do something’? The corrupt practices of the Labor Party in the South Australian election were so in-your-face that something would have to be seen to be done. Perhaps Labor thought, ‘We’ll put in place what is ostensibly a good measure but if that measure is flouted we’ll make the punishment $1,100.’ A quick whip around of the ALP caucus could raise that. This amount of money does not create a disincentive. Why not $50,000? Why not $100,000? Why not half a million dollars to truly prevent the Labor Party from moving down this moribund path once again. The key point in the legislation is the authorisation so that voters can clearly see who is handing out the how-to-vote card. We support that principle. Also, I think it is important to say that the Liberal-National coalition has not engaged in this activity. The Liberal-National coalition has been the victim of such activity by the Labor Party. We support their belated attempts to legislate against their own rorting. However, I put on record my deep concern that $1,100 will not be a disincentive to the Labor Party. I now turn to the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010. This bill contains a series of uncontroversial minor amendments arising out of the unanimous recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters or JSCEM inquiry into the 2007 federal election. The bill is fine in the main. However, there are a range of issues that will be addressed in the Senate. One of these issues concerns the sixth measure in the bill, which has both controversial and non-controversial aspects to it. A non-controversial aspect is the removal of the need for a witness to a postal vote, thereby allowing single people to more easily lodge a postal vote. However, there are a number of controversial aspects to this measure. It is deeply concerning what the Labor Party has done with this bill—that is, the controversial aspects of it were not considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Electorate Matters. Labor simply snuck them in without going through the due process that is the longstanding practice of the parliament. One measure is that all postal vote applications should be returned directly to the AEC and a prohibition should be put on any extra materials such as postal vote application forms. The question has to be asked why the issue of postal vote applications was not raised in the Joint Standing Committee on Electorate Matters review into the 2007 federal election, because there did not seem to be a problem with it. The committee in its report did not address it. So why are Labor seeking to change it? The great maxim of ‘if it isn’t broken don’t try and fix it’ holds true here. Labor are trying to make changes in the area of postal vote applications where there is no issue at all. If we dig a bit deeper—and I might risk being called a cynic here—we find that the coalition parties do far better with postal vote applications. Could it possibly be that Labor are simply looking to reduce the prospect of a higher vote for the coalition through postal votes by saying that postal votes must be sent back to the AEC and no extra material is to be attached to it? Would they be so brazen as to do that? Would Labor be so underhanded as to do that? I think one only has to look at the 17 years of Labor fraud and morally moribund activity regarding how-to-vote cards to answer that question with a very resounding ‘yes’. We will be strongly opposing this move because it makes no sense. It is punitive without solving a problem. It does not seek to address an issue; it seeks to address Labor’s political fortunes. The seventh measure in the bill relates to modernising the provisions for homeless voters. In principle this measure is supported by the coalition. It is certainly supported by the members of JSCEM. However, this is the second area in which Labor is seeking change. The coalition has identified concerns about item 9, which seeks to repeal section 96(9) of the act, which states: … A person ceases to be entitled to be treated as an itinerant elector under this section if: while the person is being so treated, a general election is held at which the person neither votes nor applies for a postal vote; The implication which flows from Labor’s change here is that there is no practical provision to ever remove an itinerant elector from a roll. It is hardly worth mentioning that you cannot do a habitation review—that is, where does someone live?—on someone who is homeless. Unless the itinerant elector is very good at ensuring their enrolment details are up to date, the only way to determine whether they have left the electorate or indeed passed away is by the fact that they did not show up to vote. This proposed amendment from Labor would appear to be an invitation to abuse the integrity of the electoral roll. Once a person is on the roll as an itinerant elector, they will never leave the roll for that particular division, irrespective of their true place of residence. The opportunity to organise a campaign of fraudulent voting is obvious to all because the bona fides of any potential person on that roll could never be checked. I think all Australians would agree that repealing section 96(9) would therefore be a grievious error. It would be bad policy. It would fundamentally weaken the integrity of the electoral roll. It is something we should move against and we will certainly move amendments in the Senate in that regard. In conclusion, I am pleased that the government has moved away from their original bill and has now broken the legislation into four areas. Some areas of these four bills are worthwhile and will enjoy the coalition’s support. Other areas will receive amendments in the Senate. The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2010 cannot be supported in any form. 5496 11:09:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —I welcome this opportunity to speak today on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2010, the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Pre-poll Voting and Other Measures) Bill 2010, the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010 and the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (How-to-Vote Cards and Other Measures) Bill 2010, regarding changes to the Electoral Act. I, like all members, enjoy the opportunity in my electorate of Cowan in Western Australia to speak to young people in the high schools and primary schools about the importance of our great democracy. I think we have a claim to say that this is the greatest country in the world. We definitely want to keep it that way. That is why the Electoral Act is such an important element of our great democracy. Among the young people in this country, particularly those in Cowan, I see many who are keen to be part of that process once they turn 18. I have been to many schools where young people have told me, ‘I’m still 17 but I have already done my provisional enrolment.’ I welcome that. As I recall, the member for O’Connor said earlier, in referring to the Electoral Act, that it is the law for someone to enrol within 21 days of becoming eligible. They should enrol then and if they do not, that constitutes an offence. The obligation on citizens of this country to enrol from the age of 18 is important. I really do wonder what is the story behind this weakening of the laws. Basically the government wants to say to the Australian people: ‘You don’t have to enrol. You don’t have to comply with the law which says that you have to enrol within 21 days of becoming eligible. In fact, we will make it even easier to not comply with the law by saying that you have until seven days after the calling of the election to enrol.’ It is rather an odd situation that we have a law but we do not want to follow that law. I wonder whether the government should change that law as well so that it is no longer an offence to not enrol within 21 days of becoming eligible to enrol, but rather that it should be an offence if you have not enrolled within seven days after the calling of the election. There is an inconsistency there. Others have passed comment on exactly why it is the case that the government seems so keen to disregard one law and let this seven-day business come into being. As others have said, there is a great history in this country of fraud and rorting of the electoral system. I would not suppose to say that it was hugely widespread, but there is a consistency about the side that is so often involved with these matters. A case in Queensland has been referred to previously where a 16-year-old member of Young Labor was very pleased that she had voted 14 times in an election. HWS Ramsey, Rowan, MP Mr Ramsey interjecting— HWE Simpkins, Luke, MP Mr SIMPKINS —There is no doubt at all, as the member for Grey says, that with voting 14 times how wrong can you be? What a classic disregard for the great democracy of this country that someone should find as a source of some pride defrauding the Australian system, taking advantage of our democracy. I really wonder what ethics are being taught in some places in this country. That one side could promote that as something of some value casts great aspersions upon those involved with that person and upon that person. Maybe it is more the case that someone of that age was badly misled by those she trusted so that she thought this reprehensible behaviour was appropriate. The reality is that that will never be the case. It is certainly never the way we on this side approach it. Some may say that those behind that sort of fraud—former members Elder and Kaiser—are from the past and such events no longer occur. But I would contend that the reality is, when a government feels under pressure and a sense of desperation that they might be on the receiving end of the people’s will, they will go to any means to take advantage of and rort the system. We only need to look back to the South Australian election. I am sure the member for Gray will also speak on this matter as well—bogus how-to-vote cards and even T-shirts. I think ‘Put Your Family First’ was the slogan used to attempt to deceive the voters in South Australia. I guess it is another great tradition of democracy in this country that one side will use all means to try to deceive the people and create electoral success out of that. It is certainly sad that we have such examples in this modern age in 2010. As has been said in the past, where there is such deceit, fraud and trickery, it is almost like risk management when it is only a fine of $1,100 to do that. No wonder the Labor Party in South Australia did it. They must have managed that risk and decided maybe $1,100 was worth it to try and win seats. I feel sorry for the people of South Australia to have, unfortunately, a government returned which thinks it an appropriate use of the system to deceive the people for electoral advantage. It is a sad state of affairs and, in that case, I do not think the South Australian people got the government they deserved. I would also like to speak about provisional voting. This is a cause for concern, given the track record in some parts of this country by one side of politics. We should be particularly concerned about those that turn up on election day and claim a vote. I am particularly fond, however, of the change made before the last election where someone who comes to a polling booth to seek a provisional vote is required to identify themselves. I think that is an appropriate thing. I have spoken to some people who have recently received citizenship and enrolled to vote. They put their drivers licence number on the form. In a very clear way they are required to prove their identity. Why shouldn’t that be the case when someone turns up to ask for a provisional vote? Why shouldn’t that be the case when they are not on the electoral roll but they seek a vote? They should be required to do the same as everyone else who is actually enrolled as a voter has done. The fact that someone should have to prove their identity at the time of casting their vote or of applying for their provisional vote or by the Friday following the election seems like an appropriate thing to do. Sadly there has been a history of people who are not who they claim to be defrauding the system and claiming votes. One of the senators has put forward an amendment that there could even be a comparison of signatures to prove the identity of the person claiming the vote. What worries me is that, within courts of law, experts are required to identify handwriting to prove that a particular person wrote a particular document. Handwriting experts have to see pages and pages of writing to try to identify whether the person who is meant to have done the handwriting was actually the one who did it. Yet we are asking the Australian Electoral Commission officials to look at some signatures and decide whether it is exactly the same person. It seems a little bizarre. You could not call that a particularly reliable process if they do not have the skills, the background or the examples necessary to be able to say with absolute certainty that those signatures were from the same person. That is a point of concern. With regard to provisional voting on election day, I have said that I have some concerns. In the last election within the electorate of Cowan there were only some 300 provisional votes, but I think it is necessary for someone who claims a vote to meet the same identity requirements as someone who has appropriately enrolled on the electoral roll. At the 2004 election, some of the people who worked on my polling booth in the suburb of Girraween within Cowan told me that they could have sworn that the same person had shown up about four times at the Blackmore Primary School in different shirts and seemed to go in and vote. Maybe it was because they had family members who chose not to vote on the day or they knew that other people were not going to vote on the day. But it is a cause for concern when you have these sorts of stories floating around. Couple that with the provisional voting issues, and I personally become in favour of everyone who turns up to a polling booth identifying themselves. I know that administratively that would be difficult and would slow the process down, but there have been cases where there would have been useful. I will move on. I do not wish to take up too much more time of the House today on this matter. I have looked through the provisions within these bills. From the perspective of the coalition, we are pleased with certain aspects of the bills. But there are other aspects, some of which I have covered in general, that we have some concerns about. There will be amendments moved and other action taken regarding some of those matters. I will conclude where I began by saying that Australia is a great democracy. The overwhelming majority of people respect that democracy. They enrol to vote and they give some careful consideration to how they are going to vote. They are part of the process. There have sadly been some occasions in this country’s history when certain elements—and I have described some today—have seen rorting the system as something to be proud of or a duty to their party. As I said, in Queensland and South Australia that has happened very recently. That is a sad state of affairs. I look upon the weakening of the Electoral Act that is provided for in some elements of these bills as a cause for great concern. We should be suspicious—and we on this side have the right to be suspicious—about the motives of those who seek to weaken the laws, given that they have been behind so many of these problems in the past. I thank the House. 5498 11:25:00 Ramsey, Rowan, MP HWS Grey LP 0 0 Mr RAMSEY —I rise to address the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2010, the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (How-to-Vote Cards and Other Measures) Bill 2010, the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Pre-poll Voting and Other Measures) Bill 2010, and the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010. Some of these electoral reforms are good—undoubtedly. Some are bad. I will go first to those that I think offer to improve the Electoral Act. The acceptance of signatures on postal votes will be met with a considerable amount of pleasure in parts of my electorate—the more remote areas. We have seen in the past, because of the mail system, people receiving their postal voting papers quite late in the process. It might be a week before they get their mail delivered and then it is another week before they turn it around. In one case from the last federal election, I was aware that a vote was posted in the local town on the Thursday evening, but the mail did not go out until the next Tuesday. Australia Post will not postmark mail until the day that it is dispatched from the post office. So that vote became null and void. To accept the signature on the postal vote is a good move forward—for a fairly small section of the community, it must be said, but their votes should be recognised. They are certainly trying to participate in a correct way in the political system. The attempts in these amendments to address the South Australian election fraud that went on at the last state election are welcome. I know that you, Deputy Speaker Georganas, would be quite well informed on this issue. It was in fact the lowest form of blatant cheating that we have seen in an electoral process for some time in Australia. It is worth noting in the House just what happened on that day. The ALP and members of the ALP actively sought to mislead the public. Election day, 20 March this year, was a beautiful day. I spent all of it in Whyalla, working on various booths to support my local candidate. It was a day that the Family First Party will well remember, for it was a day on which they were about to be deceived in a number of seats within Adelaide—not in the country, it must be said. ALP supporters wore t-shirts that I will describe. In small letters at the top of their t-shirts they had ‘Put Your’. Then in large letters they had ‘Family First’ in the same blue colours of the Family First support team. What were these people dressed up in these blue t-shirts with the slogan ‘Put Your Family First’ across the front doing? They were handing out how-to-vote cards. Once again, it was the same deal. At the top of the card, in small letters, there was the line ‘Put Your’. Then there was ‘Family First’ in very large letters. These how-to-vote cards expressly directed preferences to the ALP, in total contrast to the correct Family First cards, which actually directed preferences to the Liberal Party. It was a hijacking of votes. In fact, some Family First members rolled up to the booths and saw the workers there working and figured that they were not needed as someone else was doing it—someone that they did not know, but as they were out handing out the Family First material, the real members went home. Where did these misleading cards come from? They were authorised by M Brown of 141 Gillies Street Adelaide, the address of the headquarters of the Australian Labor Party’s South Australian branch. There was no mention of the Labor Party on the ticket. It did exactly what the designers wanted it to do: it made people think that it was from Family First to steal those second preferences. Respected Flinders University political scientist, Professor Dean Jaensch, described this cheating ‘as the worst example of its kind I have seen in a 40-year career’. And it was no isolated incident; it was run in four seats. Leon Bignell, subsequently elected in the marginal seat of Mawson, defended his own partner, Sandra De Poi, who handed out the how-to-vote cards in that electorate. Incidentally, De Poi is the Director of WorkCover Corporation and a director of HomeStart. In Hartley, now state cabinet minister Grace Portolesi was not beyond plumbing the ethical depths by employing the same tactics. Tony Piccolo, a once trusted and respected mayor of Gawler, did it too in his northern suburbs seat of Light. All were successful in their respective marginal seats. Lindsay Simmons had a go too in Morialta, but in this case the desperate act went unrewarded when Liberal candidate John Gardner was successful. What a sorry story. It is a Labor Party performance that would have raised an eyebrow even in New South Wales, where we see a new Labor minister resign most weeks. To be fair, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas—and I know you will know these people well—both Chloe Fox in Bright and Tom Kenyon in Newland refused to participate in this great deception, and I say: well done. But we are in a sorry state when we are reduced to congratulating someone for being honest. South Australian voters were deceived in an election that was largely about trust by a political party that apparently has no moral qualms about duping its way into government. There was a newspaper outrage. For three weeks the Advertiser was full of letters from people totally outraged by this blatant fraud and vowing never to vote for the Australian Labor Party again. I am afraid they will have to wait four more years before they get to pass judgment, but I am sure that if an election were held now the Labor Party would lose in a landslide. The anger is palpable. All I can say to those people, those disappointed people who feel as though their vote was stolen from them, is: have a long memory and remember these actions when you next go to the ballot box. So the proposals to address this behaviour in the federal arena are to be welcomed—but, seriously, a $1,100 fine? That would be quite a bit of money for an Independent running a $5,000 campaign. For the Australian Labor Party, who will probably have $30 million to spend in the coming election, it is not even insurance money. It was Graham Richardson who said, ‘Whatever it takes.’ If it takes a $1,100 fine, I have no great confidence that will be a sufficient deterrent. I support the measures in the bill to allow postal votes to be counted as long as the signature date is to be accepted, and I have already spoken about that. So much for the good in this group of bills. Unfortunately, as I said, it is not all good. The plan to keep the rolls open for another week after the calling of the election is not good process. We are all aware that the Electoral Commission is already overloaded trying to process the number of changes on the electoral roll in any given month, let alone trying to handle the rush that will come with the calling of the election as all those people realise they are not registered in the right electorate or not on the roll at all. Only a fool would say there is not electoral fraud in Australia. In fact, there was another report from the recent South Australian election, of a family that voted 159 times. The electoral process is for honest people. It works largely just because it works—because people have faith in its integrity and do not cultivate the idea of trying to distort and defraud the process. That is not to say we can accept that all people are honest; unfortunately, there are some who will defraud the system. The proposed change to the roll closure gives the Electoral Commission a very short time frame in which to get the roll in order, and I do not think there is any real possibility of their being able to properly process the late rush of enrolments that will come in the first week after the calling of the election. You would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I am, that if you report dead mail to the Electoral Commission it takes months to go through the system; it takes much longer to check than a week. The proposal that ID need not be presented for declaration votes is just absurd. It leaves voting open to easy, organised and non-traceable fraud. It is a green light for those who would defraud the system. After all, you cannot go into any institution like a bank, or even enrol your kids in school or apply for a drivers licence—or apply for anything—without proving who on earth you are. Why would we allow people to just walk in off the street and say, ‘I’m Joe Bloggs,’ as many times as they like without ever having to produce evidence of who they are? Our voting should be taken much more seriously than that. Our commitment to democracy should be taken much more seriously. So we should oppose the roll extension at all costs. No fair-minded citizen would say less. I am a trusting man. I take what most people tell me at face value. I believe most people conduct their business in good faith. But some behaviour that has been reported to me from recent elections really does test that faith. You would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, that my electorate has a large remote area and we have a number of mobile polling booths. Interference with how-to-vote material and standover tactics have been reported to me. It lessens my faith in human nature and it certainly lessens my faith in the political process. That is why we need to make sure that at every opportunity, without being overly invasive of the Australian public, we provide a structure that is credible and cannot be distorted or rorted. The reprehensible behaviour of the Australian Labor Party in the last South Australian election is but the most recent and glaring example, and that party should be ashamed of its performance. Even though the South Australian Electoral Commissioner has said the acts were not illegal, they should be illegal and those responsible should at least be held to account within their own party. So, as I said at the beginning, there are some good things and some bad things in this brace of amendments, and I will cast my vote accordingly on each section. 5501 11:37:00 Hawker, David, MP 8H4 Wannon LP 0 0 Mr HAWKER —In speaking to these bills, the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2010, theElectoral and Referendum Amendment (Pre-poll Voting and Other Measures) Bill 2010, the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010 and the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (How-to-Vote Cards and Other Measures) Bill 2010, I would like to join with colleagues from the coalition in pointing out what seems to be some remarkable anomalies in the proposals. I think we should be very strongly opposing some of the measures proposed by the government. I looked with amusement at some of the speeches made by members of the ALP on this matter. Their sanctimonious claims about not disenfranchising people sound so hollow when one knows the reality of it all. If you listen to the claims you would have to question why they even want to propose these changes. Nonetheless, we know from bitter experience that the simple fact is that when it comes to trying to practise fraud there are some—and I do not say all, but some—members of the ALP who are very accomplished at doing this. They worked out long ago how to ‘rig the ballot’, as it is put, whether it be at the local union elections or more recently when we saw what they did in the general election. Colleagues have given examples of individuals who have confessed that they have voted not more than once but in many cases many times more than once. They almost wear it as a badge of pride that as an ALP stalwart part of the job is to go out and ‘vote early and vote often’—the old saying that has been around for a long time, attributed to a former ALP member. We can look at some of the evidence about what has happened that has caused major disruptions. I think of the Nunawading election for the upper house in Victoria some years ago. The then state secretary of the ALP was caught out rigging how-to-vote cards. As a consequence, there was a re-election. The whole ballot had to be re-held. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner —That was not the reason; it was a tie. 8H4 Hawker, David, MP Mr HAWKER —There was a tied vote but there was also the fact that there had been some funny business going on. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner —It was the tied vote that caused the re-election. 8H4 Hawker, David, MP Mr HAWKER —Funny business went on as well. There is no doubt that there are many other examples where this has occurred. It is little wonder that we see the ALP again trying to weaken the integrity of our electoral rolls knowing full well that they can get some political advantage out of it. There is no doubt that at all times most Australians would believe very strongly that we have to try to maintain a high degree of accuracy and integrity on our electoral rolls. Looking closely at the close of roll changes proposed by the government, there is no doubt that this is a significant threat to the integrity of the roll. The previous arrangements that we had from the coalition government were designed specifically to protect the integrity of the roll. We had the close of the roll at 8 pm on the day that the writs for the election were issued. That was usually three or four days after the election was called. There was still an opportunity for those who had not enrolled to make sure they were enrolled in time to vote at the upcoming election. If we move to these extra seven days, there is no doubt that there will be a lot of extra enrolments. Equally, the Australian Electoral Commission officers are already frantically getting ready for the election and there is no way they can verify the enrolments by going through them all to check the addresses and that they are valid enrolments. In my view this is quite deliberately being proposed to allow this additional fraud to occur. As everyone would know, if people are aware that they do not have to enrol until after the election is called then of course it will discourage some from bothering to do it when they should have done it probably months beforehand. When people are aware that unless they get enrolled before the election the chances are they may not have that opportunity afterwards, then they will not only take that opportunity but more importantly the Electoral Commission can validate that enrolment so that we know that the integrity of the roll has been protected. Under the old scheme, which Labor wants us to return to, more than half a million changes to enrolments or new enrolments were submitted to the Australian Electoral Commission in the seven-day period before the close of the rolls in the 2004 federal election. Furthermore, official AEC figures show that under the coalition’s rules, that is, when people had to enrol by 8 pm on the day of the writs, the number of people missing at the close of the rolls at that deadline in 2007 was just over 100,000 compared with 168,000 in 2004. In other words, because people knew they had to get enrolled beforehand we saw 40 per cent more effectiveness in getting people to enrol in time to be able to vote. It is also very important that we encourage people to enrol earlier so that they can be validated. The second point I would like to come to is the production of identity for provisional voters. This is quite extraordinary. The previous government had a longstanding policy to try to prevent fraudulent voting by people impersonating other voters by requiring people to produce evidence of their true identity and their enrolled address either on polling day or in the week after polling day. That discouraged fraudulent voting by making sure that people were in fact who they claimed to be. Clearly, any weakening of the proof of identity measure is going to open up the opportunities for not only fraud but also multiple voting. As I mentioned earlier, we have people who have confessed that not only have they cast more than one vote but in fact they have cast many more than one vote. Interestingly, with having to show proof of identity, the Australian Electoral Commission estimated that 75 per cent of provisional voters showed evidence of identity when they were actually voting. Of the nearly 34,000 provisional voters who failed to provide this identification on polling day, only one in five subsequently provided their proof of identity by the cut-off date—that is, the close of business on the Friday following the election. So it would seem open to reasonable assumption that quite a few of those 34,000 voters were not in fact the people they claimed they were. As has been pointed out by others, there are many opportunities for impersonating a voter. One of the most obvious ways is to look through the death notices in the lead-up to the election. The Australian Electoral Commission is far too busy in the pre-election period to check all those death notices and to cleanse the roll accordingly. So there is great scope for fraud. This move by Labor to take away the proof of identity requirement opens up serious opportunities for fraud. One can assume that the government would only consider this worthwhile if it saw an electoral advantage in it. For that reason, it ought to be exposed that the government is trying to take an opportunity through fraudulent voting to gain an electoral advantage. That reflects very badly on the Australian Labor Party. Clearly, the coalition will be opposing this as, indeed, we will be opposing the other provision to extend the time for people to enrol. At the current time, prepoll votes are treated as declaration votes and have to go through administrative checking. In the week following polling day there is obviously a lot of work and checking votes is a necessary administrative burden. The government seeks to treat these votes as ordinary votes. There will be a benefit in prepoll votes being counted on the night of the poll, which will give a more accurate result rather than having to wait. The spreading of the processing of enrolments to other divisions is an administrative amendment which makes sense if there happens to be a very heavy AEC workload. One provision allows the AEC to spread the workload to neighbouring divisions. So, clearly, there is a good argument to say that should be supported. The coalition also supports the change of allowing individuals already on the roll to maintain their own records electronically as it can effectively cut out the double or triple handling of enrolment forms. I have had examples in my electorate of blind or vision impaired people who claim they have been disenfranchised because of their vision impairment. Prior to the 2007 election, the coalition moved to give blind and vision impaired people the opportunity—for the first time in their lives for many of them—to cast a secret ballot. Labor discontinued this on the basis it was too expensive. This returned blind and vision impaired people back to the unhappy situation of having to cast a non-secret vote. The coalition supports this measure on the understanding it will be an interim arrangement ahead of further consultations which will be held with various community organisations. Turning to the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (How-to-Vote Cards and Other Measures) Bill 2010, we have heard a problem arose in the 2010 South Australian election. Clearly, the South Australian Labor Party ran a scam. They had members handing out how-to-vote cards which appeared to be the official Family First how-to-vote cards. People were handing out the cards wearing a big T-shirt or jacket saying ‘Put your family first’. South Australians were quite rightly outraged when they discovered subsequently that this had been an ALP scam to try and force supporters of Family First to direct their preferences to the ALP second when Family First itself had directed them elsewhere. It shows again the tenor of what is behind some of the proposals in this bill that the Australian Labor Party sees this as an opportunity to gain an electoral advantage but not through what one might call legitimate means or honourable means. It is through totally dishonourable means of encouraging people to undertake fraudulent measures to get extra votes to advantage one side against the other. This was not a one-off. It has been used in New South Wales and it has been used in Queensland. There were the infamous cases of Webster v Deahm in 1993 and Carroll v Electoral Commission of Queensland in 1998 which exposed this. In one way it is encouraging to see that after 17 years Labor is now admitting that the decisions in those cases were morally wrong, but there is always a catch. The bill would require people to put on top of the card, in prominent size, the name of the party and authoriser of how-to-vote cards or face a fine of $1,100. As others have already remarked, $1,100 for some people would not seem too high a price to pay to try and gain an electoral advantage. When one looks at the amount of money that, say, the trade union movement put into the last election—we are not talking the odd thousand dollars but millions and millions of dollars—a few fines of $1,100 would not seem to add much to the cost of their support for the Australian Labor Party. So, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, I have grave fears that rather than discouraging this type of activity this will only allow it to continue for the more unscrupulous who will do anything to try to gain an electoral advantage. Clearly, this is something that is going to have very limited effect in terms of bringing some sort of control over people who go around pushing false how-to-vote cards. On the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010, the move towards a digital system of records management is certainly a good one. The move to change the evidence of identity rules for enrolments, removing the mandatory need for a witness to attest to the identity of a person and reducing the acceptable identity documentation to a smaller field of items, makes sense. We support the third measure allowing provisional enrolment at the age of 16, as opposed to the current age of 17. I think that all members are keen to encourage young people to become aware of the importance of their responsibility to enrol and to vote and if it means that we will get them keen to start their provisional enrolment a bit earlier there is no problem in that. Given that we have a three-year electoral cycle, for some people enrolling at the age of 16 will mean of course that by the time the election is called they will be eligible to vote. So again, I think this will not only encourage people to get involved but it will also spread the workload for the Australian Electoral Commission in terms of enrolling people, and so it certainly has some benefits. The next measure, moving towards a more digital system of electoral roll management, distribution and use on polling day, clearly allows for a more flexible production of ballot papers and, with appropriate security, we would support that measure too. The standardising of mobile polling booth practices is a sensible outcome and we certainly support it. The sixth measure has two parts to it, one controversial and the other noncontroversial. The noncontroversial aspect includes the need for a witness in a request for a postal vote and allowing the signature date, as opposed to the postmark date, on the postal vote to be accepted. This makes it easier for single people to request a postal vote. The second point goes a long way to addressing the legitimate concerns that postal voters in rural areas have had particularly in some places where there are not everyday postal services. However, there are two additional controversial aspects to this postal vote application. One is that postal vote applications could only be returned directly to the Australian Electoral Commission, and the other would be a prohibition on the attachment of extra material on a postal vote application form. There is no valid reason for the introduction of these measures and it is pretty obvious that the government will try and gain an advantage by doing this. The other point concerns the provision for homeless voters. Clearly, this does create a few problems in terms of how someone can be enrolled who has no permanent address. But if you wish to do a habitation review of course you still run into the same problem. But having said that, the proposed amendment is an open invitation to abuse the integrity of the electoral roll because, once a person gets on the roll as an itinerant in a particular division, they will never leave the roll for that particular division irrespective of their true place of residence. There are a couple of other measures but I will conclude where I started. It is still blatantly obvious that the reasons the government are bringing in these measures are because they do see an opportunity to gain an advantage at the next election and, sadly, the way they see of getting that advantage is to reduce the integrity of the roll to encourage the opportunities for fraudulent voting. For that reason, those parts of the bill that will move that way will be strongly opposed by the coalition. Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 11:57:00 —I move: That the question be now put. Question put. 12:01:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. Peter Slipper) 72 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Bradbury, D.J. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. Crean, S.F. D’Ath, Y.M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Kelly, M.J. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. 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. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Zappia, A. 51 Andrews, K.J. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Fletcher, P. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Keenan, M. Ley, S.P. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Morrison, S.J. Neville, P.C. O’Dwyer, K Oakeshott, R.J.M. 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. Smith, A.D.H. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Windsor, A.H.C. Wood, J. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 5506 Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) 12:07:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question put. 12:09:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. Peter Slipper) 76 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Bradbury, D.J. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. Crean, S.F. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Kelly, M.J. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Oakeshott, R.J.M. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Windsor, A.H.C. Zappia, A. 50 Andrews, K.J. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Fletcher, P. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Keenan, M. Ley, S.P. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Morrison, S.J. 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. Smith, A.D.H. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 5507 Bills R4379 5507 Debate resumed from 2 June, on motion by Mr Gray: That this bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 5507 Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) 12:13:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 5507 Bills R4388 5507 Debate resumed from 2 June, on motion by Mr Gray: That this bill be now read a second time. Question put. 12:15:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. Peter Slipper) 77 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. 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. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Kelly, M.J. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Oakeshott, R.J.M. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Windsor, A.H.C. Zappia, A. 51 Andrews, K.J. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. 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. Irons, S.J. Keenan, M. Ley, S.P. 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. Smith, A.D.H. Southcott, A.J. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 5508 Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 5508 12:20:00 Robb, Andrew, MP FU4 Goldstein LP 0 0 Mr ROBB —by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (4): (1)    Schedule 6, page 38 (lines 9 and 10), omit item 2. (2)    Schedule 6, page 39 (lines 26 and 27), omit item 12. (3)    Schedule 6, page 42 (lines 1 to 8), omit Part 2. (4)    Schedule 7, page 44 (lines 15 and 16), omit item 9. It is unfortunate that this debate on electoral reform has been gagged. The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010 goes to the integrity of our electoral process. It is the underpinning of our democracy. Those on the other side are giving no due respect to the electoral reform bills. Government members interjecting— 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—Order! The member for Goldstein will resume his seat. Honourable members would be aware that it is disorderly, and it is doubly disorderly, to drown out the speaker. Would those members who are leaving the chamber please do so expeditiously. The honourable member for Goldstein. FU4 Robb, Andrew, MP Mr ROBB —As I was saying, debate on this bill has been gagged. It is a bill on electoral reform that goes to the underpinnings of our democracy. You would think that the House would debate these very important bills in some detail. On this particular bill, we have sought to remove, by amendments, two very important and controversial aspects. Unfortunately, these items have been included by the government following the review by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. They were not introduced before the committee and were not discussed. It is very disappointing to see the government seeking to sneak these through in an otherwise non-controversial bill. They have sought to frustrate a number of quite important and sensible measures by including in the same bill, without consultation with others in the House, some very unacceptable proposals. Firstly, there is the question of postal vote applications. The government are proposing that applications only be returned directly to the Electoral Commission. There would be a prohibition on the attachment of extra material to a postal vote application. There is no valid reason for the government to seek to introduce these measures and they have done it in a deeply cynical manner. It is an attempt to undermine the extremely successful postal voting processes of the coalition parties. There have been no concerns raised in the community. There have been no concerns raised by the authorities. No concerns have been raised which go to the need to remove this. The concern is that of the Labor Party, who have been unsuccessful in seeking to deal with these measures. Allowing the attachment of materials gives those in the community the opportunity, at the very first instance, to have some assistance with their postal vote and to be informed, at the outset of an election, about the relative merits of the different parties. This is purely and simply a cynical measure by the Labor Party to oppose something which they have failed to successfully implement and carry out during the electoral process. The second measure we strongly oppose is included in the seventh initiative in this bill, which seeks to modernise the provisions about homeless voters. In principle, the measure was supported by the coalition members on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. However, the coalition has identified concerns about item 9 and the way in which this bill seeks to introduce that measure. Section 96(9)(a) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act states: (9) A person ceases to be entitled to be treated as an itinerant elector under this section if: (a) while the person is being so treated, a general election is held at which the person neither votes nor applies for a postal vote … The implication that flows from the repeal of this section of the act is that there would be no practical provision to ever remove an itinerant elector from the roll. It is axiomatic that you cannot do a habitation review on a homeless person. Unless the itinerant elector is unusually diligent in keeping their enrolment details up to date, the only way to determine if they have left the electorate or died is if they do not show up on polling day. Again, this goes to the heart of the integrity of the voting system. This bill opens it to fraud. It is very sad that the government has sought to weaken this provision of the act, a provision that was working very satisfactorily. Again, you would have to very much question the motives of the government on both these issues. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Robb’s) be agreed to. 12:29:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. Peter Slipper) 51 Andrews, K.J. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. 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. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Keenan, M. 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. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. * Simpkins, L. Smith, A.D.H. Southcott, A.J. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 76 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.S. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. Crean, S.F. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Kelly, M.J. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Oakeshott, R.J.M. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Windsor, A.H.C. Zappia, A. * denotes teller Question negatived. Bill agreed to. 5510 Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) 12:33:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 5510 Bills R4387 5510 Debate resumed. from 2 June, on motion by Mr Gray: That this bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 5510 Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 5510 12:34:00 Robb, Andrew, MP FU4 Goldstein LP 0 0 Mr ROBB —by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) as circulated: (1)    Schedule 1, page 5, line 13, omit “10 penalty units”, substitute “50 penalty units”. (2)    Schedule 1, page 5, line 30, omit “10 penalty units”, substitute “50 penalty units”. The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (How-to-Vote Cards and Other Measures) Bill 2010 will be supported by the coalition but we ask the government to consider what we believe to be an important overall amendment that we have just put before the House. It is notable that this bill arises because of a deliberate scam by the ALP in the recent South Australian state election yet if you look at the bill you find, despite all of the huffing and puffing that has gone on and the distancing of the government from the deliberate attempt to defraud the state election, that this bill has a punishment which does not match the crime. You will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker Slipper, that the how-to-vote cards that were handed out appeared to be official Family First how-to-vote cards but the preferencing order favoured the ALP candidates. It is true that there were two or three seats which hung on the outcome of this fraud that took place. In many respects the South Australian state Labor Party government is illegitimate, because it won an election on the back of a fraudulent activity. This is at the heart of this bill. It is the reason for this bill. Those on the other side, who said they were horrified and disgusted by this move, have put forward a bill with a punishment, if this action is taken again, of $1,100. There are many Labor operatives who would gladly put $1,100 on the table to ensure the victory of a local ALP candidate through false preferencing arrangements. There needs to be a penalty of 50 or 100 units rather than the one that is proposed. The amendment that we have put forward asks for a penalty of 50 units or $5,500 for anyone involved in any action which seeks to defraud an election. If the Labor Party were genuinely concerned about the actions that were taken and if they were true to all the rhetoric that has gone on since that humiliating and disgraceful activity undertaken by the Labor Party, then they would support this amendment. I ask the House in toto to support this amendment. 5511 12:37:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —The government will not be supporting these amendments in the House of Representatives. We are happy to consider such a technical amendment—which I assume will be moved in the Senate and also considered there—in the Senate. But the difference between the amounts suggested by the honourable member for Goldstein and those in the bill are of no great significance. What is clear from the member for Goldstein’s comments is the bitterness that is there because of the return of the Rann Labor government in South Australia. The South Australian Labor government was returned with significant support across the board in marginal electorates in South Australia, and I look forward to working constructively with my colleagues in the South Australian Labor government. The problem that the tories have is that they have a born-to-rule mentality: they do not accept the views of the majority of the people. The majority of people in South Australia returned Labor to government and did it in a majority of seats in the legislative assembly. The Liberals talked themselves up prior to that election, as they always do, because they think that they only have to get up in the morning to be able to sit on the government benches. They have not come to terms with the fact that they are in opposition here and they have not come to terms with the fact that they were defeated yet again in South Australia as well as in Tasmania on the same day. 5511 12:39:00 Robb, Andrew, MP FU4 Goldstein LP 0 0 Mr ROBB —That contribution from the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government needs a response. This election was won by cheating. The South Australian Labor Party cheated. That the minister can stand and defend that action is incomprehensible. This is a government that is illegitimate and it is seeking now to represent the South Australian people. This bill which the Labor Party is sponsoring goes to the heart of clearly fraudulent activity that led to the winning of seats. The government is illegitimate, it is a product of cheating and surely the Labor Party cannot with a straight face defend this in any sense. We will take up the offer to look at increasing the size of that penalty even more when we discuss this in the Senate. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Robb’s) be agreed to. 12:45:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. Peter Slipper) 52 Andrews, K.J. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. 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. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Keenan, M. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Neville, P.C. O’Dwyer, K Oakeshott, R.J.M. Pearce, C.J. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. * Simpkins, L. Southcott, A.J. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Windsor, A.H.C. Wood, J. 73 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.S. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. Crean, S.F. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. 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. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Zappia, A. * denotes teller Question negatived. Bill agreed to. 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—I remind the Minister for Finance and Deregulation that to read newspapers in the chamber is disorderly, regardless of whether it is the Herald Sun or not. 5512 Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) 12:49:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 5513 Business 5513 Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 12:49:00 —I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 8, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. 5513 Bills R4382 Cognate bill: 5513 Bills R4383 5513 Debate resumed from 3 June, on motion by Mr Albanese: That this bill be now read a second time. 5513 12:50:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —I am speaking today on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel) Bill 2010 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel) Bill 2010 and I move: 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: (1)    acknowledges the importance of the role of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in regulating for safety in aviation; (2)    notes that CASA’s funding from aviation fuel excise has increased from $53.96 million in 2002-03 to $78.37 million in 2008-09, and will continue to increase as the industry expands; (3)    calls on CASA to improve its efficiency in the way it conducts its business so that it may use its existing resources more effectively in the regulation of the aviation industry; (4)    notes that the bill proposes to increase the excise on aviation fuel from 2.854 cents per litre to 3.556 cents per litre, that is, by 25 per cent, from 1 July 2010; and (5)    condemns the Government for introducing a 25 per cent tax increase on the aviation sector without first consulting and informing the aviation industry”. These bills increase the excise levied on aviation gasoline and aviation kerosene sold in Australia by 25 per cent. The funds raised from this increase are to be allocated to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to enable it to recruit 97 new staff and expand its surveillance activities. It is also intended that some of the money raised by this tax increase will be directed towards allowing CASA to clear its backlog of regulatory reforms and regulation redrafting. Aviation safety is an important issue, and the people of Australia have a right to expect that regulatory authorities like CASA are focused on ensuring that Australian skies remain safe, that our industry is well run and appropriately regulated, and that there is sufficient support for the aviation sector to be able to meet its obligations under the various regulations. Over the years it has to be said that the relationship between CASA and the industry has not always been cordial. There has been a lot of conflict and concern within the sector that CASA is sometimes heavy-handed and unhelpful and interferes in ways that the industry considers to be inappropriate. On the other hand, I think the public do expect a competent and effective organisation that will ensure that aviation safety standards are met and that they can undertake air travel with the expectation that they will arrive safely at their destination. And those who live near an airport or, for that matter, anywhere that aviation activity occurs do not want to be innocent victims of an incident where inappropriate standards may have been practised. CASA has a very important job—and that should never be underestimated—and it needs to have appropriate and adequate resources to be able to do its job. On the other hand, it also has an obligation to be efficient and reliable and to undertake its activities in the most cost-effective way possible. Over the years, Australia has maintained an exemplary record in the field of aviation safety and it is critical that aviation in Australia remains as safe and secure as possible. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001, the coalition government took action to improve aviation security in Australia. Since that time over $1 billion has been spent to enhance aviation security. We expanded the screening of passengers and checked baggage to ensure consistent security screening treatment of all passengers and baggage carried on jet aircraft departing anywhere in Australia. Additional funding was provided to improve security in the air cargo sector. The coalition also created the air security officer program in December 2001, which placed sky marshals on selected domestic and international flights. The sky marshal program is a valuable program and it is worth fully supporting. I was disappointed when the government downgraded the sky marshal program very early in its term. It is important that we ensure funding for this program is maintained rather than playing fast and loose with the lives of the flying public to save a few dollars. The government cannot on the one hand demand additional funds for CASA and then take a casual approach towards other elements of aviation security and border protection. I am disappointed that the government, whilst it has been keen to increase the surveillance of passengers and others entering aircraft from security perspectives, has been prepared to wind back the number of people in customs and quarantine services at airports so that inspections of not just passengers but particularly cargo have been reduced substantially. Indeed, in each budget this Australian government has cut funding to customs and quarantine services. Frankly, I think that is unsatisfactory. However, as part of the previous government’s response to aviation security challenges, we introduced the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, which involved aviation industry participants in maintaining aviation security and required them to develop and comply with a transport security program. That legislation also strengthened the regulatory framework surrounding aviation security and provided the flexibility necessary to respond to a rapidly changing air security environment. The coalition has a good record of ensuring safety in the aviation sector for the millions of Australians who depend on it either for their livelihood or for the ability to travel safely for work or pleasure. CASA bears much of the responsibility for ensuring that Australian skies are safe and it is appropriate that it is both adequately resourced and efficiently run. Since being founded, CASA has been funded in part by the excise on aviation fuel, which these bills propose to increase. The rate of excise has been varied from time to time when appropriate. Most recently it was cut to its current level of 2.854c per litre at the time that the location specific pricing subsidy ended in November 2005. For many years the rate of excise on aviation fuel was linked to the CPI and was often indexed twice annually for inflation. The coalition ended this practice in March 2001, along with the deindexation of petrol and diesel excise. Some would argue that this means CASA is underresourced as it is funded in part by a tax that is not indexed to inflation. But the government is not proposing to increase the excise through this bill to address increases in costs on account of inflation but rather plans to fund an expansion of CASA’s workforce and regulatory activities—and, I might add, to pay for the new board that it has introduced to control CASA’s activities. At any rate, the amount of aviation fuel sold in Australia has increased significantly in recent years. In 2003-04, 4.4 billion litres of aviation fuel were sold in Australia. By 2008-2009, this had increased to 6.3 billion litres. Not all of these sales are subject to excise. The military, for example, are not charged excise on aviation fuel, and aviation fuel used on international flights is also exempt. Still, it is clear that, as the amount of aviation fuel sold increases, the amount that CASA collects through the excise on aviation fuel and the amount it has available to spend also increases. CASA’s annual reports indicate that in 2002-03 it received just under $54 million from aviation fuel excise. By 2008-09, this had increased to $78 million, an increase of over 45 per cent in six years. So CASA has not been starved of funds; it has received a significant increase through the growth in aviation fuel sales. The proportion of CASA’s revenue that comes from this excise has varied slightly over time but has generally been between 50 per cent and 60 per cent over the last decade. There are other revenue streams such as direct charges that also fund CASA’s activities. There have also been increases in fees charged by CASA in recent years as a part of a move to full-cost recovery. CASA revenues from the sale of goods and services, most of which is its fees charged to the industry, have shot up from $9.8 million in 2006-07 to $19.2 million in 2008-09. This revenue stream has nearly doubled in two years. It is also worth noting that the revenue provided by the tax increase proposed in these bills is $23.1 million in the first year. Just the increase in tax will be larger than CASA’s entire cost-recovery scheme from last year. Figures from CASA’s budget estimate that CASA expects to receive nearly $80 million from aviation fuel excise in the current financial year. At the current rate of excise, this suggests that there are just under 2.8 billion litres of aviation fuel sold on which excise has been levied. The government estimates that the increase in excise proposed by these bills will mean an additional $89.9 million over four years. This would mean the government expects to charge excise on 12.8 billion litres of aviation fuel over the next four years, averaging 3.2 billion litres per year. This means that, just on increased volume, excise would be levied on an additional 400 million litres of aviation fuel every year, or an additional 1.6 billion litres of aviation fuel over four years. This would mean an increase in CASA’s budget of an average of $11.6 million per year and a total of $46.4 million over four years just by maintaining the excise at its current rate and reaping more excise from higher volumes being consumed. So there will be a considerable increase in CASA’s revenue from excise over the years ahead, and presumably also from its fee structure, even if these bills are not carried—even if we do not give them this extra 25 per cent excise increase. These bills propose to increase the excise on aviation fuel by 0.702c per litre from its current 2.854c per litre to 3.556c per litre. That 0.702c per litre may not sound like much, but it represents an increase of nearly 25 per cent on top of the increases in volume that are expected. A media release from the minister’s office on budget night described this as ‘a small increase in the aviation fuel excise’. Well, if the minister thinks that 25 per cent is a small increase, I think that speaks volumes about his attitude and the attitude of the whole government towards taxes. Of course, this government has form when it comes to tax increases. It was this government that increased the passenger movement charges—a revenue measure—in its first budget. The Treasurer increased the passenger movement charge from $38 to $47 and attempted to apply this tax retrospectively to tickets that had already been sold. That $9 is costing airlines, travel agents, tourism operators and the flying public and it hit the aviation industry at a time when it was already struggling with rising costs and an uncertain economic environment. Even worse, the government has committed itself to its giant new tax on mining and has declared war on an entire industry, its workers and every Australian who owns shares in mining companies or has superannuation. And who can forget the ETS—the great big new tax on everything—that this government is still holding over the head of every Australian. The tax increase proposed by these bills is significant, and it is causing concern amongst those in the aviation industry. Many aviation industry stakeholders I have spoken to have expressed concern over the lack of consultation involved in these bills. Many first heard about the proposed tax increase when my office contacted them for comment. This tax increase will add costs to the aviation industry at a time when it is already facing difficult economic conditions. The aviation sector, which contributes over $6 billion each year to Australia’s economy and directly supports nearly 50,000 jobs, deserves to be regarded as more than a cash cow. Charter operators servicing fly-in fly-out mining operations are already facing a drop in business on account of the government’s superprofits tax on the mining sector. As mining operations are shut down, they are being hit from both sides, with business drying up at the same time as their fuel costs increase. But perhaps the greatest source of concern arising from these bills is the lack of transparency in how the money will be used. The aviation industry understands, as do I, that aviation safety is a serious subject and that CASA needs to be adequately resourced to perform its duties. But these bills make no specification about how the $89.9 million estimated to be raised is to be spent by CASA. The combined second reading speeches on these two bills lasted for only 2½ double-spaced pages so there was not much detail provided. Is it any wonder that the industry is concerned? The bills simply replace one excise rate with another. There is no full detailed breakdown on how the additional funding is included in the bills. There is no guarantee that the money raised by this excise increase will make Australian skies any safer. There is also the question of why CASA needs to hire an additional 97 staff. What will these 97 new employees do? How will they contribute to a safer aviation environment? These are questions that deserve answers, but answers have been in short supply from this government. After consultations with the aviation sector let me say that there has been considerable alarm about the new costs that this bill will impose on the sector. Virgin Blue, for instance, argue that CASA should look at cost savings within its own budget to fund some of its activities and reduce the burden of inefficient and inappropriate regulation. Rex Airlines—and I know that Rex is very much dear to the heart of the member for Riverina, who has just entered the chamber—is concerned about the tax increase. It pointed out that the excise tax was meant to be a growth tax that would enable CASA’s role to grow as the industry grew. As I pointed out earlier, the revenue for CASA has grown and will grow without this 25 per cent increase. Rex believes that CASA should live within its means. Alliance, the largest charter airline in Australia, with many fly-in fly-out mining operations, are also concerned about a tax increase at a time when their revenue is also threatened by the government’s supertax on mining profits. They will face increased costs at the same time as their revenue is reduced. The Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia oppose any increase in the tax on aviation fuel that is not linked to increases in efficiency on CASA’s part. They regard reform of CASA as a very high priority and feel that the tax increase is an example of CASA treating the industry like a cash cow. The Regional Aviation Association are not happy. Although they accept that CASA may need an increase in their budget if they are going to improve performance, they are very concerned about the impact of this extra tax on what is already a hard-pressed sector. There is no doubt that, had the government sought to consult with industry before they announced this tax, they would have got a lot of negative feedback. They would have got a lot of advice about how CASA can do the job expected of it without having a great big new tax imposed on the sector. I am disappointed that the government has not allowed for there to be greater consultation with the industry. In fact, the legislation, brought on early in the House today—for, I appreciate, organisational reasons—is supposed to take effect from 1 July, just four or five sitting days away. So there will be little opportunity for even the Senate to undertake normal, appropriate scrutiny of this legislation. It has been brought into the House and it has to be dealt with within days, and the industry will have to start picking up the cost immediately. There are concerns about the way this funding is going to be used. We are told that there are going to be 97 additional employees in CASA as a result of this legislation. It is my understanding that the bulk of the excise increase, estimated at approximately $59.5 million, is to be spent on recruiting these 97 new staff. On rough calculations, that is about $600,000 per employee. I do not know how much safety inspectors get paid, but, even taking travel, superannuation and other ancillary costs into account, I am not sure why the cost of employing these staff reaches that sort of level. Both the aviation sector and the parliament are entitled to an explanation. The legislation says it will enable CASA to continue random alcohol and drug testing. Alcohol and drug testing is already occurring. The airlines conduct random alcohol and drug testing at their own expense, in their own interests. They want to protect their reputations—a priceless asset for any airline operator—but they also want to ensure the protection of their employees and their property. No key performance indicators or benchmarks to measure the effectiveness of the additional funding have been released. The government is responsible for ensuring that the aviation sector is effectively and efficiently regulated. This means ensuring that CASA is adequately resourced but it also means ensuring that any increase in the costs borne by the aviation industry is justified. They must be able to explain to those who have to pay the costs why it is necessary. It is for these reasons that the opposition has acted in the Senate to refer these bills to the appropriate committee for examination. The committee will obtain information on why CASA needs this extra money, how it will be spent, what safety risks are involved and how this tax increase will improve aviation regulation and safety. It will also give CASA the opportunity to justify to its critics how it is managing its existing budget. I commend the amendment to the House. 10000 Schultz, Alby (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr AJ Schultz)—Is the amendment seconded? 00AMN Ley, Sussan, MP Ms Ley —I second the amendment. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Wide Bay 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. 5518 13:13:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 0 Ms SAFFIN —I rise to speak in support of the Excise Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel) Bill 2010 and the related bill. I want to respond to what the honourable member for Wide Bay, the Leader of the Nationals, has just said in the debate. One of his comments was that the government had a casual approach to the issue of safety. I reject that. Nobody in the government has a casual approach to the issue of safety. In fact, safety is the basis of these cognate bills. One could say the previous government had a bit of a casual approach to policymaking in general. I was constantly surprised at how little policy work I saw. We are talking about the machinery of government—resourcing authorities like CASA so that the machinery is there so that they can do their job. Listening to the honourable member for Wide Bay’s contribution, it was as though all was perfect, all was well, all was working, and that is a ridiculous notion—it clearly was not. There are things that have to be done to ensure that a premium is put on our safety. The honourable member for Wide Bay also outlined how a number of people were unhappy, because we are talking about excise, which is a tax. You can always find people who are unhappy when you talk about taxes—that is not hard to do. I think it would behove the honourable member to spend less time on trawling around finding people who are unhappy and more time on working on policy options and working with communities. But the former seems to be an inbuilt trait of the National Party as to how they operate in the community and also they say one thing in here and another out in the electorate, adding to the confusion. Another comment that the honourable member made goes to the issue of mathematics. I stand to be corrected, but I was sitting here listening and I heard him say that 97 additional staff safety specialists would be hired with this additional excise- and customs-equivalent duty. Then he said that would only cost— (Quorum formed) QI4 Price, Roger, MP Mr Price —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Forrest, who drew attention to the order of the House, left the House, which is contrary to the standing orders once you have called a quorum. I ask that you take appropriate action against that member with the conclusion of the quorum. 10000 Schultz, Alby (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr AJ Schultz)—I take note of the Chief Government’s Whip’s point of order. I will remind the Deputy Opposition Whip, the member for Forrest, that when a quorum is called the person calling the quorum must remain in the chamber. HVY Saffin, Janelle, MP Ms SAFFIN —I was talking about the maths. The honourable member for Wide Bay had talked about 97 staff. He was saying that it would only be a cost of about $600,000 and, I thought, that clearly means that those staff would be severely underpaid—if you do 97 into $600,000 it would not be a liveable wage. The honourable member for Wide Bay needs to revisit his mathematics given that contribution. The Excise Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel) Bill 2010 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel) Bill 2010 are always dealt with together. We have a cognate debate because customs tariff bills are companion to excise tariff bills. Constituents sometimes ask about that and say, ‘What is the difference between customs and excise?’ I will put it on the record so that they would be able to read what the difference is. Excise tariff bills are about domestic tax. The general definition in the explanatory memorandum of these two bills is defined as: Excise is a tax on certain goods produced in Australia including alcohol (other than wine), tobacco and fuel. It goes on to explain customs duty and the context of the goods that attract excise and are imported. It says: Imported goods comparable to those subject to excise, known as ‘excise-equivalent goods’, attract customs duty that includes a component at the same rate as the excise rate so that imports and locally-produced goods are taxed in an equivalent fashion. This component is commonly referred to as ‘excise-equivalent customs duty.’ That explains it for those constituents who ask what the difference is. The objectives of these bills are, firstly, to employ an additional 97 safety specialists, being safety analysts, airworthiness inspectors and other staff. I know that for anybody who uses the airlines—and for anybody who does not use them but cares about airline safety—that is a good thing. We do need those extra people to make sure that safety standards can be improved with the complexity of regulations that they also have to oversee. It means airlines can expand the ongoing training of their staff. That is important, because you do not train staff once and say, ‘Well, they are trained, they’ve got that. They understand it. They know all about it.’ It is an ongoing role. That requires money and investment and what better investment do we have than in human resources—to make sure that the safety of all is paramount. It also will be able to make permanent the random alcohol and drug testing as well as a number of other programs which until now have been funded on a temporary and ad hoc basis. I listened to the honourable member for Wide Bay talk as though it has all been perfect and well. But these things have not been done. The National Party, who always carried the transport role, could have done this but did not do it. It is making permanent this ad hoc arrangement, and it should not be an ad hoc arrangement when it goes to the heart of safety. Last week I read a letter to the editor of The Northern Star, one of my local newspapers. It was written by a local person I know who flies. It was about an officer at the Lismore airport testing people for drugs and alcohol. She did say it was a bit inconvenient, but I thought that at least they are out in the regions as well, not just in the capital cities. So there was some reassurance with that. Another object of the bills is to make sure that the Office of Airspace Regulation continues to have the resources to properly regulate and administer Australia’s airspace, an area covering almost 11 per cent of the earth’s surface. That is a big area to cover. This additional $89.9 million will be able to cover that. A couple of things lead to this. The honourable member for Wide Bay also talked about consultation. There was long consultation. First of all there was an issues paper and then the green paper and the white paper. The industry has been consulted and actively engaged in this. The aviation policy contained in the white paper was an Australian first. Again I remind the Leader of the Nationals that he had nearly 12 years to do this and did not choose to do it. He then comes in here and talks as though somebody is doing something that is amiss. I absolutely refute that accusation—it is not; it is making it safer. These amendments are to apply from 1 July 2010. The financial modelling shows that $89.9 million will be raised over the four years. This will go to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, CASA, to make us safer. I commend the bills to the House. 5520 13:25:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 0 Ms LEY —I rise today to register my very strong protest against the Excise Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel) Bill 2010 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel) Bill 2010, which have been introduced by the government. This is nothing more than a sneaky cash grab. There is no way that excise for fuel in motor vehicles would have been increased in the last budget, because the government knew that the eyes of the Australian motorists were upon them. They obviously thought they could get away with adding 25 per cent to the cost of aviation fuel by using what I think is a very slim excuse about CASA needing more cops on the beat. If you ask people what they expect in aviation safety and what aviation safety means to them, they will point to the disastrous crashes that we often have in the light aircraft sector—and there was one yesterday. When they get on an aircraft, whether it be a light aircraft, a charter plane, a RPT or an international airline, they want to feel safe. How do we get from there to needing to have a force of drug and alcohol police marching around, as the previous speaker said, regional airports, city airports and bush airstrips? The business case has not been made for the problem that is supposed to exist here. I come back to what people want to see in aviation safety and what it means to them. Yes, there are human factors in aircraft accidents. In the literature there is a range of what those human factors are, but they are not drug and alcohol problems on the part of pilots. I speak as a commercial pilot myself, and that is why I have an interest and a passion in this subject. That is not the reason why we have issues in aviation safety today. I believe there is no record that CASA can point to that demonstrates the need for 90 extra cops on the beat to drug and alcohol test Australia’s pilots. I very strongly support the second reading amendment moved by the member for Wide Bay. I remind the House that we do acknowledge the importance of the role of CASA in regulating for safety in aviation. We do note that CASA’s funding from aviation fuel excise increased from $53.96 million in 2002-03 to $78.37 million in 2008-09 and will continue to increase as the industry expands. There is a natural increase in the volume of excise that CASA is receiving because of increased usage of fuel. It is not as if CASA can make the argument that it needs to do more with less. Its revenue from fuel excise is continually increasing. The opposition calls on CASA to improve its efficiency in the way it conducts its business so that it may use its existing resources more effectively in the regulation of the aviation industry. The member for Wide Bay talked about the range of stakeholders who have expressed concern to the opposition—and I am sure to the government—about where this has come from. If there is to be an additional take from aviation excise of this dimension—some $90 million—what other uses could it be put to within CASA? There are many. The regulation rewrite that has been underway for years does not appear to be anywhere near completion. I am told that to get a medical through CASA—and if you do not have a medical you do not fly—can take up to six weeks. The other transactions that small regional operators go through with CASA on a daily basis are time consuming, costly, highly intensive and often very unrewarding. Members in this place who represent regional areas have heard time and again of the volume of red tape that the small regional operators have to go through. The impression they get from CASA is that it does not really want them there at all and they are a bit of a nuisance and that CASA is focusing on the big end of town. The opposition notes that this bill proposes to increase the excise on aviation fuel from 2.854c per litre to 3.556c per litre. That is a whopping 25 per cent increase from 1 July 2010. As I said, this is a sneaky tax cash grab that has been slipped into the budget; it was not talked about. As we heard, the second reading speech on the bill by the minister for aviation was the shortest ever. Of course, the issue of safety was held up as being the reason that we have to do these things. Sure, if a good safety case is made then additional resources have to be allocated to it and maybe that means an increase in aviation excise—but a case has to be made. We condemn the government for introducing this 25 per cent tax increase on the aviation sector without first consulting with or informing the aviation industry about it and without demonstrating that this additional tax being taken from the industry will be put to good use within an organisation that is already running a budget surplus. It is not as if the organisation needs the money. I have not done the sums but I remain to be convinced that a 25 per cent increase in aviation fuel excise will add to the money that the government will allocate to its safety inspectors. In fact, I think it will add up to a lot more money. So many more dollars will go in the door of CASA but there is no real accountability for the use of that money, other than 100 new cops on the beat. In conclusion: where is the problem? Demonstrate the case. Please recognise that general aviation and the airlines in this country do not need further regulation from CASA. The average private pilot probably wants to be able to sit in the hangar at the end of the day when all flying is concluded and have a couple of beers, without somebody coming past with a clipboard, a breathalyser and a reason to do a drug test. It is beyond a joke. I strongly oppose this bill. I look forward to the government making the necessary amendments. 5521 13:32:00 Zappia, Tony, MP HWB Makin ALP 1 0 Mr ZAPPIA —I rise briefly to speak in support of the Excise Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel) Bill 2010 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel) Bill 2010. As other speakers have already said, these bills will increase the excise on aviation fuel from $0.02854 to $0.03556 per litre and will generate around $89.9 million of additional revenue over the next four years. Notably, fuel excise has not been increased since 2005 and has not been indexed since 2001. Importantly, all of the additional revenue raised will be allocated to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to allow the authority to more effectively carry out its core regulatory responsibilities, including maintenance inspections and standards compliance. I repeat: all of the money raised will go to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. It is not a tax grab by the government; it is a case where the additional revenue will go into the specific operations of a particular agency of government. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is Australia’s air safety regulator. It reports to the Australian government’s Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and is accountable to the Australian parliament. In response to the member for Wide Bay and the member for Farrer, who are wondering where all of the additional money will go, can I just remind them of some of CASA’s main functions, because its responsibilities and functions are extensive. CASA’s main functions are: developing and disseminating clear and concise aviation safety standards; developing effective enforcement strategies to secure compliance with the safety standards; conducting comprehensive surveillance of the aviation industry; conducting regular reviews of safety to monitor the aviation industry’s performance and to identify safety trends and risks; issuing operational certificates to aviation organisations; issuing licences, aircraft registrations and other permits; carrying out timely assessments of international safety developments; encouraging the aviation industry to maintain high safety standards through education, training and advice; promoting full and effective consultation and communication with all people and organisations that have an interest in aviation safety. I could go on, but I highlight those core responsibilities of CASA to demonstrate the range of responsibilities that the Australian people through its government expect of CASA—and quite rightly so. The Australian people expect the Australian government to ensure that we have the safest airlines possible within Australia. Airline safety is of paramount importance to travellers— (Quorum formed) 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—I acknowledge students from Boulia State School up in the south gallery—the home of the min min light. HWB Zappia, Tony, MP Mr ZAPPIA —I also welcome them to the House. As I was saying, this government considers airline safety to be of paramount importance, as I am sure do all air travellers. Compared with alternative transport modes, air travel has a very low accident rate and that is undoubtedly because of the high aviation standards set and the high level of compliance with those standards. Of course, that is no reason to become complacent because we know that with increased air traffic and increasing passenger numbers comes increased risks. To respond to something raised earlier by the member for Wide Bay in his contribution to this bill when he talked about the increasing number of people using airlines, the increasing number of flights and the increasing revenue which the government may raise as a result, in the last two decades air travel within Australia has trebled. Equally in the last two decades air travel overseas from Australia and into Australia has also trebled. Undoubtedly, that increases the work load on CASA. The most effective way we can minimise these risks to air travellers is to better resource CASA and allow it to thoroughly do its job. The airlines are likely to pass on the additional costs to passengers. Based on current numbers of 50 million travellers on domestic airlines every year and around 23 million overseas travellers to and from Australia each year, I work out the additional revenue amounts to be of the order of 30c to 40c per traveller per trip. It is an amount that I believe most air travellers would gladly pay if they knew the money was being spent to improve their safety. Regrettably, increased air travel numbers also increases the risk to travellers for several unrelated reasons. Firstly, with increased aircraft numbers CASA staff, without additional resources and support, will themselves be stretched to thoroughly carry out their inspections and regulatory tasks. The obvious fallout from that will be that non-compliance matters may be missed and aircraft operators will themselves begin to take shortcuts and risks. Secondly, with increased air passengers comes more congestion, tighter schedules and more flying time for each aircraft. The likelihood of shortcuts being taken or safety precautions being rushed again increases. Thirdly, as we have seen in recent years, the intensity of competition between carriers has lead to much lower prices and even budget airlines. Lower pricing leads to cost cutting and inevitably all sections of the carrier’s operations are cut to the bone, including areas such as maintenance, inspections and training. CASA therefore becomes more critical. It is only with a properly resourced CASA that operators will not take shortcuts or ignore the safety responsibilities of their service. I said earlier that in reality aircraft travel is relatively safe, but when an accident does occur it is generally a major disaster. I take a moment to extend my sincere condolences to the families of the two people killed in the crash only yesterday in the Canley Vale area after their plane took off from Bankstown Airport. Because when an accident does occur it can be a major disaster, it has also been the case in recent years that we have seen aircraft become the target of terrorist attacks. Terrorists use aircraft because they know that it is one way of getting their message heard loud and clear. Quite often an airline will be carrying hundreds of passengers and, if the terrorists are successful, it truly is a major disaster. We saw another attempt at that not long ago on a US aircraft. Aircraft safety will inevitably be improved if carriers comply with all relevant safety provisions because if, for example, an aircraft is sabotaged before take-off, a thorough inspection is likely to detect the sabotage. Furthermore, general security of aircraft whilst they are on the ground is likely to be stepped up if CASA provides a more thorough regulatory role. That again comes down to resources. If we better resource CASA then we clearly ensure that air travel is made much safer. I live in an electorate which has an airport adjacent to it—the Parafield Airport. I know that safety is of major concern to the people I represent. I am frequently contacted about safety matters relating to the airport and that is not to say in any sense that the airport is unsafe but the fears exist whenever planes are flying around you or taking off and landing in relatively close proximity. The best way we can allay those concerns is to ensure that we have a properly resourced government agency to ensure that all of the safety provisions which carriers are expected to comply with, and the airport itself is expected to comply with, are met. If they are, it is my view that the airline industry will continue to be a safe industry. I commend the bills to the House. 5523 13:45:00 Hull, Kay, MP 83O Riverina NATS 0 0 Mrs HULL —I rise to speak in opposition to the 25 per cent increase that is being imposed upon the aviation industry at this time through the Excise Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel) Bill 2010 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel) Bill 2010. I believe that no research has been provided to us to determine why it is a 25 per cent increase. I entirely support the excise tariff amendments that have been put forward by the Leader of the Nationals and the shadow minister for transport simply because we have not been given any understanding as to what constitutes this 25 per cent increase and what was put into the mix to have the minister and the department determine that it should be 25 per cent. It seems to me that the speakers on the government side of the House have totally missed the point. There is no objection to making the Civil Aviation Safety Authority efficient; there is no intention at all to reduce their importance in regulating airlines and aviation in general for safety purposes. The fact is that CASA’s funding from the aviation fuel excise has increased from $53.96 million in 2002-03 to $78.37 million in 2008-09 and will continue to increase as the industry expands, and the industry is expanding in a dramatic way. There needs to be accountability on CASA’s behalf as to why they seek this type of increase. It seems that there is a view on the government side of the House that CASA are entitled to get whatever they want and that they do not have to be accountable for the expenditure or live within their means as they should. I am here in support of the aviation industries, particularly Regional Express, which I believe is a home-grown airline that has demonstrated its worth and its value. Unlike the former speaker has indicated, Regional Express simply does not cut costs, does not scrimp on maintenance and would never jeopardise its passengers. It is the same with QantasLink and any airline that is serving regional Australia. The fact that you have such an increase means that companies like Regional Express have to find an additional $200,000 or $300,000 per year from their bottom lines to be able to pay for this increase so that CASA can build their ranks. But the salt in the wound for airlines such as Regional Express, which are the very operations that will bear the cost of this 25 per cent increase, is that they are already paying CASA significant money. There is full cost recovery every time CASA walks into their hangars, every time a safety inspection occurs and every time CASA wants to undertake an operation and comes into the business of, say, Regional Express. There is then a full cost recovery and the CASA officials are being paid significantly for coming into these hangars and into the industry. In my view, it is like a double bite at the cherry. The fact is they are already being paid by this aviation industry for everything that CASA does within their facilities and on their aircraft, yet now they are expected to bear the cost of a 25 per cent increase on top of that. Obviously, you will find that this will have to be passed on to the consumer. The speaker before indicated that we have seen competition amongst airlines and thus reductions in air fares, cuts and shortcuts on maintenance and a whole host of things. I have seen no evidence of that and I am sure the airline operators would object to that kind of statement. I believe our aviation history speaks for itself and I look at the benefits we have from regional Australia being served by regional airlines. I am sure they would feel offended if anyone suggested they were cutting costs, reducing maintenance and endangering the lives of their passengers because that would be far from the truth. The issue here is also the consultation process that was not undertaken. Normally you would have a stakeholders meeting where you would explain the reasons and the formula behind the increase that has been struck—in this case a 25 per cent increase that will be met by aviation carriers—and you would try to get some feedback from the airlines as to how that will affect them and the impact that may have on the way in which they can service the regions. If we want to call on regional aviation to provide health and medical services into regional communities, to provide opportunities for business growth and the establishment of industries in regional areas and to service our regions to give an equality of life to those who live in rural and regional Australia—and we expect those airlines to expand their operations and make losses, and maybe be marginal on routes and have some routes make little profit—we have to understand what makes up the airline industry and that company. I look at QantasLink and Regional Express and I say what a great job they do in providing us with the facilities and the access to medical specialists in city areas from which we have not been able to attract them. Surely that has to get some recognition. In many cases, regional Australians have to have access to a low-cost carrier in order to access health and other facilities in major capital cities for chemotherapy, radiotherapy, ongoing cancer services and many other things that affect regional Australians. By the very nature of the way in which this has been imposed, it will have an impact on the consumer. The consumer does not want CASA cutting costs in order to ensure that they are able to fly safely. But surely the consumer expects to have an understanding of what formula goes into the increases in prices of air tickets that are passed onto them. They will soon find that affordable air travel will become almost out of the question. I am disturbed about the issues with the aviation industry and the lack of consultation. I oppose what the government is trying to do. What should have happened is a major consultation process with all of those in the industry. Then there should have been consideration as to what benefit and what value regional aviation provides to the lives of regional Australians who do not have a major metropolitan hospital parked next door to them or do not have public transport access on trains, ferries, buses or such like to get them to and from their medical facilities. There has been a lack of recognition of just how significant aviation is to regional Australia. The smaller of these airlines will most definitely be the hardest hit. I note that just recently the minister was in the chamber and indicated his great delight—and I join with him in that great delight—in welcoming and congratulating Regional Express on taking the initiative to establish the Australian Airline Pilot Academy. They put in their own $20 million, with no money from government—not a dollar. They are going to see students graduating. The dreams and aspirations of young people right across Australia to become pilots are now able to be realised through a loan program, with Regional Express providing loans to students. When they are pilots, they are then contracted to stay within the company for a period of time. Regional Express were congratulated. I am sure that the minister will join with me on this. Over 50 per cent of Regional Express’s workforce was poached in 2008. They said: ‘Well, we can go out backward. We’re certainly not going to cut our costs or cut corners on the maintenance’—which is what the previous Labor government speaker seemed to say would happen or has happened or will happen. They said, ‘No, we’re going to invest $20 million of our own money in pilot training, such is our commitment to rural and regional Australia.’ The mere fact that they have undertaken this huge expenditure on an academy that the minister opened just a few short weeks ago and congratulated them on means that these aviation providers should have been consulted with further. On the back of trying to ensure that Australian pilots are trained in the very best of facilities and trained to the very highest of standards, before their excise costs are increased by 25 per cent they surely deserve some discussion. I support the amendment and I oppose the government’s legislation. 5525 13:56:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —The Excise Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel) Bill 2010 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel) Bill 2010 will see the excise in customs duty on aviation gasoline and kerosene rise from 2.854c per litre to 3.556c per litre. It is expected that this will result in an additional $89.9 million of revenue over the next four years. I want to make this clear to the Leader of the Opposition: all of these funds will go to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Australia’s aviation safety regulator. If there has ever been legislation before this House that should not be a source of political partisanship, it is this legislation. Every single cent of money derived as a result of this legislation will go to funding important safety surveillance, safety analysis and safety inspections. For those opposite to come in here and seek to make this a partisan issue is, frankly, a disgrace. It is one thing to be an opposition that is committed to opposition for opposition’s sake; it is one thing to oppose regulations that would provide restrictions on entries into cockpits of aircraft; but it is another thing to come in here and oppose legislation aimed at increasing the number of aviation safety inspectors. It is an absolute disgrace. The aviation industry is changing. We are seeing a considerable increase in general aviation. We are seeing a considerable increase in the use of helicopters. We are seeing a considerable increase in the use of private aircraft. Therefore, CASA and the safety regime must change with it. We must put our safety inspectors—CASA, our agency—on a sustainable financial footing. It is what the industry has asked for and it is what the travelling public deserve. We have seen in very recent times that it is not just the travelling public who can be affected by these issues. The fact that this has been made into a partisan issue by those opposite is, frankly, a disgrace. They have question time to think about where they stand on these issues, because there has been proper consultation on these bills. There has been appropriate consultation over two years—over two years—on this legislation, but those opposite come in here and move an amendment and declare their opposition to the bill. The comments by the member for Farrer, undermining the drug and alcohol testing regime that CASA has in place for pilots, are just extraordinary, simply extraordinary. It shows how out of touch this opposition is. They have a couple of hours to think about where they stand on these issues; but, if they vote against this legislation, they will be held to account. 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. 5526 14:00:00 Questions Without Notice 5526 14:00:00 5526 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr ABBOTT —My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer the Prime Minister to statements about his great big new tax on mining. Here is David Murray: ‘My view is that the tax has to be changed or abandoned.’ Here is Lindsay Fox, who says: I reckon they probably went the wrong way … Here is Sir Rod Eddington, the Prime Minister’s hand-picked business adviser, who says: … the policy making process to date leaves a lot to be desired. I ask the Prime Minister: when will he listen to the real concerns of these serious people and just dump this really bad tax? 5526 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Equally, we could talk about the interventions of the likes of the former leader of the Liberal Party, John Hewson, who recommends a profits based tax. We could also talk about the contribution to the previous debate on a profits based tax by the former Treasurer of Australia, Peter Costello, and the former leader of the National Party, Tim Fischer. We could also go to the comments from a range of contributors to this debate who have all argued that we need a profits based tax for the future. The member for Goldstein is entering the chamber; he has argued for one. The member for Wentworth has argued for one. There is a very clear fault line in this debate and it is as follows: we on this side of the House support tax reform based on profits in the mining industry rather than production in the mining industry. That is the core point of this reform. And the reason we argue for it is that a profits based system adjusts itself to rises and falls in commodity prices over time. So the Australian community benefits from the rises, but at the same time we understand that mining companies pay less when commodity prices come down. That is the core rationale for this reform, and the second one is this: to assist initial companies who are out there investing in the mining industry to undertake their corporate activities without being slugged with a flat, volume based tax in their first years of operation. That is the economic rationale for this reform. What we have here is a very clear alternative. The government, together with many in the mining industry, including Twiggy Forrest, Marius Kloppers, the MCA and many other leaders in the mining industry such as Don Voelte, say that we need to bring in a profits based tax for the future. There are only two voices in this nation that oppose this form of reform, a profits based regime, and that is the Leader of the Opposition and Clive Palmer. They are the two who stand opposed to this fundamental reform. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, on these questions, that the business of reform is always a tough business. He says he is opposed to the question of reform and he says he is opposed to the type of reform we have put forward, but I always look at what the opposition do rather than what they say. We go back to the good old member for Dickson; how are his shares performing today? When he bought his BHP shares on 4 May, two days after the government announced its tax reforms, BHP shares were trading at $38.53. Today they are trading at $39.20. Well done, Member for Dickson! He has done well. So worried was he about the impact of the government’s profits based tax that he ripped in and spent $2,000 on BHP shares two days later. I always think actions speak louder than words. But, from listening to those opposite, presumably they would have invested in mining companies elsewhere. Had the member for Dickson invested on the same day, 4 May, in Brazilian mining companies like Vale, which we talked about yesterday, he would have seen the shares fall by four per cent in value. Old Pete Dutton could have invested in some Canadian mining shares! Cameco is down two per cent since 4 May, Teck Cominco is down six per cent since 4 May and, worse still, London Mining is down 18 per cent since 4 May. He got just one thing wrong, though: I am told that in the last week BHP is up 1.5 per cent, but—guess what?—I am told Rio is up five per cent. Mr Speaker, keep your investments onshore! So terrified are those opposite by the real impact of the government’s proposed tax reform that they went in there and put their own money on the line and bought those BHP shares. Actions speak very much louder than words. 5527 5527 14:05:00 Sullivan, Jon, MP HVS Longman ALP 1 Mr SULLIVAN —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House the government’s approach to welfare reform, as set out in the welfare reform bills currently before the Senate? 5527 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —This government is about the business of reform—reform in the economy by keeping our economy strong in the midst of a global recession; reform in making sure we are bringing our budget back to surplus in three years time, three years ahead of time; reform in productivity investments, in education, skills, training and infrastructure; reform in regulation, creating a seamless national economy; and also reform in the tax system—because what we want is a stronger economy but also a fairer share for all Australians. Social policy reform is equally important—the reforms brought about in education by the Minister for Education, the Deputy Prime Minister: the introduction of the national school curriculum; the introduction of the My School website, which enables people to look at the performance of individual schools; and the interventions in the literacy needs of individual schools. Similarly with health reform—ensuring, through the agreement which was reached with the states and territories for a National Health and Hospitals Network, funding will flow for those reforms from 1 July. We are also committed to critical reform like paid parental leave. For 12 years they did nothing about paid parental leave. This government acted and, depending what happens in the Senate, this will be a core reform on the part of this government. There is a further element of reform as well, and that goes to the future of welfare reform. The reason I raise it in the parliament today is to leave a very clear challenge with the Leader of the Opposition as we look at the future of these two sitting weeks ahead of us, and that is our commitment to making welfare reform work by encouraging individual responsibility, by fighting passive welfare, by helping people move from welfare dependence into work, education and training, and by making sure that welfare payments are spent in the interests of kids. We are of the view that welfare should not become a way of life for any Australian and that encouraging welfare dependency helps no Australian. Also, taxpayers expect that their support for our welfare system is properly invested, including bringing younger Australians into the workforce or into proper training arrangements for them. Right now we have inadequate incentives in Australia to bring about a break from welfare dependency on the part of those families which have had a long experience of it, often going back a number of generations. What we need are new incentives to do that. This is a core element of this government’s welfare reform. From 1 July this year, provided these reforms are considered and supported by the Senate during this sitting fortnight, these welfare reforms will commence in the Northern Territory for Indigenous Australians and for non-Indigenous Australians. They will extend the benefits of income management to Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in need of financial structure and support. They will also ensure that more welfare is spent on life’s essentials, like food, clothes and rent, and less goes to alcohol. They will also support and encourage families to make positive decisions about the critical things for their families, like education, health and nutrition. In practical terms, this means that this reform extends to the entirety of the Northern Territory community. My challenge is very simply this: on the key questions of reform will the Leader of the Opposition commit to ensuring that these reforms are passed during this sitting fortnight? He shakes his head, or he nods his head—I am not quite sure which it is. But it would be very useful for the country to know which side he will come down on in this debate. I appeal to him and encourage him to enable his senators to give positive consideration to this. This is welfare reform, which the previous government did not entertain. I challenge him to do so for this sitting fortnight so that we can get on with the business of long-term social and economic reform for Australia. 5528 5528 14:10:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 Mr ABBOTT —May I, on indulgence, say yes to those questions that were posed. My question is to the Prime Minister—I do not wish the Prime Minister to be unnecessarily frustrated or agitated— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will get to his question. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to statements from reputable CEOs about his proposed great big new mining tax. It is almost inconceivable that our industry should find itself so maligned and so grossly misrepresented. That is from Ian Smith of Newcrest Mining. Sam Walsh of Rio Tinto said that negotiations with industry on the planned tax have been a ‘hopeless process’. It is difficult to regard the tax proposals as anything other than bad news … That is from David Knox of Santos. So I ask the Prime Minister: when will he listen to the real concerns of the people running real businesses and dump this really bad tax? Or does he think, like his Treasurer, that these people are either untruthful or ignorant? 5529 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I welcome again a question from the Leader of the Opposition about tax reform. The government is about the business of tax reform to get a profits based tax system for the mining industry and to ensure that, as a result of that, we have better super for working families, tax cuts for Australian corporates, tax breaks for Australian small business, and infrastructure investment across all the resource-producing regions of Australia. That means in regions like Gladstone and Mackay, and also in the West where we have got critical communities in need of infrastructure investment. That is why we are engaged in this business of tax reform. My challenge to the Leader of the Opposition, as he has again asked a question on this, is this: does he have no spine for reform at all? What I have heard in this debate is the Leader of the Opposition simply siding each day in the debate with Clive Palmer, Clive Palmer’s friends and relations, and other people who obviously stand opposed to change in the industry. The Leader of the Opposition also refers to threats to particular projects. He refers to the particular statements of individual chief executives. I draw his attention to the answer I gave yesterday to the member for North Sydney. If you go through one by one each of the projects which have had statements made about them, it is very important that we actually reduce them to some scrutiny. The Leader of the Opposition just referred to Rio Tinto. Again I say to the Leader of the Opposition, bear this fact in mind: on 6 May there was a splash in the newspaper saying: … Rio Tinto has shelved plans to spend $11 billion expanding its … iron ore operations in Western Australia … A few hours later—three hours later—we had Rio submitting a notice to the ASX market which included the following statement: Rio Tinto today confirmed that no decision has been made to shelve any projects in Australia … I say to the Leader of the Opposition, as he engages in his fear campaign on tax reform: there are two clear paths for the future—either you embrace tax reform around the need for a profits based regime for the future because that is where the bulk of the industry say the reform needs to occur, or you simply stay in Clive Palmer’s corner—Clive Palmer who bankrolls the Liberal Party and the National Party, Clive Palmer who controls the policy direction of the Liberal Party and the National Party, Clive Palmer who dictates the direction of the Liberal Party and the National Party. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to, for the first time, stand up for the national interest rather than Clive Palmer’s interests. We are in the business of reform; the Leader of the Opposition has no spine for reform when it comes to tax reform. 5529 5529 14:14:00 Jackson, Sharryn, MP 00AN2 Hasluck ALP 1 Ms JACKSON —My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. How will the government’s welfare reform fight passive welfare and support children? 5529 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms MACKLIN —I thank the member for Hasluck for her question because, as she knows, this government is determined to make welfare work. We want to see welfare used as a driver of personal responsibility. We also want to make sure that payments are spent responsibly in the interests of children. Welfare should not be a destination or a way of life. It is also the case that welfare has to be a two-way street. Governments should support individuals and families in tough times, but welfare recipients should also behave responsibly and make sure that they spend their payments in the interests of children. Our reforms will extend the benefits of income management to vulnerable Australians in the Northern Territory. Under these reforms, income management will be used as a tool to fight passive welfare and to increase personal responsibility. At its core, these reforms are all about human dignity—the dignity of earning your own pay cheque and the dignity of making sure that your children go to school each day and get a better start in life. There have been a number of people in the Northern Territory, particularly women, who have spoken out about the value of income management to them and their families. Bess Nungarrayi Price, originally from Yuendumu, said: Income quarantining was a good thing that happened for our people saving money in order to have food on the table for their children, have food for themselves and have clothing. Andrea Mason from the MPY Women’s Council based in Alice Springs said: Women see it more as a way of taking back control over their finances or their lives. A teacher in the Tiwi Islands said: Before it was the case that children were skinny and covered in sores walking around half naked. Today these kids are walking around healthy with food in their tummies. These are critical reforms to make sure that vulnerable people in the Northern Territory, especially children, get this vital help. The Senate needs to pass these reforms and pass them urgently. 5530 5530 14:18:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 Mr HOCKEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the following statements made by economic analysts about his proposed big new tax on mining. Chris Richardson from Access Economics said: … the cost impact of the new tax will send some greenfield developments towards Canada, Indonesia, Brazil and others. Citigroup said: The ill conceived RSPT is likely to have a savage impact on iron ore wiping … one third of the incremental value of new Pilbara projects in Australia. JP Morgan, one of the biggest banks in the world, said: The proposal has created immense uncertainty and risk and significantly affects fundamental value. Prime Minister, when will you listen to the real concerns of real economic analysts and investors and dump this really bad tax? 5530 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the member for North Sydney for his question. The real concerns which this government listens to are those which are driven by the national interest, not by the partial interest of certain individual elements of the mining industry. The real concerns that we are listening to are those working Australians who retire without enough superannuation. The real concerns we are listening to are struggling small businesses who at present do not have sufficient tax breaks. The real concerns we are listening to are the good folk of Gladstone, the good folk of Mackay and others in regional Australia who are crying out for better investment in their roads, in their rail and in their ports. These are the real concerns we are listening to. I notice that the member for North Sydney in his question made reference to an analyst saying that we should be concerned about the relative impact of tax reform against the mining industry here as opposed to that in Canada. Obviously the member for North Sydney is not fleet of foot in actually listening to what I said before in response to an earlier question. If you were to compare BHP stocks over the last month that we have been involved in this protracted debate on the future of tax reform for the industry, you would find that BHP has performed better than critical Canadian mining stocks. Furthermore, the Australian Stock Exchange more broadly, I am advised, has performed better than most other bourses around the world. When it comes to the individual mining index of the ASX, generally it has performed better than most other bourses around the world. Therefore, on this quite discomforting question of fact as opposed to fear, why doesn’t the member for North Sydney, instead of just reading the clips of a morning, undertake a little bit of research? The member for North Sydney goes back to the good old question of iron ore and the good old investments of the member for Dickson, whom he sits next to. He should inquire from the member for Dickson what has happened with companies like BHP, whose principal resource lies in iron ore in the west and coal in Queensland. Mr Speaker, if you look at the performance of BHP stocks in recent times against Canadian and other international equivalents, it has been going pretty well. In fact, they have been going better than most of the other stocks on the ASX. I say to the member for North Sydney: have a yarn to the member for Dickson about how his investment is going. It is up from 3853 to 3920. He bought it two days after the government announced its tax reform changes. It is going okay so far. Joe, ask Pete for a bit of advice on how you should invest in the future. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will refer to members by their parliamentary titles. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —We will track that through the pecuniary interests and see how it goes. I would strongly suggest to go Rio as well because they are doing even better. 5531 5531 14:21:00 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 1 Mr MELHAM —My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. What is the government’s priority when it comes to aviation policy? How is the government seeking to achieve its objectives and what impediments are there to these outcomes? 5531 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr ALBANESE —I thank the member for Banks for his question and his ongoing diligence in raising aviation issues, which he and the member for Blaxland continually do. The fact is that the government have embarked on a process of having a comprehensive strategy for aviation policy for the long term. We have said that safety and security must be our No. 1 priority. Last year the House would recall that regulations restricting access to cockpits on aircraft were disallowed in the Senate, in my view much to the shame of the Senate. Those regulations have been resubmitted and I understand that there is a disallowance motion again which will be debated in the Senate, and I ask all responsible members of the Senate to think very carefully before they again return cockpits to an unregulated situation. There is also very important legislation being debated before this House today. It goes to the heart of safety in aviation. The aviation sector is changing dramatically. General aviation is growing. Private ownership of aircraft is growing. The use of helicopters is growing. And with this growth the aviation safety regime must move with the times. We have introduced legislation to increase the excise on aviation fuel from 2.854c to3.556c per litre. That will result in an estimated $89.9 million of increased revenue over the next four years, and every single cent of that money will be going to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. It will be going to fund important safety surveillance, safety analysis and safety inspections. They will be able to employ 97 additional safety inspectors. Opposition members interjecting— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —‘Bureaucrats’, they say opposite. They expose their attitude towards aviation safety and towards anyone who works for the public sector with that outrageous slur on the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. We saw during the debate earlier today the member for Farrer be critical of CASA and the safety inspectors going about their job and question whether we should have random drug and alcohol testing of pilots. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order! The minister is responding to the question. He will be heard in silence. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Frankly, it is extraordinary that this is an issue of partisanship in this House. This should not be an issue of partisanship. There should be a consensus position. We have spent two years developing this position. In December 2008 the government released an aviation green paper and on page 56 of that paper it put forward a process of industry stakeholder comment outlining a process of where we needed to go to put CASA on a sustainable financial footing. We then had a process of one year of discussions with the aviation sector. In December 2009 we produced an aviation white paper which on page 103 outlined the importance of putting CASA on a sustainable financial footing. This legislation does just that. It is important to note that the previous government raised the fuel excise some 11 times. In 2004-05 fuel excise was $65 million and $49 million was appropriated for CASA. In the following year $65.9 million was received from aviation fuel excise and the appropriation amount was some $40 million, a cut of $9 million to aviation safety inspectors, to CASA, the agency. Who was the minister at the time? It was the current shadow minister for aviation, the Leader of the National Party. We know that those opposite are intent on opposing for opposition’s sake. But this is not a matter of high principle; this is pure obstructionism. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: get control of the Leader of the National Party. This is the man who wants to be the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, the Leader of the National Party who is opposing legislation to increase the number of aviation safety inspectors at a time when we have a considerable increase in the aviation sector. They represent a huge risk. We know they represent a risk to the economy. We know they represent a risk to national security. But they also represent a risk to aviation security and safety. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Make it an election issue. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order, the member for O’Connor! R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —They have a couple of hours to think again. If they think that aviation safety is an issue which is partisan, then they are wrong. They are wrong and they will be held to account by this government. 5532 5532 14:29:00 Briggs, Jamie, MP IYU Mayo LP 0 Mr BRIGGS —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the respected economic analyst Morgan Stanley’s latest research report, released this morning, which finds that under the Prime Minister’s proposed great big new tax on mining the Olympic Dam expansion has no economic value and now is unlikely to proceed. Given the importance of the Olympic Dam expansion for the economic future of my state of South Australia and for the nation, will the Prime Minister stop dismissing concerns about this project as exaggerations, concede that the concerns about the future of this project are real and dump this tax that is putting this project at risk? 5533 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank very much the member for Mayo for his question. He raises in particular the Olympic Dam project in South Australia. The member for Mayo will be aware of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition said only a few weeks ago that this new tax proposal of the government’s ‘is already threatening multi-billion dollar investments, most of all the $22 billion expansion of Olympic Dam in South Australia’. The shadow finance minister has chipped in to say: Olympic Dam could well be put off for ten or twenty years. When asked about Olympic Dam, BHP chief executive Marius Kloppers said on 26 May: … it is not frozen. We are carrying on. We are spending money, there are 200 engineers working on it. Otherwise we would have made a statement to the contrary. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Today! What about Morgan Stanley today? 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The honourable member for North Sydney bellows an interjection. I always know with the member for North Sydney that volume is disproportionate to logic. That is the nature of his interjections. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The Prime Minister was asked about a report today from Morgan Stanley. It is a very serious issue for South Australia— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt will resume his seat. He would acknowledge that, the way the questioner paraphrased the report from Morgan Stanley, it went on to talk about a project, which is what the Prime Minister is talking about. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I thank again the member for Mayo for his question, because once again he is forced to confront facts as opposed to the fear campaign which those opposite are mounting. The member for North Sydney says, ‘What about Morgan Stanley?’ Can I say in response to that that I thought the CEO of BHP spoke for BHP, rather than the representative of Morgan Stanley. But I will leave it with those opposite, as they claim to have better connections with corporate Australia than this side of the House. This also forms part of a pattern of what has been suggested by those opposite in terms of the impact of tax reform on individual projects. Remember, of course, that particular claim in relation to Clive Palmer. Two of Clive’s projects were going to be torpedoed in South Australia. It is about four weeks on, and we are still trying to find those projects. Maybe the member for Mayo could help us; we are still searching for them. I simply conclude by making a point about projects and companies like Clive Palmer’s. It is important that the member for Mayo listen to this because I am told his illustrious predecessor, a very good friend of mine, Alexander Downer, is in fact on the board of a company called Resourcehouse, of which Clive Palmer is owner and chairman. So I know there is a good and strong connection between the seat of Mayo and Clive Palmer’s company and this broader campaign of fear concerning companies and associated tax reform. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Has the Prime Minister concluded? The Prime Minister has concluded. IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr Briggs —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the report from Morgan Stanley which puts the future of Olympic Dam in doubt. Leave not granted. 5534 5534 14:33:00 Turnour, Jim, MP HVV Leichhardt ALP 1 Mr TURNOUR —My question is to the Treasurer. How do prospects for the Australian and other Asian economies compare with elsewhere in the world, and what does this say about the need for economic reform here at home? 5534 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the member for Leichhardt for this very important question. It is the case that Australia did come through the global financial crisis in a very strong position. We did that for two reasons, one because of the timely and powerful stimulus that we put in place, which is supporting employment right across the country, particularly in places like Leichhardt where it is necessary and required as we speak. Not every section of the economy is growing at the same speed, and that is why we do need continuing economic reform. I think all Australians can be pretty proud of their efforts during this global financial crisis, and you can see this in the latest employment numbers—250,000 jobs have been created in this country since the crisis began. Contrast that with what is happening elsewhere in the developed world. Those opposite might want to ignore that, because the truth is that, had they been in charge last year and the year before, there would not have been 250,000 jobs created in this country. Unemployment would have been much higher, and of course small business closures would have been very, very significant. There are small businesses with their doors open as a result of stimulus, and there are breadwinners earning an income, in jobs, because of stimulus. That is very important, particularly in electorates like Leichhardt. I have been asked about the international economy. Global growth is patchy—there is not just a two-speed economy in this country; there is a two-speed global recovery as well. Of course our region is growing stronger than the rest of the world. As we know, there are downside risks to that recovery particularly with what is going on in Europe. We can face that situation with confidence because of the underlying strengths in our economy. Our economy is recovering solidly, our unemployment rate is low, our financial system is stable, and of course our public finances are very strong—and that was demonstrated in our most recent budget. This is what the Governor of the Reserve Bank had to say only last week: Australia’s budgetary position is very different from those in Europe and, for that matter, most countries. Public debt is low and budget deficits are under control and already scheduled to decline. That is a very big tick for our fiscal policy. The minutes of the Reserve Bank from a day or two ago say: … members noted that the medium term outlook remained positive … The prices of Australia’s main commodity exports were still elevated … the economy was continuing to expand. But we know that, as we expand, we have to meet the challenge of economic reform. That is why in parts of the country, particularly parts like Leichhardt, businesses, families, are crying out for a cut in their corporate rate of tax. They need economic reform. Small business needs support. Employment in small business needs support. Of course, all of those great mining communities need the infrastructure investment. That is why economic reform is so important and that is why the attitude of those opposite is so grossly irresponsible. If we are going to build on our strengths, keep up the momentum for reform, then what we need is a far-sighted reform program. This side of the House has one; that side of the House does not. They have this incredible view that miners are paying too much tax and that there should be a tax cut for miners and a tax increase for all the small businesses in Leichhardt. That is the approach of those opposite. All of those struggling small businesses around Australia that they pretend to stand up for potentially face a corporate tax increase with those opposite. Those opposite stand for higher taxation for the entire business community; we on this side of the House stand for tax reform and a fair go for Australian families. 5535 5535 14:38:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the recent statement of the Canadian Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty, who said of the supertax: If it is what it appears to be, a significant tax increase, that’s another competitive advantage for Canada. And I refer to the recent statement of the Chilean mining minister, Laurence Golborne, who said—and I quote from an article headed ‘Chile mining to benefit from Australia tax changes’: The situation in Australia is a tremendous opportunity for Chile … When will the Prime Minister back down from his bad tax policy that will damage the competitive advantage Australia has had over its rivals in the resource export sector? 5535 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I always welcome questions from the member for Curtin. It is of passing interest to everybody that any national government will spruik its national book at a particular time. Of course, what is interesting is how markets themselves behave. I would again draw the attention of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to what has happened in equity markets in recent times. First and foremost, can I advise the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who cut a striking figure as a protester over there in Perth, I thought, chanting the revolutionary song, that revolutionary motto, ‘Billionaires united shall never be defeated’—protest by Prada, designer demos; it was good— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a serious point of order. Government members interjecting— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —The Prime Minister was asked a serious question. Rather than commenting on the dress sense of journalists and MPs, he should answer the question. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I will give him the call again when the House comes to order. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —This is a serious point of order. He was asked a serious question. Rather than commenting on the dress sense of journalists and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, he should answer a serious question. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has deflected. It was not his preamble. He will now return to the question. The Prime Minister is responding to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Furthermore, I would say in response to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that she should pay some attention to the fact that Australian resources have fallen by about three per cent, which is less than all comparable resources indices in the world. The Canadian index has fallen by four percentage points, the Australian index by three. This is since the introduction of the RSPT announcement on 2 May. Also, can I say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: I know that facts always create a problem when you are dealing with fear. Facts always get in the road of fear. Not only did Australian resource stocks fall by around three per cent; Australian major banks over that same period of time have fallen by nine per cent. So I would suggest that, when you have got a change in the index— 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I asked the Prime Minister why he was handing a competitive advantage to Chile and Canada— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. The point of order is on relevance. The Prime Minister is relating and will relate his material to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked specifically about Canada and she also asked about Latin America. Can I draw her attention to the fact that Australian resource stocks have fallen by three per cent since the introduction of RSPT announcement; Canadian resource stocks have fallen by four per cent, where there has been no RSPT announcement. I would think that says something by way of a matter of fact. Furthermore, Australian resource stocks have fallen by three per cent in that period of time; general stocks have fallen by nine per cent in that period of time. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It goes to relevance, about the comments of foreign governments saying— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. Again, his point of order is on relevance. The Prime Minister knows the requirement to relate his material to the question and he is doing so. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Can I also say that against the overall performance of, say, the Australian resource stocks against Canada, which is the point I have just referred to, I have here Brazilian resource stocks which are down nine per cent over the same period of time. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —What about the Somali stock exchange? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for North Sydney will cease interjecting, and I implore the Prime Minister to ignore the interjections. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I have not yet seen this morning’s report from the Somali stock exchange. Brazilian resource stocks, which are actually host to a company called Vale, in the period since the announcement of the government’s tax reform on the mining industry have collapsed nine points and the Australian resources are down three points. I simply go back to the core question of fact as opposed to fear. It would be very useful if the member for Curtin, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, actually engaged in a little bit of factual research rather than simply xeroxing the releases that have been produced by others. Again I go back to that great protest in Perth along the lines of: ‘What do we want? Tax cuts for billionaires. When do we want it? As soon as the MCA wants.’ Mr Speaker, you know something, we are actually on about the national interest here. We are on about tax reform for the nation. We are on about how you get better super for working families. We are on about how you bring about tax cuts for 2.4 million Australian businesses. We are on about how you give tax cuts to the corporate rate for 770,000 Australian businesses and we are on about how we deliver infrastructure for the good people of Western Australia, the good people of Queensland and the other resource producing regions of the country. That is what we are on about. Mr Speaker, can I say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: just pay a little bit of attention to the facts before you stand up at the dispatch box and seek to promote fear. 5536 5536 14:46:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 1 Ms GRIERSON —My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism. Minister, how is the government supporting mining communities and the resources industry through the regional infrastructure fund? 5537 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism 1 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —Unlike the opposition the government are committed to ensuring Australia’s long-term prosperity. We also accept, unlike the opposition, that the role of government varies, given the economic challenges that confront the government, from time to time. For the last 12 to 18 months the challenge to government was different to the challenge that confronts Australia at the moment. That related to the fact that we had to manage the Australian economy through a major global financial crisis. I remind the House that, just like the opposition opposed the decisive action we took during that period, the opposition again stands in opposition to major tax reform which is about Australia’s future and managing varying economic challenges in the future. Coming out of the global financial crisis I remind the House that, because of our action, the unemployment figures of last week were 5.2 per cent. I know the opposition cringes every time we get good employment figures. I also note that, in April, for the first time in 13 months we experienced a trade surplus, which is a further major achievement for the Australian economy. I also acknowledge that from the Australian community’s point of view, when it comes to the resources sector, at times we have booms and at times we have slumps. That is what this tax reform is about. It is about how we as an economy actually manage those challenges. I refer to Mr Battellino, the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank, who said yesterday: … booms have very significant impacts on the economy and do cause a lot of stresses and strains. SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to relevance and the question of infrastructure, which was the substantive point. I refer you to page 553 and although you can often accept a tangential touching of the relevance it is no way relevant to the substance of the question. I ask the minister to either be relevant or to sit down. Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I thought the member for Mackellar might be interested in the response to the point of order, but she probably is not. If she has a problem with tangential relevance to the question her problem is in the practices of the House and perhaps she can engage in improving that, but that has been the precedent of this place. I would have thought, given this was a question about how the government was supporting mining communities and then went on to talk about the infrastructure fund in particular, that the minister was being relevant. I would also ask the member for Mackellar to refer to page 501 of House of Representatives Practice, which outlines a point made by the member for Barker yesterday that it is also regarded as disorderly to imitate the voice or manner of a member. I would ask that all members would realise that that has been the practice of this place. LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —The deputy governor went on to say: … the challenge for the Australian economy for the next few years is going to be how to accommodate this mining boom … That goes to one of the key issues with respect to the tax reform before the parliament at the moment, the key issue of infrastructure and our capacity as a nation to actually invest in infrastructure to assist the mining industry for the purposes of realising all the potential that the Australian mining industry has available. I remind the House that, over the last decade, that is where the Australian community was let down by the previous Howard government. They were good at spending the benefits of the mining industry’s gains and very bad at investing in the future of the mining industry when it came to infrastructure and the skilling of the Australian workforce. I also remind the House that the Australian community is entitled to a fair return on the development of its natural resources. The mining community appreciates that, when prices are high, it should be expected to pay more out of its profits as a return to the Australian community. But we also appreciate that the mining industry understands that the current volume based state royalty regime, not a profits based tax system, is bad for it during bad economic times. That is why it has historically approached state and territory governments for relief from royalty payments during those periods. The Australian government is therefore absolutely committed not only to putting in a profits based tax system, something that the mining industry has argued for, but also to ensuring that we as a community have the capacity to invest in the infrastructure related projects that are so important to the expansion of the mining industry in the future. I also remind the House that that is also why we made key investments in the skilling of the Australian workforce in the recent budget. Let us go to the infrastructure fund, a $6 billion fund aimed at trying to assist those regional communities dependent on the mining industry to cope with all the stresses and strains of the boom that is currently underway because of growth in China. We are the beneficiaries of that growth in China, but it is also our responsibility to ensure that on this occasion we regain market share lost under the previous Howard government in a number of key commodities and no longer just live off the back of increases in commodity prices. For those purposes, the House should also not forget that, unlike the opposition, we saw this challenge in the lead-up to the last election. Therefore, in addition to the superprofits tax that we are now considering, we committed up to $100 million a year out of the proceeds of the Gorgon project to the Western Australian government for the purposes of assisting in infrastructure development in those key regions in Western Australia. But when you come to key infrastructure decisions it is not just about the tax regime and it is not just about the infrastructure fund that we have established but also about a range of other government decisions which go to achieving these major investments. Yesterday, for example, I referred to the potential British Gas decision which is so important to Gladstone in Queensland. I advise the House that I also made a decision yesterday under the National Gas Law to grant a 15-year no coverage determination to the British Gas group’s proposed Queensland Curtis LNG project. The 15-year no coverage provisions in the National Gas Law are designed to bring on efficient investment in pipeline assets. This decision was consistent with the recommendations of the National Competition Council and therefore provides investment certainty for this aspect of the BG Queensland Curtis Island LNG project—another step forward in a range of key decisions with respect to the potential investment decision by BG. I raise these issues to remind the House that we are absolutely committed to putting in place the necessary parameters to maintain the strength of the Australian economy, just as we did through the global financial crisis. Just as the opposition opposed our action then, so they now oppose the introduction of a new tax system which is to the long-term benefit of the mining industry in Australia during booms and slumps. We as a government are committed to an outcome that will provide the certainty investors require whilst also ensuring the Australian community gets a fair return from the development of its resources. Unlike the opposition, we are about developing policy, taking hard decisions, pursuing reform and investing to ensure Australia’s long-term future. The opposition, as usual, remain opposed to any major reform in Australia because they stand in support of their own self-interest and against Australia’s national interest. 5539 5539 14:57:00 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP 0 Mr IAN MACFARLANE —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to this letter from Wesfarmers, Australia’s largest private sector employer with more than 200,000 staff and in excess of 500,000 shareholders. The letter warns ‘the proposed new superprofits tax would not only make Australia less competitive in the global resources industry but also have significant flow-on effects for the broader economy and society’ and ‘is clearly a threat to the level of dividend we’—that is, Wesfarmers—‘can pay’. When will the Prime Minister back down from this bad tax policy that will damage the income of 8½ million superannuation holders in Australia? 5539 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the member for Groom for his question. He refers in particular to correspondence from Wesfarmers. As I have already indicated in today’s debate in the House on the future of tax reform in Australia, there will be claim and counterclaim by a whole range of Australian corporates, many of whom have come out in strong support of the government’s tax reform proposals. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The Leader of the Opposition asks us to name some. I draw his attention to the range of financial services companies in Sydney. I also suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he reflect upon the contributions to this debate by a whole range of corporates, particularly those associated with the financial services sector, who understand one of the impacts of these reforms—namely, that the flowthrough impact on super is to boost the overall supply of national savings for the Australian economy. Furthermore, can I also say to the member for Groom that the letter he refers to goes on to the question of the impact on earnings for superannuants. Can I draw attention to the fact that the performance of the Australian Stock Exchange, which is one of the principal sources of earnings for superannuants, has outperformed most other bourses across the world. Furthermore, could I say this in response to a debate which has much claim and counterclaim associated with it: before, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in making her very cogent point to this place referred to the Chilean mining minister, Laurence Golborne. It always pays to do your research, because we have a report from Bloomberg today, which is that they are having a debate on mining tax in Chile as well. It said that Chile’s mining minister, Laurence Golborne, urged the congress of Chile to approve the proposed changes in the mining laws of his country. It also said that the government of President Pinera, which took office in March, is seeking to introduce an optional sliding tax rate on profit and to deliver $700 million in additional revenue next year and in 2012. The bill says that it is very good for the country because it does not hurt investment and allows the government to cash in when economic cycles are benefiting miners. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition— WN6 Macfarlane, Ian, MP Mr Ian Macfarlane —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This question is about the income of 8½ million shareholders and superannuation holders in Australia. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Groom will resume his seat. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Therefore, when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition interjects in this debate that mining companies around the world are somehow immune to tax changes in other jurisdictions, she is wrong. Furthermore, in the country that she specifically refers to, there is a debate right now in the Chilean congress to introduce a profits based tax, and the question of optionality goes to the rate of such a tax. Can I say to those opposite, therefore, that when they engage in— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Yes, Mr Speaker, and I am trying to help the House and the Prime Minister. He is answering a question about the RSPT and talking about the Chilean earthquake tax. I think you might want to stop him from doing so. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt will resume his seat, and he is warned. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Furthermore, the report says that, in Chile, mining companies will likely reject the tax increase. This debate is universal. Mining companies around the world do not want to pay more tax. In this country we believe that mining companies should pay more tax when prices are high for a resource owned by the Australian people. We believe the Australian people deserve a fairer share. We believe they deserve a fairer share for better super for working families, a fairer share for small businesses and their tax concerns and a fairer share for the regions that need infrastructure invested in them. This is a debate between those who support the reform and those who oppose the reform. Those who support the reform believe a profits based regime for the future is the right way to go. The Leader of the Opposition stands with his new best friend, the pin-up boy of the Liberal-National Party, Clive Palmer, as the two voices out there opposed to any profits based reform in the mining industry. There will be a range of claims and counterclaims. You will have people right across the industry commenting on it. You will have people like Roger Corbett who came out quite rightly and said as a director of Fairfax Media and Wal-Mart—and he is also on the Reserve Bank—that these are resources owned by Australians and that Australians should extract from those resources the best possible advantage that they can. In principle, he supports a resources tax. Therefore, those opposite will simply take a position in this debate which is subservient to the likes of Clive Palmer in pursuit of a sectional interest and in pursuit of an individual who bankrolls the Liberal-National Party in Queensland to the tune of nearly $1 million. They do not stand for the national interest; they stand for a partial interest; they stand for an individual corporate interest. We are about the business of tax reform for the nation. We stand on one side of the debate prosecuting a hard debate on tax reform. Those opposite have evidenced no spine for tax reform whatsoever. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey interjecting— HWT Robert, Stuart, MP Mr Robert interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The members for North Sydney and Fadden are warned! 5540 5540 15:05:00 Hale, Damian, MP HWD Solomon ALP 1 Mr HALE —My question is to the Minister for Education, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Minister for Social Inclusion. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on recent media coverage of Building the Education Revolution and the impact of the program in the Northern Territory? This is a serious question. Opposition members interjecting— 5540 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 Solomon for his question and for his interest in supporting jobs and schools. I also thank him for his interest in a strong economy and in making sure that Australian working people can get a fair share, particularly through having a quality school for their children to go to. I noticed the interjection from the other side. Obviously, we know that it is this side of the House that believes in a strong economy, in supporting jobs and in giving Australians a fair share through a good school. In the member for Solomon’s own electorate he voted for, and those opposite voted against, 20 libraries, seven classrooms, 16 multipurpose halls, three early learning centres, four language centres and one science centre. On this side of the House, we voted for 24,000 projects in individual schools and those on that side of the House voted against them. On this side of the House, we voted for what has formed one-third of the economic activity in the non-residential sector over the last 12 months to April and those on that side of the House voted against that economic activity—a third of the economic activity in that sector and a third of the jobs. In dealing with Building the Education Revolution as economic stimulus, the program has been rolled out quickly. With 24,000 projects, we have always said that there would be school communities that were delighted with their projects, that there were school communities that would have some concerns, including concerns about value for money. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Solomon specifically asked his own minister to comment on media reports and I am waiting to hear about a quote in the Australian on her policies. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for O’Connor will resume his seat. The Deputy Prime Minister is responding to the question. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Thank you, Mr Speaker. Of course, we have always said that there will be school communities delighted and some that needed assistance and had concerns. That is why we created the Building the Education Revolution Implementation Taskforce. We need to be dealing with the facts. That brings me to a report in today’s Australian newspaper which suggested that a project in the Larrakeyah Primary School in Darwin was poor, that the school was unhappy and that the project was of such poor value that it was even smaller than the local McDonald’s. I advise the House that I have today spoken to the school principal, Mr Graham Chadwick. He advises me and I advise the House of the following. He says that in his school Building the Education Revolution has been a fantastic program from the start. As soon as it was announced, he started work with the school council’s infrastructure committee. A former student of the school, Hully Liveris, serves on that committee. He is an architect and his wife Emma teaches part time in the school. Hully, the school principal Graham, and Richard Wiltshire, who is president of the school council, the commander of the local Larrakeyah base and a former student of the school, worked with Des Hodges, the project manager appointed by the Northern Territory education department to deliver transformational change to that school and they are delighted with it. The school is growing in numbers because the Defence Force base is growing in numbers. At the same time the school serves around 120 students who live in apartment developments in Darwin, part of the new residential construction in that city. This meant that the school needed additional classrooms but was very concerned to keep its local play area available, particularly for the kids who live in the apartments. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Prime Minister will resume her seat. I am not sure whether the Manager of Opposition Business is trying things on but I think he might decide to have a look at standing order 62 and resume his seat and not stay in the aisles. He has been given a fair go. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —As a result, the school community worked to deliver a project which is delivering an extended assembly hall with an integrated canteen which is big enough for the whole school community. The entrance to the school has been remodelled and redesigned so that it is now near this assembly area. This means that kids from the local Defence Force base can come into school without having to go near the area where the cars are—obviously safer. As a result of this development, the old canteen, which was in the middle of the play area used by the early education facility has been demolished. A demountable which was on a strip of under-used land close to the boundary with the Defence Force base has been removed and another school will benefit from that demountable. The five new classrooms have been placed there. As a result of this design, there is an additional space in the assembly hall, the new canteen, five new classrooms and additional play areas to that which were in the original design of the school. In addition, the old Cyclone fencing has been removed and replaced with powder coated pool fencing. There is a feature timber wall on one side of the school as a barrier between them and local industrial projects which are on the other side. All fittings and furniture have been included like interactive white boards in each of the classrooms, desks, chairs, industrial fridges, bain-maries, and the list goes on. The principal says that he is delighted with the project and so is the local P&C. The member for Solomon is very familiar with this school and would be able to give interested members further details of this Building the Education Revolution project. The member for Solomon also advises me that he has some passing familiarity with the local McDonald’s to which it has been compared. What he says is that the local McDonald’s is small, predominantly designed to facilitate drive-through on two sides—that is, it is big in car park, big in drive-through but a relatively small building. Anybody requiring further details of that may also choose to ask the member for Solomon. All of this adds up to the fact that in dealing with the Building the Education Revolution I want to get value for money. The government wants to get value for money. In order to do that, each and every day we need to deal with the facts. I have advised the House of the facts about Larrakeyah Primary School as explained to me by the school principal. 5542 5542 15:14:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister now admit to the House that the tax he sought to compare to his supertax in his last answer is in fact an amendment to the mining royalty laws in Chile as an optional levy on miners to help rebuild the country and pay for the damage caused by the 27 February earthquake? Will the Prime Minister now apologise to the House and correct the record? 5542 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I welcome yet another question from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. She came to the dispatch box before seeking to assert that mining tax changes were somehow unique to this country and uniquely, therefore, punishing the mining industry in this country. The purpose of my intervention in the debate was twofold: firstly, to demonstrate that mining stocks in Latin America and Canada had done worse than in Australia and, secondly, there is a debate in the Chilean congress now on changes to Chile’s mining tax laws that are increasing those mining taxes and the mining industry is opposed to them. That is the purpose of this intervention. 5543 5543 15:15:00 Rea, Kerry, MP HVR Bonner ALP 1 Ms REA —My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How is the government providing more choice and information for women and families in maternity care— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! There was too much interjection. I am not sure what was being said but it was not helpful at all. The member for Bonner has the call. She should be allowed to ask the question in silence. HVR Rea, Kerry, MP Ms REA —Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How is the government providing more choice and information for women and families in maternity care and are there any threats to this policy approach? 5543 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms ROXON —I thank the member for Bonner for that question because there is good news for expectant mothers and their families in the reforms that the Rudd government is introducing. I must say I think that the member for Dobell’s baby and partner are in the audience. Perhaps particularly baby Matilda might be interested in this answer. I did not know that they would be there when we were preparing our question. There is good news because the package of maternity reforms that are starting to come on line do offer many more choices for women and their families if they are expecting children to make sure that women can access high-quality, safe maternity care as well as providing support for our talented midwives. We have introduced a package of services to provide new and innovative options for thousands of Australian women and their families—improved Medicare rebates for doctors, historic recognition for midwives and a new insurance product to ensure appropriate professional protection. Members might recall that earlier this year the government passed reforms in this House providing MBS and PBS access to midwives and nurse practitioners, the first expansion of front-line access to a new professional group in the last 25 years. When this reform takes effect on 1 November this year it will expand choices for women and reduce financial pressure on those who choose midwifery care in the community. I also wanted to bring to the attention of the House that our $120 million package also includes the government establishing a new government supported professional indemnity scheme for eligible midwives. This insurance product is now available for sale and its coverage will commence on 1 July. Something that the House has not had reported to it to date is another initiative starting on 1 July—an expanded and improved pregnancy, birth and baby hotline. This new expanded helpline will provide more comprehensive care and advice and information to women during pregnancy on any concerns they might have with the demands of a new baby, including maternal nutrition, breastfeeding, a baby’s development and sleeping habits. An estimated 180,000 women and their families are expected to access this new helpline. Although the Leader of the Opposition has been talking through most of this answer, I think even he will be pleased to know that funding will be provided to SIDS and Kids, PANDA, SANDS and Bonnie Babes Foundation to provide referral services and peer support for those mums experiencing, for example, perinatal depression or grief through miscarriage or stillbirth. This helpline will be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week and will offer non-directive, non-denominational professional advice. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton interjecting— 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —The member for Dickson is forgetting that a promise made in an election campaign by the Liberal Party without funding and not during his time of government does not count as a commitment that they ever delivered. It is our government delivering funding to SIDS and Kids, PANDA and Bonnie Babes and he is quite determined to misrepresent this new announcement and new service, something that they should be ashamed that they never provided. What we want to do is offer help to new mums during what can be a very exciting time but can also sometimes be difficult and confusing. We want to provide help and information and choice to women, not give them a lecture. This is in stark contrast to the complete failure of the Leader of the Opposition’s own baby and that was the National Pregnancy Support Helpline. Mr Abbott’s pregnancy helpline was one of the few decisions that he actually made to expand health services as a health minister. The only problem was he allowed his personal beliefs to interfere and get in the way of providing completely accessible and non-judgmental public services. Since $13.3 million was put into the helpline from May 2007, it has received just 5,500 calls. That is five calls a day over three years at a cost of more than $2,000 per call. No wonder women did not call this hotline of the Leader of the Opposition, it could not give women information about depression, breastfeeding and family planning. It could only counsel options of what was available but not provide any information beyond that, forcing callers sometimes to go to Google or the Yellow Pages if they wanted to make contact with any other service provider or information service. The reason for those problems is that Mr Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, does not live in the real world or understand the information that many women and girls might want and need. Unfortunately, he has a record of judging women through his own extreme views. He jokes about women and their ironing. He is on the record as saying that he is dead against paid maternity leave. And he used his position as the health minister to make it hard for women to get information and support, failing to understand the trauma, grief and outright dilemmas that many women experience. IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr Briggs —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. A big personal attack cannot be relevant. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Mayo will resume his seat. The minister has the call. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —Let us be honest: if this discussion was just about personal views, it is entirely a matter for the Leader of the Opposition. But when your personal views interfere with the national policies that you make then it is a problem. This help line will provide real help and real services for women. We are proud that we are not letting our personal or extreme views interfere with the policies that are being supported. Women need and want this service. We are pleased to provide it. It will be a valuable service. It will stand in stark contrast to the service provided by the Leader of the Opposition, who wanted to deny information and support to women at times when they needed it. 5544 5544 15:24:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 Mr HOCKEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s earlier answer, in which he compared a new earthquake tax in Chile with his own great big new tax on mining. Can the Prime Minister confirm that not only is the new earthquake tax in Chile optional but in fact it is temporary and by the end of 2012 will be phased out? Prime Minister, doesn’t this just prove yet again that when it comes to tax policy you have no idea? 5545 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I always welcome questions from the member for North Sydney, because volume and substance are always in inverse proportions. The member for North Sydney enters this debate pretending that somehow he stands on the side of the angels when it comes to tax reform. The reality around the world is very simple: whether in Chile, Brazil, Canada, South Africa or anywhere else in the world, mining companies do not wish to pay more tax. Guess what? In this country the Australian government wants mining companies to pay more tax. The reason that we want them to pay more tax is to fund better super for all those Australian families who are listening into this debate today. Those Australian families are worried about whether their nine per cent is going to give them enough to retire upon when they get to the age of 65. That is standing up for working families. We are also standing up for 2.4 million Australian small businesses, who deserve a tax break. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —They need the support of this government. Then we go to the broader needs of the economy and the need to support Australian corporates—all 770,000—who would benefit, I am advised, from a two per cent cut in the company tax rate, a rate which the Leader of the Opposition plans to increase by two percentage points. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The member for North Sydney seeks to intervene to suggest that somehow it is unique to this country that there is a debate about the future of tax change. It is not. The underpinning point put by the member for Curtin before was that somehow our mining industry was suffering in relation to that of other countries. To the extent that the stock exchanges are measurements of this, I draw her and his attention again to what is happening in Canada, Brazil and around the world in terms of the performance of our mining stocks relative to the rest. I go back to the core point, which is that those opposite stand in this place as defenders of the interests of Clive Palmer. Clive Palmer says that there should be no change to the existing tax regime for the Australian mining industry. This government stands for reform of the tax system in Australia. This government stands for bringing in a profits based tax for the mining industry in Australia. In this country, we have the mining industry, its peak body and the heads of most of the major mining companies saying that that is the sort of reform—a profits based regime—that we need for the future. Those opposite, led by the Leader of the Opposition and Clive Palmer, say that it is all fine and dandy. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition goes further and says that they are already paying too much tax. Nobody in this country believes that. No-one in this country accepts the view that the poor old miners cannot fork out an extra dollar to help working families. It does not matter where they are in this country, people see this fear campaign for what it is. We stand for facts in this debate; those opposite stand for fear. 5545 5545 15:28:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 Mr PERRETT —My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation and the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. Why is it important that registered political parties run stable and coherent candidate selection processes? DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I remind the member for North Sydney of his status in the House. Given that he was delaying the Manager of Opposition Business, his interjection seems strange. The Manager of Opposition Business has the call. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The standing orders are quite clear that a minister can be asked questions about matters within their ministerial responsibilities. Candidate selection could not possibly be within the responsibilities of the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. I respectfully ask you to rule the question out of order. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker— E0J Keenan, Michael, MP Mr Keenan interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the House will resume his seat. One of the interesting things about the Australian parliament is that it actually has two houses! Sometimes ministers with direct responsibility for matters are in the Senate, but there are ministers representing those ministers in this place, and I am pretty sure of my recollection that it is the Minister for Finance and Deregulation for the matters contained in the question. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, on the point of order: it is certainly true that in the past the minister for finance or the Special Minister of State has been asked questions about donations to political parties within their responsibilities. But it is without precedent for the minister for finance or the Special Minister of State to be asked to comment about candidate selection, whether for their own party or for another political party, and I respectfully put it to you that this would be a bridge too far and that therefore you rule the question out of order. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, on the point of order: this is a question to the minister for finance, representing the Special Minister of State. He is entitled to answer the question. The question is in order and I am absolutely certain that the answer will be. MT4 Broadbent, Russell, MP Mr Broadbent —Mr Speaker, on the point of order: the question should be ruled out of order because the government did not say that it was directed to Minister Tanner in regard to his role representing the Special Minister of State. Government members—Yes, he did. MT4 Broadbent, Russell, MP Mr Broadbent —He did not say that. Government members—He did say that. MT4 Broadbent, Russell, MP Mr Broadbent —No, he did not say that. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Given the amount of noise that was in the chamber for the first part— An opposition member—No, no, no. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Well, you can go ‘no, no, no’ all you like. The member for Moreton went on to finalise the question, but there was so much noise I would have been happy for him to start again. I think people ought to get back to what now is the more important aspect of the complaints that are being made, because I think that it is acknowledged that the minister for finance can answer questions on behalf of the Special Minister of State. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, on a further point of order— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —No, on this point of order. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Well, the point of order is that I refer you to page 125 of the standing orders and the rights of persons not present in this place to protect themselves from scandalous allegations under privilege, and I hope you will make careful consideration of the remarks now anticipated. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —That may go to matters that might be traversed in the answer; so, if you are firing a warning shot across the bows, it is not quite the time to do it. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I hear what you have said so far on this matter. I would point out to you that in standing order 98(c) it says: A Minister can only be questioned on the following matters, for which he or she is responsible or officially connected: public affairs; administration; or proceedings pending in the House. I put it to you that, even if the Minister for Finance and Deregulation was being asked this question in place of the Special Minister of State, whom he represents in the House of Representatives, the Special Minister of State could not be asked this question because it is a question about candidate selection. The Special Minister of State would not be entitled to answer this question, either in this House or in the Senate. Therefore, I put it to you, Mr Speaker, how can it be relevant for the minister for finance to be asked a question that the minister he represents in this chamber could not be asked? 5I4 McMullan, Bob, MP Mr McMullan —Mr Speaker, on the point of order— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Are you still here? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The parliamentary secretary will resume his seat. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Well, it is not a matter of you deciding when and where you can withdraw, Member for Sturt. You are under a warning. You have been given leniency. The member for Sturt will leave the chamber, under the provisions of standing order 94(a), for one hour. The member for Sturt then left the chamber. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The parliamentary secretary, on the point of order. 5I4 McMullan, Bob, MP Mr McMullan —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am aware of the precedents with regard to this matter because they arise from rulings on points of order I raised when I was Manager of Opposition Business in the House. The then Speaker rejected my claim and said the now Leader of the Opposition, when he was Minister representing the Special Minister of State, could answer questions about the internal affairs of political parties on the pretext that they related to a registered political organisation. He did it every day for weeks. IYS Oakeshott, Rob, MP Mr Oakeshott —Mr Speaker, on the point of order: I just happened to be reading the Charter of Budget Honesty: costing election commitments document under the portfolio of the minister in question, and it does, in the summary page, make reference to the costing of publicly announced commitments by only the government and the opposition. Minor parties and Independents are not part of that consideration. While there is therefore, unfortunately, a rule for two and not for everyone, the question should surely be considered in order. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Lyne will resume his seat. Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. The question referred to registered political parties. Based on the precedents that have been used in this House, I will allow the question. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews —Mr Speaker, on a point of order, there are two points. Firstly, as I and all those on this side can recall, there was no reference in the words of the member for Moreton to ‘registered political parties’. Secondly— Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! 1K6 Billson, Bruce, MP Mr Billson —Lindsay doesn’t even know where he’ll be enrolled! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Dunkley will leave the chamber, under the provisions of standing order 94(a), for one hour. The member for Dunkley then left the chamber. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews —Secondly and more significantly, in order for this question to be in order it must relate specifically to legislation or a regulation which is administered by the Special Minister of State. The preselection processes of political parties are not matters which are subject to either regulation or legislation administered by the Special Minister of State and therefore this question must be ruled out of order. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have ruled it in order. 5548 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr TANNER —I thank the member for Moreton for his question. It is extremely important that registered political parties have stable and coherent candidate selection processes in order to enable Australian voters to know who they might be voting for, to become acquainted with individual candidates so they can exercise genuine choice. Unfortunately, as the string of points of order have just indicated, there are serious problems with these processes in the Queensland Liberal National Party. First we had the member for Dickson scuttling away to McPherson to try to become their candidate there. He was rejected. Then he went back to Dickson. And more recently we have had the member for Ryan disendorsed by the Liberal Party— HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This answer is now clear evidence, for the reasons I put to you earlier, that this question should be ruled out of order. This has got nothing to do with the administration— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Menzies will resume his seat. Firstly, I have ruled the question in order. Secondly, the answer of the minister is relevant to that question. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The opening remarks of the minister contravene standing order 90, ‘Reflections on members’. If he wants to move a substantive order, I’ll move one on him— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for O’Connor will resume his seat. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —It is a matter of public record that the member for Ryan has been disendorsed by the Liberal Party. It is also a matter of public record that their candidate for Wright, Hajnal Ban, has recently been disendorsed. And of course there is speculation regarding the candidate for Forde, Bert van Manen—published in the Courier-Mail today. He is under threat of disendorsement with local party members moving a motion to disendorse him, and a senior Liberal National Party source was quoted as describing him as ‘safe for now’. We all know what ‘safe for now’ means. Clearly they are setting themselves up for another disendorsement. I note that the Gold Coast Bulletin indicates that the next candidate for preselection, the next cab off the rank, for the seat of Wright will be a certain Bob La Castra, a former scriptwriter for Bananas in Pyjamas. Given the opposition’s problems with policy development, I think that is an ideal candidate for the Liberal National Party. He could write some pretty good policies. It is not only this side of the House that is concerned by those problems. The Courier-Mail in its editorial today has referred to a ‘crisis of faith’ in the Liberal National Party and described the party as a ‘rabble’. The Australian in its editorial has referred to ‘the forest of deadwood MPs and senators’, ‘a batch of dud candidates’, ‘a team of time-servers’ and ‘the amateurish, insular world of LNP politics’. Former member for Longman and former minister Mal Brough described the situation thus: ‘Queenslanders have a right to feel let down, disappointed and led up the garden path. There is no Liberal or National with a federal focus for them to support.’ It appears that there is more to come because the candidate for Longman for the Liberal National Party, one Wyatt Roy, appears also to be under threat of disendorsement. Recently in an interview on 4BC, within the one interview he managed to claim that both sides of politics supported the invasion of Iraq, which of course is not true. He then said that he did not know which year this invasion occurred. He then said that the Liberal National Party did not have a policy on child support. When asked for the party’s policy on asylum seekers he said, ‘Well as we have said, we will turn back the boats, we will … ah … go through the process of turning them into legitimate … ah … arrivals and we will begin to look at that … how we go about doing that.’ So they clearly have a state of extreme confusion. And the problem for Mr Wyatt Roy is that he has been effusively endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition. The reason that is a problem is because the member for Ryan was previously effusively endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, and Hajnal Ban was also effusively endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition—shortly before being disendorsed. The Leader of the National Party has even described Mr Roy as a future prime minister. Those of us who know the Leader of the National Party can probably understand that because most of the people he encounters probably look like future prime ministers to him. There is a very serious aspect to this. The Australian people deserve better than this rabble. They deserve better than the chaos that is occurring in the Liberal National Party in Queensland because people are entitled to understand who they are being asked to vote for, to become acquainted with them, to hear what they have got to say and to know what they are on about. They are being denied that opportunity in Queensland. The Liberal National Party in Queensland is demonstrating yet again the merit of Bob Hawke’s old saying, ‘If you cannot govern yourselves, you cannot govern the country.’ 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 5549 Auditor-General's Reports 5549 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I present the Auditor-General’s Audit report No. 43 of 2009-10 entitled Performance audit: Army individual readiness notice and Audit report No. 44 entitled Performance audit: administration of the tax obligations of non-residents. Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers. 5549 5549 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I present a correction to Audit report No. 37 for 2009‑2010 entitled Performance audit: lightweight torpedo replacement project, which was tabled in the House on 24 May 2010. Ordered that the correction be made a parliamentary paper. 5549 Documents Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 15:46:00 —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: Migration Act 1958— Section 440A—Conduct of Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) reviews not completed within 90 days—Report for the period 1 November 2009 to 28 February 2010. Section 486O—Assessment of detention arrangements—2010 Personal identifiers 590/10 to 594/10— Commonwealth and Immigration Ombudsman’s reports. Government response to Ombudsman’s reports. Section 91Y—Protection visa processing taking more than 90 days—Report for the period 1 November 2009 to 28 February 2010. Transport and Regional Services—House of Representatives Standing Committee—The great freight task: Is Australia’s transport network up to the challenge?—Government response. Debate (on motion by Mr Hartsuyker) adjourned. 5550 Ministerial Statements 5550 5550 15:47:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Home Affairs 1 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I seek leave to make a ministerial statement related to the Australian Federal Police. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Is there any objection to leave being granted? HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews —Given the government’s performance in question time, we reluctantly give leave. 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I am glad that procedural matter has been resolved because this is a very important ministerial statement. This statement outlines progress made by the Rudd government on reforms designed to strengthen the governance and funding arrangements of the Australian Federal Police. The key elements of these reforms are long overdue and were set out in commitments that the Rudd government took to the last election. The Rudd government has undertaken an ambitious agenda for federal policing reform and we have made significant progress. Just as we passionately believe Australian families deserve better opportunities, better health and hospitals and better schools, we also believe Australian families are entitled to live as part of a safe community. A highly skilled, highly professional, capable federal police force is crucial to realising this aspiration. The reforms we are implementing are needed because of the substantial growth in the size and responsibilities of the AFP over the last 30 years. Budgetary, governance and structural arrangements that might have sufficed 20 or even 10 years ago have now passed their use-by date. Since its creation just over 30 years ago the Australian Federal Police has been called upon to meet new demands, encompassing whole-of-government, national and international crime threats. These demands range from evolving forms of organised crime including high-tech transnational online crime, counterterrorism in our region and beyond, aviation security, human trafficking and people smuggling, and combating the scourge of the illicit drug trade. The AFP’s role in international capacity building and securing the rule of law in our region has also grown significantly and become more important to Australia’s national security interests. When it was established around 30 years ago the AFP had a budget of around $60 million. In the last 10 years alone the AFP’s budget has grown from $302 million and around 2,800 staff to just over $1.25 billion and around 6,500 staff this financial year. This is expected to grow to 6,700 in the near future. During the last 30 years, the AFP has developed a highly skilled and specialised policing capacity that other nations look to replicate. The reforms underway build on these strengths by improving existing capability and putting in place new governance and budgetary arrangements to enable further improvements. Rudd government commitment—a five-point plan. In recognition of the demands this rapid expansion of responsibilities has placed on the AFP, in its first year the Rudd government set about implementing its election commitment to a five-point plan. This five-point plan includes: conducting a comprehensive federal audit of police capabilities now known as the Beale audit; a commitment to the recruitment of 500 new sworn officers; creating an AFP recruitment and retention program; expanding the recruitment of Indigenous Australians to the AFP; and developing a national approach to policing through the creation of a national crime database to share resources and information in partnership with CrimTrac. Federal audit of police capabilities The federal audit of police capabilities was conducted by Roger Beale AO and involved extensive consultation with the AFP, partner law enforcement agencies and police unions at the federal, state and territory level. The report prepared by Roger Beale called National Policing in the 21st Century, Report of the Federal Audit of Policing was handed to government and subsequently released in December 2009. After considering the report in detail, the government announced that it would accept 39 of the 40 recommendations. The Beale audit and its recommendations set out a widely supported road map for reform that will deliver the Rudd government’s objective of strengthening the Australian Federal Police and placing it in a far stronger position to meet the challenges that I have outlined. This reform process serves as an example of the capacity of the Rudd government to deliver difficult and substantial reforms involving a wide range of stakeholders. These are reforms that will serve the interests of Australians in the decades ahead. Funding reform Since September last year, the government has appointed a new commissioner and three new deputy commissioners to take the AFP forward. Commissioner Tony Negus, his deputy commissioners, Andrew Colvin, Mike Phelan and Peter Drennan, along with the Chief Operating Officer, Andrew Wood, are a quality leadership team who have professionally embraced reform. Of primary significance is the Rudd government’s respect for the operational independence of the AFP and respect for those officers entrusted to hold the office of commissioner and deputy commissioner. Respect for the operational independence of the AFP is reflected in the decision in this year’s budget to overhaul and provide certainty in relation to the AFP’s funding arrangements. This decision will take effect from 1 July this year. The Beale audit found that as a result of ad hoc decisions in the preceding years, nearly three-quarters of all AFP funding was tied to terminating, lapsing or otherwise time-limited programs. Much of this funding in fact related to core areas of AFP business. For example, funding for aviation security policing at our 11 major airports and for regional counterterrorism capacity-building programs such as the Jakarta Centre for Law Enforcement Cooperation has been subject to reconsideration in the budget process every four years. Other core programs treated similarly in the past include the AFP’s Telecommunications Interception Capabilities and the National Missing Persons Coordination Centre. Funding for these core programs will now be built into the AFP’s funding base. Resources of the AFP and other agencies have had to be tied up year after year to secure funding for these crucial policing tasks, and this is unproductive. The audit identified the current funding arrangements as a significant impediment for medium- to long-term planning within each of the program areas. This created uncertainty and inhibited investment in police capability, with flow-on problems in relation to the engagement and training of staff and the acquisition of appropriate equipment and other capital items. The leadership of the AFP will now be able to plan and invest with certainty in building police capability for the future. It also means that the AFP leadership are given the operational flexibility to deploy resources to meet time-limited priorities or emerging crime threats. Currently 27 per cent of the AFP’s funding is base funding. As a result of the 2010-11 budget this will grow to 65 per cent. In future years programs with funding due to terminate or lapse will be considered as part of the budget for incorporation into the AFP’s funding base. The new arrangements will help the AFP to create greater efficiencies and provide operational flexibility across the organisation. This will improve the AFP’s ability to manage long-term investigations into counterterrorism, serious and organised crime and response based operations. New structure and governance arrangements—implementing the Organised Crime Strategic Framework The AFP leadership has moved quickly to adopt the recommendations of the Beale audit, completing a significant organisational restructure on 1 February this year to renew its focus on serious and organised crime. The AFP’s revised structure will maximise the organisation’s operational performance by ensuring that organised criminal activity such as drug trafficking, fraud, money laundering and other organised crime types are handled holistically, not separately. As part of the restructure and in recognition of the growth of the organisation the AFP has appointed a third deputy commissioner, responsible for close operations support. This includes the high-tech crimes area, intelligence, forensics and AFP data centres. The restructure has also created two new portfolios, Serious and Organised Crime, and Crime Operations. These changes take into account the AFP’s place within the Commonwealth’s Organised Crime Strategic Framework released by the Attorney-General and me in November last year. The arrangements provide greater flexibility for the organisation to manage long-term investigations across a range of areas. The integrated approach is enabling the organisation to build on its strengths and tackle criminal enterprises from every angle. It extends the AFP’s ability to shape and influence its operating environment, limiting criminal opportunities while building a range of preventative programs and partnerships. The AFP is well advanced in implementing its revised structure, which gives the organisation clear and critical roles within the national security architecture and provides an opportunity to improve the way it approaches serious criminal activities. Improving capacity of the AFP to deliver on broader national objectives As the Prime Minister said in the first national security statement to the parliament in December 2008: Australia’s security and law enforcement agencies are playing a critical role in protecting Australian citizens, both at home and abroad. The government is committed to ensuring that our agencies are resourced appropriately to meet the challenges of terrorist threats. One of the key findings of the Beale audit was that the national role of the AFP had evolved and grown. Policing is now recognised as an essential element of national security. The audit also recognised the need for greater levels of cooperation and interoperability between Commonwealth, state and territory police agencies and other law enforcement and security organisations. As the Prime Minister’s statement affirms, it is no longer possible to frame national security issues purely in terms of defence, diplomacy or counterterrorism when challenges such as people-smuggling, organised crime, cybersecurity, online crimes and environmental crimes all have the potential to adversely affect the peace and prosperity of Australia. In the contemporary regional and international environment the AFP has a key role in protecting Australian interests, because it has responsibilities across a broad range of national security concerns. The AFP is well positioned to contribute in this context through its international network of more than 80 liaison officers stationed in more than 30 countries. This includes specialised counterterrorism liaison officers in key locations such as the United States, United Kingdom and Indonesia. Counterterrorism—an integrated national approach Preventing a terrorist attack on Australian soil remains the highest priority of the government and the AFP. We have been fortunate that so far close cooperation between agencies, shared intelligence and good police work have prevented an attack from taking place. There have been a number of investigations and successful prosecutions, which show that Australia is not immune to home-grown terrorist operations. To enhance this spirit of cooperation the AFP in conjunction with its partner agencies has implemented recommendations from a number of reviews that will enable the national security community to interact more effectively. A significant step forward has been to adopt systems which make it easier to transfer classified material and share intelligence information. The AFP is working on a significant project to deliver secure networks to store and share Secret and Top Secret information across the organisation and with other national security agencies, quickly and easily. This will ensure better coordinated investigations and lay a foundation for more sophisticated capabilities in the future. As I have mentioned, we have been fortunate that Australia has remained free from terrorist attack in recent times, but preventing radicalisation within the community that may lead to such acts remains a high priority. One of the key strategies in the counterterrorism white paper released by the government earlier this year is building a strong and resilient Australian community to resist the development of violent extremism and terrorism on the home front. The AFP contributes to the National Community Engagement Strategy, which aims to undermine extremist ideology and increase community resilience. This is being done in conjunction with Commonwealth, state and territory partners, and through positive community engagement by the AFP’s community liaison teams. Aviation security reform The international threat of terrorist activity and the vast number of people who now travel by air means that airport policing is vital to national security. The role of police at Australia’s 11 major airports provides a critical front-line response. However the Beale audit confirmed there is room for improvement. The current policing arrangements are a patchwork of federal, state and territory policing responses based on a history of different approaches and agreements. This year’s budget confirmed that $759.4 million for AFP airport policing and aviation security funding, including lapsing programs, will be rolled into the AFP’s base funding from 1 July this year. The government agreed in December 2009 to take responsibility for airport security and policing services at Australia’s 11 major airports through a nationally integrated system. This means that over the next three to five years there will be a staged transition from the existing mix of federal, state and territory staffing arrangements to an AFP uniformed police presence. By the end of the reform period, sworn AFP officers will fill the majority of airport policing roles at Australia’s 11 major airports. This involves a comprehensive workforce transition, training and recruitment program over the next three to five years. This process is now well underway. In cooperation with states, territories, airports, unions and other stakeholders, we will transition to a far more cohesive policing response at our major airports. Airport police will be consistently trained and employed by the AFP. This will place less reliance on the states and territories to supply police officers as they currently do through the COAG agreement process. The existing Counter Terrorism First response function at airports will also be integrated into the new model of aviation security and policing. The joint airport investigation teams and joint airport intelligence groups will remain with a mix of state or territory and federal police officers as this remains the most effective structure. These changes are consistent with the Beale audit’s finding that an all-in model of policing will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of airport policing and security services. In the 2010-11 budget, the government announced a further $17.8million over four years to be invested in additional firearms and explosive detection dogs and AFP handlers at Australia’s eight major international airports—an increase in capacity of 50 per cent. This new funding is a further demonstration of the government’s commitment to continuing to improve airport security. National and regional progress in crime fighting—meeting challenges created by high-tech crime and globalisation The AFP is strategically well placed to work in conjunction with other agencies on a range of matters relating to national security. In addition, the AFP is committed to finding new ways to combat emerging and existing crime types. One innovative way is the High Tech Crime Operations portfolio. This portfolio provides a holistic approach to investigating technology enabled crimes, both in Australia and overseas, while providing support services, prevention programs and important community education such as ThinkUKnow. This is the first time that a policing agency has established this type of specialist function. It is helping to set the international standard for dealing with technology enabled crime. As a result of the AFP’s success in this area, it has been elected to chair the Virtual Global Taskforce, an international coordination group looking at technology enabled crime and, crucially, the protection of children online. Through the AFP, Australia has also entered into agreements with a range of countries to proactively address crime trends in this area and to exchange information and intelligence. The Australian government is also strongly supportive of another initiative designed to provide a training and education facility for police from around the world. As I have mentioned, the continuation of the Jakarta Centre for Law Enforcement in Indonesia is now assured under the AFP’s new funding model. More than 5,500 officers have completed programs at the centre, representing police organisations from countries as diverse as Pakistan, Indonesia, Brunei and Timor-Leste. A clear example of how this kind of initiative supports Australian national security and crime fighting objectives is a decision by the centre to host the first inter-regional People Smuggling and Human Trafficking Conference, bringing together regional police forces in a unified response to this terrible trade. Promoting the rule of law in the region International peacekeeping and capacity building has also become a core element of the AFP’s role. The range of Australian initiatives which require a policing contribution has also grown. AFP members now undertake duties in conflict zones where armed forces operate and government institutions are weak. The AFP also provides training and mentoring to police in developing nations. This includes high-risk missions such as Afghanistan, Timor-Leste and Papua New Guinea. By establishing a standing capability to deploy professional and well-trained officers rapidly at times of immediate crisis, the AFP is able to contribute to pre- and post-conflict capacity building in the region. The AFP’s involvement in peacekeeping and capacity development has broader law enforcement benefits for Australia. Helping to establish strong rule of law principles within our neighbouring region and further afield will help to prevent criminal cartels or terrorist groups from gaining a foothold, or strengthening their position, in fragile states. Commitment to 500 extra police The Rudd government promised to boost the number of sworn AFP members by 500 over a five-year period. We are well and truly delivering on this commitment. The AFP’s growth in size and in responsibilities has indeed been remarkable and that is why the Rudd government’s five-point plan included the commitment to 500 extra uniformed police, as well as a comprehensive recruitment and retention strategy. In its first budget in 2008-09 the Rudd government provided $191.9 million for this purpose. In this year’s budget the Rudd government agreed to a further $23.5 million in corporate savings, identified as part of the Beale audit, being reinvested in the recruitment of additional sworn police. I am proud to say the AFP is exceeding recruitment targets set by the government. Since the election of the Rudd government to date, an additional 280 recruits have joined the AFP, with another 79 expected to graduate by the end of 2010. This means that the government is 220 sworn police officers ahead of the original recruitment time line set for achieving the target of an additional 500 officers. AFP—development of recruitment and retention strategy This achievement is in some measure due to another element of the Rudd government’s election commitments. The AFP has developed and implemented a recruitment and retention program as part of the Rudd government’s five-point plan. This has involved market research analysis to determine the way Indigenous Australians, women and members of culturally and linguistically diverse communities view the AFP as an employer. New strategies are now incorporated into the AFP’s recruitment and retention strategy, which also will help boost police numbers as well as promote diversity. Indigenous recruitment In the area of Indigenous recruitment, as all Australians know, there is much to be done. The AFP was the first government agency to sign the Australian Employment Covenant, which is an initiative to secure 50,000 sustainable jobs for Indigenous Australians over the next few years. Importantly, the AFP has committed to creating 40 new jobs for Indigenous Australians each year. Implementing a national crime database The Australian government is committed to bolstering a national approach to policing as part of its five-point plan. This includes a commitment to establishing a national crime database. Work is continuing in this area, and the AFP’s Spectrum Program is developing information technology tools which will operate between agencies. In August 2009 the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General agreed to a set of measures to respond to organised crime including measures to address impediments to information and intelligence sharing and interoperability. Among these measures, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General agreed that CrimTrac would conduct a feasibility study on a national case management system, which will be completed in March 2011. This plan is in line with the government’s determination to utilise a whole-of-government strategy to protect Australian interests. Conclusion The Beale audit has come at a significant point in the AFP’s history, and implementing the key recommendations of the audit has enabled the AFP to cement its place as a key agency within the national security community. This is underlined by the organisation’s new corporate structure, which emphasises its strengths and underlines its core areas of responsibility. With its own permanent headquarters for the first time in its 30-year history soon to become operational, the AFP has come of age. The move to the Edmund Barton Building brings the AFP appropriately near to its partner agencies in the centre of Canberra’s Parliamentary Triangle. It is a fitting location for an organisation that is now very much at the centre of Australia’s law enforcement and national security architecture. Beyond the Home Affairs portfolio, the government has delivered on further commitments to Australia’s police, including and beyond the AFP. In industrial relations, the government abolished Work Choices which was considered by police associations around the country to undermine police morale and as a significant factor in high attrition rates of qualified police across the country. Another election commitment delivered by the Rudd government is the new National Police Service Medal. This medal, both its design and eligibility criteria, has been developed by the government in partnership with police commissioners and police associations across the country. The government has now sought the Queen’s agreement to the criteria, design and placement in the order of wearing. It is anticipated that the issuing of the new National Police Service Medal will begin later this year. The new medal will serve as a lasting sign of the respect that this government has for hardworking, dedicated policemen and policewomen across the country. Their work and service to our country is invaluable. The AFP has developed over the past decade into one of the most comprehensively competent police forces in the world. All members of this place should be proud of its achievements. The Rudd government will continue to support the endeavours of the Australian Federal Police and ensure that it is adequately resourced and supported to combat criminal activity in all its forms, for the benefit of Australian families who deserve the best possible federal police force. I seek leave to move a motion to enable the member for Stirling to speak for 24 minutes. Leave granted. 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Keenan speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 24 minutes. Question agreed to. 5557 16:12:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 0 0 Mr KEENAN —Right around the world Australia enjoys a reputation as being one of the safest, most secure places not only to live in but to visit, trade with and invest in. Here in Australia we are privileged to be protected by one of the finest federal police agencies in the world, the Australian Federal Police. It helps secure our borders and our cyberspace, protect our homes and protect our lives. Unfortunately this Labor government fails to acknowledge this. It fails to acknowledge the hard work the AFP does in keeping our community free from crime. In order to talk about the AFP today it is important to acknowledge its beginnings. The Australian Federal Police began operations on 19 October 1979 under the Fraser Liberal government. The catalyst for its formation was the Sydney Hilton Hotel bombing the year before and a realisation by the Australian government that an organisation was needed to deal with issues such as terrorism on a national level. In 30 years the AFP has changed dramatically and doubled in size, now with more than 6,000 members. Its investigations encompass a variety of crimes, from child sex offences to tax evasion, drug smuggling and terrorism. Members work as general duties police in the ACT, uniformed police at Australia’s major airports, detectives, liaison officers and in a variety of specialist fields. Notably, the world security environment changed forever on September 11, 2001 after terrorists attacked New York City and Washington, DC. The attacks in Bali then made it clear to Australia that we could be the target of a major terrorist incident, something most Australians would previously have dismissed. In 2005, the London bombings were a devastating reminder to everybody that terrorism can be home-grown. With this in mind the former coalition government, in consultation with Australia’s states and territories, passed antiterrorism laws in mid December 2005. These included amendments to Commonwealth legislation that enable Australia to better deter and prevent potential acts of terrorism at home, to prosecute them when they occur and to restrict the movement of those who pose a terrorist threat to our community. The coalition strongly supports the prevention of terrorist attacks in Australia, and Australian interests overseas should continue to be a high priority for the AFP. In addition to having officers in every Australian capital and some regional centres, the AFP also has members working at 31 international posts and 11 overseas missions. As a national police agency the AFP is in a unique position to combat transnational crime as it straddles both national and international elements of law enforcement. It works closely with its partner agencies both in Australia and overseas to combat all forms of criminal activity. The AFP follows a multijurisdictional, multiagency approach that is essential to combating crime and to responding to emergency situations such as bushfires, tsunamis and other natural disasters. It is also involved with helping to develop law enforcement capabilities for police agencies in the Pacific region and farther afield through the International Deployment Group. Another way the AFP is working in the international arena to combat drug trafficking is through the establishment of the transnational crime coordination centres in Asia and the Pacific. This network enables policing agencies to exchange information and intelligence and can lead to operational success in combating transnational crime syndicates. It also enables police to share new methodologies and techniques that improve the capability to combat criminal activity. The AFP’s involvement in the centres enhances the work they are already doing through the International Deployment Group and the international liaison network to build policing capabilities within our region. It is important to acknowledge that the AFP responds swiftly to requests for assistance from Asia-Pacific regional partners in areas that include disaster victim identification, crime scene forensics, post bomb blast investigation, financial investigation, intelligence and technical support. Examples of this assistance being provided include after the Bali bombings in 2002, the Jakarta embassy bombing and the Marriott Hotel bombing in 2005. The AFP deployed counterterrorism assets to Thailand to assist in the aftermath of the New Year’s Eve 2006 bombings and more recently the AFP deployed an assessment team to Mumbai in response to the terrorist attacks in November 2008 to provide support for consular operations. The Minister for Home Affairs mentioned in his statement that Labor will be reinvesting the $23.5 million in savings identified by the Beale report into staffing so that they can meet their 2007 election commitment for 500 extra sworn officers. As Senator Brandis discovered in Senate estimates in Budget Paper No. 2, it was claimed that the $23.5 million in savings would be used for high-impact criminal investigations relating to transnational and domestic crime, counterterrorism, high-tech crime, fraud, money laundering, people smuggling, drug trafficking and child sex offences, not to meet a funding shortfall for Labor’s election commitment. What the government will not admit and what Commissioner Negus confirmed was that there was a shortfall in money that had been provided to get the 500 officers. In order for the Australian Federal Police to reach the target of 500 they are required to find an additional $30 million. That $30 million must be found elsewhere within the AFP budget. The government is cutting the $23.5 million away from airport security through what are described as ‘efficiencies’ in order to fund a promise that was not being delivered on because, to use the words of Commissioner Negus, ‘there was a shortfall of $30 million’. It would also seem that the government will still have to find another $6.5 million to meet the shortfall seeing as they were $30 million short according to the commissioner. This is added to the $191.9 million already allocated to deliver the additional sworn officers. The Minister for Home Affairs, not being transparent, neglected to mention that only $36.7 million is due to be spent before the next election. Another blight on the government’s national security record is the fact that during the 2007-08 and 2008-09 financial years there were approximately 200 voluntary redundancies in order for the AFP to attempt to meet a balanced budget as a result of an additional two per cent, one-off efficiency dividend and an ongoing 1.25 per cent efficiency dividend. Those redundancies largely consisted of experienced police officers and experienced Protective Service officers. The coalition understands that the burden of the so-called efficiency dividend can only be met by cutting back operations and reducing operational staff. The efficiency dividend is Labor’s lazy way of making the books balance without putting in the hard work to find areas of waste and mismanagement, which have become the hallmark of this government. What the minister has also left out are the broken promises Labor has failed to deliver on. In the 2007 election, Labor promised big yet has delivered small. On 5 October 2007, the then shadow minister for homeland security announced Labor’s election commitment to create a brand new department of homeland security. As it was referred to by the shadow minister at the time, the department of homeland security was required because of the need to have all non-military agencies involved in border security and counterterrorism work in the one department. It will hardly come as a shock to those who have come to know the smoke and mirrors job this government is hiding behind that, in the Prime Minister’s 2008 national security statement, he quietly dumped the promise of having a new department of homeland security. Yet the deception does not stop there. The then shadow minister for homeland security promised prior to the 2007 election that Labor would create a coastguard. The shadow minister said on 15 August of that year: ‘Labor’s coastguard will be equipped with new vessels and aircraft designed for their specific role. They will also be appropriately armed to undertake their important tasks. Additional personnel will be recruited to complement existing staff engagement in these tasks.’ In order to win elections, Labor will tell the public anything. This election promise to create a new coastguard was also dumped by the Prime Minister in December 2008. I also notice that, in the minister’s statement, he seems to be claiming credit for the growth of the AFP not just over the last two-and-a-bit years but over the last decade. Surely, even the government would acknowledge the contribution the previous coalition government made to the growth of the AFP. I also note that the minister quoted the Prime Minister’s first National Security Statement to parliament in 2008. The minister quoted the following: Australia’s security and law enforcement agencies are playing a critical role in protecting Australian citizens, both at home and abroad. The opposition could not agree more. However, he neglected to mention that the government has, in this year’s budget alone, axed one of the AFP offices in Jakarta. I also refer to the budget cuts and delayed staffing commitments. As with so many of their other commitments, the government has proved to be all talk and no action in delivering the means to keep our great country safe. The minister also talked in his statement about the need for reform. Why, then, will he not talk about the need to reform our immigration and border protection policies? It is this government’s failings in border protection that have led to a massive strain on the resources of the AFP. The coalition wholeheartedly supports the growth and development of our leading national crime-fighting agency but only when it is done in conjunction with the implementation of a tougher border protection regime. Spending more money will not solve the problem at hand, which is policy—bad policy—made here in Canberra. For the last six years of the Howard government, there was an average of three illegal boat arrivals per year. Since the Labor government dismantled the coalition government’s tough and robust border protection system in August 2008, we have had an average of three illegal arrivals per week. Since August 2008, there have been 137 illegal boat arrivals carrying 6,425 people. This year alone there have been 69 illegal boat arrivals carrying 3,390 people. The rate of arrivals is literally overwhelming the available capacity of our border protection forces, who work incredibly hard to keep Australia safe. The AFP’s vast array of responsibilities seems to be ever increasing. The current areas of responsibility include aviation security; child protection operations; Commonwealth crime, such as people smuggling, drug importation and trafficking; e-crimes; crimes against the environment; counterfeit currency; policing of the Australian external territories; family law; fighting terrorism; fraud; human trafficking; international operations; intellectual property crime; and missing persons. What we have heard from the Minister for Home Affairs is that this government is adept at spin but very weak on action. It is a government that promises big but delivers small. The coalition understands that the police forces of Australia are very important to the fabric of our society. They are the real front line when it comes to dealing with crime and protecting our community. Our police forces provide 24-hour-a-day, 365-day-a-year service to our communities. This is not a regular nine-to-five job and it comes with unique challenges. The police are forced to deal with the situations that are placed in front of them. It is a job that places many stresses on the individuals who are involved. The operational nature of police work means that there are very real possibilities of physical injury, verbal abuse, attending fatal accidents or needing to use force to restrain offenders. Police, unlike any other workers, are compelled by an oath to stand in harm’s way. The reality is the bulk of the good work that the AFP does goes unsung. Good news is rarely reported, but the AFP contributes to the high quality of life that we in Australia are able to enjoy. The police ensure our communities are safe and secure, thereby underpinning the economic, social and cultural wellbeing of Australia. If Labor want to be taken seriously on national and domestic security, they must deliver on their election commitments in full and give the resources that are needed for the police forces to do their jobs effectively. The battle against crime is fought overseas in foreign lands, at our borders, on our streets and in our suburbs by AFP officers patrolling the front line. The Labor government asking them to do more with less is very dangerous. Australia’s Federal Police are amongst the finest in the world. Without providing the support they need, the Labor government risk alienating the hardworking men and women that make our Australian Federal Police world class. 5560 Matters of Public Importance 5560 10000 Ramsey, Rowen (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr RE Ramsey)—Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Flinders proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government’s continued failure to address the consequences of the Home Insulation Program I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 5560 16:27:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 0 Mr HUNT —Overnight we heard that the number of homes affected by house fires linked to the Home Insulation Program had jumped to 174. Think of a small country town—174 houses are enough to comprise the number of homes in a small country town. Every home in that small country town would in effect have been impacted by the Home Insulation Program. The figures released overnight showed an increase of 18 in the number of home fires and that was only 20 days after the last set of figures. Let me run through this in this matter of public importance. On 14 May, the figures were raised to 144 house fires. On 26 May, 12 days later, the figures were increased by 12 to 156 house fires. Yesterday on 15 June, only 20 days later, the figures were increased by 18 house fires to 174 house fires. The defence that the government uses is that not all of those fires in fact occurred during that period; some of those fires occurred as long as eight months ago, in October. In other words, what the government is saying—its defence and primary basis for saying that things are not so bad—is that the actual number of house fires is likely to be far greater than those that have been reported at this moment in time. If we are only now receiving confirmations of fires which occurred eight months ago, if we are only now receiving proof of those fires and if fires that occurred as long ago as October are only now being recognised, heaven forbid what is occurring in the homes in Australia which have been the subject of the Home Insulation Program. Let us be absolutely clear: if you consider the increase in the official figures for home fires linked to the Home Insulation Program over the last 20 days and you place that figure of 18 in the context of any suburban street in Australia, it gives you a sense of the magnitude of the situation. Imagine 18 homes in a single street afflicted by fire in its different forms of gravity—some of them catastrophic, others simply terrifying but all, however, placing home owners at risk of a perilous outcome. This is not confected. This is not something which the opposition has dreamt into being. These are the government’s own figures, forced from it last night after the figures relating to house fires were omitted from a statement which the Prime Minister’s own government put out after question time, after the television news was put to bed and after most of the deadlines had been met for the newspapers. What we know from this statement put out at 4.40 pm last night is that it did not say anything about the number of house fires or the increase in the number of house fires. I cannot believe that the minister was necessarily responsible for that. But I can believe that the Prime Minister was responsible for such a conscious and wilful omission of a fact which is relevant to more than a million homes across Australia. That is the scale, the scope, the magnitude of what we are facing right now. Only a few weeks ago, we saw 80-year-old Edith Preston from Ormond in Melbourne having to beat back the flames herself. It was only the MFB arriving that pulled her away from the house fire caused by faulty insulation installed under the Home Insulation Program. The reason this situation is so grave is, firstly, the threat to home owners and, secondly, that it is the direct result of a program which is unparalleled in its incompetence. This is a government which has shown serial incompetence, and this program is the exemplar par excellence of incompetence on a systemic, gross and unparalleled scale. We also saw the Alaboudi family of Lalor fight for the life of one of their senior members. They faced a fire which was potentially catastrophic. Fortunately, there was no damage to life or limb but there was terrible damage to the home. So it must be made absolutely clear that every home should be inspected. Every home has to be inspected. For the government to fail to commit to inspecting every home is, I think, to ignore the warnings and to ignore them in a way which sits with everything that has occurred over the course of last year. The government ignored the warnings of fraud, fires and fatalities that were contained in industry briefings from February last year. The government ignored the warnings of 29 April last year which were raised in a phone hook-up with state and territory officials. The government ignored the warnings of further fatalities which were contained in the advice from the Master Electricians of 16 October last year, and the government ignored repeated warnings of fires and fatalities which were contained within the Minter Ellison Risk Register, first obtained in early April and then updated on an ongoing basis—31 July, 17 September and 1 October last year. On each occasion it warned of risk of fires and fatalities. These warnings were clear and absolute. Right now, the same pattern of warnings is being given. The warnings from the Melbourne Metropolitan Fire Brigade are also of fires and fatalities. Let me now turn to what the fire brigade said—and this is not just one person speaking on one occasion but at least three senior members of the MFB on multiple occasions. The head of the MFB fire units, Commander Ian Hunter, said on 16 March of this year: My gut feeling is that what we’re seeing is a bit like a war zone - the war might be over but all the mines are still there. This is strong, clear, powerful and profound language and a warning which must be heeded by the government. Against that warning, which replicates the practice and pattern of warnings which we saw throughout last year, we are now seeing further warnings that every home must be inspected. Mr Hunter then went on to say on 26 April on Four Corners that the Rudd government must: … definitely inspect every home that has had it— insulation— installed under the program. The words ‘every home’ are clear and precise and cannot be contradicted. But it is more than just the view of Commander Hunter. Fire investigator Rod East on 31 May, only a few short weeks ago, told radio 3AW that he was worried about the risk of even more insulation fires over winter. He said: This is our gravest concern.  We’ve had two that I would determine as very near misses and the problem is the fire’s in the roof before the occupants actually know it’s through the roof. When he was asked whether he believed that there could be further deaths from insulation fires and that they were inevitable, he is reported to have said, ‘Unfortunately, yes.’ These are warnings from fire authorities of not just fires, not just catastrophic loss of property, not just injury but fatalities. On 31 May, Melbourne Metropolitan Fire Brigade Commander Frank Stockton said that there had been a ‘marked increase’ in insulation fires and warned that with winter now arriving ‘these fires won’t stop’ because ‘more lights were being left on for longer which would lead to more roof insulation fires’. These are warnings from the most senior officers in a highly respected body—the Melbourne Metropolitan Fire Brigade of Victoria—and they are clear, categorical and precise. These officers are not alone. We have also had James Tinslay, the head of the National Electrical and Communications Association, call for every home to be inspected. We have had the Victoria union leader, the head of the Electrical Trades Union, Dean Mighell, also call for every home to be expected. There cannot be any doubt that those who know, that those who are expert, that those who have seen the risks attached to the continued failure to treat this program with the gravity it deserves are warning. The warnings which were germane and prescient last year are germane and prescient this year. The fires continue. The numbers mount. The risks accrue. There can be no doubt that the government is being grossly negligent. In the words of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report—another secret report revealed on the weekend—‘They have a high appetite for risk.’ What we are seeing very clearly is that this risk is the risk of injury and damage. I warn this House of potential fatalities through houses which have not been inspected but have had insulation installed under the Home Insulation Program. The examples are clear. We see this against a background of a home insulation program with an unparalleled impact, compared with any other government program since Federation in Australia, on the lives and houses of ordinary Australians. We have seen 174 house fires, 1,500 potentially deadly electrified roofs, 70,000 potentially deadly fire traps with dangerous insulation and 240,000 houses with dangerous or dodgy insulation. All of these figures are taken from the government’s own reports. We also see up to a billion dollars to fix this program which were provisioned, allocated, set aside under five different programs in the recent budget. Up to a billion dollars have been set aside to fix this, but none of this compares with the four tragedies which have occurred during the course of this program. Much has been said. I simply note that those tragedies are extraordinary and unacceptable. Everybody in this House offers their sympathy and apologies to the families, on both sides. If we were not able to stop this program in its tracks, then we are sorry and I am sure that they will say sorry on the other side at some stage. Let us be clear. Against that background there is only one answer: every home must be inspected, every home must be subject to the protections that have been recommended and the warnings given by the Melbourne Metropolitan Fire Brigade, the national Electrical and Communications Association and the Electrical Trades Union. These warnings are from the people who know and they should not be dismissed. Last year we saw the then responsible minister, Mr Garrett, ignore 26 warnings but he in turn provided 12 different warnings across three known letters to the Prime Minister dated 27 August 2009, 28 and 30 October 2009, but there is a fourth letter which has been sealed from the public for 30 years. This fourth letter, dated 14 August 2009, must be released. There can be no justification for keeping this letter sealed in a locked cabinet for 30 years because right now Australia needs the knowledge that every step is being taken to ensure that the safety of Australian homeowners is paramount. At the moment, sadly, as has occurred throughout the course of this program, the safety of the Prime Minister’s reputation has been the number one concern. At this moment—and I make this statement after careful consideration—the lives of Australians are being put on the line by the Prime Minister’s failure to take all due and necessarily steps to protect Australian homeowners and to ensure that every home is inspected, as the leading fire and electrical authorities have recommended. I also note that we see many small business owners, such as Duncan Herbert from southern Sydney, whose futures are in the balance. They manage their inventory properly. They are not helped by the inventory program which the government put in place. They have issues relating to staff costs. They have issues relating to buildings. They have been in business for 10, 15 or 20 years and their industry has ceased to exist. They need support. They need a package. What we have seen from the government is the provisioning of money but the failure to execute the inspections and a failure to ensure that the longstanding, legitimate small businesses who have had their sector destroyed are protected. Against that background these things are evident: first, every home must be inspected and the failure to do so is gross and systemic negligence; second, small businesses must be helped; and, third, there must be a royal commission. (Time expired) 5563 16:42:00 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Defence Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency 1 0 Mr COMBET —I welcome the debate on the matter of public importance before the House because it affords me an opportunity, as the responsible minister, to update the House on progress in the wind-up of the Home Insulation Program and the safety plan and inspections that the government has instituted. I will come to them in some detail. Secondly, it affords the opportunity to address some of the myths that have been propagated by the member for Flinders, some of which we have just heard repeated. There are four key elements to the program the government has instituted to deal with the wind-up of the Home Insulation Program. These four elements include the home insulation safety program, upon which I will elaborate, the foil insulation safety program, the industry assistance measures that have been instituted, including the manner in which the government has been addressing the issue of payments to insulation installers and others, and the measures the government has instituted to deal with potential cases of fraud under the Home Insulation Program and various other forms of noncompliance with program guidelines. I turn firstly to the home insulation safety program. This is the program of safety inspections that the government has instituted in relation to homes that had non-foil forms of insulation installed in them under the now terminated Home Insulation Program. These inspections are targeted at those homes that are most likely to have safety issues. Those homes are being targeted for inspection on the basis of an ongoing risk assessment that was recommended by, and has been developed on a continuing basis by, PricewaterhouseCoopers who are contracted to the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency partly for this purpose and partly also for the administration of the home insulation safety program. The government has committed—and I make this very clear—to inspecting a minimum of 150,00 homes in this category. That is at least the number that the government will inspect in this part of its activity in the wind-up of the Home Insulation Program. If the risk assessment, the development of which will continue to be informed by the results of the inspections, indicates that more houses need to be inspected, they will be. That is the commitment of the government. We have committed to inspect at least 150,000 homes and we will inspect as many as are necessary according to the risk assessment that will continue to evolve and be informed by the results of inspections as they come in. In addition to that commitment, any household that has safety concerns with installations of insulation made unde the Home Insulation Program can request an inspection through the safety hotline which is 131792. Those inspections are being performed and they are being carried out in addition to the minimum of 150,00 homes that I have indicated. I go to some of the myth making in relation to this issue. The commitments by the government that I have outlined are extremely important. The member for Flinders, the shadow minister, has consistently said—and has done so in the matter of public importance submissions that he has made—that there should be a commitment that all houses be inspected. I emphasise the government’s commitment to inspect as many as are necessary and appropriate as informed by an ongoing risk assessment. One needs to consider the nature of the installations that were made in developing such a risk assessment. A number of companies that are longstanding, reputable firms in the insulation industry carried out a very significant number of installations during the term of the Home Insulation Program. Two major manufacturers and installation firms, CSR Bradford and Fletcher Insulation, for example, along with their network of small- and medium-size enterprises active in the installation business did a lot of work under the Home Insulation Program. Those firms offer a warranty, in some cases a lifetime warranty, for the product that has been installed and also a warranty for the work done during the installation of the insulation. In these circumstances, for example, where those companies have made this commitment to their customers—a warranty for product and installation—it is perfectly appropriate for the government to be saying to those companies that we expect that they stand behind their work. Those are the commercial warranties that they have provided and this matter must inform the risk assessment that the government, through PricewaterhouseCoopers, continues to rely upon in targeting and prioritising homes for inspection. CSR Bradford placed an ad in the paper quite recently on Sunday 22 May stating the following: If you have had Braford batts installed in your ceiling by a Bradford Comfortchoice specialist under the federal government home insulation program, you made the right choice. We will be writing to Comfortchoice customers over the next few weeks to provide reassurance that by choosing to have Bradford Gold or SoundScreen batts installed by one of our approved Comfortchoice installers you can be sure that the insulation was correctly installed by a longstanding and reputable business and it is safe and effective. Comfortchoice installers work to the highest industry standards. Many tens of thousands of homes were installed under those arrangements under the brand of CSR Bradford. The company has publicly indicated its preparedness to stand behind all of that work, including the installations that have been carried out. They run a hotline. They have advertised it nationally. They have written to all of the homes that were installed by them under the program, indicating they stand behind their work. Why should their work be trashed by the coalition and the shadow minister and brought into question in the way that it is with the myth making and scaremongering that has been conducted? The responsible way of approaching this issue in identifying the number of homes to be inspected and prioritising those homes for inspection is to conduct a proper risk assessment and not to be engaged in scaremongering about the issue. On this front, I can advise the House that so far approximately 37,000 houses have already been inspected under the home insulation safety program and that includes about 5,000 requests for urgent inspections from households with the rest being conducted as part of the targeted inspection program that I have indicated. In order to scale up the rate of inspections, which are currently occurring at the rate of around 2,000 homes per week, the government through PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency is pursuing the engagement of additional contractors with appropriately trained inspectors to carry out further inspections of homes that had insulation installed in accordance with the priorities established by the risk assessment. Recently, heads of agreement were signed with CSR Bradford and UGL Services for inspections and safety remediation work to be carried out. That will enable another significant scaling up in the rate of inspections being carried out per week. UGL Services in particular will undertake the engagement of small- and medium-size enterprises, including insulation installation firms, and engage them in the home inspection work provided they have an appropriate compliance record. These are very important commitments. The member for Flinders has raised a number of issues about fires. Periodically—about every fortnight—on the department’s website, the figures for the number of fire incidents that have occurred are updated. Far from it being secret, the last update happened yesterday on the department’s website. Hardly a secretive matter, it was identified that 174 fires have been linked to addresses where insulation has been installed under the discontinued program. It is very important to indicate that firstly that update to 174 fires includes a number of fire incidents that occurred as far back as October last year. The department waits upon advice from the respective authorities for the information to come in. Where an incident has been investigated and has been associated with the home insulation program, sometimes the passage of that information takes some considerable time. That is one reason why there was a jump in the number of fires posted on the website yesterday. I hope that that helps alleviate some of the fearmongering about this particular issue. The other thing that is very important to understand about this is that a fire incident is not necessarily a fire that structurally damages a dwelling. The number of homes that have unfortunately been the subject of a fire incident that has caused structural damage—according to the reports that have been provided to us by the fire authorities in the various states and territories—is about six. That is out of the 174 fire incidents that have been reported and recorded on the department’s website. The overwhelming majority of cases, fortunately, are incidents in which there has been some smouldering detected in the ceiling, oftentimes around down lights or other electrical appliances in the ceiling and the mechanisms in place have been able to capture the fire incident at a fairly early stage. It is very important to recognise these things in context. It is also very important in our public commentary—and I offer this gratuitous observation to my colleague opposite—that we do not go around fearmongering about this issue. It is one thing to be saying that we are going to be offering support to people. But it is also very important to deal with the facts in an appropriate way and not create unnecessary fear and concern. In making that statement, I do not make it from the standpoint that we should necessarily underplay any of the issues to which I am averting. But it is very important that people are able to operate on the basis of the facts. I indicated also that the government has instituted a foil insulation safety program. This is in respect of homes, numbering slightly in excess of 50,000, which had foil insulation installed in them. In relation to that, the government has, through various arrangements, now overseen about 24,000 inspections of homes that had foil insulation installed. We have committed that every home will be subject of a safety inspection, with the result being either the removal of the foil insulation on the advice of a local electrician or alternatively—also on the advice of the electrician to the householder—the installation of circuit breakers or safety switches in the circuits of the particular home. That is a program that has been designed in consultation with the key authorities expert in this matter, including the Queensland Electrical Safety Office. There has also been some commentary in relation to the circumstances of firms within the insulation industry. The government has made available assistance packages totalling approximately $56 million. One of them is an insulation workers adjustment package, which contains a $10 million component to assist businesses in particular in the retention of employees or, alternatively, the redesign of some of their business activity. In addition, there is a $15 million package to support firms that at the termination of the program held insulation stock. Quite a number of applications have come in for that assistance and they are being processed expeditiously by AusIndustry in partnership with the Department of Climate Change. In fact, so far 98 applications have been approved under that specific program, totalling grants in the region of $6.1 million. Applications and payments continue to be processed. A lot of progress has been made, too, in relation to the clearance of claims for payments by installers following the conclusion of the program. In short, more than 100,000 payments were outstanding at the conclusion of the program. We have now got to a position where about 30,000 claims for payment remain. About 6,000 of them require very detailed follow up. They are incomplete claims for payment and require phone calls to every claimant. But about 25,000 claims are the subject of investigation for fraud or various forms of non-compliance. It is important that that process be allowed to be pursued. Finally and on that front, the government, through the department, appointed a set of forensic auditors to follow up on allegations of fraud. That work is now well advanced. KPMG were appointed for that particular task and are well advanced in it. I look forward to receiving a report from the department on that issue. (Time expired) 5567 16:57:00 Markus, Louise, MP E07 Greenway LP 0 0 Mrs MARKUS —I rise today to support the matter of public importance moved by the member for Flinders, the shadow minister for climate action, environment and heritage. It simply beggars belief that, in a nation like Australia, people could have their lives put at risk by a program organised and run by the Australian government. What makes it even more surprising is that no-one seems capable, willing or able to take ultimate and full responsibility for this failure of policy and administration which has lead to the deaths of four people, countless house fires and hundreds of thousands of potentially deadly roofs in every community across this nation. And the fear within the community that at any time their home might burn to the ground. My community of the Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains is a community of climate extremes, blisteringly hot in summer and bitterly cold in winter. It is also one of the oldest communities in this nation, housing buildings which go back to the days of Lachlan Macquarie at the beginning of the 19th century. Many buildings and homes do not have insulation or have insulation which does not meet modern standards. Today I would like to speak about three situations in my own community. I will talk about people who took the Labor government at their word on insulation but today are disappointed. Bligh Park is a suburb in my electorate. It is where my husband and I bought our first home. It is a typically Australian suburb. But in Chifley Place, Bligh Park, the Labor government was involved in the phantom installation of supposedly ‘nation-building’ insulation. A local realtor received a letter from the Labor government addressed to a Mr Chris Hoy in Chifley Place, Bligh Park. The letter reassured him that there had been a payment made under the Energy Efficient Homes Package of the economic stimulus plan to his installer, for insulation installed at an address he managed. The realtor was surprised, for two reasons: firstly, there is no Chris Hoy living in Chifley Place, Bligh Park, and there never has been; and, secondly, an independent inspection conducted by the confused property manager showed that no new insulation had been installed in the property in Chifley Place, Bligh Park. How incredible. Clearly, a canny insulation installer saw the ‘light on the hill’ in Chifley Place, Bligh Park, and diligently took it upon himself to rort government and deceive local residents. The industry is also hurting from the Rudd Labor government’s failure in this area. On 19 February this year, the Rudd Labor government announced the cancellation of the Home Insulation Program pending a review, with an expected restart later this year. But, as we know, in April the Rudd Labor government ditched plans to restart the scheme and left hundreds of small business installation companies in limbo. In fact, it is estimated that 3,500 individuals with families, and mortgages and bills to be paid, lost their jobs. Back in February, I spoke to John Halta of Pinnacle Insulation. John told me he had been forced to lay off six contractors and was unable to take on other work because, with $150,000 of stock taking up space in his warehouse, he has no room to undertake other work. This is a man with contractors relying on his industry and on his business, with a wife and four children, with a mortgage, with bills, with an investment for his family’s future. He was dismayed that reputable operators were being held accountable for the shonky activities of others, seeking only to cash in on the Prime Minister’s economic largesse. In fact, John Halta told me that the Rudd Labor government had ‘ruined the insulation industry and our insulation business’. The Rudd Labor government has destroyed a perfectly well functioning industry through its own policy failure. Vulnerable people in my community were taken advantage of through this failed policy of the Rudd Labor government. As a local member I receive many dozens of calls to my electorate office on a daily basis. There is no doubt that the increased level of community concern over the insulation program fed into increased contact with my office—not just with my office but with many members’ offices. Community concern over this failed program runs very high. Talkback radio across Australia continues to discuss the failures of this policy and, now, the $1 billion being spent to clean up the appalling mess. In my local community, two constituents who contacted my office had very specific concerns. One, Mrs Robin Muir-Miller of Windsor, contacted my office very distressed about the potential for a fire caused by the installation of insulation in her roof. Mrs Muir-Miller is extremely disabled and lives alone. She was deeply concerned that, in the case of a fire, she would not be able to flee her home in time. On Mrs Muir-Miller’s behalf, I made contact with Minister Combet, and an urgent inspection found evidence of shoddy work but, thankfully, little risk of fire. But, under the current rate of inspections, it could be up to seven years before every home is inspected. Mrs Muir-Miller was told that she should arrange for the original installer to redo the work, but she is reluctant to do that. She is fearful that, having botched the work the first time, they will botch it again. The question has to be asked: why should Mrs Muir-Miller be forced to pay to fix something that was not carried out properly in the first place? Another constituent of mine, Mrs Howes, who lives in Bligh Park, also contacted me about the potential for a fire to start in her roof as a result of the insulation installation. She was concerned not only about the insulation but also about fraud. In Mrs Howes’s case, surplus batts were left in her ceiling, uninstalled. Mrs Howes advised that the company claimed to have installed 90 square metres of insulation in her roof. Further, Mrs Howes tells me that the company which installed the insulation advised her that if the existing insulation had been installed more than five years ago it needed to be replaced. Earlier today, Mrs Howes told me that she has now had all of the recently installed insulation taken from her ceiling. An inspection showed that the installation of the batts under the scheme was not done properly; some were cut up, others stacked incorrectly, and some were installed over fans—clearly a safety hazard. The previous, adequate insulation remains. This just proves what a shocking waste of money this scheme has been. I have heard many examples from other parts of Australia, where people were told they could not sell their home unless it contained insulation installed under the scheme. The management of this program and the destruction of this industry and others in the environmental area—the solar industry comes to mind—have led to grave community concern and a growing lack of trust and confidence in this government. In my local community, workers already struggling to meet rising costs of living—electricity, water and petrol—are now being taxed to pay for Labor’s inability to manage and implement policy initiatives. I know what my community could have better spent the $1 billion on. We could have improved our own local environment, meeting commitments made previously about the health of the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system. We could have invested in road safety upgrades and in urgently needed equipment for our hospitals and equipment for our volunteer emergency services. This is a matter of great public importance, not just to my community of the Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains but to all Australians. The Rudd Labor government should be ashamed of its complete failure in this area and the loss of confidence felt by all Australians in the delivery of government services. Individuals like Mrs Muir-Miller and Mrs Howes, as well as business owners and those that they employ—people who are relying on the industry to provide a future for themselves and their family—depend on governments to make sound decisions and manage programs effectively. Sadly, these individuals and these businesses and the people who rely on them have been let down. 5569 17:07:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —The government has in place a comprehensive safety plan to deal with the wind-up of the Home Insulation Program. The elements of that plan are a Home Insulation Safety Program, a Foil Insulation Safety Program, industry assistance and payments, and strong fraud and compliance measures. It is useful to hear from the member for Greenway that the urgent inspection that her constituent called for was in fact arranged and that the inspection disclosed that there was no risk of fire. That of course demonstrates that the Home Insulation Safety Program, under which safety inspections of at least 150,000 homes with non-foil insulation are to be carried out, is underway. The inspections are being targeted at homes that are most likely to have safety issues. It is based on an ongoing risk assessment. As you would appreciate, Deputy Speaker Moylan, risk assessment is something that is informed by the results of inspections as they are carried out. That risk assessment is being developed by PricewaterhouseCoopers. If the ongoing risk assessment indicates that more houses should be inspected, they will be. As well, any household that has safety concerns with installations under the Home Insulation Program can request an inspection through the safety hotline on 131792. Those inspections are being performed in addition to the minimum of 150,000 homes. The Home Insulation Safety Program is being managed by PricewaterhouseCoopers, and PricewaterhouseCoopers is engaging subcontractors to assist with the inspection program. Some other details have already been provided by the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, but I draw the attention of the House to the approach that has been taken by the opposition throughout this insulation program. The truth is that the government is approaching this issue in a reasoned, safe and sensible manner. By contrast, the opposition’s approach is characterised by hypocrisy, exaggeration, misinformation and scaremongering. What we are hearing from the opposition—in particular from the shadow minister but also from the Leader of the Opposition and a little bit more from the member for Greenway just now—is the spreading of alarm and fear and the misuse of statistics. There is no real concern here for the safety of households; rather there is concern with scoring political points. We had a very recent example, I regret to say, of the misleading use of statistics. It occurred just today when the shadow minister used the statistics that the government has made available and has regularly made available. We heard the admission of the shadow minister during the course of his speech—he likes to pepper his remarks with the adjective ‘secret’ to describe statistics as if some concealment had occurred in relation to statistics on fires and inspections. But in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The government has regularly made available information about the course of the inspection program and has regularly made available statistics about the occurrence of fire incidents. That was what occurred yesterday when the minister made available the most recently published statistics about fire incidents, which the shadow minister chose to convert into—in his words—‘almost one fire a day. We have had 18 in the last 20 days and 30 in the last 32 days.’ That is a misuse of the statistics. As the minister has made clear, these fire incident statistics are regularly made available by the fire authorities and do not simply report on the fire incidents which have occurred since the last time statistics were made available. In many cases—and it was the case with this particular lot of fire incidents—they include fire incidents going back to as long ago as last October. But the member for Flinders would not wish to let the facts get in the way of a good scare campaign. He is wishing to ramp up the level of alarm, ramp up the statistics in a way to suggest that there has been a sudden occurrence of fires. The truth is that it is simply a matter of reporting times. At least several of these fires occurred some considerable time ago. So too the member for Flinders is always keen to amplify rather than diminish and reassure in relation to the type of fire incidents which are occurring. He has available to him the same statistics that the minister has just provided to the House, which disclose that of the 174 fire incidents to 15 June which have been linked to the home insulation program, 111 of them were attended by fire authorities. The fire authorities have provided information which tells us that only six resulted in structural damage to the dwelling, 15 resulted in structural damage to the roof and 90 did not result in structural damage. That is not a factor that the member for Flinders or any of those opposite would wish to make the subject of analysis. Those are categorisations that are provided by the fire authorities. So too in relation to fraudulent behaviour—the shadow minister calls for strong action on fraudulent behaviour but then he writes to the government, advocating on behalf of selected installation companies, some of which are subject still to investigation for compliance issues or fraud, asking that their outstanding payments be made immediately. The shadow Treasurer has gone so far as to make public comments to the effect that there should be interest paid to some of these companies for withholding payments. The government is rightly not prepared to do this. The government should not be rushed—and it is wrong for the opposition to suggest otherwise—into making payments to companies who are legitimately under investigation. There is a professed concern for households, but I suggest that the opposition is not truly concerned with the risk to households or the safety of households. If the opposition were truly concerned in that way, then we would hear from the shadow minister, we would hear from those opposite, a publicising of the government’s safety programs, a publicising of the inspections that are available to everyone who has had insulation installed under this program and a publicising of the hotline numbers under which it is possible to ring to arrange an inspection. The shadow minister would be assisting householders to participate in the safety program that the government has organised. The shadow minister has repeatedly called for all homes insulated under the program to be inspected. That call is to ignore the fact that very many of the homes that have had insulation installed under this program had their insulation installed by good reputable companies. Two of the bigger firms involved are Fletcher Insulation, which is the company that manufactures pink batts in a number of locations around Australia, including a very large plant in my electorate in south Dandenong. Fletcher Insulation has a very long established installer network. CSR Bradford is another of the large manufacturers in Australia of insulation. CSR Bradford has been in the business for many years. It makes the product known as gold batts. The member for Flinders and those opposite want to talk down the businesses and want to talk down the industry as a whole. Both Fletchers and CSR Bradford for very many years have offered a guarantee of the quality of their product and a guarantee of their insulation. As the minister said in his speech, CSR Bradford has backed this up publicly with advertisements about the extent of assurance that CSR Bradford is prepared to put behind its work. In these circumstances, there is no fundamental reason why the government should be inspecting homes. We have commercial warranties in place by reputable firms. The simple fact is that the shadow minister and the opposition are not really concerned with the sensible and careful wind-up of the government’s Home Insulation Program. The shadow minister is concerned only about politics. He will not stop the hypocrisy to make his point. He will not be concerned about unduly raising concern and he is not concerned about the damage he is doing to the industry. He is seemingly not concerned about misrepresenting the truth. We say that it is high time the opposition stopped this scare campaign and offered the government support in the comprehensive, orderly and careful efforts the government is making to safely wind up this program. (Time expired) 5571 17:17:00 Wood, Jason, MP E0F La Trobe LP 0 0 Mr WOOD —I start my contribution to this matter of public importance by saying we definitely need to inspect every house in this country which has been installed with insulation. It is easy for the government members to say: ‘Hey, don’t worry about it; there is no need to do it. We have already had 174 house fires.’ What greatly concerns me is those people who have had their houses insulated who do not take the initiative to ring the hotline and just think, ‘She’ll be right; there’s no need to act.’ You normally find those who are not the keenest to make the phone calls to follow this up are the more vulnerable in our community. The big disgrace of this program is how the vulnerable were basically picked off one by one in suburbs like Boronia and Berwick in my electorate where we had cold calls and doorknocking. For example, one of my residents, Mr Noel Abson from Belgrave, heard that some elderly friends of his in Croydon had had some insulation installed, so he went over to see how it was all looking. He was concerned about the danger of a house fire. Before he went up in the ceiling he asked the elderly resident there, who wishes not to be named, ‘How long were the installers here for?’ She said, ‘They were here for an hour. Actually it may have been a bit more because they did not have a torch.’ The installers did not even have a torch. That is the sort of training and process the government put in place where basically anyone could be an installer and these companies started up overnight. Mr Abson has some experience in this field and actually went up in the roof. The installation company claimed the rebate for installing 80 square metres of pink batts, which equates to 145 batts. Sadly, he found there were 130 batts missing. The company had ripped the insulation in half. These are obviously very dodgy installers. This has been happening right across the country. It is an absolute disgrace. We need to find out from the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency how many dodgy installers are currently being investigated by the AFP and how many investigators there are for each of these investigations. In my electorate of La Trobe over 4,000 houses have had insulation installed under this program. Government members say, ‘Hey, there is nothing to worry about; there will be no fires.’ To me, that is absolute rubbish. We have to look at what the experts say. The Deputy Chief Fire Officer of Melbourne’s MFB has advised that the 800,000 homes insulated must be inspected. That is not coming from the Liberal Party and that is not coming from the Nationals. That is coming from an expert. The reason there is great concern, coming up to winter, about the potential for fires is simply that people leave lights on longer at night. That is a great concern for elderly residents, who live in fear. The government members again say, ‘Hey, people do not live in fear.’ On 3 March I was contacted by Jacqui and Alex Qureitem of Berwick. Mr Combet knows this name very well. They were greatly concerned with the insulation that they had had installed and they thought there could be a fire hazard at their place. They were not using their lights and were taking precautions not to use their ceiling fans. We lobbied the minister’s office to get an inspection. Eventually, there was an inspection on 27 March and the problem was supposed to be resolved. The people who attended were actually the same people who installed it. How bizarre is that: the people who create the mess are the ones there to fix it! We arranged for a second inspection and they said that it was a fire danger and a dodgy job. Finally, on 24 May after the company had supposedly re-attended, we got another inspection carried out. There were two inspections on the one place and both came back reporting that it was a fire danger. That is a disgrace and that is why I am so concerned that households right across this country potentially in this upcoming winter are going to have ceiling fires and eventually it is going to cost the life of some elderly person who will not use the hotline and who will be at home, turn the lights on and suffer the consequences of this disgraceful scheme. (Time expired) 5572 17:23:00 Cheeseman, Darren, MP HW7 Corangamite ALP 1 0 Mr CHEESEMAN —I rise today to speak on this matter of public importance and to refute the central allegations within this matter. The simple facts are that the Home Insulation Safety Plan has been something that this government has been working on for some time now. The opposition continue to play politics with this issue, and of course that does great damage to the retrofitting industry for home insulation. The government is making sure that no stone remains unturned in making sure that this scheme is completed as soon as possible. The Home Insulation Safety Plan is about making sure that houses are safe after having received insulation under the government’s program. The plan is about making sure that inspectors who complete the inspections of the installations are fully trained and conduct the inspections in a safe and responsible manner. The government is making sure that affected businesses have access to numerous forms of assistance so that confidence in the home insulation retrofitting segment of the industry is maintained. In contrast, the shadow minister would have us rush this program out, denying the opportunity for people to be properly and adequately trained as inspectors. This government is conducting inspections in a reasonable manner that will provide for the greatest risk minimisation to households and to inspectors. We have responsibly engaged PricewaterhouseCoopers to oversee the Home Insulation Safety Program. Under this program a minimum of 150,000 homes that were installed with nonfoil insulation will be inspected. This will be aimed at homes that will be deemed most likely to be unsafe. More houses will be inspected if ongoing risk assessments indicate such a need. Currently 37,000 houses have already been inspected under the Home Insulation Safety Program, with approximately 5,000 of these being done by urgent request. For houses installed with foil insulation, we have again engaged PricewaterhouseCoopers to manage the Foil Insulation Safety Program. This program provides a licensed electrical contractor to inspect homes installed with foil insulation and to rectify any safety issues arising from the installations. Rectification of issues includes the removal of the foil insulation or the installation of safety switches on the advice of that electrical contractor. Currently, more than 24,000 homes installed with foil insulation have been inspected. These include households that were inspected before the Foil Insulation Safety Program was implemented, by electricians who were engaged by homeowners, and the cost of this work will be reimbursed by the government. Safety is paramount to the home insulation plan that this government is delivering, and safety will continue to be paramount. 10000 Moylan, Judi (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. JE Moylan)—Order! The discussion is now concluded. 5573 Committees 5573 5573 10000 Moylan, Judi (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. JE Moylan)—Mr Speaker has received advice from the member for Lyne nominating himself to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library. Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) 17:27:00 —by leave—I move: That Mr Oakeshott be appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library. Question agreed to. 5573 Bills R4382 Cognate bills: 5573 Bills R4383 5573 Debate resumed. 10000 Moylan, Judi (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. JE Moylan)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Wide Bay 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. 5574 17:28:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —In continuation, I am surprised that there is any partisanship around this Excise Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel) Bill 2010 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel) Bill 2010 because this is legislation designed to put CASA on a firm financial footing into the future. One hundred per cent of the revenue raised will go to CASA—every single cent. It will be used to fund vital safety surveillance, safety analysis, safety inspections and other critical safety functions at CASA. It will also provide that long-term funding stability for CASA to ensure that it can continue with important programs such as random alcohol and drug testing and airspace regulation. There are increasingly complex demands on the safety regulator through increased operations of low-cost carriers, charter services and foreign operators; increasing helicopter usage and offshore maintenance. As I have stated before to the parliament, this legislation has not just come from the budget papers. This is a process that began in 2008. Indeed, in February of 2008 Australia’s safety systems were reviewed against the minimum global standards, which are established by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. This audit was conducted under ICAO’s universal safety oversight audit program. This is a program under which ICAO has due consideration for the safety systems that exist in national jurisdictions. Aviation, like shipping, is regulated in many aspects on an international basis. That is the nature of the industry. ICAO, during this audit, made on-site assessments of the safety oversight of all aspects of Australia’s aviation industry. Australia—I hope this is bipartisan—supports ICAO in the role that ICAO plays. The audit conducted from 18 to 28 February 2008 made a number of findings. It affirmed that Australia had a very sound legislative and regulatory framework and that in the majority of technical areas of safety Australia’s system is well above the international average. The audit did, however, indicate room for improvement for CASA, particularly in relation to the numbers of technical staff in some areas of expertise, and in strategies to maintain technical expertise and qualifications within the organisation. The aviation white paper, which followed the aviation green paper and was published in December of last year, stated: CASA acknowledges that it has experienced a shortage of technical staff in particular areas, and is addressing issues raised by the audit through specific corrective actions … And they went on to list workforce capability, training and skills issues. The white paper, on page 111, said: The Government has committed to complete the majority of Australia’s corrective actions by the end of 2010. We have had a two-year process of negotiation on these issues. The industry has been fully apprised of the direction that this has been headed in. To pretend that it is acceptable or at all legitimate for me, as the Australian transport minister, and for transport officials of this country—including from CASA—to go to the ICAO general assembly to be held later this year and say, ‘Sorry, we couldn’t get the legislation about extra safety inspectors that you said were required through the Senate,’ is just, frankly, a complete abrogation of responsibility. We know that there is a need for additional specialist staff. That is why we announced the increase in funding for CASA through the excise increase in the budget on 11 May. On budget night we put out a media release on aviation safety, and the details of what CASA’s new funding will be used for were set out on pages 168 and 169 of the portfolio budget statements. But when CASA and the department presented at the Senate estimates two weeks later, on 27 May, there was not a single question about these issues. There was not one question from those opposite—not one question of substance or even of polemic. They knew this was coming. It was there in the budget papers and there was no problem but when the legislation was introduced last week and debated and voted upon today, those opposite found that they did have problems. We had three speakers from the National Party as well as from the Liberal Party opposing this sensible measure. Part of the aviation green paper and white paper which I am sure the National Party cannot recognise indicates that this is a coherent policy approach for the sector. In submissions to the green paper, where we foreshadowed the need for CASA to be appropriately funded, Rex Regional Express airlines welcomed the government’s review of regulatory charges in the regional airlines sector. In response to the white paper, the government announced that CASA’s regulatory service charges would be capped to address the burden of regulatory charges, in particular on regional and general aviation. That compares with what happened when the Leader of the National Party was the transport minister, when there was a massive increase in regulatory charges between 2004-05 and 2005-06. At the same time, the increase in aviation fuel excise did not matter when they decided to cut $9 million of appropriation revenue from that excise for CASA! The hypocrisy in their position on this is extraordinary. We had an extraordinary contribution by the member for Farrer, which cannot go unaddressed. The member for Farrer said: In fact, I think it will add up to a lot more money. So many more dollars will go in the door of CASA but there is no real accountability for the use of that money, other than 100 new cops on the beat. That is what she said. I actually think 100 new cops on the beat looking at aviation safety is a good thing. But the member for Farrer disparages it. She goes further: In conclusion: where is the problem? Maybe she does not have a television. Maybe she does not read the newspapers. Maybe she is not aware of these issues. Maybe she was not aware of the ICAO audit. Maybe she is not aware that the government indicated in the aviation white paper that safety and security would be the No. 1 priority. She says: Demonstrate the case. Please recognise that general aviation and the airlines in this country do not need further regulation from CASA. The average private pilot probably wants to be able to sit in the hangar at the end of the day when all flying is concluded and have a couple of beers, without somebody coming past with a clipboard, a breathalyser and a reason to do a drug test. It is beyond a joke. That is what the member for Farrer said about aviation safety inspectors. In fact, drug and alcohol testing in the aviation industry was announced on 8 May 2007 by the former government’s Minister for Transport and Regional Development, Mark Vaile. In that announcement the government provided for some $9 million over three years to introduce mandatory drug and alcohol testing in the aviation industry. Mr Vaile said, ‘The mandatory tests will start in 2008.’ That program was supported by us when we were in opposition, but apparently it is not supported by the current opposition any more. They do not support mandatory drug and alcohol testing. It is an extraordinary proposition, it is incredibly irresponsible and I think it highlights their bankrupt position when it comes to these issues. The previous government raised the fuel excise 11 times. In fact, in 1999 and 2003 the previous government increased the excise rate for the specific purpose of providing additional funding to CASA and we supported it, as any responsible parliamentarian would. In its last term of office from 2004 to 2007, the previous government more than doubled CASA’s regulatory services charges on industry. If the opposition want to be taken at all seriously in the area of aviation safety, they should not do what they have done on aviation security, where they have opposed any regulations with regard to the cockpits of aircraft, but instead take a step back and recognise that they got it wrong and should be supporting this measure. The fact that the second reading amendment attempts to condemn the government for a lack of consultation and communication with the aviation industry is unbelievable, because not just the Australian aviation industry but also the whole international aviation industry has been on notice since February 2008 that these issues needed to be addressed. This government is determined to make sure that these issues are addressed. This is good legislation. It needs to be passed through this House, it needs to be passed through the Senate and it needs to be put in place by 1 July 2010, because when it comes to aviation safety we cannot compromise. We need to do all that is in our power to do the right thing and avoid risk. This is sensible risk management. We know that those opposite are a risk on a range of issues, but when it comes to aviation safety I say that this bill should pass both houses of parliament with the support of every member of the House of Representatives and every senator. I commend the bill to the House. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Truss’s amendment) stand part of the question. 17:46:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Mr KJ Thomson) 76 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. 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. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Kelly, M.J. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Oakeshott, R.J.M. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Windsor, A.H.C. Zappia, A. 55 Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. 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. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Keenan, M. Ley, S.P. 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. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. * Simpkins, L. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 5577 Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) 17:52:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 5577 Bills R4383 5577 Debate resumed from 3 June, on motion by Mr Albanese: That this bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 5577 Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) 17:53:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 5577 Bills R4369 5577 Debate resumed from 26 May, on motion by Mr Stephen Smith: That this bill be now read a second time. 5577 17:54:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —This is my third attempt to complete this speech in response to the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2010, which makes some significant changes to the eligibility for receiving export market development grants. In my previous comments on this matter, I made reference to the fact that these changes reverse most of the decisions and promises that the government made at the last election—promises which were not funded and therefore have led to a significant blow-out in the cost of the EMDG Scheme. The government said at the time these changes were made that they were sensible changes and would revitalise and update the EMDG Scheme. Subsequently there was a review by Mr David Mortimer, who recommended that these changes should be reversed. In fact, that is what this legislation proposes. It is an example of government policy in disarray. The bill breaks four of the election commitments that the government made in relation to the EMDG Scheme, and one commitment, in relation to a negative list for eligible claims, was never even implemented. So this is another example of trashed government election promises. This bill will reduce the maximum grant available under the scheme from $200,000 to $150,000, reduce the maximum number of grants available for an individual recipient from eight to seven, cap the intellectual property registration expenses at $50,000 per application, increase the minimum expenses threshold from $10,000 to $20,000 and increase the eligibility income limit for members of approved joint venture consortia from $30 million to $50 million. The EMDG Scheme reimburses eligible enterprises for 50 per cent of costs spent on specific export promotion activities above a threshold. The scheme has been capped at $150 million per annum since 1997 and through the forward estimates, except in 2009-10, when a $200 million cap was applied. Labor knew that its changes to the EMDG Scheme would cost more, but it only funded the increase in the cost for one year. It did provide a top-up in 2008-09, but that was to allow for better refunds for claims in the 2007-08 year under the previous government’s scheme. The ALP made the criteria for the scheme more generous even though there was insufficient money to pay for the old scheme. In reality, industry had been used to getting a full reimbursement—they had relied upon this because it had happened consistently under the previous government and then also under this government—but now there is simply insufficient money to meet the obligations under the scheme. So the government is choosing to wind back the eligibility rather than provide additional funds. Claims are reimbursed retrospectively for expenditure incurred in the previous financial year, pro rata, up to a cap. Around 5,100 enterprises per year apply for grants, of which 80 per cent are SMEs. The government has made a complete mess of the EMDG Scheme. To repeat: soon after taking office the government expanded the scheme by lowering the eligibility expenditure threshold from $15,000 to $10,000, increasing the number of grants from seven to eight and increasing the maximum grant from $150,000 to $200,000. The cost of these changes was estimated at $50 million per year, but increased funding was only provided in 2009-10. The government commissioned Mr Mortimer to carry out a review of the EMDG Scheme. Mr Mortimer reported in September 2008 and Minister Crean promised a government response by the end of that calendar year. Then a response was promised in the 2009-10 budget and then in the 2010-11 budget. In reality, while there has been no specific response to the Mortimer review, the review recommended that most of Minister Crean’s earlier changes be reversed and so this bill is a partial response to the Mortimer report. There is now a shortfall of about $30 million for grants payable in 2009-10 and there will be a shortfall of $80 million in 2010-11. This means that exporters who have invested in good faith in developing markets will have their reimbursements drastically reduced. The bill continues the government’s record of broken election commitments and administrative incompetence and is a major embarrassment to the minister. I suspect that he would have asked for the extra money that he needed to fund the scheme but was knocked back in the government’s expenditure review process, no doubt because the government needed to find $1 billion to fix the pink batts insulation mess, $1 billion to deal with asylum seeker issues and $1 billion or more to cover up for the extra costs of the school halls initiative. These changes that the government made, which were underfunded, are now being reversed because the government could not find the extra $50 million or thereabouts to make this grant scheme work as was originally intended. The changes proposed by the government will reduce the total value of grants claimed to about $200 million per annum. This means there will still be a shortfall of $50 million per year in 2011-12 and subsequent years and payments of grants will be reduced accordingly. The shortfalls of $30 million in 2009-10 and $80 million in 2010-11 will remain. In other words, the changes made by this bill do not solve the problem. Every year from now on applicants will receive a small initial reimbursement and every dollar claimed over this amount will be reduced by up to 80c. The impact on small exporting businesses and on the credibility of the EMDG Scheme will be devastating. I have received a letter from one small business owner who lodged a claim this year for just under $200,000, which had been approved. He stands to lose about $70,000 and now will be unable to expand the export arm of his business, including plans for further employment. He says that during the global financial crisis: I kept my nerve and did my best to retain my team and keep driving our position overseas. I did this believing I had the backing of my federal government to do so. Now they are reneging on a substantial sum of money, yet in all of their hollow rhetoric they claim to be the champions of the economy and small business. Remember that this small business owner spent the money in 2008-09 and he had no reason to expect that his claim would not be paid in full, particularly as the previous government paid 100 per cent of claims and Labor topped up the 2008-09 shortfall in the 2009-10 budget. The Mortimer review had something to say on the need for business certainty. Mr Mortimer said: The Review considers, however, that a priority is to give applicants certainty about the level of funding they will receive. The current uncertainty, created by demand for funding under the scheme greatly exceeding the available funding levels, substantially negates the objective of encouraging exporters to commit additional resources to export promotion. These comments were backed up by a representative of Chocolate Graphics International, an SME located on the Gold Coast, who was quoted in the Mortimer report as saying: Can I emphasise that it is very important that the applicant knows how much they will receive back, as the uncertainty as it appears will happen in 2008 is absolutely a disaster for our cash flow for a small company like CGI. We had planned to participate in export shows in communication with Austrade in Italy and China. But considering we will not receive our entire claim, plus the future is uncertain, we will have to cancel these planned export events. The only certainty that this bill provides is that the level of reimbursement will remain uncertain. In spite of the cutbacks in this bill, the EMDG Scheme is still underfunded. The government is anxious to have this bill dealt with before the end of the 2010 year. It is clearly not an uncontroversial bill. There is quite a lot of dispute and concern about it, but the opposition will cooperate with the passage of the bill. Businesses do not like the changes—they have been let down yet again by the Rudd government; more promises have been trashed—but they will know the rules. There will be some degree of certainty if we allow this legislation to be passed. It is a sad thing that many will now decide not to export, not to try. There will be lost opportunities for our businesses, but at least with the passage of this bill there will be some certainty as to what level of government support is likely to be available. That will be much less than business has been used to and there will be more uncertainty than has been the case in the past but at least they will be certain that it will be uncertain and can make their decisions on that basis. Australia has recently been questioned about its sovereign risk. This is yet another kick for business. No-one can ever be sure when next the government will break the next of their election commitments. The opposition will not oppose the bill. We recognise that it is important that there be certainty for industry, but we are disappointed that the EMDG Scheme will not be properly funded and therefore those who tackle the difficult task of seeking to export from our country will not get the financial support they have expected and received in the past. 10000 Thomson, Kelvin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr KJ Thomson)—Order! The question is that the bill be now read a second time. I have pleasure in calling the honourable member for Denison and advise the House that points of order are unlikely to be entertained! 5580 18:04:00 Kerr, Duncan, MP RH4 Denison ALP 1 0 Mr KERR —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I came to the Old Parliament House in the depths of winter 23 years ago, the first Tasmanian to win a seat for the Australian Labor Party for more than a decade. Only four of our side of the House remain of the small band that can now remember how ministers and members from government and opposition alike had to rub along side by side in small rooms along common corridors and shared public lavatories. Something has been lost in the passing of that enforced intimacy. In 1988 parliament moved up the hill to this most extraordinary building, where the executive is isolated in a separate wing. We all have offices larger than ministerial suites in the old House and you can fire a cannon down corridors without risk to life. This is majestic public architecture yet an isolating work environment. We cannot change those design elements, but those who remember another way regret its passing. Times like this throw up odd memories. One that came back to me was of Kim Beazley describing the members of the caucus who survived the 1996 defeat of the Keating government as the political equivalent of cockroaches—nothing could kill us. Yet, sadly, to stick with the Beazley etymological metaphor, most who cross this threshold more resemble the mayfly or the moth: a brief life in the light before oblivion. A member of this House serves an average of less than six years. Every one of us who gets the chance to make a valedictory speech reflecting on one or two decades of service is outnumbered by those who win only one or two terms. I thought it was likely that I would be one of those. It has become orthodox to describe Denison as safe for Labor, but that was not how anyone, me included, saw it in 1987. Denison was then a litmus seat. Since Federation it changed hands with every change of government until Michael Hodgman QC finally broke the mould. It was him I had to defeat. But when I stood I had some weights on me, perhaps even the smell of political failure. I had first contested a federal seat in 1977. This was when Gough took Labor to his final election. I was 26. I campaigned using my double-barrelled name. In Braddon my roots in the south of Tasmania and my reputation as a member of the Left were, politely, not an advantage. Gough went backwards nationally and, bluntly, I was soundly beaten by Ray Groom, who later became a Tasmanian Premier. When Bill Hayden took over as the Labor leader, the national executive repeatedly intervened in Tasmania to break the hold of the Left and, more personally, to scotch my chances of Senate preselection. I took the hint and abandoned thoughts of political office. My future was to be in the law. In turn I became a Tasmanian Crown Counsel, then Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Papua New Guinea and, finally, principal solicitor for the Aboriginal Legal Service in New South Wales. I made plans to go to the bar in Sydney. But fate takes odd twists. But for coming home for a holiday I would never have heard that Labor had opened preselections for Denison. It seems madness now, but crazy brave prevailed. Although living in Sydney, I won preselection in a tough contest against a strong candidate backed by the Right. Motions were moved at the national executive to dump me and fellow Left candidate Warren Snowdon. We were both said to be unelectable. One might have been picked off, but two is a bridge too far and the Left threatened war. We survived, just. This and other events made it clear that I was on my own. I left my job and punted everything on a campaign like none before or since. We ignored cautious national office campaign advice, knowing that if we lost there would be no second chances. I bought the rights to Slim Dusty’s Duncan and turned its verses into radio spots with the soundtrack ‘I’d like to give my vote to Duncan  ‘cause Duncan’s me mate.’ My friend and advertising guru Iain Chalmers produced TV ads for me which turned Michael Hodgman’s strengths, as the mouth from the south, into weaknesses. In return, a lot of dirt was thrown at me. The Truth newspaper ran a front-page story: ‘ALP candidate in AIDS scare’. But we hung tough. Finally, the polls showed I was in with a chance and the party got behind me and funded the last weeks of the advertising campaign that it had previously opposed. Helped by the Wilderness Society’s campaign backing Prime Minister Hawke’s pledge to protect the south-west wilderness of Tasmania, we won the seat with the slimmest of margins. I became and would remain the only Tasmanian ALP member of the House for two more terms. But was it an aberration? Michael Hodgman thought so and dubbed me the ‘temporary member for Denison’. He dogged my heels. Whenever I travelled to Canberra I knew Michael would still be at every RSL, every flower show and every graduation. I never had the luxury of thinking I could take it easy for a year or so and then put in a burst at the end. I owe Michael for teaching me how never to take my seat for granted. I won a second tight election against him and the third, when Bob Brown of the Greens was my main opponent, I won with an absolute majority. For the first time the seat of Denison began to be spoken of as safe. I had begun the metamorphosis from moth to cockroach. I also evolved from backbencher to minister—Attorney-General, pending the rerun of the election in Dickson, and Minister for Justice in the Keating government. I served on the cabinet committee that dealt with the Mabo and Wik decisions. We braved the opposition and the mining industry’s scare campaign to confirm the existence of native title. Robert Tickner stands out as a man of courage in a story too long to tell and Paul Keating’s Redfern speech will outlive us all. I fear that talking about the things I would like to be remembered for in that government may sound like Rumpole ruminating on the Penge Bungalow murders—triumphs of a time long ago. Legislation intended to become model codes applying throughout Australia in criminal law and the law of evidence, although now deeply entrenched in Commonwealth law and in many state jurisdictions, still has not been adopted universally, so the task of ensuring that our legal system is less complex and fragmented in even this basic area remains unfinished. Where I had responsibility we have reformed legal aid, expanded the network of community legal services to include environmental defenders offices and women’s legal services, brought in new copyright laws to fit the digital revolution, made substantial changes to law enforcement arrangements and passed legislation to criminalise overseas child sex tourism. We ended the shame of criminal prosecutions of homosexual men by national legislation, overturning my own state’s antisodomy laws. There was something very special about that time and for me something very special about the personal and professional trust I enjoyed with Attorney-General Michael Lavarch. True friendship is a rare thing in parliament. We enter here past the age when friendship comes easily and the engine of politics is competitive and sometimes destructive of trust. Only in retrospect do I realise how extraordinary was the way that Michael and I worked together, bringing our offices together and sharing the administration of the department. It was a tragedy for our movement when Michael lost his seat in 1996 with the defeat of the Keating government. However, his example in the years that followed shows there is much to look forward to after politics and his defeat spared him the frustrations of 11 years in opposition. I have 20 minutes to encompass 23 years—less than a minute a year—so I will pass over that decade save but to mention two things. First is my admiration for those who worked in this parliament and outside to keep alive notions of Indigenous rights, the dignity of refugees and the civil rights of minorities during a time dominated by the politics of fear. I pause to mention former senator Barney Cooney, who showed me that achieving ministerial office is never the measure of a man. Second is my work as an advocate in the High Court case of plaintiff S157 of 2002 v the Commonwealth. I took on that case because I was convinced that the Howard government’s legislation that removed all rights of judicial review in refugee cases was not merely cruel and wrong but also an affront to the rule of law. From the first I had resolved always to keep my practising certificate as a barrister. Those on the other side often speak of their right, albeit rarely exercised, and often punished, to cross the floor. Our side has a more collectivist tradition. But we are equally men and women of conscience, and I knew when I joined the Labor Party that there might be some rare issues, like the death penalty, where my conscience would not let me follow even if my colleagues felt differently. I wanted never to be in the position where my economic future was hostage to political fortune. Remaining a barrister allowed me to take that case. Writing in the Australian Institute of Administrative Law Forum, Robert Lindsay has argued that Plaintiff S157: … will rank with cases such as the Boilermakers’ case, the Engineers’ case and the Australian Communist Party case as a significant development in the constitutional jurisprudence of Australia. In the long run, its vindication of the rule of law and the cases that have built on its foundations may stand as my greatest legacy of 23 years as a parliamentarian. The election of the Rudd government gave me a second chance to serve as a member of the executive, as Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs. I hope my years in that role have helped restore personal contact with and respect for the people and nations that are our nearest and in many ways our most important neighbours. And so to thanks—first, and most importantly, to the electors of Denison. For a Claremont boy, representing the people of Denison and the Australian Labor Party in the federal parliament for 23 years has been the privilege of a lifetime. Hobart and Glenorchy have made great strides over the past 20 years. We live in a culturally and economically confident progressive city, and I am very proud of my part in that. Next, to my family. Moments like this bring back things to the surface; as memories are swirled around, nothing stands out more clearly than the things that have most motivated and shaped me, and my and my brother’s core values flow from what we absorbed from our mother, father and grandfather—the belief that human reason is capable of resisting primitive fears and transcending racism; their example that decency is not weakness; their insistence that the catastrophes of the Depression and totalitarianism that saw millions dead or brutalised and impoverished should never again be allowed to be our future. They taught us that everybody has the choice, to take or to ignore, by acts great or small, to leave the world a little better. I married young to Penny Goldin. It was she who was with me in my first election campaign in Braddon. We parted, but our friendship remains. Celia Taylor and I wed shortly after I entered parliament, and the great love of our lives, our son, Hamish, grew into adulthood often with an absent father. Our marriage broke up when Hamish was a young boy, due perhaps to absences and my single-mindedness on other things. Politics is tough on families, and it is ironic that achieving ministerial office coincided with the wrenching apart of my personal life. But, again, I was lucky. Celia remains a wonderful friend and loving mother, committed always to making sure that our separation never cost our son his family. Others who took me in when broken know how much they still matter to me. However, my greatest good fortune, beyond all deserving, was to meet Anna Pafitis and for her to look past my flaws. For the past decade Anna has been my partner in life. She treats my occasional pretensions with contempt, my hurts with compassion, my absentmindedness usually with amused tolerance, and she returns my love with love. My son, Hamish, and Anna’s daughters, Sophia and Alex, have become a blended family, with Butch the chihuahua and Wishbone, an ageing pound puppy, not far behind in Anna’s affections. I have never risked the ultimatum: ‘It’s the dogs or me!’ I turn to those who have travelled this road with me. Foremost must be Mayda Flanagan. Mayda has been with me for 22 years. She has managed my electorate office and three of my campaigns. There is nothing that Mayda does not know about me—with matching discretion. No-one could ever have had a more fiercely loyal member of their team. It is impossible to honour all those deserving recognition for their years of service in my electorate and ministerial offices: George, Peter, Bill, Simon, Cora, Cassy, Peta, Ben, Ella, Bec, Daryl, Reg, Brian and so many, many others. I owe you far beyond what I can say here. Some final reflections. In 1974 Bob Pease and I worked together to establish the Tenants Union of Tasmania. Our first act was to make a submission to the then Tasmanian government to establish a rental bond board to overcome the problems of landlords improperly withholding security deposits. Last year, 35 years later, the Tasmanian government finally implemented that proposal. It is a reminder that the work of social change is not always capped with success but, also, that that which looks to be failure is not always as it seems. Seed sown can flourish later. I hope the views of the cross-party Parliamentary Group for Drug Law Reform, which I used to co-convene with Dr Mal Washer MP, eventually become part of our mainstream debate. A majority of parliamentarians, lawyers and judges privately recognise the damage being caused by existing policies but few speak out. Much of Europe and South America has already taken steps towards reform and away from policies that create economic incentives for organised crime and stand in the way of health focused programs. I wish the group well with its work and I welcome the awards in the Order of Australia to Drs Alex Wodak and Ingrid van Beek, recognising their efforts in the cause of evidence based drug law policies. And so on to the present. Soon I will be returning to legal practice. I have always shared a love of the law with my passion for politics. I look forward to a third career at the bar—but as you would expect I am sure there will be moments of sadness and even regrets. If I were Lot’s wife I suspect my next life would not be in the law but as pillar of salt. So I will not be here to walk the corridors when the parliament returns after the next election but until then I remain fully committed to serving my electorate and doing all I can to ensure that Labor returns to this side of the chamber. Those with longer memories than a week know that the true mark of a leader is not how they are seen, or what they achieve in the easy times, but in the character they demonstrate in the fight they take on for the betterment of their community—whatever the seeming odds. The fundamentals remain strong. The Rudd government’s economic management has kept Australia the strongest OECD economy in the teeth of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Some things change and some things remain the same. The mining tax again pits the labour movement against a mining lobby that ran similar scare campaigns against native title and for Work Choices. But like Bob Hawke, who still carries the flame, I remain convinced of the fundamental good sense of the Australian people. Fooling them will not be an easy task. So it ends. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the then Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, both said kind things in this chamber on my standing down as parliamentary secretary. This may be a tough place where true friendship is rare, but it is also a place where respect for colleagues can cross party lines. We come with different philosophies but shared hopes for the future. Some will return and others fall—but even the shortest service in this House puts a member amongst the very few of their community to have shared the highest possible responsibility a democracy can offer. Much has been said to me in these last weeks to suggest I will leave here with fewer enemies and more goodwill than the sandpaper of 23 years justifies. I look forward to the future and I thank the House, its members all and staff, for sharing such extraordinary life experiences with me over those years. ‘Twas brillig. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I hope the House will allow me a slight indulgence, as the lone member of the class of 1986 and a fellow cockroach of 1996, to thank the member for Denison for 23 years of comradeship. 5584 18:24:00 Pearce, Christopher, MP A8W Aston LP 0 0 Mr PEARCE —It is a great pleasure for me to follow the member for Denison. I congratulate him on a wonderful and outstanding parliamentary career. I rise today to give this, my valedictory speech. I have been in this place for nine years. Some might call it a short period of time; others may consider it long. Nevertheless, for me, regardless of the political cycle, where I might sit in this House or what may or may not be the outcome of any election, I have come to the conclusion that it is the right time for me to move on and that a new chapter in my life is begging. As all members would appreciate, it is my fervent hope that during my time here I have left the occasional footprint in the sand. Before my chapter in this place is closed, I would like to take this opportunity to place on record a few thoughts that might be of interest to those who come afterwards. I am a committed Liberal and a strong believer in democratic principles. Although most Australians are more prosperous now than we have ever been, we live in an age when people read and talk of politics with an air of disillusionment and corrosive cynicism. A large minority in our community think it is fashionable to believe that politicians are useless, that the system does not work, that everything a politician touches is bad or getting worse and that all political activity is pointless. I for one do not accept this proposition. I do not apologise for joining a political party, nor should we all here act contrite in coming together to form opposing sides of the political divide. I believe it is what the public would want us to do. They want us to forge alliances based on common ideals and experiences. To me, the notion of a House of Representatives filled with 150 disparate Independents, unable to agree on any issue, has never appealed to the electorate, although we should never forget, of course, it is in their gift to deliver it. At its best this place is the helm of our democracy. This House is where the battle of ideas should be fought out and where the hopes and aspirations of the people who send us here receive expression and are, where appropriate, realised. At its worst this House can be a craven institution, either in thrall to the executive arm of government or played for a fool through party advantage, while also pandering to the baser parts of our national media. On days that this is allowed to happen, I believe a tiny bit of our system of representative democracy dies. If we allow this practice to happen, collectively we in this House, I believe, will have lost the moral authority to remain in this place. Everyone who makes it here, however blusterous or engaging they may be, has something special about them. Thousands of people try at every election to get into parliament and very few succeed. To come through that process they have to have some attributes, which from time to time this place can both strengthen and uplift and sadly, in the alternative, overwhelm. Day after day members of parliament are on their feet, pressing issues and concerns close to the hearts of their constituents. As the member for Aston I have never forgotten that, in taking opportunities to speak in this House, I am in effect using a powerful megaphone, a megaphone that I must use wisely and for the issues that matter to my constituents and to me. Serving in this place has been both a privilege and a responsibility, especially for us, whose commitment is to bettering the lives of those in our constituencies. This is the goal that made me stand for election in the first place. It is a privilege to be able to give voice on the national stage to the issues that arise in our electorates and the issues that our constituents bring to us, whether that be in Aston, in Victoria or across Australia. For me, it has been a privilege to be able to use my vote in this place to bring about some of the improvements in the lives of Australians over the past nine years. Being in this place is also, as I mentioned, a responsibility. This sometimes means even speaking the truth to power, speaking up against injustice and opposing a viewpoint when we think there is a better way forward. Yet we also have a duty to support decisions when they help improve the lives of our citizens. For those of us who are coming to the end of our practical vocation in this place, I believe we should, regardless of our individual experiences here, at least say that we have not lost our faith in the cause. I believe public life in politics remains a most important and noble vocation for anyone to follow. We conservatives believe that an important thing to do in politics is to draw a dividing line between what politics should be active in and what it should not be active in. In other words, understanding that which belongs to the public sphere and that which belongs to the private, which are views that should always be defended in this place. Politics, of course, is literally about defending political views. Despite this, the common view is that politics, or if you will public affairs, is something that we should do less of. However, I would argue that we should all end by saying that politics is something that a lot more people should do a lot more of. I am of the opinion that politics in Australia is only safe when it is practised by more people and when more people participate and have the experience of responsibility. I think we need to come up with ways of encouraging more people to take more responsibility. Only in that way can we truly maintain and strengthen our democracy. There is no doubt that, as a result of what we do here in this House, my constituency of Aston and Australia in general benefit when we get it right and suffer when we get it wrong. I remain sceptical of people who argue that parliamentary reform and making the House of Representatives more effective can be achieved by some kind of silver bullet. The fact is that there is no one silver bullet. However, that does not mean that improvements cannot be made. I would respectfully stress that, in my view, there is an essential need to reform various elements of the system; elements that can only improve our democracy. I do not want to be as presumptuous as to outline particular issues or to portray that I have all the answers. Rather, I would strongly urge the need for all sides of politics to finally and openly acknowledge what I believe we all know to be true, that is, the need for reform. If our collective acknowledgement could be achieved then I believe the parliament could actually embrace a unified approach to make this happen so that the system can be improved for the good of all. In parliament we are presented with numerous opportunities to make a difference during our time. For me, membership of parliamentary committees has been one avenue to effect change. I believe that it is through committee work that as parliamentarians we can really get in touch with the needs and wants of many Australians. Committees are not about paper shuffling but are about standing witness to the evidence presented before them, evidence that is so often linked to life experiences and to personal histories. Deep down committee work is about the people we meet and how we can have a positive effect on their lives. It is also about the effect their experiences have on our lives. My time as a member of the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs and the subsequent publication of the committee’s report Every picture tells a story is one such instant that I will always remember as a watershed moment for me in this House. It brought home to me how much of an impact we really can have. In working towards the finalisation of Every picture tells a story it had been the committee’s task to find a way to make the family law system better—better for those children who find themselves, through no choice of their own, in a situation where their parents cannot live together anymore and need to separate. It was my desire and that of my colleagues that the report grapple with the need communicated to the committee by respondents from all walks of life. Despite the recognition in law of a breakdown in a relationship, the parents of children are still just that, their parents, and should continue, where appropriate, to share responsibility for them and remain substantial figures in their life. I, like my colleagues, was convinced that sharing responsibility is the best way to ensure as many children as possible grow up in a caring environment. To share all the important events in a child’s life with both mum and dad even when families are separated, in my view, remains the ideal outcome. I am proud of that standing committee’s report and I encourage all members of this place to further support and strengthen provisions within our family law to provide for the best interests of children and for that to be the most important consideration when faced with parenting issues. Of course committees are assisted greatly by the fine work of many parliamentary staff members. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the people who support the parliament, whether it is in committees or in other areas of the parliament’s work. Each person plays an important and essential role in ensuring this place functions and keeps moving forward. Another area of public policy and of deep personal interest to me that I worked to promote during my time here is the importance of music and music education in the life of young Australians. I touched on this in my very first speech in this House and continue to believe passionately in the link between the learning of music and the development of our humanity. In February 2003, I moved a private member’s motion in this House when I said that I believed every child in Australia should have a comprehensive education in music. I went on to say that, if this can be achieved, I believe those young people will have a better life and that Australia and for that matter the world will be a better place. I am proud to say that my motion was one contributing factor that helped lead to the establishment of the National Review of School Music Education, a review that has gone some way to elevating music education in the life of our children. Although it may sound very simple to say, I want to encourage all members to always remember what a difference music makes in our lives and what a difference it can make to our society. Put simply, more children learning and playing music in the community promotes more happiness and contentment in the community. It was an honour, firstly, to have been elected to represent the people of Aston and, secondly, it was an honour for me to have serviced in government and more particularly in the ministry working as parliamentary secretary to the Treasurer alongside Peter Costello, Australia’s longest-serving Treasurer. In this role I had the opportunity to directly shape and influence policy outcomes within this portfolio for our nation. During my time in government, we made significant reforms and important progress in the key areas of financial services, corporate law, consumer affairs and regulation. Combined with the much more substantial initiatives of the coalition government throughout its entire term, the reforms I worked on contributed in a very small way to insulating Australia against some of the harsher elements of the global financial crisis. My deepest appreciation goes to the people of Aston, who have been most kind and generous in their support. I leave having obtained their support in four elections and I have been constantly touched by their belief in me as their representative. As I look back, I still feel very fortunate in successfully holding such a marvellous and great electorate—first, in a politically testing by-election in 2001 and, later, in successive general elections. I just hope that in some small way I have been able to represent them well and assist in making our local community a better place. The Aston by-election was, as members might remember, a very testing time. I well recall Prime Minister Howard saying on record that it was the Aston by-election win that was the turning point in the fortunes of the coalition government. Throughout my time here, I have always found it interesting how we are constantly told and constantly reminded by the commentariat that the coalition’s win in 2001 was only as a result of Tampa. Maybe it is just an inconvenient truth that, heavily against all the odds, we won the marginal seat of Aston in a by-election several weeks before Tampa sailed into view. The trends had actually started to change well before Tampa even came on the scene. I think this is a perfect example of how, in public affairs, certain vested interests can attempt to rewrite history. I put on record my thanks to the Liberal Party as a whole and in particular to the members of the Aston Federal Electorate Council, especially the electorate council chairman, Mr Graeme McEwin. Graeme’s support for me, both professionally and personally, has been unwavering and for that I thank him deeply. I sincerely thank all the hardworking Liberals in Aston for supporting me throughout the years. I remain deeply grateful for their commitment and their dedication to the cause. In truth, the Liberal Party has been more than just a political party for me and my family. In my case, when we arrived in Melbourne many years ago, we had no family members and few personal friends in Victoria. It has been the Liberal Party that has in fact brought us our dearest and closest friends, something that I will never forget. I particularly thank my loyal staff, who have played their part in helping me throughout my time here. I thank those who currently work with me—Sandra, Glynis, Roz and Scott—as well as all of those who have been part of my parliamentary life and have moved on. To all of you, I thank you. I could not have represented a better constituency or worked with a more dedicated group of people. I also take this opportunity to place on record my sincere thanks to my friends Barbara and Roger, who are here in the chamber today and who have opened their home to me in Canberra for most of my time here. Both Barbara and Roger have been most kind and have made the lonely nights in Canberra go much more quickly and enjoyably. To all my parliamentary colleagues, regardless of political persuasion, I wish you good health and happiness in the years ahead. To my coalition colleagues in particular, I thank you for your support and I wish you all the very best in the election ahead. There is no person in Australia who would like to see a Liberal-National coalition government in office more than I and I wish you all the best in the months ahead. It has been said in this place before, and I am sure that it will be said by those to follow, that the time spent travelling, on the phone, at meetings, in conferences, at functions and here in parliament has taken away valuable time that could easily have been spent with the family. The fact that I have had the opportunity to serve in parliament is only due to the personal support and understanding of my family. In my own life, my son Daniel, who is here in the chamber today, was one year old when I entered this House and I leave as he now enters his second decade of life. For me, in regard to Daniel, I hope for two things. Firstly, I hope that my time here during his early life will have, in some small way, improved his future and likewise the future of all young Australians. Secondly, it is my hope that, in his second decade, I will be there for him much more than I have been in his first. For me, Daniel simply lights up my life. My extended family has also played an incredibly supportive role in my career and I thank my very-much-loved stepchildren, Melinda and Brian, for their understanding and support throughout the years. I have had the great fortune to have had the most supportive, understanding and caring partner that any person could ever wish for, my darling wife Andrea. She is here today in the chamber and it is very difficult to fully express the depth of my gratitude to her, so I simply say, ‘Thank you’ and I say without hesitation that you are my everything. For those who know me well, they will know that the person I most admire in political history is Sir Winston Churchill. When I was first elected to this place, Andrea presented me with a special gift. The gift was a framed Sir Winston Churchill commemorative crown coin, which was given to Andrea as a child by her late English grandmother. Under the crown, Andrea had a specially made plaque inscribed with the words: ‘A Certain Splendid Memory’. A Certain Splendid Memory is the known title of Sir Winston’s maiden speech, delivered in the House of Commons in February 1901. This gift has taken pride of place in my electorate office every day of my life in parliament and now will hang in my study at home. As I look back and as I contemplate my time here in the House of Representatives, in this great Parliament of Australia, my recollections, my reflections and my thoughts will be nothing other than, indeed, a certain splendid memory. Thank you. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —As a fellow Victorian, I wish the member for Aston the best in his life after this place. Before calling the member for Wannon, I am hopeful that there will be no points of order. 5589 18:46:00 Hawker, David, MP 8H4 Wannon LP 0 0 Mr HAWKER —Mr Speaker, on indulgence: I rise tonight to give my valedictory speech as the member for Wannon. In doing so, I would like to emphasise how fortunate I have been to be elected to represent the people of Wannon for 27 years and to have had such wonderful support in that role and also how privileged I have been to have played a number of roles in public life, including that of Speaker of the Parliament, and to reflect on the many changes that have occurred and the changes that still need to occur. Twenty-seven years ago Australia was coming out of the grip of another shocking drought. We had just seen the horrendous Ash Wednesday fires, with more than 50 lives lost but, on a more positive note, Australia II had won the America’s Cup. Little did I know when I entered parliament that the next 13 years would be spent in opposition. While the Hawke-Keating governments followed the usual Labor pattern of running up massive public debt, their overspending pales into insignificance when compared to less than three years of the current Rudd government. But, having said that, the Hawke government did implement the banking reforms proposed by the Campbell committee. It also reduced tariffs and forced industries to become internationally competitive. While the Hawke government made many changes to the tax system, this was only after considerable consultation, and the government was notably supported by the opposition in most of these changes. What a contrast that is to Labor’s blatant opposition to the GST reforms introduced by the Howard government. Compare that with the approach taken by the current government in attempting to ram down the throat of the mining industry a massive new tax—a tax that will do serious damage not only to future investment in mining but to many other sectors across Australia. No wonder the miners are in open revolt. In 1983, I was sworn in by the then speaker, Dr Harry Jenkins—your father, Mr Speaker—a man for whom I had great respect. Looking at the chair now I am reminded of the old French saying: plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose. For the benefit of my colleagues, it means: the more things change, the more they stay the same. Back in those days, backbenchers shared offices in the Old Parliament House. There were no faxes, no emails, no internet and no mobile phones. Not only were the offices of members tiny, basic and without facilities, ministers were located amongst the backbenchers. This did have one advantage: as a backbencher, you would sometimes find yourself at the urinal at the same time as a minister. Being unable to escape, he had to listen to your plea for support for some constituent problem. While his eyes might glaze over, usually a call came shortly after that from his secretary, arranging an appointment for the next morning. In 1988, parliament moved to occupy this wonderful building. While it has certainly removed the overcrowding, it has taken away much of the personal touch. Ministers can now hide behind a wall of minders in the ministerial wing. Sadly, security has also placed many barriers between members and the public. Kings Hall in the old parliament often saw ministers, as they hurried from one side of the parliament to the other, prepared to chat to visitors. The non-members bar, once a favourite haunt in the evenings and a source of much information, has been long closed in this new building. With 27 years in parliament, I am able to lay claim to quite a few achievements but, while I can do that, it is for others to judge their worth. I mentioned the privilege of being elected as Speaker in 2004, but I will in passing indulge in a few other highlights from my time in parliament. Nowadays, the twice-yearly hearings between the House Economics Committee and the Reserve Bank of Australia Governor are eagerly awaited by markets, analysts and the wider community. As the committee chairman who developed this process, to see the hearings continue is a satisfying testimony. However serious the public hearings may be, sometimes there was a lighter side to them, like the time the hearing went to Warrnambool—in which electorate? Wannon—and the governor with his suitably serious banker’s voice remarked to me that we continually reminded him of drought but, on driving into Warrnambool, the grass was so high that he could not see any sheep. The economics committee continued its tradition of undertaking valuable work during my time as chairman. Two reports that I particularly wish to mention are those on regional banking and on local government funding. Both inquiries had a significant impact on public policy, and from the former the regions have seen a major reversal for the better in banking services for country people. Competition policy, tax office administration and financial regulation are a few of the other areas that we studied and reported on to parliament. My initiative that led to the introduction of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program has proved its value with the ongoing support of both the MPs and the chiefs of the defence forces. Members, senators and the chiefs have repeatedly spoken of the benefits of the program. Given defence is such a major issue for the nation, I think having a better understanding of it within the parliament must lead to better decisions. There are a number of committees I have been privileged to chair, but one I want to mention especially is the government’s Firearms Consultative Committee. Following the dreadful shooting tragedy in Port Arthur in 1996, Prime Minister John Howard asked me to chair this committee at a particularly difficult time for the hundreds of thousands of responsible shooters in our community. Laws were tightened and since then the shooting associations have greatly strengthened their memberships and have played a very responsible role in teaching and promoting safe, responsible use of firearms. I was honoured to be made a patron of Field and Game Australia and a life member of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, the two biggest national associations. I note that shooting in Australia continues to have strong support and considerable effort is made by many to promote the safe and responsible use of firearms, particularly among juniors. Locally in Wannon since 1983 we have seen improvements in many ways and in many parts of the electorate. To detail them would take far too long but a few of particular significance were the new Australian Technical College in Hamilton, a marvellous innovation to give secondary students the start to a full trades career, but regrettably the college has now been downgraded by the Labor governments; another was the all-weather athletics track at Brauer College in Warrnambool, giving young athletes in the region the chance to run on an Olympic-standard track; there is the new medical school at Deakin University, which includes Warrnambool campus, thereby training future doctors to go on to practise in the country; and, funds for any number of road projects to help improve transport links, such as the multimillion-dollar upgrade of the Eurambeen to Streatham road commenced three years ago to handle transporting of the rapidly increasing local grain harvest. I was delighted to facilitate federal funding for Gum San Museum in Ararat. Ararat’s unique heritage as Australia’s only city founded by Chinese migrants is properly recorded in Gum San. Equally important, the future of our region looks particularly bright with over $8 billion of new investment expected in the next five years. Having said that, Wannon is proud of its great agricultural industries, which generate billions of dollars for the region. However, with global hunger for the first time leading to more than one billion people being classed as undernourished, increasing food production should be a far higher priority in Australia. Yet astonishingly the federal government continues to reduce spending in agricultural research and development under the guise of drought-induced lower production. If this short-sighted policy is allowed to continue, any pretence of wanting to meet the millennium goals will be seen as very hollow. While I am indeed fortunate to be one of only 1,064 Australians to have been elected to the House of Representatives since Federation, to be chosen as the 25th Speaker of the House of Representatives was an absolute privilege. Through this, I came to see firsthand the extraordinary professionalism of so many people who work tirelessly here in Parliament House. Led by the clerks and the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services, nearly 1,000 people keep this building operating with hardly a complaint. I cannot speak highly enough of their dedication. In particular, may I single out two clerks I worked with. Like their predecessors, Ian Harris and now Bernie Wright, both of whom are present tonight, continue a tradition which has served our parliament remarkably well. This brings me to a matter I feel very strongly about—the funding of the parliament. To provide an effective balance between the executive, dominated of course by the cabinet, and the parliament, the parliament must be properly funded. To give just one comparison to show what I mean, since 2001 the budget for Treasury has been increased by over 100 per cent to $146 million, while the House of Representatives budget increased by just 11 per cent over that period to $22 million—which, I note, is little more than half the cost of the government’s advertising proposed for the new mining tax. Similar figures are there for the rest of the parliament. In other words, in real terms the budget to run parliament has been cut while ministerial staff numbers have grown, departmental budgets have blossomed and the number and complexity of bills which parliament has to debate each year continues to rise. By any measure, this balance between parliament and the cabinet, as shown by the resourcing, is tilting unhealthily towards the cabinet of the day. Proper accountability and scrutiny of government by parliament is a fundamental strength of parliamentary democracy. It is my considered view, after having worked closely with the officers of the parliament, that the method of funding needs a major revamp. While the officers work tirelessly to minimise the impact of continuing budget cuts, the fact is that it is inevitable that the support for parliament to function fully is now threatened. As I am not seeking re-election, my views, I trust, can be seen as objective and free of any vested interest. Fortunately, there are some excellent examples among other Commonwealth parliaments where the funding is determined independently from cabinet. Canada and New Zealand spring to mind. With proper checks and balances, accountability and transparency, such models ensure not only the financial independence of the parliament but also maintain a healthy balance between parliament and the cabinet. Earlier this year, I moved a private member’s motion, seconded by the Deputy Speaker, the member for Chisholm, proposing just such a model for the House of Representatives. The challenge now is for both sides of the House to agree to this long-overdue reform. I turn now to another challenge facing members and the community. It is always hard for members of parliament to hold the respect of the community. Some may say it is harder today than in the past but the future of our whole democracy depends on public confidence in our system of government. After all, it was less than 70 years ago, at a time of dire peril for much of the world, that there were only 12 countries with democratically elected governments. Today, more than 140 countries can claim some form of elections to their parliaments. Since the Second World War, democracy has underpinned the remarkable progress made in so many ways in so much of the world. But the advent of 24-hour news services, internet blogs, Twitter and text have multiplied the demand for and sources of political comment. There is a danger that with the proliferation of views and news the public will lose interest or become sidetracked from the importance of parliament and its role in the nation’s future. Australia can boast the fourth longest continuing democracy in the world. The challenge today is to encourage healthy scepticism rather than corrosive cynicism towards our elected representatives. Sometimes this can be a very big challenge, such as during the recent vehement debate between the government and the mining industry. While it may not be all-out war, I am reminded of the old adage: the first casualty when war comes is truth. When hearing the Prime Minister and the Treasurer it is hard not to believe the first casualty may indeed have fallen. Such a public brawl is hardly helping the local standing of our elected members of parliament but, unfortunately, in this case it can even go international. In a recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal there was a scathing assessment of the new mining tax, saying: … the larger issue at stake: Does Australia, a developed nation that has embraced liberal economic policies for three decades, want to philosophically go the way of free-market Hong Kong or socialist France? Notwithstanding this particular issue, the value of public service remains as important as ever and listening to the two previous speeches I think that point was very strongly reinforced by the member for Denison and the member for Aston. To quote Australia’s longest-serving Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, on this issue: To discourage ambition, to envy success, to have achieved superiority, to distrust independent thought, to sneer at and impute false motives to public service-these are the maladies of modern democracy, and of Australian democracy in particular. Yet ambition, effort, thinking and readiness to serve are not only the design and objectives of self-government but are the essential conditions of its success. All members of parliament rely on loyal support from many hardworking party members, friends and family. I have indeed been fortunate. My wife Penny and our four children—Peter, Melissa, Richard and James—have been absolutely fantastic in their support right throughout this time I have been elected. They have always been there to make a very welcome home, something that I have always greatly appreciated. My office staff from the time I was first elected have done an outstanding job and have rightly earned an enviable reputation within the electorate for providing great service. I must single out one for special mention—Megan Campbell, who has been with me for more than 20 years. There is no other way to put it but to say that she does a truly outstanding job. Without the ongoing support of so many in the Liberal Party, I could not have got here. Marilyn Lyons, who has either been the electorate chairman or the electorate secretary for almost 27 years, was an incredible support. Teamed with Bayse Thomas who ran my campaigns in recent years they made a formidable team. Jim Dwyer, who was also electorate chairman for nine years, is another absolute stalwart. But of course there are hundreds of others and I say to all of them my heartfelt thanks. The seat of Wannon has the remarkable record of having had just two members, both from the Liberal party, since 1955. With a federal election only a few months away it is my fervent hope that the outstanding candidate we have in Dan Tehan will continue to prove that the Liberal party can best serve Wannon. In my maiden speech in 1983 I concluded by saying: The long-term goals, the goals that the people of Wannon and the people of Australia should expect of governments are to have the opportunities and the freedom of choice to better their own future. It is the role of government to provide the sound basis on which to build the most important ingredient of which is a sound financial base. Sadly it seems the current government is doing its best to undermine that base, so much so that Australians are rapidly concluding it is only by returning a Liberal-National coalition government that we can regain our confidence to truly better our own future. May I conclude by saying again it is an absolute privilege to be elected to serve one’s community. To have been elected 10 times is indeed a rare privilege. I leave this place with many fond memories, a few scars and many good friends but confident our parliament will continue to play a central role in the future of our great nation. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —In congratulating the member for Wannon on his intergenerational career, can I thank him for his remarks about parliamentary reform and his friendship and I thank him as Speaker Hawker for his guidance. 5594 19:05:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 1 0 Mr MURPHY —Mr Speaker, I would like to join with you in congratulating the members for Aston, Denison and Wannon on their contribution to the betterment of our country and I too wish them well for a happy, healthy and long retirement. Tonight I rise to speak about the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2010 The importance of trade cannot be overstated. Trade makes an invaluable, indeed a vital, contribution to Australia’s prosperity and is a great stimulus for economic growth. Trade creates jobs, improves incomes and encourages innovation within businesses. Further, we enjoy a very diverse export base including food education resources and fuel. Unfortunately, despite this, the Rudd government inherited an economy in 2007 that had suffered 72 consecutive trade deficits under the appalling management of the Howard government. I am pleased to note that the Minister for Trade, the honourable Simon Crean, has presided over eight trade surpluses in 2½ years. His efforts should be acknowledged and commended. The importance of trade can be seen in its contribution to the workforce in Australia. Figures provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in June 2009 contained in the Centre for International Economics report noted that the latest research showed that one in five Australians are employed because of exports and imports and that one in seven Australians were in jobs that were export related. That equates to 1.4 million jobs. This is a significant component of our workforce. Further, in 2008, the export of goods and services contributed 23.5 per cent to gross domestic product. There can be no denying the significant contribution trade makes to our economy and society. It was a Labor government that seized the opportunity to provide government assistance to encourage exporters to promote their services and products overseas. Since its inception under a Labor government, the EMDG scheme has been a very important part of assisting businesses to become export ready and to help them access new markets. When I was Parliamentary Secretary for Trade, I travelled around Australia and indeed overseas to represent the government. I know how much the EMDG scheme was appreciated by those small exporters who had built up their businesses with the assistance of the Australian taxpayer. Eligible exporters receive financial assistance in the form of an audited partial reimbursement based on an exporter’s marketing expenditure in the previous financial year. As mentioned earlier, the scheme assists many small- and medium-sized enterprises. In the last grant year, it provided financial assistance to more than 4,500 eligible businesses. That is quite an achievement. In my local area alone, more than 60 exporting businesses received financial assistance through the EMDG scheme. The assistance aims to help aspiring exporters to develop a business that will be self-sustaining after the assistance from the scheme ceases. An observation from David Mortimer’s review, released in 2008, noted that that the incidence of firms developing into new exporters is higher for EMDG recipients than for comparable non-recipients. In 2008, our government moved to expand the scheme and provided an additional $50 million, in line with our pre-election commitment of a $200 million EMDG budget. The pre-election commitments for the EMDG scheme have been honoured by our government and the additional $100 million provided under the scheme in the 2008-09 and 2009-10 financial years have played an important role in helping Australian exporters deal with the very difficult global economic conditions. However, the very substantial growth in grant demand in recent years has created a growing disparity between the provisions of the scheme and the funding provided under the scheme. In addition, the current economic climate calls for responsible fiscal decisions. As we all know, Australia has been one of the best-performing OECD nations during the worst global recession since World War II. We are number one. This was made possible in part by the strong economic fundamentals of a government committed to responsible economic management. That is a fact. In the face of the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression, our government has made some tough decisions that aim to provide business certainty and secure our economy. The amendments proposed in this bill will increase the minimum required level of export promotional expenditure from $10,000 to $20,000. Further, the amendments will reduce the maximum number of grants an applicant can receive from eight to seven as well as reduce the maximum grant amount from $200,000 to $150,000. The maximum amount that can be claimed for intellectual property expenses will also be capped at $50,000. These measures will change the eligibility criteria under the EMDG scheme and are likely to affect the demand on the scheme. However, the government has committed to extend the scheme for another five years, ensuring its continuity until the 2015-16 grant year. The scheme was due to close to new applicants next year. However, our government recognises the importance of the support provided to exporters under the EMDG scheme, particularly small exporters. As I have said earlier, the government has confirmed that it will extend the scheme for another five years. The extension of the scheme despite the difficult global financial circumstances is yet another example of our government supporting Australian businesses and jobs today while maximising the opportunities for our future. The proposed changes were developed with stakeholder consultation and are made with the intention of providing more certainty for industry, extending the program for the next five years as well as providing enhanced eligibility criteria that will reduce the demand on the scheme. The reduced demand on the scheme should provide reimbursement payments that are reliably and predictably paid, offering the confidence to exporters to invest in export marketing. I am particularly pleased that Australia is also encouraging export and investment in clean energy. I am an advocate for clean and renewable energy. I note that in the May 2009 budget our government allocated $14.9 million to develop a strategy to help clean energy exporters and investors get better access to global markets. The green initiatives include solar and wind power, carbon capture and storage, renewable water technologies, green buildings and urban design. That is another example of the Rudd government’s commitment to tackling the challenge of climate change and become a world leader in mitigating its effects. Austrade, otherwise known as the Australian Trade Commission, hosted a very successful clean technology roadshow last year following that funding announcement. The national seminar series aimed to link Australian clean technology companies to growing international clean energy opportunities. In a media release of 2009, Austrade’s national industry manager for clean technology, Kerry Rooney, said: As nations implement policies to address the challenges of climate change and energy security, trade and investment in clean technologies will play an increasingly important role in building Australia’s future prosperity. Austrade’s chief economist, Dr Tim Harcourt, concurred that ‘clean technology industries would play a significant part in Australia’s economic recovery’: “In the post-GFC world industries will be restructured along sustainable lines and clean energy will be a key part of Australia’s competitive advantage,” Mr Harcourt said. The overwhelming interest in the roadshow around Australia also highlights a strong desire from industry to engage in the green sector. This interest is understandable, given global investment in clean energy reached $155 billion in 2008. Despite the claim from the Leader of the Opposition that climate change is ‘absolute crap’, our government continues to provide a whole-of-government approach to the very serious issue of climate change. This is evident again in the complementary investment to establish the Renewable Energy Future Fund, the REFF. The significant investment in the REFF in the May budget of this year of more than $650 million over four years is part of the government’s expanded $5.1 billion Clean Energy Initiative. The Clean Energy Initiative includes $2 billion for the Carbon Capture and Storage Flagships program and $1.5 million for the Solar Flagships program, also announced in the 2009 budget. The funding brings total investments in renewable and clean energy and energy efficiency measures to over $10 billion. I have met with scientists and exporters who have so much to offer Australia in clean and renewable energy, and I know that, with the historic funding commitments our government has made in this sector, we are offering immense support and confidence to stakeholders. I personally know of one scientist who, frustrated with the Howard government’s indifference to his groundbreaking solar technology, was forced to look to overseas markets for assistance to develop and sell his product. Today he is working in California, manufacturing and exporting his product around the world. It is a sad loss for us that he could not get the support he needed and had to go to America for it. The loss of such intellectual property and export revenue as well as job opportunities must not be repeated. I am extremely pleased that our government, in stark contrast to the Howard government, is making a historic investment in this field. Despite the appalling trade deficit record that I referred to earlier in my speech, which we inherited from the Howard government, and the very difficult global economic circumstances over the past two years, the Minister for Trade, Simon Crean, has worked relentlessly and tirelessly to improve our trade deficit; has engaged in meaningful negotiations to ensure Australia commits to beneficial bilateral and multilateral trade agreements; and, among many other achievements, has shown his ongoing support for our exporters by committing to extend the EMDG Scheme until the 2016-17 financial year. You might recall, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, that at a meeting of the Trade Subcommittee under the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade I mentioned the fact that, when the head of the WTO, Mr Pascal Lamy, was in Australia—although I am not sure that you were at that luncheon here in February—he gave great credit to Simon Crean, our trade minister, for the work that he had done. It is a matter of public record that he said at that luncheon that, if we had had 150 Simon Creans, we would have resolved Doha within 18 months. Now, there are 153 members of the WTO, and it is not easy, of course, to get every country to agree; but I am sure that some our more difficult neighbours in the negotiations would do well to talk to Minister Crean and his staff because clearly he has a vision for a resolution to the Doha Round. I do not think we have ever had a harder working and more effective trade minister. So full marks to Simon Crean and also David Garner, his chief of staff, and all the other staff in his office and his department, because they all do a great job in the interest of our great country. They can be no doubt that Australia has fared well in the face of the global financial crisis, compared to every other major advanced economy. However, our government is looking to strengthen our economy and provide more opportunities for future growth. We must not rest on our laurels. We must continue to support jobs and help Australian businesses, and we must continue the recovery of our economy and maximise future opportunities. Our government has delivered a very fiscally responsible budget that, coupled with monetary policy, seeks to return our budget to surplus three years earlier than expected, before any other major advanced economy. I believe industry is mindful of the economic context in which we have emerged and the need for certainty as we move towards the future. There is a lot of rhetoric going across this chamber and across the media, from the east coast to the west coast of Australia, about the government’s economic performance. I note that the previous speaker, the member for Wannon, in his valedictory speech talked about truth being a casualty of war. Well, I come to the defence of the government in relation to some of the claims that have been made by the opposition about our economic management. The opposition have campaigned long and hard in years gone by on the premise that the Labor Party and a Labor government cannot manage the economy; well, that myth should be dispelled once and for all. We are the No. 1 economy of all the developed economies in the world. I am very proud to be a member of a government that can say to the people in the forthcoming election that we have been very fiscally responsible in managing the economy. When people come to make a judgment in a few months time and adjudicate on the performance of the Rudd Labor government and the management of the economy, the job that Wayne Swan, our Treasurer, has done and the minister at the table, Dr Emerson—one of the most economically literate people in this place—I think people will judge us in the coolness of election day and give us support for the job that the government have done. The EMDG Scheme is but one part of it. We have been very responsible in managing the economy. When the truth gets out, the mining industry will start talking about the benefits to all businesses of the reduction in company tax from 30 per cent to 28 per cent. The opposition will impose a 3.7 per cent higher tax on a whole range of businesses. There is no strategy coming from the opposition in relation to how they will fund any of these infrastructure projects which are so important to contribute to our trade and economic performance. I think people will see through that. It is very easy in opposition to bag the government and to say that we have put them into debt. It is very easy to talk about this so-called ‘great big new tax’ without telling the full story of the rich benefits that will flow with that tax and will secure the future of the economy for Australia for many years to come. In concluding, I have no doubt that the measures proposed in this bill will deliver certainty and support for export businesses as we look forward to our future. I again congratulate Mr Crean for a job well done, and the staff in his office and all those officers working throughout Australia and around the world—some of whom I have met in Austrade—for doing an excellent job. I commend the bill to the House. 5598 19:25:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 0 Mr BALDWIN —I rise to speak on the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2010. Clearly, the points raised in this bill have a number of positive factors, including the fact that all grants will be extended from 2011-12 to 2015-16. But I also note that the budget has been reduced from $200 million to $150 million over that period of time. In the second reading speech given at the introduction of this bill, Minister Smith, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, said: The modernisation of the scheme and increased funding has received a very positive response from business; over the last two years the number of applications has increased 21 per cent. I would put forward the proposition that, given this country’s financial status and the debt that is being incurred by this government, one would be pushing for increased export opportunities. Those export opportunities come from companies, in particular small- to medium-sized businesses and new enterprises, having the financial support and backing of a government to be able to pursue those overseas markets. I look at some of those markets that particularly affect businesses in my area, including small to medium manufacturers. There is the wine industry, which is in long pursuit of opportunities overseas. Tourism is another one. One of the issues is that people keep thinking about large companies as taking the way and the lead forward. While that is true in the sheer volume of dollars, the diversity of the markets means that we need to provide the support to the smaller operators. The budget has been reduced by $50 million per annum. Given that this government has had the ability over the past couple of years to just hand out cash without any detailed return back to the government, I would have thought that the cutting of $50 million per year was relatively small change for the benefit that would be achieved. Other points in this bill include reducing the number of grants available for an individual recipient, other than an approved body or an approved joint venture, from eight to seven. It is amazing that that was actually put in 2003. As I read through the Export Market Development Grants Bill 2003 I saw that this is exactly the same measure. Other measures include: reducing the maximum grant from $200,000 to $150,000—again, that was in the 2003 bill; capping intellectual property registration expenses at $50,000 per application; increasing the minimum expenses threshold from $10,000 to $20,000; increasing the income limit for members of approved joint ventures/consortia from $30 million to $50 million; removing approved trading houses as an eligible special approval applicant category; reinstating disqualifying conviction provisions in the act that were unintentionally removed when the Criminal Code Amendment (Theft, Fraud, Bribery and Related Offences) Act 2000 rules replaced an earlier act disqualifying conviction provisions; enabling Austrade to impose conditions on the accreditation of EMDG consultants; and amending the ‘form and manner’ requirements and claim lodgement deadlines for applications submitted by accredited EMDG consultants. This year we are seeing the World Trade Fair being held in Shanghai. There will be a number of new businesses that will seek this as a forum to go forward and promote and push in that emerging and growing market in China, and they need the support of a government. I say to the government as it goes through this bill to look at what it can do to go back to the funding that has been in place for the last two years, that is, the $200 million per annum, because of the direct benefits—as shown and as quoted by the minister in his speech—that have increased the number of applications by 21 per cent. The debate on this bill will continue tomorrow. I will not be able to continue my comments tomorrow as I will be attending the funeral of Sapper Jacob Moerland. With that I will close my statements and maybe at some time in the future I will have time to add to these comments. Debate interrupted. 5599 Adjournment 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Order! It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 5599 5599 19:30:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 0 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —This evening I am tabling a petition with over 4,500 signatures supporting my private member’s bill which would extend emergency powers to the Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts to relocate species where there is public health risk. This petition was launched because of the existence of thousands of flying foxes around the Maclean High School, the TAFE and the surrounding residential area. After endless bureaucratic buck-passing on this issue, nothing was being done to have the bats relocated. The stench, defecating and noise of these creatures were severely impacting the school community and local residents. The interests of the bats were clearly being put ahead of the welfare of the people. The bureaucratic inaction was made worse by the refusal of the federal member for Page, Janelle Saffin, to support the removal of the bats. First the member for Page said it was not her problem because the school was not in her electorate. She ignored the fact that half of the school community lives in the electorate of Page. Then the member for Page said she supported coexistence with the bats. And finally she suggested moving the school as a solution—clearly, a ludicrous situation. The reality was that the voice of the people was not being heard, and that is why I drafted a private member’s bill and launched a petition which focused on empowering the minister to intervene because of a public health risk. Since the first petition was signed, people power has come into play. All of a sudden an application was lodged to remove the bats. Mitigation measures have commenced to reduce the impact. We even had the member for Page backing away from supporting the bats coexisting with the school. Whilst these actions are a step in the right direction, they fall well short of what is required in Maclean. They are tinkering on the edges and we will not see the bats removed from the town any time soon. The reality is that, whilst some bats have moved on, thousands will return later this year. The school and the residential community will once again be exposed to this health hazard. That is why we must give the minister for the environment the necessary emergency powers when there is a public health risk. That is why the minister for the environment must now acknowledge the importance of this issue and respect the overwhelming view of the community. As I said, some 4,500 people signed the petition and it is worth noting that 60 per cent of these people live outside the electorate I represent. The government must accept the will of the people and act now so that students, teachers and residents do not have to continue to live with this public health risk so close to them. The second issue I would like to raise in this adjournment debate relates to the indexation of military superannuation and the management of military superannuation. These are very complex issues but they are also matters which every member of the House should be familiar with. The service of those who join our armed forces cannot be overstated and should not be undervalued. I have had meetings with representatives of the local veteran community in the Cowper electorate and I would like to acknowledge Mr Peter Millett and Mr Keith Hendley for their time, commitment and advice on a number of very important issues. Both these gentlemen served in the Australian Army for 25 years and are Vietnam veterans. They are a credit to their community. I have known Mr Millett for many years and I value his honesty, directness and strong advocacy for the veteran community. Whilst we have discussed a range of issues, Peter and Keith have identified two substantial matters. The first matter relates to indexation of military superannuation pensions. Members will be aware that, whilst the age pension and other welfare pensions are indexed according to male total average weekly earnings, military superannuation pensions are indexed to the CPI. This has meant that, in percentage terms, military superannuation pensions have not increased by the same amount as other pensions. The second issue relates to erosion of retirement benefits through longer life expectancy and, as Peter and Keith have noted, the failure to amend the act relating to the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme to reflect the revised data on demographics. Essentially we are talking about equity here—or the lack of it—for military personnel. I know these issues have been the topic of debate for some time and I understand there are other issues relating to health care for ex-service men and women. There are different views as to the costs of these changes and the implications that would have for the Rudd government’s existing budget deficit, which already stands at $57 billion. However, I welcome the statement by the shadow minister for defence, science and personnel, the member for Paterson, in which he has assured the veteran community that the coalition remains committed to introducing a fair, equitable and financially responsible military superannuation system and that he will pursue these reforms when in government. We need to do more for ex-military personnel, but it is only through strong economic management that we will be able to deliver. Bringing the nation’s accounts into line and ensuring that we have a budget surplus is an important way of ensuring that we can deliver for our all-important veteran community. The petition read as follows— To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives This petition of concerned citizens draws to the attention of the House of Representatives how the health of local communities is being placed at risk because of the existence of species such as flying foxes. We therefore ask the House of Representatives to support the Private Members Bill proposed by Luke Hartsuyker MP which aims to provide emergency powers to the Federal Minister for the Environment to relocate species which pose a risk to public health. from 4,598 citizens Petition received. 5600 5600 19:35:00 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 1 0 Mr MELHAM —I propose to read a statement issued on behalf of the friends and colleagues of Jeff Shaw, at the time of his death on 11 May 2010, and headed ‘New South Wales loses a legal and political heavyweight’: New South Wales lost one of its finest legal minds and most effective reformist legislators, the friends and colleagues of former Supreme Court Judge and New South Wales Attorney General Jeff Shaw said. Jeff Shaw died age 60. Jeff Shaw served as Attorney General between 1995 and 2000 and served as a Supreme Court judge between 2003 and 2004. Jeff Shaw’s legislative legacy covers nearly all aspects of life in New South Wales including: fair workplace laws via the New South Wales Industrial Relations Act, strengthened New South Wales workplace safety laws, enacted gender pay equity laws, reformed asbestos compensation law to end the inhuman practice of death-bed hearings, introduced ground-breaking gay law reform, pioneered youth conferencing in the criminal law, strengthened anti-domestic violence laws, introduced shield laws for journalists when all other states opposed them, strengthened anti-discrimination laws banning discrimination against transgender people and championed drug law reform and legal aid. Jeff Shaw was an activist Attorney General who remained true to his principles throughout his political and legal life. Prior to his political career he was a respected barrister, a QC, who fought some of the nation’s most significant industrial cases, arguing cases at all levels including the High Court, and one of the last Australian lawyers to argue in the Privy Council. Jeff was a contributor to legal journals and an inveterate reviewer of books on labour history and industrial relations. As a politician, Jeff was unique. He was an old-fashioned Whitlamesque type of politician. He said his agenda was change. He wanted to do things—the right things—not to be popular. In the end, he achieved both, contributing much of the legal, industrial and social fabric of New South Wales but at great personal cost. He was not there when Gough Whitlam, in a speech delivered at New South Wales Parliament House, declared him the best Attorney General in Australian history. He was working. For those who did not know Jeff personally, this is what he was like: brilliant but totally self-effacing. Committed and loyal—unusual again for politics—he stood by his staff and did not succumb to careless political expediency. He had a great sense of humour and of fun. He laughed at jokes at his own expense, and made them too. He will be missed by all who worked with him and were inspired by him. I was also privileged to attend a state funeral at the Sydney Town Hall on 19 May 2010 where between 800 and 900 people also attended. Tributes were given by Rodney Cavalier, a friend of Jeff’s and former New South Wales education minister, and Kristina Keneally, the Premier of New South Wales. James Shaw, his son, gave a wonderful tribute, as did Michael Walton, Vice-President of the Industrial Relations Commission. The state funeral was emceed by Adam Searle, a former chief of staff of Jeffrey’s. Three former premiers—Wran, Unsworth and Rees—were present, as were the current Chief Justice of the New South Wales Supreme Court, Jim Spigelman, and the former Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Anthony Mason. Barry O’Farrell, the Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales, was present, as were a number of other New South Wales opposition MPs. Also present was a vast number of present and past cabinet ministers for New South Wales and also past and present members of parliament. There were members of the judiciary and numerous members of the bar, many trade unionists and many rank and file ALP members. It was a worthy tribute to Jeff. It was a worthy send-off. I give my condolences to his wife, Elizabeth, and sons, James and Jonathan. Jeff was a terrific bloke. He believed in public service, and the turnout and the way the state funeral was conducted was the testimony of people acknowledging the contribution that he made. Significantly, there were contributions across the political spectrum in terms of acknowledgements, and I understand there were wonderful tributes by the New South Wales Premier in the state parliament and also the New South Wales opposition leader. So it transcended politics. That is what Jeff was recognised for. He was there for issues, not personalities, and he had a lot of respect across the spectrum, and I think that it is appropriate that we place on record our respect for the contribution that he made to public life. 5602 5602 19:39:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP 0 0 Mr BILLSON —In the few minutes I have tonight I would like to raise a few issues. The first arises from the great concern about the way in which the Rudd Labor government is prepared to spend taxpayers’ money on the mining supertax political propaganda campaign and how, as ugly and unattractive and as damaging as this is to democracy and in reflecting on the Prime Minister’s own words, it seems to be getting worse. You can imagine my surprise when I read an article in the Frankston Standard Leader on 31 May where a state Labor MP said that an announcement to fund a $40 million pool in Frankston, which was the subject of a funding application to the Commonwealth government Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program, was ‘expected soon’. You can imagine my surprise that a state Labor member of parliament would be making this kind of announcement. The report went on to state: The Brumby Government will pledge its share of the costs in a pre-election sweetener before voters go to the polls and the Federal Government will follow. You can imagine my surprise. Why would a state Labor MP be making announcements about a Commonwealth funding program where the applicant, the Frankston City Council, had not even been contacted by the federal government? They had lodged the application back in January and there was not a word. Not a word had come back from the federal Rudd Labor government, yet here was a state Labor MP saying that it was all sweet, all hunky-dory, and a ‘pre-election sweetener’ was just around the corner and the announcement would be made. It was with some curiosity that I rang the Frankston City Council and said: ‘This is interesting. Have you read the announcement on the front page of the local newspaper?’ They were probably as bemused as I was about that announcement, given that there had been no communication with the Commonwealth about their application since they had lodged it in January. Not really to my surprise, but in a quite revealing conversation today with Frankston City councillors, the Commonwealth has told them that no money is coming for this pool project, and I wonder where this leaves the state member for Frankston, the ALP member, Alistair Harkness. He has made this promise about pools and we are coming up to the third election where he will make the same promise. The promise seems to be as empty as the pool that does not exist. There is no water in the pool because there is no pool. The promise keeps getting made over and over again and it amounts to nothing. The nearest thing we have got to a pool in Frankston as a result of the empty, weak and obviously unpersuasive advocacy of the state Labor member for Frankston, Alistair Harkness, was to get bits of the FINA pool for the FINA championships that were held in Melbourne. Frankston got what we call the hand-me-down Harkness pool. There were only bits of it, not enough to create a pool, and even some of those bits have been given away and the bits that remain are in a container in the council depot in Frankston just wanting to be loved and wanting to be used. In fairness, some of the water filtration system could be used, but the rest of the bits of the pool are really not much good for anything other than public art or some kind of sculpture. So with the surprise announcement we checked out what was going on. We found that the state Labor government has not made any pledge of any great note and the council is not at all optimistic that they will. The $2½ million that was pledged some time ago—a very small down payment on a project of this scale—has not even been provided. When I provided some leadership to this project and understood its importance to the local community and secured Commonwealth funding to develop a wellness and aquatic facility on the Monash Peninsula campus site, infrastructure that would support both the increasing student numbers and expanded academic programs at Monash Peninsula, where the university and the Commonwealth would provide some funding, we hoped the state government, if Dr Harkness was so interested in the project, would provide some funding. But that opportunity was missed as well because Dr Harkness still could not get any funding. So this completely unpersuasive empty suit that we have representing Frankston is just not delivering for our city. Even in terms of transit cities we have been disappointed. We see $180 million spent in Dandenong as a transit city; in Frankston somewhere we have lost two digits. About $2 million has been spent for a transit city vision that does not take account of the fact that we need to extend the Frankston railway line to Baxter. We need to look at park-and-ride opportunities so close to the Frankston bypass, and deal with the freight traffic that will come up from the Stony Point railway line and mix and blend with the passenger rail services to Melbourne. It does nothing to secure the opportunity of a flying service that might stop only once or twice on that 44-kilometre trip to Melbourne. No, none of that. That will be part of a transit city and, albeit we have got a nice new wall on Kananook Creek and that is a great project, $180 million it is not—and that is what Dandenong got. We need to do something about this and get some genuine advocacy in our area. 5603 5603 19:45:00 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 1 0 Mrs IRWIN —Like millions of people around the world I watched with horror the actions of the Israeli armed forces in their assault on the freedom flotilla carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza. The predictable response from the Israeli propaganda machine portrayed the murder of nine peace activists as yet another act of self-defence. While the Secretary-General of the United Nations has called for an independent international inquiry, the United States and Australia are again happy to leave the inquiry in the hands of Israeli authorities. And even if there were any adverse findings we could expect the matter to be brushed aside like the damning Goldstone report into Israel’s war on Gaza in 2009. This reminds me very much of those apologists for Stalinism who were blind to the human rights abuses of that brutal regime. They would justify any atrocity by saying that it was in defence of socialism and begin each statement with words like ‘you have to realise that more than 20 million Russians were killed in the great patriotic war’. But that is exactly how Western leaders excuse the gross abuses of human rights committed in the name of self-defence by the state of Israel. Are they blind to the evidence presented by United Nations agencies, by Amnesty International or by the Red Cross, none of which could remotely be described as terrorist organisations? And are they also blind to the damage done to their standing in the world community by their unquestioning defence of Israel? My own awakening to the reality of life in the illegally occupied territories came in a visit in 2000. I mention just one incident that has left a lasting impact on me. We were walking through the streets of East Jerusalem when we were confronted with a group of teenage Israeli youths each carrying a submachine gun slung over their shoulder and with a ‘go ahead, make my day’ look in their eyes. The group came across an old woman sitting in her doorway selling her homemade cheeses from a large platter. To my amazement, one of the youths kicked the platter down the alley spilling the cheeses into the ground. I will never forget the tearful expression on that old woman’s face or the mocking laugh of the youths as they swaggered off down the street. While this was hardly a gross abuse of human rights, it is part of everyday life in the illegally occupied territories. When taken together with the abduction, imprisonment and torture of more than 10,000 Palestinians, including children and a number of members of the Palestinian Legislative Assembly, the reality of life under the jackboot of Israeli occupation can be felt. And to that can be added the bombing of schools, hospitals and United Nations stores during Israel’s war on Gaza and so many other documented cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity. These are not the acts of a civilised nation. Yet, like the Stalinists of old, some world leaders continue to deny the reality, or, worse, defend it in the name of Israel’s right of self-defence. But while nations’ leaders fail to act, responsible citizens throughout the world are beginning to take action. The worldwide campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions against products and services originating in whole or in part in the occupied territories is gaining momentum. I am pleased to see unions in Australia, including state branches of the CFMEU and the Australian Services Union, joining this movement. Churches, universities and trade unions are refusing to invest in enterprises conducting business in or involved in construction in the occupied territories. Unions in Europe have applied international law forbidding the economic exploitation of illegally occupied territory and have embargoed goods made in the West Bank. Faced with the refusal by Israeli authorities to allow academic freedom in the occupied territories, many universities have broken contact with Israeli institutions with ties in the West Bank. When governments refuse to act in the name of civilised society to prevent gross abuses of human rights, we as individuals have a duty to act. The campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions deserves the full support of every thinking and caring Australian. 5604 5604 19:50:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —I rise to speak on the impacts the Labor government’s proposed mining and resource tax will have in my electorate of Forrest—a tax that will impose some of the highest taxes in the world on our mining sector and which will apply to all existing and future non-renewable resource projects. The tax is an attack on regional areas, our regional economies and our communities—particularly in Western Australia. This is graphically demonstrated by the latest Deloitte WA Index covering 600 Western Australian companies which shows that the values of WA listed companies fell more in May than any other major index anywhere in the world. The combined value of these companies fell by over $20 billion, and $13.5 billion has also been wiped from superannuation fund investments in resources stocks. In my electorate the mining industry directly contributed over $2.3 billion in 2008-09 from alumina, coal, heavy mineral sands, tin, tantalum and spodumene. The Bunbury Chamber of Commerce and Industries Business Focus newsletter has stated: Local mining companies are worried about future investment following the Federal Government’s announcement that a new Resource Super Profits Tax will be imposed. Simcoa Operations is ‘extremely concerned’ about the ramifications of the new tax, which could put a halt to a proposed fourth furnace. Vice-President Jim Brosnan said ‘the devil was in the detail’ and what Simcoa was most concerned about was the sovereign risk issue which related to Australia’s security and ability to attract investment. He said: Moving the goal posts by applying a new tax to existing operations has upset a lot of companies and it sets a precedent that makes Australia a riskier place to invest in. Simcoa is a silicon metal plant producing some of the world’s highest quality silicon for domestic and global markets. I want to raise the issue of the direct effect of the mining tax on all of the extractive industries in the south-west—the businesses that rely on sand and gravel mining and pits, blue metal quarries, clay, agricultural lime, limestone, phosphate rock, lime sands, mineral sands and even those who supply landscaping materials. Dredging businesses are also mining a ‘non-renewable’ resource and would be subject to the mining tax. Where in their individual processes will the tax be applied to these companies? Will it be at the point of extraction? Will it be after value adding if the material is screened, crushed or processed in any way? Will it be at the point of sale? At what point will the clay, sand, shale, lime, silica and concrete aggregate in bricks be taxed? How much will this tax add to the cost of building a house or commercial building? The access and subdivision roads and house blocks will cost more in road base and bitumen. There will be increased costs for earthworks and foundations; the sand, lime and blue metal in the concrete slab; the gypsum and silica in internal plasterboard; the copper, aluminium and lead in the electrical work; the silica in the window glazing; the aluminium in the windows; and the cement and clay in the roof tiling. Once the house or premises is built, the mining tax will increase the electricity bill. The port of Bunbury relies on exports of alumina and projected coal to urea plant exports, which will also be affected. Of the 30,000 workers directly employed in the WA mining industry, almost 25,000 are employed in the support and services sector. Thousands of these workers are employed directly and indirectly by the mining and resource sector in the south-west—on mining sites and in energy generation, manufacturing, construction, transport, haulage, business services, accommodation and hospitality. BHP Billiton’s Worsley Alumina refinery is the biggest private employer in the south-west, with about 1,500 permanent staff and 500 contractors. Its expansion project has recruited another 1,000 workers to date and is expected to generate 4,000 construction jobs over its life. Every single day, the project injects $1 million into the WA economy through wages, contractor and supplier payments, taxes, royalties and community sponsorship—much of this in my electorate. I note that BHP’s effective tax rate is estimated to be 55 per cent under Labor’s mining tax, and even the Labor Treasurer has finally admitted that some companies will be paying an effective tax rate of up to 58 per cent. I am seriously concerned about what this will mean in my electorate, given that $l million daily contribution to the south-west economy. At what point will gravel become bauxite and alumina and at what point will the tax be applied in the processing and profit stream? Let us be really clear about this: the majority of BHP’s shareholders are Australian and this tax will directly reduce their income and savings as well as affecting other Australians, whose superannuation is invested in mining and resource stocks. The Chairman of Wesfarmers Ltd, which has investment in coalmining in my electorate, has written to shareholders saying that, in his view, the proposed new super profits tax would not only make Australia less competitive in the global resources industry but also have significant flow-on effects for the broader economy and society and the Wesfarmers shareholders. The Wesfarmers group of companies is Australia’s largest private sector employer. (Time expired) 5606 5606 19:55:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —I rise to support Australia’s schools and students, as opposed to the previous speaker, the member for Forrest, who argued that mining companies should not pay their fair share of tax. The Rudd government’s record in education is phenomenal. Since being elected, it has revolutionised education and our schools. This has been done by a number of really innovative programs. Building the Education Revolution, including the National School Pride Program and Primary Schools for the 21st Century, has seen 115 projects in the Shortland electorate, valued at nearly $90 million. This funding has helped schools like Belmont Christian College, who had $2½ million and have constructed a new library, and Belmont High School, who had $200,000 under the National School Pride Program. Belmont Public School has constructed new classrooms and an covered outdoor learning area. Budgewoi Public School has constructed new classrooms. Caves Beach Public School has also undergone a very innovative program. Floraville Public School has had $3 million under Primary Schools for the 21st Century, once again for school classrooms. Charlestown East Public School has constructed a new school hall, as has Marks Point Public School. There have been a number of really innovative, great capital works programs in the schools in the Shortland electorate. The Rudd government has also put science and language labs in high schools. The National School Pride Program has upgraded and undertaken much-needed maintenance work within schools in the Shortland electorate and throughout Australia. There have been the computers in schools, which have been a valuable tool for all school students. There are also the trade training centres, which have been wonderful for the schools in the Shortland electorate. St Mary’s High School has had hospitality facilities constructed. On the Central Coast a very innovative program has gone across the electorates of Dobell and Shortland and has seen Gorokan High School, Lake Munmorah High School, Lakes Grammar, Wadalba Community School, Northlakes High School and Wyong High School all coming together and building facilities that can be used by all the students in those areas. At Lake Munmorah High, Gorokan High and Northlakes High there have been hospitality facilities constructed. There has also been upgrading of construction and engineering facilities—outstanding facilities for students living in areas where it is difficult to access training colleges.  I have talked about the Australian technical colleges. In the Newcastle-Hunter region the parents had to build workbenches. They could not arrange work experience for the students. The Central Coast technical college never got underway. Now the Central Coast Australian technical college is in the schools which students attend. All these things have happened under the Rudd Labor government. What did the Howard government do? Flagpoles in schools and the failed Australian technical college scheme. Abbott now wants to stop the Building the Education Revolution program, take the computers out of schools and remove the trade training centres. What would this mean to the students in the Shortland electorate? It would mean they did not have the skills to prepare them for the workforce. The Rudd government’s legacy to Australia is an education revolution that has delivered for the students quality school infrastructure, computers, vocational training and introduction to trades in school. The Rudd government is preparing Australian students for the future while the opposition is putting their future at risk. No area demonstrates the risk that Tony Abbott poses for Australia more than the area of education. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member will refer to members by their parliamentary titles. It being 8 pm the debate is interrupted. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr Emerson —Mr Speaker, I require that the debate be extended. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The debate may continue. 5607 5607 20:00:00 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation and Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs 1 0 Dr EMERSON —I want to make it clear that, in making her adjournment speech tonight, the member for Fowler was not speaking on behalf of the Rudd government. 5607 20:00:00 House adjourned at 8.00 pm 5607 Notices The following notices were given: 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973, and for related purposes. IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr Briggs to move: That this House: notes that: the World Trade Organisation (WTO) has issued an interim report which makes recommendations to overturn Australia’s 90 year long ban on importing apples from New Zealand; and these recommendations will expose the $50 million Adelaide Hills apple and pear industry to greater risk from disease and pests foreign to our shores; recognises that: the Australian apple and pear industry generates an annual turnover of approximately $500 million and any likely increase in major quarantine incursions will devastate both the industry’s biosecurity and future financial viability; and it is of paramount importance that Australia protects its biosecurity and maintains a disease free apple and pear producing industry; and calls on the Government to vigorously defend the integrity of Australia’s science‑based quarantine regime and appeal any errors of law in the WTO interim report to the relevant Appellate Body. 2010-06-16 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms JA Saffin) took the chair at 9.30 am. 5608 Constituency Statements 5608 5608 09:30:00 Broadbent, Russell, MP MT4 McMillan LP 0 0 Mr BROADBENT —Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether you were a Joey, a Brownie or a Guide, but many people in leadership positions, like you, have had some exposure to Guiding or Scouting. Guiding is a hundred years old and over one million Australian women are or have been Guides. Robert Baden-Powell, as we would all know, was the founder of Scouting and decided that girls should have their own organisation. This led to the Girl Guides being founded in the UK in 1910. Agnes Baden-Powell, his sister, took on that role. On a very, very cold night at Warragul last week, I met with the Warragul Guides and Brownies—young women decked out beautifully, presented beautifully, well disciplined in their approach and obviously taking great pride in the fact that they are Girl Guides. I was able to present them with a certificate to mark the 100th year of Girl Guides in Australia and Girl Guides throughout Victoria, especially in my electorate where they play such an important role. Present that night were Sharon Axford, a leader; Denise Marriott, a leader; Wendy Smethurst, a leader; Kerryn Grigg, a leader; and Diana Purvis, Tara O’Halloran, Monique Olswewski and Chantal Currie. District leader, Janet Drummond, was absent that night, but I would like to name her here. Our Guides and our Brownies are very, very special. These leaders that go out on these freezing cold nights are not interested in a big new tax of any sort. They are not interested in what goes on in this parliament. They are not interested in the toing and froing that happens here that we think is so important. These leaders are out there every week training our young people to make a difference in this nation. They make a bigger difference because of the education that they receive. The girls were beautifully decked out with all the badges that they had received over the years of Guiding and they took great pride in that. We can take great pride in people that lead our Scout groups and our Guiding groups right across this nation. From Western Australia all the way through to our borders here on this side of the country, we pay tribute this morning to all those people—we do not know their names but I have read out some of them—who make such an enormous contribution as volunteer leaders, whether it be in Scouting or in sport, or as mums and dads, who were sitting around the room, having made sure their girls were there on that freezing cold night. Would you believe what they were learning to make as we came in chilled? I was rugged up with two coats on and scarves and the whole lot. They were learning to make ice-cream. That is only one of their skills. I was proud to be the member for McMillan that night. (Time expired) 5608 5608 09:33:00 Zappia, Tony, MP HWB Makin ALP 1 0 Mr ZAPPIA —In recent times there has been considerable public debate on the question of asylum seekers arriving in Australia. The refugee debate has been grossly distorted by those who seek to make political mileage by causing division and fear within Australian communities. I take this brief opportunity to reflect on the considerable contribution to Australia made by the Vietnamese people, many of whom came to Australia as refugees and whom in their early years were also treated with hostility by some sectors of the community. Many of the Vietnamese arrivals to Adelaide settled in the northern suburbs of Adelaide and subsequently established a significant Catholic church and community centre on land they purchased in my own home suburb of Pooraka. I was a local council representative at the time the church and community centre were being proposed and I recall how difficult the negotiations were because of the opposition by some sectors of the community. I vividly recall some 20 years ago attending a public meeting in the local community hall to discuss the Vietnamese community development proposal and listening to the fears, negativity and dire predictions of some of those attending who were in opposition to the development and to the influx of Vietnamese into the local area. At the subsequent emotionally charged council meeting, the Salisbury Council sensibly and rightly approved the development. Today, some 20 years later and with the benefit of 35 years of resettlement, we do not have to speculate about what impact the Vietnamese arrivals would have. The facts and the experience speak for themselves. What is now abundantly clear is that the fears raised by many over three decades ago were unfounded. Those preaching doom and gloom were proven wrong, and the Vietnamese contribution to the wellbeing of the Australian community has been immense. I have spoken previously about the Lieutenant Governor of South Australia, Hieu Van Le, who with his wife Lan also fled to Australia as refugees in the late 1970s. Hieu arrived here as a 23-year-old on a leaky boat carrying 42 other people. Whilst he is undoubtedly the most prominent, Hieu Van Le is not the only Vietnamese success story I could refer to for there are so many others. Today members of the Vietnamese community can be found providing services in most professions, skills and service sectors of community life. In education Vietnamese children have excelled. Many of our graduates in medicine, pharmacy, law, science and computer sciences are from a Vietnamese background. In the building, food and agricultural sectors, the Vietnamese input has been absolutely vital. I cannot think of one aspect of Australian society where the Vietnamese community has not added value to Australian life. Just as significantly, however, the Vietnamese people have integrated into Australian life with little disruption, being very respectful of others and as law-abiding, good citizens of Australia. Many of those same people would never have been allowed into Australia if we believed the rhetoric of those who seek to demonise refugees, and Australia would not have prospered from their work ethic and contribution to our nation. I live within a highly populated Vietnamese community. I frequently attend their events. I use their services. I count many of them as friends and I see for myself their contribution to the local region. (Time expired) 5609 5609 09:36:00 Irons, Steve, MP HYM Swan LP 0 0 Mr IRONS —It was interesting to hear the member for McMillan speak about his Girl Guides. On the weekend I attended the relaunch of the 1st Bentley Scout Group in my electorate; however, I rise to speak about my visit last week to the Solahart factory in Welshpool, the industrial precinct in my electorate of Swan. As an ex small businessman, I always enjoy learning about the enterprise risks and rewards of our Western Australian businesses as I am sure the member for Cowan does, another good member from Western Australia. Solahart is now the leading manufacturer of solar hot-water systems in Australia and the world—a true success story for Perth and Western Australia. Solahart’s origins date back to 1901 when two entrepreneurs began manufacturing tanks and sinks for the pioneering community. Back in 1953 the company first started developing ways of utilising the sun’s energy, and today Solahart boasts a record of having manufactured over a million hot-water systems which have been installed in over 80 countries earning export dollars for our state and our country. I had the opportunity to meet with workers on the manufacturing floor of the Welshpool factory. The factory is impressive, and the workers obviously are highly skilled. The work is on a rotational basis, so they gain a skill at various points around the factory and become multiskilled. It is impressive to see, and the factory takes an obvious interest in upskilling them in as many areas as possible. I was told how the company plans to expand in the near future—from 175 to 220 workers—creating more jobs for the local economy. Whilst companies such as Solahart have a good record in the area of solar energy, unfortunately the government’s performance on solar energy has been disappointing. I spoke recently in the chamber about the government’s failure to shortlist any of the eight Western Australian projects submitted under the Solar Flagships program, despite all having the backing of the WA government and despite five projects being progressed in Queensland. We are of course also aware of the sudden scrapping of the solar panel rebate in June last year which caused chaos in the industry in WA for companies that already had orders in hand. Companies such as Solahart show that Australian renewable energy businesses can be successful if given a chance to succeed and some certainty. We should take note of this and give our renewable energy industry every possible opportunity. The government needs to lift its game in this respect. I hope local businesses in my electorate of Swan such as Solahart continue to employ local people and as such have a positive impact on the community. On Saturday night I also attended a quiz night for the Esther Foundation, which I have spoken about in this place before. We recently ran a golf day in support of the Esther Foundation with the support of companies like Plan B, Mechanical Project Management and Envar. We were able to raise a sum of $20,000 for the foundation which will go to bringing beautiful young women back into our society as good young people contributing to society. 5610 5610 09:39:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —I rise to speak about the launch of the Animalia Wildlife Shelter at the Carrum Indigenous Nursery on Saturday, 5 June, which was World Environment Day. With the theme being ‘Many Species. One Planet. One Future.’ there could be no more appropriate day to officially launch Animalia Wildlife Shelter, which is based in Frankston but looks after animals and wildlife up and down the bayside area as far north as Brighton. Animalia Wildlife Shelter is run by Michelle and John Thomas, who have been helping rescue and nurture local wildlife for around 20 years. For the Thomases the preservation and protection of local animals is a real passion. They are supported by a dedicated team of staff and volunteers who assist in the upkeep of facilities, the rehabilitation of animals and the preparation of the animals for release back into their natural habitat after recovery. It is very encouraging that some of these volunteers are young people. It is important that future generations have the energy and learn the skills necessary to carry on the great work being done now. Around 60 people braved the wet and windy conditions at the Carrum Indigenous Nursery to celebrate the launch, and it was good to see the bond between Michelle Thomas and Alison Kuiter from the Carrum Indigenous Nursery. There is an obvious link between preserving indigenous vegetation and preserving native wildlife, both of which have massively declined in suburban areas. Since 1996 the volunteers at Carrum Indigenous Nursery have been propagating plants indigenous to the Port Phillip area and encouraging the growth of indigenous plants in gardens and reserves. Animalia is hoping to attract more than 50 financial members to help them continue to grow and offer greater sanctuary to injured or orphaned wildlife. I am pleased to say that I could not join up quickly enough and make a donation to kick off the campaign. Our local area has a mix of semirural and built-up suburban and industrial areas, which makes me acutely aware of the challenges faced by local wildlife and the dedicated people who are trying to protect them. It was good to see at the launch the local state member for Carrum, Jenny Lindell, who has been a strong supporter of the Carrum Indigenous Nursery for several years, as well as Councillor Rosemary West, who is a tireless worker in protecting our local environment. She has worked hard preserving the green wedge in particular. I would like to thank Michelle Thomas and Alison Kuiter for inviting me to launch the Animalia Wildlife Shelter and I look forward to working with them to help protect our precious local wildlife into the future, as indeed I look forward to working with the Carrum Indigenous Nursery. Last year they were fortunate enough to receive a Commonwealth volunteer grant which assisted them to purchase tables at which the volunteers can stand when they are engaged in the propagation work of plants, which is a large part of the activities of the Carrum Indigenous Nursery. Because many of the volunteers are older people, the grant has been of great assistance. Those tables mean that they no longer need to bend down. (Time expired) 5611 5611 09:42:00 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 0 Mr OAKESHOTT —I rise to talk about an issue of policy significance, potentially one of what I consider to be the major legal, moral and political policy challenges for both the state and federal governments right now. As part of the New South Wales redistribution, the seat of Lyne has expanded to include the Upper Hunter Valley community of the Gloucester Basin. As I get to know that community I have found it is largely divided on the streets over the issue of mining expansion into the Gloucester Basin. There are some who want to see economic growth and are strong advocates for mining expansion and some who are genuinely concerned about the loss of food production areas, and there are also concerns around the health of the community. It was in that context that I wrote to the Hunter New England Health Service and the local division of GPs to seek some advice on the health implications of mining expansion in the Upper Hunter. I also note Four Corners has done a show on the Singleton community, and there have been various examples outside the electorate of Lyne where news stories have presented this issue in a similar light with regard to air and water quality and the implications for health. Last week I received a response from the New South Wales health minister. The following quote from that letter should be of concern to every single member in this place, in particular in light of current debates. It says: ‘The New South Wales government has this week confirmed there are higher than average rates of some conditions such as respiratory and cardiovascular problems in the region as a whole.’ Whilst no-one, including the New South Wales government, is yet willing to draw a direct link to mining activity—and they are wanting to do some further population health studies such as smoking prevalence—as a local member I can pretty well make that link myself, that we do have an issue. I would be highly surprised if there were more smokers in the Upper Hunter than anywhere else in Australia. Therefore, the question for all governments that we now face is this conflict issue: what comes first, money or people and how do we manage that going forward? Currently, we have a genuine health concern in the Upper Hunter, in communities such as Singleton, Lithgow and now in the electorate of Lyne, about mining expansion into the Gloucester Basin. This is not only a food security issue anymore; it is also a population health issue that needs to be addressed. (Time expired) 5612 5612 09:45:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 0 Mr DANBY —Yesterday was a day for the Liberal Party that shall live in infamy. Yesterday their party room voted against the provisions to restore the seven-day period of grace to the electoral roll whereby young voters previously had the opportunity to enrol straight after an election was called. They also knocked back the proposal for provisional votes to be accepted in electorates on the basis of matching signatures, as they had been in the 1996, 1998, 2001 and 2004 elections—a system under which the previous opposition were elected to government. They claimed that it was leading to vote fraud, but they were elected under that system at all of those previous elections. The member for Goldstein, the opposition spokesman on this issue in the House, claimed that the reason for this was that the Australian Electoral Commission had no time to process votes of voters enrolling in the proposed period of grace. That is wrong. In its testimony on every occasion the Australian Electoral Commission have said that it is quite possible for them to process all of these enrolments and that that would be done efficiently and to the high standard that we expect of the Australian Electoral Commission. The member for Goldstein claimed that because fewer people missed lodging an enrolment application this was an indication that the system invented by them for the 2007 election worked. That is wrong. Fewer people sought to enrol because of the onerous identity changes that the previous government put into the legislation just for the last election. Yesterday the member for Goldstein claimed in his speech as justification for this Liberal Party policy that the resumption of the previous system would make voting fraud easier. That is wrong. At every election in the past, including the last election, it has been demonstrated again and again that the Australian electoral system is one of the cleanest, least corrupt in the world. At the last election the Australian Electoral Commission found that there were 20,000 alleged cases of multiple voting. Of those votes, 18,000 were subsequently found to be of people from the same family whom a polling official had mixed up but which were subsequently found to be okay. Of the 1,100 remaining votes, 82 per cent were elderly voters who had voted on polling day and also cast a postal vote. It was completely innocent, not malevolent, and was not an attempt to rort the Electoral Commission at all. This evidence suggests that the Liberal Party has decided to be involved in an antidemocratic manoeuvre which, in my view, is the electoral version of Work Choices. It is a disgrace. Thousands of young people are going to be deterred from voting and thousands of people—(Time expired) 5613 5613 09:48:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP 0 0 Mr BILLSON —I rise today to support the thousands and thousands of independent contractors and self-employed people who are facing the threat of the Rudd government breaking yet another promise. Prior to the last election the Rudd Labor Party assured the independent contractors of Australia and the broader small business community that they would make no changes to the personal services income tax law that affected self-employed and independent contractors. Having made that assurance, understanding the political importance of that commitment to thousands and thousands of self-employed and independent contractors, the Rudd government have done everything that it can to wiggle and weasel out of that commitment and pursue a tax gouge on those thousands of hardworking Australians who choose to be self-employed and independent contractors and not employees within the net that the union movement and Rudd Labor would seek to entangle them in. What we have seen is this. Despite that very clear and explicit pre-election commitment from the Labor Party, the government once elected went and instigated a review of the very laws it promised it would not change. It referred the matter to the Board of Taxation. The Board of Taxation came back and implied that there was some kind of rip-off going on. They implied there was a rip-off not on the basis of some widespread identification of people not complying with the current law but by carrying out targeted compliance activity—that is, activity that was known to target those where there was a concern. Then they said, ‘Of that group where there is a concern some of them were not doing the right thing.’ That was proper compliance activity. That is what the government and the tax office should be doing. That is in no way a justification to turn these laws on their heads and to have these independent contractors and self-employed people thrown into the entanglement of employee-like arrangements when that is not justified by the basis of their business. The Board of Taxation made some remarkable recommendations: having more red tape; having more complexity in introducing new reporting obligations; extending rules of attribution in the way income was provided; clarifying, simplifying and reducing deduction options; putting in new tests about whether or not people were employees; and introducing a deemed labour income approach. This nonsense was too hot to touch, so the government sent it off to the Henry tax review. The Henry tax review came back with recommendation No. 10, to mess with the laws. Those were the very laws the Labor Party said they would not touch. Understandably, independent contractors and self-employed people right across Australia, led by the independent contractors association, and many other independent professional bodies are outraged by this betrayal. The coalition are committed to the current laws. We undertake not to change them, because they have worked effectively. No case has been made to throw self-employed and independent contractors into some dubious, spurious, mysterious net of employee-like arrangements. No case has been made. (Time expired) 5613 5613 09:51:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 1 0 Mr HAYES —One of the joys we have in representing our communities is the opportunity that we get from time to time to meet many surprising people, people that ordinarily you would not get a chance to meet. Last Monday I met more than 20 men at the Bonnyrigg men’s shed, where I was treated to a wonderful barbecue lunch followed by a tour of their premises. Most importantly, I had a chance to talk with them and catch up. Those of us who are fortunate enough to have men’s sheds in our communities would know that they provide a common space for men of varying ages to gather, to socialise and to enjoy meaningful activities such as woodwork, metalwork and restoration of antiques. However, it was clear to me during my visit that the men’s shed also served as much more than that. The men’s shed in Bonnyrigg is a place for mainly older men in the south-west of Sydney to connect and it provides them with the opportunity to contribute to their communities, to learn new skills, to share knowledge and most importantly to make new friends. It is true that they are especially popular with men over 50 who are retired and looking for an interest outside the home; it keeps them busy, fit and healthy. Yet they are also well liked by those who have health issues brought about by social isolation, retrenchment or other factors affecting their lives. Essentially, they are a place for blokes to gather, to get things off their chests and, importantly, to talk to other men in similar situations. Men’s health is of national importance, and this has been highlighted by the government’s new National Male Health Policy. It makes the programs on offer at the Bonnyrigg men’s shed just so important. The men’s sheds are aimed at combating depression caused by isolation through regular participation, which in some cases leads to trade skills, new opportunities to come together and volunteering in the community in general. Over the barbecue lunch the men took the opportunity to tell me that they felt comfortable in that sort of relaxed environment. It was certainly a supportive environment. When I was there I made the commitment that I would support them. I recognise the valuable role the men’s sheds play in building stronger communities, making activity for people in their older years possible and giving those people the opportunity to gather, come together and support one another. Finally, I would like to take the opportunity to mention Brian Waites and Mick Johnstone for their valuable work at the men’s shed at Bonnyrigg and Matt Dillon and Tairyn Vergara from the Parks Community Network for their dedication and commitment to supporting this wonderful community asset. The men’s shed at Bonnyrigg is a valuable resource and one that clearly is making a difference in our community. 5614 5614 09:54:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —I would like to make some comments this morning about grandparents caring for their grandchildren. I think that any of us who have been out doorknocking will have at some point come across the families that are unique. I remember a very clear example one day in Girrawheen before the last election, and on another occasion since, where I have gone up to a front door and a lady in her senior years has spoken to me and I have seen young children within the house. Particularly, in this case before the election, I saw two children from one of the local primary schools. I thought that maybe this was just grandma looking after the grandchildren after school or something like that. But, unfortunately, that was not the case at all. So often we find that grandparents have been forced to step into the breach after the parents have gone for whatever reason—sometimes their demise through an unfortunate accident, sometimes an inability to care for children because of drug addiction. These are certainly the sorts of examples that have occurred which have ended up placing children in the homes of their grandparents. We should never underestimate the complexities, the problems involved for the grandparents in these circumstances. It can be expensive looking after young people, whether they are babies, at primary school or even secondary school. At exactly the time when older Australians, seniors, are starting to look forward to taking some time off or retiring, suddenly they are placed back into the situation that they were in some 20 or 30 years before, and that is a very difficult circumstance for them. They find it hard. They struggle with the financial aspects of that, of the life that has been forced upon them. At the same time, it is hard enough for parents to relate to their teenagers at certain stages without having another 25 or 30 years of age between the young person and the carer. They are very difficult circumstances. When Sharyne de Young of the local grandparents caring for grandchildren group came to see me recently she certainly made some very clear points. She made it very clear how difficult it is for these people in these circumstances. It is certainly worth while that grandparents be seen very much in the same ilk as foster parents and that the same sort of support applies. (Time expired) 5615 5615 09:57:00 Marles, Richard, MP HWQ Corio ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Innovation and Industry 1 0 Mr MARLES —This morning in Parliament House a special event is about to take place: the nation’s top fundraisers in one of this country’s best known charity fundraising events, the MS Readathon, are meeting with Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who is the patron of the readathon. It is a wonderful acknowledgement of their efforts to raise money for an extremely worthwhile cause. Yesterday afternoon it was my pleasure to meet a young man from Geelong who has earned his place at this meeting as Victoria’s top fundraiser. And I say ‘earned’ quite deliberately because 12-year-old Hayden Loader has worked hard and with considerable determination to raise thousands of dollars over several years. Each year he has managed to better his efforts, not just by taking part in the readathon but by organising other fundraising events throughout the year. Last year he became Victoria’s top MS Readathon fundraiser by collecting an impressive $5,011. This year he has already bettered that result. He has raised $5,700 and has more time to add to that before the August fundraising deadline. Over several years, Hayden has managed to raise in excess of $12,000, no small feat for a primary school student. Hayden’s inspiration comes from his grandmother, Mary-Faye Wilson, who has had multiple sclerosis for 15 years. Her daily battle with this perplexing disease has driven Hayden’s efforts to help her and others like her. Money raised through the readathon provides support for those living with MS and also funds the ongoing search for a cure. Hayden’s mum, Nicole, was a regular readathon participant and says Hayden became involved when he was old enough to read. What impressed me about Hayden was not just the amount of money he raised and the many hundred of books he has read but also the extra effort he makes to raise money. His first attempt at a garage sale raised over $3,000 when he enlisted the support of local businesses. Each year he runs a Christmas hamper drive and slice drive. He has organised charity auction nights and every summer, when the family holidays in Mildura, he raises more money by washing windows in the caravan park where they stay. Hayden loves swimming and later this year he will take part in the 24-hour Mega Swim for MS. Coming here was a big deal for Hayden. It was his first trip on a plane and his and his mum’s first visit to Canberra. Hayden’s mum says no words can express her pride in her son. It is an outstanding achievement. Last year the MS Readathon raised more than $2.3 million with 25,500 participants reading over a million books during June, July and August. It is MS Readathon time again. Hayden has set himself the task of reading more than 100 books in 30 days. That is a great effort and I encourage other children to take a leaf out of Hayden’s book. We all know that reading can take us places. For Hayden, it has brought him to Canberra but it has also given him the opportunity to make a difference to the lives of others, especially his grandmother, and for that he should be congratulated. 10000 Saffin, Janelle (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms JA Saffin)—Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members’ constituency statements has concluded. Bills R4361 5616 Consideration resumed from 15 June. Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio Proposed expenditure, $5,509,751,000 5616 10:01:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —Would the Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance outline the current diplomatic situation between the Solomon Islands and Australia. 5616 10:01:00 McMullan, Bob, MP 5I4 Fraser ALP Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance 1 0 Mr McMULLAN —I thank the member. Let me respond specifically to his point and also more generally. Although the date is not officially set, one of the critical things—and it is a plus for the democratic development of the Solomon Islands—is that the election is imminent. The general expectation is that it will be held in the first week of August, although it is for the Governor-General to announce the date. Nobody would welcome me announcing it for him, but that is probably the general expectation. Of course, it is not for us to involve ourselves in who is elected to the government of the Solomon Islands; it is our job to deal with whoever is elected. But we have had a very good and a greatly enhanced relationship with the current government in the last year or two. It has been a feature of the Rudd government that we have entered into the partnership for development. The new elements of the relationship that have strengthened and improved are the partnership for development and the high level of cooperation and agreement between our two governments. A continuing feature of the strength that goes back beyond the Rudd government is RAMSI, the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands. The RAMSI initiative remains, according to the public opinion surveys, very popular with the people of the Solomon Islands. It is not only an Australian initiative but an initiative of all the countries of the region. For that reason, we continue to enjoy the leadership role in it. I congratulate the Special Coordinator of RAMSI and all those who have been engaged in the discussion in and around the initiative and done an enormous amount of valuable work—personnel from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, all the other departments, the Army and the police who have participated in RAMSI. I think our relations with the Solomon Islands are at as high a point as they have been. One of the critical issues for the Solomon Islands going forward—and I was discussing this with the planning minister last Friday—is the imminent end of logging exports, which is a critical part of export income and government revenue for the Solomon Islands. But the logging has been excessive, and everybody knows that by 2012 there will basically be no logging exports or revenue other than from some of the sustainable plantations. So the Gold Ridge gold mine is critical in filling that gap, and the Australian government have sought to be as helpful as we can in facilitating the reopening of that mine. I and the trade minister have been involved in some discussions, and we are very positive about it. 5617 10:06:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —I take the member for Fraser to the DFAT portfolio budget statements where, on page 24, under annual departmental expenses there is an item entitled ‘Foreign Affairs and Trade Operations.’ The parliamentary secretary will note that there is a reduction in expenses, from $562,818 in the 2009-10 budget to $499,183 in the 2010-11 budget, which will go down to $491,363 in the 2011-12 budget. Could the member explain which areas will be affected by this budget cut over the next three years, which programs are likely to be cut and what analysis has been undertaken on the impact of such budget cuts on the operation of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade? 5617 10:07:00 McMullan, Bob, MP 5I4 Fraser ALP Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance 1 0 Mr McMULLAN —My understanding, which has been confirmed, is that the change in budget numbers simply reflects changes in foreign exchange—that is, the same level of international activity is reflected in the expenditure of a different number of Australian dollars because of exchange rate movements. 5617 10:07:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —I take the parliamentary secretary to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s portfolio budget statements, at page 36, program 2.1 Consular services. I point to the fact that the annual departmental expenses for consular services have been reduced by $7.83 million from $83,220,000 this year and by a cut of $2.46 million next year. Is the parliamentary secretary able to explain those cuts in consular services? Is that also due to foreign exchange movements or is it indeed a cut in the activities of consular services? I point out that the 2008-09 Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade annual report stated that there would be strong and growing demand for consular services, with almost 195,000 services having been provided in 2008-09, up from 185,000 a year earlier and that the department has said that it expects there will be growth in demand for consular services in coming years. One cited example of the growth in demand for consular services was that support was provided to 638 Australians who were hospitalised overseas in 2004-05 and that that had grown to 1,480 people hospitalised overseas in 2008-09. Given that the department says that it expects there will be a growth in demand for consular services in coming years, I ask the parliamentary secretary to explain this item on consular services. 5617 10:10:00 McMullan, Bob, MP 5I4 Fraser ALP Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance 1 0 Mr McMULLAN —I understand exactly why the shadow foreign minister would be concerned. It is a reasonable question to ask, but once again my advice is that, although the documents show small decreases in funding for consular services over the next two years, there is no funding cut. It is just the standard adjustment for exchange rate movements given the strengthening of the dollar. There would be some continuing impact of the efficiency dividend, but there is no one-off cut; there are no special measures to cut consular services. 5618 10:10:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —I refer again to the DFAT annual report, which stated that there would be strong and growing demand for consular services. The honourable member’s answer indicates that there is in fact no increase—the honourable member is suggesting that there is no decrease; this is due to currency exchanges—to meet the growing demand for consular services. I gave the example of the number of Australians hospitalised overseas and the department’s statement that it expects there will be growth and demand for consular services. Will the honourable member confirm that there has been no increase in funding for consular services in line with the department’s expectation of a growth in demand? 5618 10:11:00 McMullan, Bob, MP 5I4 Fraser ALP Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance 1 0 Mr McMULLAN —The average staffing level for DFAT is projected to increase during the course of 2010-11—an increase of 1.6 per cent or 59. Some of that, but less than half, is specifically relating to things like passports and special one-offs with regard to Afghanistan and Baghdad—measures that are announced in the budget—but there is also a staff increase. There is no special increase in funding for consular, no special reduction. We expect to continue to provide the high-quality service to Australians that we have. 5618 10:12:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —I take the honourable parliamentary secretary to page 38, program 2.2, Passport Services. Again, I note that in the annual departmental expenses, Passport Services, $203.821 million indicates a fall of $13.9 million for the 2010-2011 budget year. Will the honourable parliamentary secretary also explain what appears to be an apparent reduction in the levels of services available for those applying for passports? 5618 10:13:00 McMullan, Bob, MP 5I4 Fraser ALP Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance 1 0 Mr McMULLAN —Just to put it in context, of course the shadow minister would know that in the budget there is actually $101 million over the next six years, $73 million over the next four years, to enhance the passport system. That is a budget measure explicitly announced and funded and that reflects some of the increased staffing that I mentioned in response to the previous question. But beyond that the change in funding with regard to passports is exactly the same as regards to consular: it is simply the standard formula that is applied with regard to the impact of foreign exchange movements and any small impact from the efficiency dividend. 5618 10:14:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —In relation to the passport deliverables under program 2.2, there is reference to the high-quality passports service, including detecting passport fraud. Will the honourable parliamentary secretary inform the House whether the most current passports available to Australian travellers are capable of being forged; or have technological advances reached a point where Australian passports cannot be forged? 5618 10:14:00 McMullan, Bob, MP 5I4 Fraser ALP Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance 1 0 Mr McMULLAN —I do not want to pretend that I have a level of expertise I do not have, but it would be a brave person who said that anything is totally unforgeable. The technology of miscreants improves as rapidly as the technology of those trying to do the right thing. We are very proud and confident of the quality of our current passports, and we are investing $100 million over the next six years to improve them even further. We think the current passports are of a very high quality and most people agree with that, and internationally they are regarded as such. But we are not going to rest on our laurels. We are investing the money to deliver a new passport-issuing system that will enhance both the security and the efficiency of our expanding passport operations. We think they are very high-quality passports, probably as high quality as any in the world. It would just be beyond my level of confidence to say that nobody is going to be clever enough to work out a way to forge anything. Unfortunately the history of passports, the history of currencies and the history of other valuable documents suggest that it would be a brave person to say that forgery could never happen. But we do not think there are any passports better than the ones we are putting out. 5619 10:16:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —I ask the honourable parliamentary secretary: is it the case that the biosecurity measures currently contained in Australian passports cannot be detected or used to verify those passports in a number of countries? In other words, it is not about the quality of the technology contained within the Australian passport; there are countries, including in the Middle East, where the detection facilities available at airports are not able to use the benefits contained in Australian passports for the purposes of verifying the passport and the passport holder. 5619 10:17:00 McMullan, Bob, MP 5I4 Fraser ALP Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance 1 0 Mr McMULLAN —I do not have any direct evidence of that, but I cannot say it is not true. I assume you are not saying that therefore the passports are not valid in those countries; it is simply that those facilities operate manually rather than electronically. I would not be surprised if that were the case because not all countries have sophisticated technology to handle Australia’s high-quality, sophisticated passports. I assume you are not saying they are not recognised; it is just that they operate manually in those places rather than electronically. Thinking of some of the airports I have been through—and I am sure you have been through them too—I am sure that is almost certainly true. I do not have any direct evidence to say, ‘Yes, I know in country X this is the case.’ 5619 10:17:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —In the past, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade have been asked to provide the number of passports currently unaccounted for—that is, passports that are lost or in the mail, or otherwise unaccounted for. Would the parliamentary secretary provide the current number of Australian passports unaccounted for? 5619 10:18:00 McMullan, Bob, MP 5I4 Fraser ALP Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance 1 0 Mr McMULLAN —I do not have that detail at my fingertips. Let me take it on notice. 5619 10:18:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —I ask the honourable parliamentary secretary: is it the protocol adopted by this government to reveal the identity of secret service agents in the embassies of other nations—that is, to reveal the name and capacity in which that person is stationed in Australia? Is it also the protocol of this government to reveal visits to other countries by the heads of Australian security and intelligence agencies? 5619 10:19:00 McMullan, Bob, MP 5I4 Fraser ALP Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance 1 0 Mr McMULLAN —There are two separate questions there. With regard to the first, the answer is no. We do not indicate identities of diplomats and their particular functions in the normal course, other than the obvious information such as who is the charge d’affaires and whatever. If I understand the implication of the question, the answer is no, we do not do that. As to the second question, it is not routinely made public when our heads of agencies travel overseas, but occasionally it is. Occasionally the people themselves say so—for example, they may be before the Senate estimates or whatever. But it is not something that would routinely be announced and I do not think anybody would expect it to be. 5620 10:20:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —I refer the honourable parliamentary secretary to the front page of yesterday’s Canberra Times, which revealed the name and the occupation of an alleged Mossad agent who had been stationed in Canberra. The name and the position were made public, I understand, as a result of information from the government. This is the diplomat that was expelled by the Australian government over the forged passports affair. Will the honourable parliamentary secretary comment on that report and, as well, indicate whether it is usual practice or the protocol of this government to name and expel a diplomat and make that announcement prior to the diplomat being given an opportunity to leave the country, for security purposes? 5620 10:21:00 McMullan, Bob, MP 5I4 Fraser ALP Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance 1 0 Mr McMULLAN —I am, of course, aware of the newspaper article—the Canberra Times is my local newspaper. Unlike most people in the parliament, I actually read it every day. So, yes, I am aware of it. I happen also to know the journalist, Philip Dorling, very well. But those two things do not change the fact that the story is not right. The government did not announce the name of the person who had been expelled. Diplomats arrive and depart in Canberra on a regular basis. The government does not discuss individual departures and it did not. Obviously, we can discuss further the decision about whether the person should leave or not—that is a separate question. I am aware that the journalist believes that he may have deduced who the person is by looking at the diplomatic list and saying, ‘Oh, there’s a name that isn’t on there that was there before,’ but people come and go, often, and the diplomatic list is revised regularly. Nobody should automatically assume that the change they see reflected in that list is a product of the previous decision by the government. We have not identified the person who is expelled and we will not. 5620 10:22:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —I take the honourable parliamentary secretary to the statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the House on Monday, a couple of weeks back, in relation to the expulsion of the Israeli diplomat. I am sure the parliamentary secretary is aware of that statement. In that statement, the foreign minister named David Irvine as having visited Mossad, in Israel, in April. That would appear to go against the protocol that the parliamentary secretary just referred to. I also refer, in that statement, to the foreign minister’s statement that an Israeli diplomat was expelled in 2005 and to the indication that the reasons for the expulsion were linked to a previous occasion when Israel was alleged to have forged passports. Will the parliamentary secretary indicate why the foreign minister named David Irvine and stated that his visit was to Mossad in Israel, and will he provide the Committee with the specific reasons for the expulsion of the Israeli diplomat in 2005, as identified by the foreign minister? Will he also provide specific details of the agreement that the foreign minister said exists between Israel and Australia over the use of passports? And I ask the parliamentary secretary: has there been any impact on the sharing of intelligence from the Israeli intelligence forces with Australia in recent weeks? 5620 10:25:00 McMullan, Bob, MP 5I4 Fraser ALP Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance 1 0 Mr McMULLAN —With regard to the naming of Mr Irvine, as I said earlier, we do not as a matter of course announce when the heads of security agencies are visiting elsewhere. Some are less likely to be named than others. The name of the person who is the head of that agency is not exactly a secret. We live in a democracy and we like to make available as much as possible. I was not aware of any reason that that should not have been available and as far as I know the officer concerned had no concerns about it. I can only give some of the information in response to the two other questions and if the minister has something further to add I will refer it to him. What the minister said was that the things that took place in 2005 were the responsibility of the previous government and there is only so far he should go in revealing the discussions that they had. He simply alluded to a previous incident and what had taken place. What he was responding to in that statement did not reflect the character of the agreement that came out on that occasion. I do not think he would wish to, or would wish me to, go beyond that. I do not think it is appropriate for him to start making announcements about decisions of the previous government or discussions and agreements that they entered into. But I will refer the two points raised by the shadow minister to the minister and see if he has got something to add. 5621 10:27:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —I thank the parliamentary secretary for taking those questions on notice. Perhaps if I can put it this way: will the parliamentary secretary confirm that the previous occasion when an Israeli diplomat was asked to leave was not to do with forging, falsification or anything else connected with Australian passports? In fact, it was not a policy or political matter. Rather than identifying the specific reasons, if he could confirm that it was not about a passport matter, I would appreciate that. On a matter of AusAID, will the parliamentary secretary provide an answer—and, if not, take it on notice—about the number of cases of fraud that AusAID is currently investigating. I also seek answers to a number of questions about the management of AusAID’s contracts. There is evidence to suggest that a number of AusAID contracts are being awarded to ex-AusAID staff. An example is an ex-AusAID officer, Peter Kelly, being paid $433,000 tax-free a year to supervise road maintenance in Vanuatu. Would the parliamentary secretary advise how many contracts are currently in place with ex-AusAID staff, what processes are being followed in the awarding of contracts to ensure that there is equal opportunity given to other bids or tenders for the work, and what safeguards are in place to ensure that there is nothing untoward in a governance, transparency and accountability sense in awarding AusAID contracts? 5621 10:30:00 McMullan, Bob, MP 5I4 Fraser ALP Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance 1 0 Mr McMULLAN —I cannot immediately give you an answer about the number of fraud investigations. I will check whether there are any and, if so, how many and let you know. With regard to the general question about the contracts and the particular example, I just want to say something in advance before I deal with the questions that have been raised. The government of Vanuatu yesterday and today made it clear to me, through one of their ministers who is here in Australia, the extent to which they value and appreciate the quality of the work provided by the adviser in question and by Australian advisers in general. On one other general question, we inherited a system that was excessively dependent on technical assistance and advisers. We have been reducing the proportion of the aid program going through technical assistance and advisers since we came to office. It has declined quite significantly, but I think that we still use more than we should and that we sometimes respond too positively to requests for advisers. Obviously, the shadow minister would know that there are no advisers working who have not been asked for by a government with which we are working. But I think we have not responded as rigorously as we might have, so that is why the foreign minister has initiated a review. As I say, we have been putting downward pressure on the proportion of the aid budget going through technical assistance and advisers. It has been reduced since we came to office but it is, arguably, still too high. With regard to ex-AusAID staff there is not an AusAID-specific policy about that. There is a Commonwealth-wide policy with regard to that, which is the Commonwealth procurement policy. AusAID applies that policy appropriately, as does every other agency. With regard to Mr Kelly, I am advised it was a public tender process; it was not a privately entered into arrangement. Tenders were called and a successful contractor won in accordance with the normal Commonwealth procurement guidelines. 5622 10:33:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —I refer the parliamentary secretary to a report of the Australian National Audit Office of last year which was critical of Australia’s overreliance on what it termed ‘highly paid consultants’ to deliver AusAID programs overseas. It also made the comment that Australia uses double the average aid budget of comparable OECD countries. In particular, I refer the parliamentary secretary to the highest paid full-time consultants who have received funding from AusAID. We have mentioned Peter Kelly in Vanuatu. There was also Mr Sikosana in Papua New Guinea, a health adviser, on a salary of $371,350; Mr Desai, in Vanuatu, an energy adviser, on $344,000; Hugh Brown, an infrastructure adviser to the Indonesian tsunami reconstruction program, on $342,800; and Graham Applegate, in Indonesia, a senior technical forest and climate specialist, on $342,000. I also refer to the highest paid part-time consultants: Victor Canales in PNG was a census planning and budgeting assistant for two months and was paid $146,444. Mr Canales, again in PNG, gave assistance with data entry for a household survey for two months and was paid $115,868. Dr Hong Tan did a mid-term review of private sector development specialists for four months, for $114,000. Michael Carter, a strategic evaluation leader for five months, was paid $131,000. And Jessica Kenway worked on a review of the Australian partnerships for African communities for five months at a cost of $104,869. Will the parliamentary secretary advise what analysis is carried out in relation to the value for money provided by those advisers? What assessment is done of the outcomes and the results achieved by those full-time consultants and part-time consultants? Will the parliamentary secretary advise whether a process is undertaken to engage people who are actually living and working in those countries—for example, NGOs or people in the private sector—who could provide better value for money so that the aid dollars are spent on actual results and outcomes rather than on processes, strategies, reviews and the like? 5622 10:36:00 McMullan, Bob, MP 5I4 Fraser ALP Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance 1 0 Mr McMULLAN —Let me start by saying that we inherited an appalling system from your government. The government which you ran ran an appalling system. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Not you, Deputy Speaker. 5I4 McMullan, Bob, MP Mr McMULLAN —No, you. I understand the procedural point you are making. 10000 Sidebottom, Sid (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Sidebottom)—I know. So do I. 5I4 McMullan, Bob, MP Mr McMULLAN —I am just saying who I think is responsible, and it is the previous government. We found that there was no system for doing any of those things which you just raised. We put in place a system that will put downward pressure on the use of technical advisers and what they are paid. We found there was no standardised remuneration framework when we came to office. We are now in the process of establishing a set of scales that will bring downward pressure on fees and allowances. You had none. We found that there was no system for checking the value for money question that you very appropriately ask, and we are instituting one. It is true we inherited an appalling system, and we are in the process of fixing it. The percentage of Australian aid that was going in technical assistance for the period 1996 to 2007 was nearly 42 per cent. Since we came to office we have reduced it to 35. I do not think 35 is satisfactory, and I want it to be lower, but I do not really appreciate being criticised by someone who presided over it being much worse—20 per cent worse—without any system for coping with it, without any system of framework for remuneration, without any process for review of value for money and without any process of setting in place a proper review. We have fixed it a bit. We have reduced it from 42 per cent to 35 per cent, but that is not enough and that is why the foreign minister announced the review. We will review it contract by contract, country by country. We are starting with PNG and then the Solomons. By the end we will have a vigorous and robust system. It is not fair to say that all these advisers do not do good work. Overwhelmingly they do. Overwhelmingly they did when you were the government. Overwhelmingly they do now. We think there is too much emphasis on it. I think it is at least 50 per cent a demand-side problem: that is, governments in the developing countries—and I have spoken to each of the ones with whom we are conducting reviews at the moment—too easily ask, and it is the first thing they ask, ‘Can you send an adviser to assist with this?’ and we too easily agree. I think there is a demand-side problem and a supply-side problem. It will not be fixed simply by a supply-side solution, so we are talking to the countries about how we manage the demand as well. It is a system that was hopeless that we are fixing. It will take a bit longer to fix it, but it is in the process of being repaired. 5623 10:40:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —In the time available, I want to ask questions on three separate topics. I appreciate that the parliamentary secretary may not have time to answer them now, but could he take these questions on notice. The first topic is the government’s decision to institute legal proceedings against Japan over the whaling issue. What effort was made by the government to obtain the support of the United States and New Zealand prior to the government’s announcement of its decision to institute legal proceedings ahead of the IWC meeting next week? So what effort was made to obtain the support of the US and New Zealand? Also on that issue, what advice has the government received on the likelihood of success of its legal action and the consequences of failure? The second topic is the Asia-Pacific community, this proposal that was floated by the Prime Minister a couple of years ago. Will the parliamentary secretary advise which nations have indicated their support for the Prime Minister’s proposal of an Asia-Pacific community and what is the nature of that support? In other words: what statements have been made in relation to it? Can the parliamentary secretary advise which nations will be included in the Prime Minister’s proposal of an Asia-Pacific community and which nations will not? And will he also provide the cost of lobbying countries in the Asia-Pacific region to support the Prime Minister’s proposal to this point? The third topic is the government’s bid for a United Nations Security Council seat. How many countries, and which countries, have committed to support Australia’s bid and what is the nature of that support? Are there written or public statements of support, and from which particular regions? Will the parliamentary secretary indicate whether there is a connection between the increases in aid to particular regions and the government’s lobbying for support for the seat on the Security Council? The parliamentary secretary would be aware of statements made by countries in the region in relation to aid and the bid for the Security Council. I also refer to the increase in the number of state visits from countries, particularly from Africa and Latin America. Can the parliamentary secretary advise the cost to the Australian taxpayer of those state visits? I appreciate that there are a significant number of questions there, but could the parliamentary secretary answer any he is able to at present and then take the rest on notice. 5624 10:43:00 McMullan, Bob, MP 5I4 Fraser ALP Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance 1 0 Mr McMULLAN —Okay, let me deal with some of them. Questions on the Asia-Pacific community I will put on notice. Questions about state visits I will put on notice. I do not deal with either of those and I do not have anything immediately to hand. With regard to the whaling case, because we want to maximise our chances of bringing Japanese whaling to a permanent end the case has been developed carefully. The government has confidence in the court. However, as with any legal action, it does not come with guarantees. We are not going to comment publicly on the details of our case or our strategy because that could prejudice our case, but it has been developed fully and we think that the case will maximise our chances of bringing Japanese whaling to a permanent end and therefore we think it is the appropriate course of action to take. Obviously I am not going to say anything about who is committed to the UN Security Council bid. The only people who would benefit from that would be the people who are running against us, so I have absolutely no intention of doing that. I am sure those other countries will not tell us who has committed to vote for them, and we will not tell them who has committed to vote for us. I can say that we have not made decisions with regard to the regional or other allocation of the aid budget around the UN Security Council bid. I have seen those allegations. They are entirely without foundation, and that is something I can say with confidence. I will refer the questions about the APC and the state visits for an answer. 10000 Sidebottom, Sid (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Sidebottom)—It being 10.45 am, the committee will now consider the trade segment of the portfolio in accordance with the agreed order of consideration. I thank the previous speakers for their contribution. 5624 10:45:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 1 0 Mr RIPOLL —I would like to take the opportunity to ask a question of the Minister for Trade, since he is here. He has previously announced the creation of a national brand for Australia to enhance our international reputation as a nation of substance. That we are, and we are certainly held up that way in the world. I understand that the recent announcement with regard to the brand concept has been very successful. I would like to ask the minister to explain to the committee how this decision was reached and how the brand will be used to build a reputation as a great place to do business. 5624 10:46:00 Crean, Simon, MP DT4 Hotham ALP Minister for Trade 1 0 Mr CREAN —The brand Australia Unlimited is a very exciting concept. It comes from two issues that have been the counterpoints that I have struck in all the trade negotiations that I have been having—that is, the more you go to countries and understand the sorts of issues and opportunities within those countries the more you realise the diversity that Australia has to offer in being able to respond positively to those proposals and opportunities, but on the other hand there is a great lack of understanding within those countries of the diversity that Australia has to offer. We promote ourselves for tourism purposes. It is about time we promoted ourselves other than as a tourist destination, because whilst Australia is a great place to have a holiday it is also a great place to do business and to make investments. We know it because of everything we do. With their strength and creativity our scientists and entrepreneurs do more than just punch above their weight; everything they do has a quality outcome. But we cannot just sit back and hope that people will come to understand this; we have to be more effective at marketing. That is in essence what Brand Australia is. We tested the concept that is out there, which is called Australia Unlimited. It was market tested involving 15,000 people in research groups, including 14 overseas countries as well as Australia. Due to the results of that research, together with a panel of leading businesspeople that I established to help us assess the outcomes of the research and the creative concepts that were coming forward, the Australia Unlimited concept won. We launched it successfully at the Sydney Opera House earlier last month and then internationally at the Shanghai expo. Shanghai expo has really been exceeding all expectations as well. The Australian pavilion has now passed, I think, its two millionth visitor. Recently it had its highest intake: 51,000 people went through on one particular Saturday. This was before the school holidays. When you think of the fact that there are expected to be something upward of 80 million people going through the expo and that the Australian pavilion is one of the most visited, this is a huge opportunity for us in what is the fastest growing market in the world. There are plenty of other market opportunities for us, but the branding and promotion of Australia under Australia Unlimited will give us a much greater edge in promoting the diversity of our potential for goods and services and investment. 5625 10:49:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —I take the opportunity, with some regret at this estimates process, to lament the loss of ambition and progress in Australia’s trade negotiations. I do not say that to be particularly critical of the Minister for Trade; I am mindful of the tough job that he has. I think that if he were to look back at some of the rhetoric that he used, when he was shadow minister, in the years leading up to his becoming trade minister he would probably be a little embarrassed about some of the promises and commitments he made at that time and would realise that this is a hard slog and that it is not easy to make progress. What I find disappointing is not only have we not made much progress but also that our ambition seems to have faded—the desire to have only high-quality trade agreements and the desire to ensure that we actually make progress with each of these agreements, that they are all fair deals for Australia and that we do not just give things away in order to get a signature on a bottom line but actually achieve benefits for our own country as well. In particular, we need to focus on the Doha Round. The now Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, said in July 2006 that Doha was ‘as dead as a dodo’. I do not think that approach was endorsed by the shadow trade minister at the time, but nonetheless that is what the leader said. I know the shadow trade minister has reason to object to the way in which the Prime Minister has behaved while he has been in prime ministerial office, but this is another example of how his rhetoric changed after he was elected. In reality, the Doha Round is sliding away. The statements being made after each meeting are less encouraging than the ones made previously. In July 2008 the trade minister said that the negotiations were going well and that 80 per cent of all the issues were resolved—although, frankly, I think most of those were resolved because countries like Australia backed down and backed away from their ambition. In 2009 there was discussion about ‘important progress’ and ‘injection of momentum’. He said that the chief negotiators would ‘intensify their efforts next week in Geneva’ and then went on to say that everyone now recognises we are in the ‘end game’ of the Doha Round. That was in 2009, and now we are in 2010, and if there was to be a statement now it would be even less encouraging, because, frankly, none of those optimistic and glowing comments have been a reflection of the reality. That is very disappointing. The progress that has been made has been made because we back away from important principles. I am very concerned that the ambition that surrounded the launch of the Doha Round during Mark Vaile’s long and successful term as trade minister seems to have been watered down and that there is now a desperation about getting an agreement no matter how little benefit there is in it. Frankly, a bad agreement is not better than no agreement at all. I thought it was interesting that an article in the Australian Farm Institute’s Farm Policy Journal a few months ago made the comment that what was accepted for agriculture by this government through Doha—what is on the table at the present time—could be worse than having no deal at all. I suggest that deals need to deliver real benefits. The Doha Round, unfortunately, is slipping away. It is slipping away not just because of the inability of Australia to pursue its agenda but also because the US has clearly lost interest and Europe and other countries are not giving it the momentum it needs. Especially, if the US is not prepared to meaningfully engage, then all these discussions will have serious problems. In particular, the new US administration seems to be focused much more on a fortress America policy and to be unwilling to make the kinds of concessions that will be necessary to get this sort of thing across the line. I believe it is important for the government to maintain the momentum, the spirit and the ambition of achieving worthwhile trade agreements and not just participate in a rush to the bottom to try to get signatures on comparatively worthless agreements just so that it can be said that a deal has been done. (Time expired) 5626 10:54:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 1 0 Mr MURPHY —I must come to the defence of the Minister for Trade. I am sure that the member for Wide Bay was not reflecting on the personal efforts of the Minister for Trade. GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss —I said that right at the beginning. 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr MURPHY —I can certainly go to a higher authority. I am not sure whether the member for Wide Bay was at a luncheon in February, to which we were all invited in this place, when the head of the WTO, Mr Pascal Lamy, gave a very erudite presentation on the history of the Doha Round. I thought it very significant, and I am glad the minister is here, when he said that if he had had 153 Simon Creans, referring to the 153 member countries of the WTO, the Doha Round would have been concluded within 18 months. Well done, Minister. We are all interested in the successful conclusion of the Doha Round and we all know what a significant benefit it will be to the global economy. On this very important topic I would like to take the opportunity to ask the minister how the resources of the trade portfolio are helping with the progress of Doha and the successful conclusion of those negotiations through the WTO. 5627 10:56:00 Crean, Simon, MP DT4 Hotham ALP Minister for Trade 1 0 Mr CREAN —I thank the member for Wide Bay and the member for Lowe for coming in from two different perspectives, I suspect, of Doha, which I will come to in a minute. I say at the outset that I do agree with the member for Wide Bay that we should share ambition in the results of our trade negotiations but I disagree fundamentally with him on his analysis. I will come to Doha in a minute. Let us just remind ourselves of the so-called quality agreements that he says were the hallmark of the previous government. First of all, we have the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement, in which the Liberal Party sold out the National Party, even though the Leader of the National Party was the chief negotiator. They sold them out because they excluded sugar completely; it was a complete carve-out. Do not tell me that was a quality approach to an agreement. This was an agreement at any cost because the Prime Minister of the day wanted a political trophy; he did not care about its contents. Let us go to the China FTA. I quote the words of the member for Wide Bay, who said, ‘We shouldn’t just give things away.’ What did the previous government do in terms of the China free trade agreement? It gave away the recognition of market economy status and got nothing in return. We inherited the circumstances of having to pick up the pieces with China in which China had gained what it fundamentally wanted. We believe we have injected new political momentum into the negotiations on the FTA, because we are focused on the importance of investment as a two-way exercise, not a one-way exercise. We are focused on the importance of energy security. We have widened the FTA beyond just the agriculture issues to understand the fundamental importance of services in terms of economic development. We have broadened the quality of the approach and the direction of the negotiations. Just to cap off our so-called failures, what about the conclusion of the free trade agreement with the ASEAN group of countries? This is a group of 10 countries with a combined total of 600 million people and a combined GDP at the moment in excess of US$3½ trillion. Collectively, these 10 countries are Australia’s biggest two-way trading partners. Collectively, they are bigger than China, Japan and the US. This is the most comprehensive FTA that ASEAN has ever entered into. It covers goods, services and investment and it has been referred to by the ASEAN nations, Singapore in particular, as a gold quality FTA. So much for the fact that we are not pursuing ambition! So much for the fact that we inherited a great legacy from the previous government! Let me go to Doha, because I think it is true that Australia has helped inject new momentum into this round. I am not starry eyed about the simplicity of this. This is a very complex set of negotiations—as the member for Lowe indicated, 153 countries—on which all have to agree. Of necessity there are going to be compromises. But what we got—and within six months of the government coming to office—was almost a concluded round. That was more than had been achieved in the previous eight years by the so-called leadership under Mark Vaile that the member for Wide Bay refers to. What we did was to bring this to the point of conclusion. The fact that we have not reached that conclusion is disappointing, but do not let it be suggested that we have lost ambition in relation to it. This is too important to lose ambition on, and Australia has been at the leading edge of suggesting creative ways forward in how we break the impasse. We are the ones who have opened up the services opportunities. We are the ones who have talked to Brazil, and they are the ones who have suggested subsectorals as an approach to resolving the remaining difficulties in NAMA. We have actively promoted trade in environmental goods and services as a way through. Most importantly, we have been at the forefront of running the agendas through the Cairns Group, through the Delhi process, through the horizontal process that enables cross-referencing of the outstanding issues. 5628 11:01:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —Obviously, I must respond to some of the jibes coming from the minister. He has frequently been a critic of the fact that there were no satisfactory arrangements for sugar included in the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement. He said that sort of thing would never happen under him and then he signed up to the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, which delivered nothing for sugar. So I think the rhetoric there is very empty. He criticised us for giving China market economy status. The current government has done it for Vietnam, if you please. So the pot is very much calling the kettle black. I also remind the Committee that this government sacrificed the wheat single desk on the grounds that it was somehow or other going to lead to better international trade agreements. Australian wheat growers are already paying a very heavy price for the abolition of the Australian organised wheat marketing arrangements. It is already costing this country hundreds of millions of dollars and we have had absolutely nothing in return. There have been no concessions whatsoever from any other country in response to the so-called free trade advantages that there would be as a result of getting rid of the organised marketing arrangements for wheat. What we do know is that Australian growers have lost heavily; the reputation of Australian wheat is in decline; many of our major markets have been lost to countries like Canada, which still have organised marketing arrangements; and in reality the future for the Australian grain-growing industry is quite perilous at present. I note that the government has at long last resumed discussions in relation to the Australia-China free trade agreement, after 14 months when not even a single meeting was held. There certainly has been very little progress there. The last meeting on the Australia-Japan free trade agreement was in April this year. Those negotiations were progressing very well but seem to have slowed. I acknowledge that part of the reason for that will be changes of government in Japan, but it is disappointing that that agreement, which was progressing so well, seems also to have slowed. Indeed, I note that the government is now turning its attention to a new free trade agreement involving a whole range of countries which we already have agreements with. The proposed new trans-pacific partnership agreement, involving Brunei, Dar es Salaam, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore, is already in place between those countries. Australia, of course, already has FTAs with Chile, New Zealand and Singapore. We do not have all that much trade with Brunei, and I am not sure that signing this agreement will make all that much difference. The other countries that are involved in negotiations include the United States, where we have an FTA; Peru, where one is likely to be achieved quite quickly if that is our objective; and Vietnam, where there are negotiations going on as well. It seems to me that it is very difficult to find any economic benefit for Australia in this arrangement. It would be far better for us to get an FTA with China or a modernised one with Japan than to have a new deal which gives us access into the markets of Brunei but probably nowhere else that is outside the existing agreement—especially if these agreements simply restate concessions that have already been given in bilateral or other multilateral agreements. This should be about quality and not quantity. I am not necessarily criticising this as an objective that may be around, but let me say that it would be far better for Australia to conclude a constructive, first-class, quality agreement with China—or, for that matter, Vietnam, or, for that matter, Peru—than to be involved in a multilateral agreement of this nature which will undoubtedly take resources away from higher priority agreements. Trade is important and I think that some of the rhetoric and the criticism of the minister is a little unfair and unjust, and it sounds particularly hollow because he criticised the previous government for what he has done himself again and again and again. In reality the major agreement concluded in his time—the ASEAN FTA—has certainly led to little benefit for Australian producers but open markets for those countries into Australia. 5629 11:06:00 Jackson, Sharryn, MP 00AN2 Hasluck ALP 1 0 Ms JACKSON —Not important enough, however, to warrant a question in the House of Representatives during question time. However, my question to the minister is: I am particularly interested in the Export Market Development Grants scheme. I know that it has assisted many small and medium businesses to make the transition from local producers into companies that export their products to the world. I am pleased to say that there are a number of small and medium-sized enterprises in my own electorate who have received funding over the last couple of years. They are incredibly diverse enterprises—from software publishing through to heavy machinery and equipment and everything in between, including pharmaceuticals and toiletry goods. I am particularly interested to find out what else the government is doing in the trade portfolio to support small business. In closing my question, I was fortunate enough to attend a seminar conducted by Austrade in Western Australia that particularly targeted women in small and medium businesses. I have to say, Minister, that it was extremely successful and I was very impressed with the running of the seminar and the information that was available to assist those women in business on industry and export assistance. 5629 11:08:00 Crean, Simon, MP DT4 Hotham ALP Minister for Trade 1 0 Mr CREAN —I thank the member for Hasluck in relation to her comments about Austrade and support for small business. Let me just say that the EMDG is one of the most important schemes that can be used to help small business. We inherited a very difficult aspect of this scheme. The previous government relaxed the eligibility criteria but did not fund it. In the last two budgets, we funded an additional $50 million a year, which has enabled, in the main, our commitments and the eligibility entitlements under that scheme to be met. But that is not sustainable going forward, and that is why there is legislation currently before the House, with the agreement of the industry, to bring the eligibility criteria back into sync. There is still a deficiency in the funding and that is something that we have to address in an ongoing way, but I am absolutely committed to building security into this scheme for the future. Not only is it important to exporters but it has recognised, positive effects. It has a multiplier effect in terms of the dollars spent and the dollars returned. As for small business more generally, the package that the government recently announced and the proceeds of the resource super profits tax will significantly go to assist small business. A reduction in the corporate tax rate from 30 per cent to 28 per cent will be a huge advantage for them, and there is the up-front $5,000 deduction. We are in the process of rethinking the whole TradeStart mechanism on the ground. The targeted mechanisms that you have talked about in terms of women are all part of where I am trying to get Austrade focused in a more strategic outward looking way. It is the reason we have developed Brand Australia, and under the new CEO I have been talking to successful businesses about getting more interaction in a strategic way—and I had that opportunity at an export awards last night. Through the ASEAN free trade agreement that I talked of before, for example, we can open a whole matrix of opportunities for trade liberalisation country by country and target strategic approaches into those countries by Australian exporters, who have the quality good or the quality service they want to get into those markets. Can I turn to comments that the member for Wide Bay made in relation to some of these FTAs. Firstly, China is difficult because agriculture like in all of these agreements remains a problem. We have demonstrated through the ASEAN free trade agreement the ability to deal with the sensitivities of agriculture and still conclude an agreement. Despite the difficulties in China, we just have not focused attention on advancing the trade links through the FTA. We have developed what I have referred to as the second-track approach—going out and visiting the regions, concluding MOUs with regional authorities, whether it is the city government or the provincial government. We have signed four of these MOUs in exciting areas such as urban development, logistics, agribusiness and even automobiles. We are not standing still or being constrained by having to conclude the framework agreement, as important as that will be in defining the future direction. Secondly, the new government of Japan is very committed to concluding an FTA with Australia. I was recently in Japan and the foreign minister said that the cabinet’s position, including the new Prime Minister’s, is that one of their key priorities is to conclude an FTA with Australia. On the TPP, I think the member for Wide Bay should really understand what the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is about. It is a building block to the free trade area for the Asia-Pacific. It is the getting together of eight like-minded countries that have FTAs but are quality FTAs to lay the foundation upon which we say, ‘If anyone else in the APEC region wants to join, they have to join on those terms.’ Already, we have had significant interest by other countries. So the member for Wide Bay needs to understand not the simplicity of his interpretation but the potential that this new mechanism has. Our officials are in the middle of discussions about it this week in San Francisco. I think this can be a very significant advancement in the APEC region. 5630 11:13:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —Will the minister give the Committee a list of the TradeStart offices that will be closing as a result of the cutbacks in the budget? 5630 11:13:00 Crean, Simon, MP DT4 Hotham ALP Minister for Trade 1 0 Mr CREAN —This has already been answered in the Senate estimates. These have been put out to tender, so there is no decision about any closures at this point in time. I know those on the other side want to point out any negatives they can find concerning resource allocation. We want to get a more efficient allocation. We want to develop more effective partnerships and we want those partnerships to properly reflect the servicing of the particular regions in question. We know that there are opportunities out there. We know people need assistance. We are committed to giving them that assistance and we will let the member know in due course what the outcome of that rearrangement is. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts Portfolio Proposed expenditure, $3,061,446,000 5631 11:15:00 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts 1 0 Mr GARRETT —I am very pleased to present the 2010-11 Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts appropriations to the House of Representatives. As we emerge from recent economic challenges, the government is making provision to ensure that measures benefiting the environment also aid our long-term sustainable economic outlook. This means providing the assistance to Australians to adapt to changing environmental conditions to make sure that we engage sustainably with our limited resources. The key here is to be forward thinking and strategic, to show initiative, and to recognise and put in place both environmental and fiscal responsibility. This budget provides funding for a range of environment, water, heritage and arts measures that will yield benefits throughout Australia. The implementation of a national waste policy, the development of a national plan for environmental information, and significant continued funding for the Australia Council are just some highlights of this investment. Along with the highlights of new measures, there are also fiscally responsible savings measures that support the government’s drive towards regaining a budget surplus. Let me just point out some of the highlights in the appropriation bills for this portfolio. On waste, we are aware of the challenges of waste production and disposal and that they affect all Australians. But the question is: how do we stop landfills throughout Australia growing, and the costs and hazards of waste increasing? In these bills the government has committed some $23 million over five years for the implementation of the national waste policy, aimed at reducing waste and preserving resources. For the first time there is a strategic approach to deal with waste on a national level, to streamline and to coordinate a way forward to reduce waste, reduce hazards and re-use resources. It is clearly something which requires government leadership in this field, and the Rudd government is very willing to provide that leadership. We want to ensure that the management of waste in this country is done in a way which is sustainable, which ensures appropriate protection for the environment and which also provides sustainable economic opportunities for those in that particular industry. Environmental information is another highlight of the budget. When it comes to Australia’s natural capital, governments, industries and communities all need comprehensive, trusted and timely environmental information to ensure that sound decisions are made. Put simply, we cannot effectively manage what we cannot measure, and so here we have a national plan for environmental information—a commitment of $18 million over the next four years—to build important foundations that will ensure better collection and management of our environmental knowledge. The Australian government will lead this strategy, making sure that our natural assets—our water, our soil, our ecosystems and our air quality—are adequately managed in a national context. The establishment of a system of information gathering and sharing is a visionary step in understanding how best to achieve these environmental results. In this budget we provided ongoing funding to the Australia Council—this is a significant achievement for the arts sector—to support the creation of more opportunities for artists and arts organisations so that they continue to do the good work producing new creativity to growing audiences right around Australia. I am especially pleased that that provision of ongoing funding takes away any areas of uncertainty that might hitherto have applied to that funding. This government is strongly committed to funding our arts and cultural sector, and the funding to the Australia Council is ample demonstration of that. Additionally, because environmental information underpins our ability to sustainably manage our oceans, this budget is providing $8.1 million in 2010-11 to finalise marine bioregional planning around Australia, providing clarity for industry and government on the impacts of human activity on the marine environment. This government recognises that the challenges of protection of the environment are significant ones, and it takes those challenges very, very seriously. This budget provides ample evidence that this government is willing to and will continue the work that has been undertaken since we came to government to make sure that the environment is a priority, that the protection of the environment is something this government holds in the highest order and that we are able to do that not only in the programs we are delivering through Caring for our Country and the like but also in having a better understanding of the measures and the necessity to apply those measures in the future. (Time expired) 5632 11:20:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 0 Mr HUNT —My question is to the minister in relation to portfolio budget related paper No. 1.7—it is the portfolio papers for the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. There are three parts to my question. Firstly, what is the total number of staff within the department and what is it expected to be over the course of the next four years? Secondly, what is the average cost per staff member, full-time equivalent, which has been budgeted? I am happy for that to include salary, all personal emoluments, their proportion of building costs, travel—all reasonable allocations for a staff member. Thirdly, how does that relate when you run through the following departmental program support applications: program 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, machinery of government changes, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1 and 5.2? By my calculation that approximates to about $1.95 billion, which appears to be a very significant figure for departmental program support. I would like to understand: firstly, the total number of staff; secondly, the average allocated cost per head for full-time equivalents; and, thirdly, how that compares with a four-year $1.95 billion allocation for departmental program support. 5632 11:21:00 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts 1 0 Mr GARRETT —I thank the member for Flinders for those specific questions about microdetails of the appropriation. I would be happy to come back to him with some additional information in respect of them. I simply make the point to him that, as he would be well aware, the department has a range of activities which it undertakes which include the funding that he has identified in his question, which is central to the delivery not only of the government’s agenda but of the department’s ongoing programs and support of those programs. That is the essential component that goes to the heart of his question. As to the microdetail of that, I would be happy to come back with some more detail for him. While I am on my feet, though, I might take the opportunity to highlight a couple of other issues in relation to the budget itself which I think are of great interest. The first of those is to point out one of the significant contributions that we are making through the provision of funding for Indigenous rangers. This is a really important program associated with the CDE reforms—in the Torres Strait, for example. I see the member for Leichhardt is here and I know he has some familiarity with these programs. Importantly, we are building on a successful Working on Country program, and providing additional significant funding, as we have since we came into government, to enable people in rural and remote communities—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—to build a skills base. These programs are about taking care of the country and being involved in natural resource management projects and the like. In so doing, people develop those skills necessary for not only doing that work well but also interacting with the wider community and taking up potential employment opportunities—with mining companies, with park managers, with resource managers, with the tourism industry and the like. This is particularly important because it is a combination of environment, conservation and job creation. It is widely supported right around Australia. We are providing the funding for Indigenous rangers—including in the Torres Strait for some 21 Indigenous rangers. We are providing opportunities for people who know their country well—people who have connections with the elders in the community, who understand the culture of the community and who are able to build on those cultural connections and that knowledge—to specifically provide on-ground services for the protection of the environment in a region that they know very well. This is one part of the government’s investment that I think warrants a significant amount of attention, because it has been so successful, because it has worked, because it is popular and because it is seen by those in the communities as one of the most important and necessary components of our commitment not only to Indigenous people and their prospects and opportunities but also to protecting the environment. The member for Flinders would be well aware in his shadow minister capacity of how important the government’s carriage of policy in relation to the Antarctic is. Here in this budget we are providing an additional $11.7 million, building on the previous funding of $58 million over the last five years, for the development and maintenance of the Australia-Antarctic Airlink. This is a significant commitment by this government to ensure that there is a timely transport node to enable the scientists and the researchers to get from Hobart to the Antarctic and back again in the summer seasons much more quickly and much more efficiently than before. Implementing this air link has been an outstanding success. There are a number of other countries who are now seeking to take up the opportunities that are on offer to travel in that way. Importantly, it is an affirmation of the leadership that we are showing in science and research in the region in relation to Antarctica. That is particularly important given that Antarctica is somewhat of a laboratory for climate change and that we have an Antarctic treaty which describes one of the purposes of the work that countries do there as ‘to seek to work together in peaceful cooperation for the whole of humanity’. I am particularly pleased that we have been able to provide the necessary support not only for the air link but more generally for the Antarctic program, something this government is profoundly committed to. 5633 11:27:00 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 0 Mr OAKESHOTT —I just want to make a point about coastal erosion and the Jennie George report. Before I do that, whilst the minister is here I want to comment on some of his comments. One is the Indigenous ranger program, which is very welcome. Any investment in natural resource management and Indigenous employment is welcome. I would ask the minister and departmental officials behind him to remember that, if we are going to close the gap, please do not forget the largest Indigenous population is in that window on the east coast between Sydney and around Rockhampton. It worries me that we spend a lot of time focussing on Northern Territory interventions—on Cape York, on Noel Pearson. If we are serious about closing the gap, we need to consider what reform means in that window between Sydney and Rockhampton. CDEP reform has had a mixed reception in that window on the east coast. I only last week saw a business go under called Aboriginal Connections, in South Kempsey, largely because of reform around CDEP and universal employment changes. If we are serious about this topic, it cannot all be about rural and remote. That is not the only answer. There are many other parts of the equation. I know the minister knows that. I would hope that stays part of any future policy considerations. Likewise, I heard mention of air quality. Whilst the minister is here, I want to tell him that only last week I received a letter from the New South Wales health minister on the population health front in regard to the Upper Hunter region to say that the results have come in from the area health service study on air quality in the Upper Hunter region. The results are saying that there are comparatively high respiratory and cardiovascular issues in the Upper Hunter. They are not directly drawing the link yet to mining activity and mining expansion. They are looking at things like smoking prevalence rates. But, really, the canary in the coalmine is coughing, and that is a concern of the communities of the Upper Hunter and it is a concern that we need the alternative voices in government to be fighting about on behalf of communities. We need to make sure that people’s health has a significant place in policy development alongside royalties received by government. I wanted to ask about the Jennie George report, which was released in October 2009 with great fanfare. I remember the Prime Minister talking, for just about a whole question time, about the significance of that report and its 42, I think, recommendations, which were seminal in trying to get the Commonwealth to engage with the problem of coastal erosion. Just last week we had further heavy seas, which saw coastal erosion working much more quickly in my patch—and, I suspect, those of other east coast members—than what was predicted. It is a huge concern. There are houses falling in the water. In fact, Ross Keys from Old Bar, whose situation was used as an example in the report, has now had two houses demolished. With the global financial crisis, he has not been able to get reimbursed. So he was hit by two storms, from two different fronts, in the one year. We need the Commonwealth to engage on coastal erosion. I hear, through the gossip train that is Canberra, that it is getting parked until after the election. I hope that is not the case. The report was delivered in October last year. I think enough time has now passed for there to be a government response. I ask the minister for confirmation that that response is coming and for any details of that response. More importantly, if it is not coming—why not? Is that exciting work of 12 months ago yet another example, along with Landcare and Caring for Country—you name it—of the government going missing on climate change over the last six months? 5634 11:31:00 Turnour, Jim, MP HVV Leichhardt ALP 1 0 Mr TURNOUR —It is great to be here to talk about the environment, and it is good to have the minister here to answer questions. I come from a great part of the world. Cairns, Cape York Peninsula and the Torres Strait represent some wonderful environmental assets. They are particularly important assets that underpin the tourism industry in Far North Queensland. We have been through some tough times and we are seeing some positive results. The national tourism survey figures came out today, and they show that domestic tourism numbers in Cairns have grown. Tourists are staying longer and spending more because it is a wonderful part of the world. Part of the reason people come to the Far North is to visit the Great Barrier Reef and the wet tropics rainforests, and to experience Cape York and the Torres Strait. They are important parts of the minister’s portfolio. I appreciate the fact that the minister has been up to the Far North a number of times recently to meet with scientists in relation to rainforest research in the Great Barrier Reef area and the Torres Strait; to look into the good work that is being done under Reef Rescue, a very good program, to tackle issues of water quality in the reef and to protect and support the reef going forward; and to look at a Jobs Fund project up in the Daintree which is also supporting jobs in my region. All are very important projects and represent not gammon action but real action on the ground to support jobs and make a difference to the environment. Another important issue in my electorate is turtle and dugong hunting. Unlike the former government, we are actually doing something in this area. The minister has put more resources into compliance. We are working with the North Queensland Land Council and local Indigenous traditional owners. The minister has already talked about the Reef Rangers program. That program is to develop TUMRAs, traditional use marine resource agreements, and to provide rangers who can provide information and help implement, and support compliance with, those agreements. We are working cooperatively and productively in a range of different areas in the north to protect the environment; to protect the capacity of our Indigenous people to manage the environment; and to support and protect our tourism industry through protecting jobs. Those initiatives are all interlinked. I take up the member’s comments in relation to climate change. We on this side of the House are still very committed to action on climate change. Members of the community often talk to me about this issue. I recognise that the Independents have been very supportive in this area, but we took our emissions trading scheme, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, to the Senate three times and the Liberal Party—who are now criticising us—voted against it in the Senate. The Greens also voted against it because of their right-wing ideological purity. That has prevented us taking practical action through the emissions trading scheme. These are all very important issues in my own electorate of Leichhardt. Coastal erosion is a huge issue in the Torres Strait. We had Minister Wong up a month or so ago. We have communities that are under threat from rising sea levels. We need to take action on this issue. We are still committed to it. It is a partnership between ministers such as Minister Wong and Minister Garrett, and it is about doing real things on the ground, whether it be the jobs fund, the National Environmental Research Program reforms that are going on at the moment, Reef Rescue or the investments in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. So I would appreciate it if the minister could outline some of the things in the budget this year that are particularly related to support for environmental measures in my own electorate of Leichhardt and in North and Far North Queensland generally. I would appreciate his advice on how things are progressing. 5635 11:35:00 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts 1 0 Mr GARRETT —I thank the member for Leichhardt for his contribution, and I will happily come back and address some of those issues in a moment. I refer more generally to the issues that he raised about air quality, particularly in the Upper Hunter, and I recognise that that is a serious issue. The majority of the regulatory role on air quality and all that goes with the activities undertaken there belongs, as he would know, to the state government. But I think the member for Leichhardt’s contribution is relevant inasmuch as the potential impacts on communities—since we will see increased greenhouse gas emissions over time—needs to be considered not only by the regulators but also by policymakers generally. I very much agree with the tenor of his remarks about the provision of support for Indigenous communities in regional New South Wales and other states. It is the case that we sometimes focus on remote regional areas, particularly those where there has been a great deal of media attention and also those where the opportunities for delivering programmes, particularly in the national research management area on-country, are fairly substantial. Notwithstanding that, we are committed to ensuring that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, wherever they may be, are given the opportunity not only to have access to and potentially be supported by our programs but also to be assisted and provided with opportunities to come away from the provision of automatic welfare over time into something which provides them with the opportunity to use hands-on skills in the work they do. That is why the Indigenous ranger program is particularly important. I make the point to the member that it is also important to look at the declaration of Indigenous protected areas. We are now seeing declarations take place in other states, including in New South Wales. Here is an opportunity for traditional owners or people who are in the midst of the resolution of issues around native title to get support for an Indigenous protected area from the Commonwealth and, in receiving that support, to build additional skills-based resources for things such as fencing, feral animal and weed control and the like. I really do commend that not only to the member but to the House. It has been particularly important, because when the government was elected it recognised that adding substantially to the national reserve system was the most important thing any government could do to protect biodiversity—this year is the International Year of Biodiversity—and to provide the opportunity for our native plants and animals, the habitat and the biodiversity of Australia itself to be resilient in the face of the kinds of pressures they face, particularly from climate change. I know that coastal erosion has been a matter that the member has pursued vigorously in the House. He has a keen interest in it, as do a number of his constituents. The government is aware of that. It is also clearly aware of the matters that have been raised in the report that he refers to, and the government will respond in due course. I would just quickly add to that: the government has made provision for Coastcare. The member may be aware that, I think next week—though regrettably I will be absent, at the International Whaling Commission meeting—the Coastcare community awards will be held here in the parliament. There will be many opportunities for those who do that Coastcare work, and this government provided additional support for Coastcare communities. And I want to commend those who work in that capacity—volunteers who are provided with the opportunity, right up and down the coastline, right around Australia, to be able to go out, roll up their sleeves and take some of those measures necessary, particularly rehabilitating dune areas and the like. That has been a very successful program—well supported, incidentally, by the government—and one that I am very proud of. Finally, I want to refer to the member for Leichhardt’s contribution and to say how much I am aware of the hard work he does in the region and how good it is to work with him, particularly given that we have provided additional support to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, particularly for Reef HQ Aquarium, which is located in Townsville, but in addition for GBRMPA, to provide it with the capacity to take up those issues that were identified in the outlook report. And this comes on top of the significant commitment, the highest ever, to the protection of the Great Barrier Reef through the Reef Rescue program. Again, I was in Cairns quite recently, speaking to natural resource management groups there, strongly committed to the government’s program and strongly committed to protecting the reef. 5637 11:40:00 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 0 Mr CIOBO —I am mindful of the very short period of time remaining. I have a number of questions for the minister, which I will put succinctly. I seek his assistance in providing transparency through succinct answers as well. The three issues I would like to raise pertain to the arts side of the minister’s portfolio. Would the minister outline, for the benefit of the House and the Hansard, why, for example, the National Gallery of Australia had a funding cut, from $31,400,000 down to $29,598,000; Screen Australia had a funding cut, from $93,641,000 to $89,398,000; and the National Archives of Australia also had a funding cut, from $62,289,000 to $55,028,000. In addition to that, would the minister also outline, please, whether or not he is supportive of the draft Cooper recommendation that self-managed super funds not be able to invest in appreciating Australian art works or, indeed, art works more broadly. Minister, will you rule it out—say that that will not in fact be adopted? Finally, would the minister also outline what plans and proposals he has in place to, in some way, improve the very botched resale royalty scheme, many concerns about which have been expressed by all stakeholders and which has received significant media coverage in recent days. 5637 11:42:00 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts 1 0 Mr GARRETT —I thank the member for Moncrieff for taking an interest in the appropriations and in this policy area. I certainly look forward to continuing to engage with him on these issues which we, on this side of the chamber, take very seriously—the provision of adequate resources for the cultural communities of Australia, to enrich our lives and to build sustainability in their career paths—as they do. I will return to the specific questions that the member has asked me in a second. I will first just quickly deal with his queries about the Cooper report. I have got the relevant minister, Minister Bowen, sitting right next to me. It is a draft set of recommendations. The full set of recommendations has not yet been considered by the government— DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr Bowen —They haven’t even been handed to the government. HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr GARRETT —They have not yet been handed to the government, I am advised. We will consider that full set of recommendations which, I understand, will be delivered in the next month or so. In doing that, we will be mindful of the impact that any recommendations may have on the viability of Australia’s arts sector. We will be mindful of that, and I intend to meet with representatives from the sector in the coming weeks. We want to hear their concerns. We are aware that they are concerned about it. But I would simply stress: all we have in front of us at the moment are draft recommendations, and until there is a full and formal set of recommendations in front of the government, and the government has determined its response, that would be sufficient in terms of my reply to his question. I completely refute and reject the suggestion by the member for Moncrieff that the resale royalty scheme will not work effectively either now or in the long term. I say that as someone who has had an interest in small business over time and would recognise that any small business that is responsible for the accurate maintenance of record-keeping—in relation to whatever business it is involved in—will be able to effectively discharge the responsibilities under this scheme: that is, to log the price of a piece of work and the name of the artist and ensure that Copyright Agency Ltd is informed of such. Copyright Agency Ltd, which will be responsible for the administration of this scheme, was chosen after a careful evaluation, a tendering process conducted at arm’s length from me, and I am very confident that it will be able to effectively discharge this scheme. It is not true, as the member suggests, that everybody is up in arms about the resale royalty scheme. In fact, artists have supported this scheme, and there is a very good reason why they should. This is the first time that Australia’s visual artists will have a royalty. Hitherto, composers, authors and photographers have had royalty opportunities by way of copyright. Why have visual artists been left out in the dark? The reason is that when the coalition were in government they refused to take up the recommendations of the Myer report, by Mr Rupert Myer, for the introduction of a resale royalty scheme. The reason is that Michael Kroger was enlisted by the galleries who had objections to this scheme to come up here to Canberra and derail that scheme. I know for a fact that there were many on that side of the House who were supportive—and, by the way, I welcome the ultimate support of the member and the coalition for this scheme. I am very confident that we are going to be able to discharge this scheme in a way which is economically effective and delivers the benefits that are necessary for Aboriginal artists as a whole. We also have organisations like NAVA and like Desart, stakeholder organisations, peak bodies, which recognise how important it is at this point in time for Indigenous artists particularly and Australian artists as a whole to start receiving an appropriate benefit for their work. I have to say that this is one of the most important and significant reforms that this government has brought forward. I am very proud of it and I am very confident of its success. Finally, I will deal with the question of prudence in relation to bringing down a budget. We are very supportive of what is happening at the National Gallery and have provided significant funding opportunities for the refurbishment work that is taking place at the Gallery. I think this is going to be a wonderful boon to the national capital and to that jurisdiction, which sees the National Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery, the High Court, the National Library and the like being wonderful places for the repository of the country’s culture but also fantastic places for people to visit when they come to the national capital. This government has been very, very supportive of those institutions, and that is reflected in this budget. I was especially pleased to see the success that the National Gallery had with the Masterpieces from Paris exhibition, which many Australians came to visit—a tremendous success because of the government’s support. (Time expired) 10000 May, Margaret (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs MA May)—Order! The time for the debate has concluded. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Human Services Portfolio Proposed expenditure, $3,827,233,000 5639 11:48:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law and Minister for Human Services 1 0 Mr BOWEN —I like to provide plenty of time for the opposition to ask their questions in these forums and I do not propose to detain the House by making an opening statement. I commend the recommendation before you. 5639 11:48:00 Hawke, Alex, MP HWO Mitchell LP 0 0 Mr HAWKE —Thank you for being here today, Minister. I have a serious question in relation to the Human Services portfolio. It has more of a general nature, but it is a question that has taxed my mind for some time, looking at successive budgets and expenditure in the Human Services portfolio in particular. It is the case, of course, that human services are the largest single item of expenditure in the federal budget, and they are the fastest growing area of Commonwealth expenditure since Federation. Does the minister have a view about that growth in human services? Does the government have a view in relation to the ongoing growth in the expenditure in this area, considering that it is the biggest item of Commonwealth government expenditure? What we are talking about, of course, in one form or another, is welfare payments, many of them legitimate, many of them needed or required. If this particular area continues to grow as it has done since Federation, it will be a significant item of expenditure in ongoing federal budgets. I wonder whether the minister has had an opportunity to reflect on that, whether the government does review how much is spent on human services and whether the growth in this portfolio can be reduced over time. If it does continue to grow, it will be the fastest growing area of Commonwealth expenditure. Certainly we are going to see a different sort of society in the future. I ask the minister to reflect on those matters. 5639 11:50:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law and Minister for Human Services 1 0 Mr BOWEN —With due respect to my honourable friend, I do not think it is accurate to say that the human services expenditure is the largest and fastest growing part of the federal budget. The human services expenditure that I am responsible for relates to the administration of the Human Services portfolio, which relates to the budgets for Centrelink, Medicare, the Child Support Agency and the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service. It is not related to the direct payments to Australians. The member’s question goes to welfare and to the expenses under the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs portfolio, which I am not responsible for. I am happy to give him some general comments. The government, of course, closely monitors expenditure in all its areas and ensures, in particular, that appropriate fraud and non-compliance initiatives are in place. But in relation to my responsibility, which is the administration of the Department of Human Services, it is not the largest and fastest growing area of government expenditure. 5639 11:51:00 Hawke, Alex, MP HWO Mitchell LP 0 0 Mr HAWKE —In relation to those comments, $114 billion, or in that order, is what we see in the federal budget, and whether it is specifically all of the minister’s expenditure is not really my concern. I asked for a general reflection on the expenditure and the growth of that expenditure over time. However, in relation to Centrelink, which I understand is in the minister’s portfolio, can the minister advise whether he has a view on the ongoing service of ministerial liaison officers, who were placed within Centrelink and who were very effective under previous governments in providing timely advice to members of parliament, like me, and to our constituencies? Will that program be extended in future budgets? 5640 11:52:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law and Minister for Human Services 1 0 Mr BOWEN —I have no plans to change the current arrangements. The previous government did have in place a different arrangement. This government did make changes as part of our budgetary changes, and we make no apology for that in terms of prudent fiscal management. In addition, we took into account the fact that electorate offices received a fourth member of staff, which provided increased flexibility for electorate offices. I do think that engagement by Centrelink and all the agencies in my portfolio with members of parliament, both sides and the Independents, is very important, and I certainly take that very seriously. From time to time, members of parliament from the opposition approach me about particular issues and I always do take them seriously and do my best to assist wherever I can. I have no changes in mind for the particular program that the honourable gentleman refers to. 5640 11:53:00 Hawke, Alex, MP HWO Mitchell LP 0 0 Mr HAWKE —To go further on that point, changes were made to the ministerial liaison program and I have heard views expressed that that was to the detriment of the program; indeed, it was a reduction in the ability and capacity of Centrelink officers to provide advice to members of parliament. I ask again: does the government have any intention to reinstate to full service the operation of the ministerial liaison program? 5640 11:53:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law and Minister for Human Services 1 0 Mr BOWEN —No. 5640 11:53:00 Hawke, Alex, MP HWO Mitchell LP 0 0 Mr HAWKE —Thank you for that answer, Minister. I wonder whether the minister has a view on funding formulas in relation to the socioeconomic status models which are given to local government for federal government funding and whether they are effective in implementing outcomes in relation to the Human Services portfolio. Much money allocated to councils ends up being spent on migration resource centres or other forms of human service related activity by councils. The Hills Shire Council area, which is a large and populous council next to the Blacktown City Council, covers my electorate of Mitchell and fares very poorly under current funding models for socioeconomic status, which relate to the indicators within those regions. Therefore, you tend to get these outcomes that are inequitable in the way they treat large bodies of the population. We tend to have the same set of disadvantages or problems. They are hidden behind high socioeconomic indicators, but the same problems are there. Does the minister have a view in relation to the funding models that are issued to council in relation to federal government money? Council and local government areas tend to provide a range of human service measures which save the federal government money. 5640 11:55:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law and Minister for Human Services 1 0 Mr BOWEN —I do have some experience with and some views on this matter as a former mayor of a large Western Sydney council and a mayor of a city which had a population approaching 200,000 people and a very large immigrant and refugee population. I have the view that councils that are in that situation do need particular support but, sadly, the Department of Human Services does not supply money direct to councils, and therefore I have nothing further to add in relation to these particular appropriation discussions. Proposed expenditure agreed to. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11.56 am to 12.37 am Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Proposed expenditure, $1,550,896,000 5641 12:37:00 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Defence Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency 1 0 Mr COMBET —Before the Committee are the climate change and energy efficiency portfolio appropriation bills for consideration. In summary, the department will receive appropriation funding of $1.557 billion in the financial year 2010-11. That is a significant increase from financial year 2009-10, due to the addition of energy efficiency policy and programs from that area to the portfolio. By comparison, funding for the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency in 2009-10 in fact totalled $828.65 million. The 2010-11 budget reflects the government’s ongoing commitment to acting on climate change. Through this budget the government will boost existing investments in clean and renewable energy and support greater energy efficiency measures. We are giving Australians the tools to do their bit to conserve energy and create new, clean industries and jobs. The $1.557 billion total funding comprises a number of key elements: firstly, departmental funding of $95.3 million; secondly, departmental capital funding of $7 million; and, thirdly, administered funding for programs of $1.455 billion. In addition to that, the portfolio will receive funding for the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator of $12.3 million for 2010-11. New funding for the budget measures for 2010-11 includes funding for the Renewable Energy Future Fund of $652 million, additional funding for the Green Loans Program of $102.7 million, foundation campaign funding of $30 million and additional funding to the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator of $6 million. Major elements of program funding in 2010-11 include the Home Insulation Program, which includes the safety inspection programs and industry assistance programs. These are costs in respect of which there will need to be finalisation. In relation to the solar hot water initiatives, $237 million has been allocated and for the Solar Homes and Communities Plan there is $122.2 million. The Renewable Energy Future Fund is an important initiative in this year’s budget for the portfolio. That will support the development and deployment of large- and small-scale renewable energy projects such as, for example, further investments in geothermal, solar and wave energy. It will also support the take-up of industrial, commercial and residential energy efficiency measures, helping Australian businesses and households reduce their energy use. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12.41 pm to 12.52 pm YW6 Combet, Greg, MP Mr COMBET —I was just adverting to one of the important features of the portfolio budget statements—that is, the establishment of the Renewable Energy Future Fund. I was observing that it would support the take-up of industrial, commercial and residential energy efficiency, helping businesses and households reduce their energy consumption. In relation to this initiative, the government is consulting with stakeholders on the implementation of the fund to ensure it is targeted in the most effective manner to drive further uptake of clean energy in Australia. One of the other important features of the portfolio budget statement relates to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The budget in fact reflects savings from the deferral of the CPRS and related transitional measures. In particular, the delay in the establishment of the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority has resulted in a reduction in the department’s funding. The total savings as a consequence of the deferral of the CPRS are identified at $255.8 million for the period 2009-10 to 2013-14. On this matter, of course, the challenge of climate change has not gone away and continues to require strong domestic and international action—something that I will pick up again as I resume. (Time expired) 5642 12:53:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 0 Mr HUNT —In these portfolio budget estimates, my questions relate to the Home Insulation Program and the Home Insulation Safety Program. My question to the minister is in relation to the 174 known house fires recorded under the program. Is the minister aware of how many house fires have occurred in Queensland? Could the minister inform the House whether or not Queensland fire authorities are keeping separate records of Home Insulation Program house fires and whether those house fire figures have been static? The second element of this is whether or not he can rule out additional fires having occurred over the course of the last month beyond those which are currently recorded in the figure of 174. 5642 12:54:00 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Defence Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency 1 0 Mr COMBET —Perhaps it would be convenient if I provided the breakdown of fires on a state-by-state basis. I do not know the specifics on the question about the Queensland collection of these statistics. However, I can give the figures. As at 15 June, 174 fires had been linked to addresses where insulation had been installed under the discontinued Home Insulation Program. For the assistance of the member for Flinders, as I have seen some public comments he has made in recent times, it is important to note that there can be some time between a fire incident occurring and a report being made to the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. For example, in the past two weeks—since the last update—the number of reported fire incidents has increased by 18. However, these fire incidents did not all happen in the past fortnight. In fact, in some cases those reports relate to fire incidents that occurred as far back as October last year. As the department updates the number of fire incidents, fire brigades and other authorities are also reporting, and sometimes that reporting results in an increase such as has occurred—albeit that the incidents might be many months old. As to the breakdown of that 174 fires that the department has now recorded, New South Wales has recorded 60 incidents, Victoria 74, Queensland 29, South Australia 3, Western Australia 4, Tasmania none, the ACT 4 and the Northern Territory none. I hope that answers the member’s question. 5642 12:56:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 0 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —My question is in relation to climate change. As the minister will be aware, my seat is particularly sensitive to changes in climate. My seat actually adjoins the minister’s seat. Has the government abandoned action in relation to climate change? What plans are there for the future in relation to action by the government on climate change? Can the minister outline details that may have been in the budget in relation to climate change, particularly for renewable energy. 5643 12:57:00 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Defence Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency 1 0 Mr COMBET —As I indicated in my opening remarks, the challenge of climate change has not gone away and it continues to demand strong domestic and international action. The government remains committed to introducing the CPRS because that is the cheapest and most effective way of tackling climate change. For example, I was speaking to a forum of CEOs of international organisations last night, and one of those companies with interests in the energy industry made the observation that the fact that the CPRS legislation was opposed in the Senate by the opposition and by the Greens has led to greater investment uncertainty in the energy sector. Everyone knows that a market based mechanism for pricing carbon is the most economically efficient way of going about reducing emissions. It is important that we price in the externality of carbon pollution, and a market based mechanism through an emissions trading scheme as represented by the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is the most effective way of tackling climate change. It was blocked in the Senate by the coalition. It is an important economic reform. It had been supported by the coalition, of course, but ultimately, with the replacement of the former leader, Malcolm Turnbull, the policy position on the other side changed and that has led to greater uncertainty. The government has to deal with that reality now—that there is no longer bipartisan support for the CPRS. This and slower than expected global action mean that the CPRS has inevitably been delayed. It does not mean, however, that the government is not committed to a market based mechanism for reducing emissions. Contingent upon developments in the international community and the important building of public support and bipartisan support, one would hope, for an important economic and environmental reform, the parliament will inevitably be returning to this issue. In relation to renewable energy, the government have before the parliament at present a number of amendments to the renewable energy target legislation that we anticipate will be supported—they certainly should be supported—so that they can become law. The purpose of those amendments is to divide the renewable energy target, which is for 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity to be supplied from renewable sources by the year 2020, into two categories: a large-scale category and a small-scale category of renewable energy generation. This will give greater certainty to investors in the large-scale renewable energy sector—areas such as wind power, in particular, and geothermal but also other forms of renewable energy. A high incidence of take-up of categories of small-scale renewable energy generation had been leading to some uncertainty in the pricing of renewable energy certificates in the medium to longer term. From the large-scale renewable energy investors’ standpoint, greater certainty about how their market would operate with respect to the pricing of renewable energy certificates was necessary. We have seen support in the industry for the set of proposed changes that the government have put forward, and I think that will lead to the necessary investments in renewable energy that will see us achieve the target by the year 2020. On both fronts, on emissions trading and on renewable energy generation, the government remains committed to making the important institutional changes that will take this country towards a much cleaner energy future. 5643 13:02:00 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 0 Mr OAKESHOTT —My question is a follow-up to the question that I asked the Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts, and I acknowledge Central Coast members also in the chamber who may have an interest in this. It is in relation to the coastal erosion issue. The gossip train in Canberra is alive and well with concerns in regard to any response to the Jennie George report from October 2009. We spent, I think, at least one question time talking about how important this report was. It was seen as a seminal moment to see the Commonwealth finally engaging in this topic of coastal erosion under the broad banner of climate change. It sat nicely alongside the moral challenge of our time and to some degree was seen as the legal challenge of our time. There is concern now that the government is not going to respond prior to the election. I would appreciate any feedback to the contrary and, if so, any details in regard to that feedback on the recommendations. As well, just to put it in a broader context, I reaffirm from my position representing the mid-North Coast that there is a great deal of disappointment that we have seen the dropping of the ball on an affordable and secure energy mix for the future. Putting a price on carbon would have allowed for some mitigation funds in regard to topics like coastal erosion. Now that we have not done that, we are exposing ourselves on a range of issues, and the coastal erosion issue is the most obvious one for the mid-North Coast communities. Houses are being demolished right now. It does matter right now. It would be pretty cost-efficient for government to respond, I would have thought, at least before any dollars are committed. It would be extremely disappointing if this were just the latest chapter of government talking up a topic and then walking away. 5644 13:04:00 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Defence Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency 1 0 Mr COMBET —The report prepared by a parliamentary committee that the member for Lyne adverts to is a very important report. I cannot give the member the precise stage at which the consideration of the recommendations is but I will undertake to provide that to him as soon as possible. I am not directly responsible for it and I apologise that I have not updated myself on it in preparation for the consideration of the appropriation bills. But what I can say is that, consistent with the comments that I was making earlier about the government’s position on climate change—our respect for the climate science and our belief that action needs to be taken—and given the fact that the government commissioned a number of reports, prepared a green paper and a white paper, engaged in widespread public consultation and prepared very significant and comprehensive legislation off the back of the reports that had been prepared—and given also the consultations that we had undertaken with all of the key stakeholders—the member for Lyne can be assured that the government remain committed to taking action. We are very cognisant of the potential impacts and the impacts already being felt on this country, which is very vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, with coastal erosion being one of the significant issues. As the member for Dobell pointed out a moment ago, it is an issue of direct relevance not only to the member for Lyne’s seat but also to the member for Dobell’s electorate and my electorate and everyone else’s electorate. IYS Oakeshott, Rob, MP Mr Oakeshott interjecting— YW6 Combet, Greg, MP Mr COMBET —Yes, I think we are all in it together. It does demand action being taken. The report is a very important report and its recommendations are certainly being taken seriously by the government. I will provide you with the updated information as soon as I can. 5644 13:06:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 0 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —My question goes to the renewable energy policies and, following some more details about what was announced in the budget, the implications: how they are going to affect meeting the targets that have already been announced and if there are any issues that might inhibit us from being able to prosecute those policies. 5645 13:06:00 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Defence Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency 1 0 Mr COMBET —As I pointed out earlier, a very significant initiative in the budget was the establishment of the Renewable Energy Future Fund, a $652.5 million fund to support the development and deployment of large- and small-scale renewable energy projects—such as, for example, investments in geothermal, solar and wave power—and to improve the energy efficiency of Australia’s industrial and commercial businesses as well as residential energy efficiency. As I think I also indicated earlier, the broad priorities of the Renewable Energy Future Fund will be indicated in the not too distant future. They will be based upon consultation with a host of stakeholders on the best way to ensure that it is targeted in the most effective manner to drive the further uptake of clean energy in Australia. With the opposition that has been experienced to the emissions trading scheme in the Senate, ensuring that we remain firmly on our path to the achievement of the renewable energy target of 20 per cent of electricity to be supplied by renewable energy sources by the year 2020 is especially important. However, that alone will not achieve the targeted reductions in emissions that the government has adverted to. If no action were taken at all on a business-as-usual scenario, in the year 2020 Australia’s emissions would be about 21 per cent higher than for the year 2000. It is a very significant challenge to achieve the reduction that has been the subject of, I think, continuing bipartisan support: a five per cent reduction in emissions on an unconditional basis. The member for Flinders, the shadow minister, is nodding his head, meaning that the coalition remains committed to that unconditional cut in emissions by the year 2020 of five per cent over the year 2000 levels. Alternatively, the targets are for 15 and 25 per cent levels of reductions by the year 2020 contingent upon the quality of international commitments that are achieved. But, absent further progress on that front, a five per cent reduction target is a significant one. Nonetheless, we need investments in renewable energy, but also this parliament needs to be considering the issue of the most efficient mechanism for reducing emissions over that period of time as 2020 is now only 10 years away. It is of course a widely held view—and it is the correct economic view—that the most efficient mechanism for reducing emissions is through an emissions trading arrangement. That is no longer the subject of bipartisan support. It is now opposed. 00AMV Hunt, Gregory, MP Mr Hunt —Yes, it is. YW6 Combet, Greg, MP Mr COMBET —The member for Flinders indicates that it is. Will you support the CPRS? Is Tony Abbott going to support it? We continue to support emissions trading as the most efficient mechanism— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 Bird, Sharon (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms S Bird)—Members know there is a proper way to interject if they wish to. The minister has the call. YW6 Combet, Greg, MP Mr COMBET —It is the most efficient mechanism to achieve reductions in carbon pollution; however, what we have seen of course from the opposition after the replacement of Mr Turnbull as the leader—who spoke publicly over the weekend about this issue once more and his support for emissions trading—is bipartisan support for a set of targets but on their part absolutely no mechanism to achieve those reductions in emissions. What we have seen is an opportunist policy position adopted by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott—a proposition under the heading ‘direct action’, the description applied by Mr Abbott—that, on the analysis of the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, would lead us to a 13 per cent increase in emissions by the year 2020. That is clearly not a feasible position. It is an economically inefficient proposition and it is why the government adheres to the necessity for a proper pricing of carbon in our economy as well as support in the manner that I have described for greater investment in renewable energy. 5646 13:11:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 0 Mr HUNT —I refer again to the Home Insulation Program and the now known 174 house fires. I note that in the minister’s previous answer he indicated that some of the most recent fires identified overnight date back eight months to October. Can the minister assure the House that the actual number of fires to date is not significantly higher than that which has now been recorded? 5646 13:12:00 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 0 Mr OAKESHOTT —My question follows on from the home insulation question with regard to broader policy direction. I am concerned that on the mid-North Coast, as an area that did not put in a lot of foil insulation, if any at all, we are now missing out on home sustainability policy funding generally. I would like to hear from the minister clearly whether, under the home sustainability banner, home insulation programs for the future are dead or whether there are still opportunities for regions such as the mid-North Coast to engage in a positive way rather than it being about audits or cleaning up decisions taken in the past—that is, whether there are positive programs the mid-North Coast can be involved with. Likewise, the Green Loans Program: there was tremendous uptake on the mid-North Coast. As far as a cost to government, it was not that costly to get people engaged on the home sustainability issue. Yet we are once again seemingly dealing with the death of a home sustainability program rather than cleaning up certain aspects of it to make it a better program for the future. I am concerned, in all the political debate, that we are seeing home sustainability go out the window when, as a demand-side program, it is a critical contribution and therefore a necessary one if we are going to be serious about tackling some of these issues. I want to hear from you as the minister where you see forward policy in a positive sense, not just cleaning up certain issues from the past. 5646 13:14:00 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Defence Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency 1 0 Mr COMBET —In relation to the first question concerning fires, the statistics that I have alluded to are the statistics that the government hold that have been provided through the appropriate authorities, and we stand by those. I would not speculate on whether there are other incidents that have not yet been reported. We wait upon the respective fire authorities in the states and territories to provide the department with information following the investigation of a fire incident and the proper establishment of a relationship that may or may not exist with the Home Insulation Program—that is, insulation installed under the program. It is also important to note in relation to this issue that the overwhelming majority of these incidents in fact involve smouldering that is detected by one mechanism or another in the ceiling, without extensive damage, thankfully, to a particular home. It is important to bear that in mind. In relation to the fire issue, it is extremely important—and I heard what the member for Lyne indicated—that the government focus on the Home Insulation Safety Program, the inspection program in respect of foil insulation that has been installed and non-foil insulation, which has been installed in over a million homes. As I think is well known now, all of the slightly more than 50,000 homes that had foil insulation installed, predominantly in Queensland and northern New South Wales, are the subject of an inspection program by the government. Initial safety inspections have been done of approximately 24,000 of those homes. Currently, the Foil Insulation Safety Program is being rolled out with the objective of having a licensed electrician inspect each of those premises and the ceiling insulation installed, doing electrical and safety testing and advising the homeowner of the best course of action, that being either the removal of the foil insulation or the installation of circuit breakers or safety switches in those homes’ circuits. That will be done in respect of each of the homes that had foil insulation installed. In relation to the more than one million homes that had non-foil forms of insulation installed, the government have indicated that at least—and it is important to emphasise that it is ‘at least’—150,000 homes will be the subject of an inspection. The identification of those homes is the subject of an ongoing risk assessment, and it is important to emphasise that it will be ongoing. We will inspect as many homes as is necessary, as indicated by the ongoing risk assessment. The types of criteria that are considered in that ongoing risk assessment and, therefore, the identification of homes to be inspected take into account insulation installers who may have, for example, a record of a fire safety hazard. So that is work that is constantly under review and is ongoing. It is also important to bear in mind with this issue—and this partly responds to some of the public comments that the shadow minister, the member for Flinders, has been making from time to time—that there are also a number of very reputable, longstanding firms in this industry that undertook home insulation installations under the Home Insulation Program. For example, CSR Bradford is a major manufacturer and has a network of installers—I think the program is called Comfortchoice—and those companies provide a warranty for the product and a warranty for the installation work itself. And, if a homeowner has an issue in relation to that, there is a call centre number for them to call, and CSR Bradford and their network will come out and do a check and make sure it is okay. In those circumstances, where major companies like CSR and Fletcher have done a number of installations and are standing behind their work, the government expects them to live up to their warranties and to be responsive to their particular customers. Those are all important considerations in the design of the home inspection program. (Time expired) Proposed expenditure agreed to. Sitting suspended from 1.20 pm to 4.03 pm Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Portfolio Proposed expenditure, $2,369,314,000 5647 16:03:00 Chester, Darren, MP IPZ Gippsland NATS 0 0 Mr CHESTER —Minister, I start with a question related to the increase in the order of $30 a week that the government made to the single age pension, which I must say was well received in the electorate of Gippsland. It was a major issue in the lead up to the Gippsland by-election and an issue throughout Australia. I am particularly concerned, though, with subsequent events. The Victorian state government has decided to increase rents for public housing tenants. I have corresponded with your office on this issue, and my concern is that there is one level of government giving with one hand and another level of government taking with the other hand. It really is an issue that older Australians struggle with; they struggle with the concept of it. I am wondering whether there is anything the minister can do through COAG or any other instrument to try to protect older Australians from this increased cost of living, which came at the hand of one level of government while your own level of government was endeavouring, I believe, to make things a bit easier for older Australians. 5648 16:04:00 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 0 Ms MACKLIN —I thank the member for Gippsland for that question. I also thank him very much for the acknowledgement of the very considerable increase that the government has made, especially to the single age pension. In fact, if you look at the impact on the single age pension of both the increase in the base rate and the impact of the changes to indexation that the government has made, there has been an increase of around $100 a fortnight. So it certainly has been aimed at helping single age pensioners. I know the member for Gippsland was not in the parliament during the past 12 years, but it is the case that neither the Liberal Party, when it was in government, nor the National Party did what needed to be done for pensioners, particularly not for single age pensioners. The member for Gippsland asked me particularly about the impact on public housing tenants. I very much appreciate him raising this matter also. Both the Treasurer and I have made it very clear to each and every one of the state governments that we do expect the increase in the pension that we introduced last September to flow through to pensioners and not be gobbled up in increased rent. We have made this very clear, and we do expect the state governments to allow pensioners to keep this increase in their purses and wallets. I am pleased to inform the member for Gippsland—and I am pretty sure, but I will double check—that South Australia, Tasmania and Queensland have all committed to this on an ongoing basis. Other states have said that they will do it for a limited period of time. I have made it very clear that we are not talking about a limited period of time. We think this is a very important issue. I have been informed that we have yet to hear from the Victorian government about whether or not it will be time limited. I think the member for Gippsland should join with us in making sure that all the states, including New South Wales, Western Australia and the territories, also do the right thing, along with Victoria. They all need to do the right thing by pensioners and make sure that the increase in the pension is held onto by pensioners. The member for Gippsland also raised the broader question of cost of living. Once again, I appreciate him raising this, because another major change that we put in place in our announcements last September was a change to the indexation arrangements for the age pension. We have heard over the years from pensioners that they do not feel that the consumer price index reflects their cost of living, so we asked the Australian Bureau of Statistics to develop a new pensioner living cost index. That has been done. The pensioner living cost index has now been used to increase the pension, last September and again in March this year. I say again to the member for Gippsland that this was never done by the previous government. The previous government did not recognise that pensioners needed a separate measure of cost of living increases. We have put this in place in our first term of government, and we have also increased the wage cost index. The member for Gippsland may be aware that we have two ways of making sure that the pension keeps up with the cost of living and the overall standard of living. For some time now the pension has been pegged at 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings, and it was this government that increased it to 27.7 per cent. That too has been part of the reason we have seen the single age pension go up by $100 a fortnight. I thank the member for Gippsland for the opportunity to reinforce just how important these pension reforms have been, particularly for single age pensioners. 5649 16:09:00 Champion, Nick, MP HW9 Wakefield ALP 1 0 Mr CHAMPION —Let me start by commending the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs for her efforts in this area—helping pensioners and others in her portfolio. I think she has done a tremendous job in the time that she has been minister. I would also like to point out that the housing trust issue, particularly in South Australia—I think the South Australian government was the first to sign on—has long been a point of contention for housing trust residents. I was very proud of both the Rann government and the Rudd government for fixing that issue in South Australia. It is a perfect example of how, in so many areas, we have resolved the blame game. I want to talk about the importance of income management in my electorate. I think these are perhaps the most important changes that have been brought about by this government. They are very important for areas which have been terribly afflicted by the curse of poverty and intergenerational welfare dependency. All too often this debate is represented in a reactionary way—‘toughening up’ or ‘cracking down’. But the purpose of these laws, I think, is to give help and assistance to people, to intervene when they need that help and assistance and to give Centrelink and others the ability to intervene. I came into contact with a young woman who had the care of her children. She was very close to losing her children to the state’s child protection agency and she then received help from a third-party group who established that her problem was not so much that she was not a good person or that she did not want to take care of her kids; her sole problem was that she could not say no to people. When people came to the door selling things, she would naturally sign up. When people rang her—telemarketers and others—she would naturally sign up. They had a look at her budget and, once they eliminated all the money going here, there and everywhere via direct debits, they found that she had more than enough to get by. She had a very simple problem that was soon rectified with the help of outside intervention. That basically put her on the right path, where she could maintain care of her children, pay her rent, buy food and go on with her normal life. All too often we see these things in a reactionary way. I do not see them that way. I see that these interventions that will be made through the BasicsCard and income management will be of great assistance to people—and sometimes will intervene in their lives when they are in trouble or when they have made bad decisions. All too often in government we assume a basic level of functionality, which is, sometimes, not there. We have to reach out to those people in the community, not leave them hidden away in housing trust estates or suburbs afflicted by terrible problems. The second important consideration—and the Prime Minister touched on it today in question time—is that these bills introduce the important concept of ‘one law for all’. The previous interventions in the Northern Territory singled out Indigenous people in bush communities. I do not think that is right. I think that, if we are going to have expectations and standards, we should have them for all people. IYS Oakeshott, Rob, MP Mr Oakeshott —In Australia. HW9 Champion, Nick, MP Mr CHAMPION —In Australia, of course. My question to the minister is: could you please explain to us what investment is included in the budget that will allow the benefits of the reforms to income management to be sustained into the future? 5650 16:14:00 O’Dwyer, Kelly, MP LKU Higgins LP 1 0 Ms O’DWYER —I have a number of questions to the minister. I will ask her those questions now in one lot given the time that is before us. The authors of the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program’s—SIHIP’s—post-review report warn of waste and inefficiencies in having to perform rework on renovated houses. Why has the government deliberately decided not to fully complete each house renovation at the first attempt while tenants are moved out? My second and related question is: as SIHIP is performing essentially urgent maintenance to make houses safe and functional, are these houses being classified as renovated on the reports even though they do not meet the minimum public housing standards? The third part of my question is: how many houses that have had work performed through SIHIP meet the minimum standard? Finally, on 17 March 2010 the minister put out a media release claiming that SIHIP was on track to deliver the promised housing outcomes. Was the minister aware that that very day one of the three alliance partners had its contract cancelled for allegedly failing to meet budget and time targets and, if not, why not? And I spoke too soon—this is my final question: the COAG Remote Indigenous Housing Agreement is designed to address overcrowding in remote communities. The New South Wales government has to date purchased, not built, new houses; it purchased four existing houses under the program. How is this addressing overcrowding in New South Wales remote communities? 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—The member for Lyne—Minister, you just indicate when you would like to take the call. PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms Macklin —It is all right. You can go next. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —It is very informal. It is just a case of getting a number of questions out and the minister will answer all of those questions at once. It will give more time during the committee stage. 5650 16:16:00 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 0 Mr OAKESHOTT —My question is in relation to one particular issue: it is a company called Aboriginal Connections Employment Services, based in South Kempsey, one of the Vinson hot spots—the top six postcodes in Australia for poverty and low-SES issues. Aboriginal Connections has just gone into liquidation. I raised previously some concerns in this transition from CDEP to universal employment schemes, and some of the reaction from the community is that this liquidation is a direct result of some of those changes. I therefore ask for either the minister or her departmental officials to provide a brief on what is happening with that company. It has a large list of local small businesses, both contractors and subcontractors, that are exposed with this company going into liquidation, and therefore I would ask for any support possible to make sure that any damage to businesses within the local community of the Macleay is minimised. But, as well, there are the Closing the Gap implications associated with what was a very high profile and what seemed to be a very successful Indigenous employment company tipping over and going into liquidation. The second point I would like to make picks up on this issue and the move on income management from racial discrimination across to what you could call constitutional discrimination in that it is only in the Northern Territory at the moment. What is on the COAG reform agenda? Is income management for the whole of Australia part of the COAG reform? Has it been talked about yet or is it coming? People in New South Wales would be very interested to know what the future direction is in regard to income management and welfare generally. 5651 16:18:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 1 0 Ms KING —I want to take the opportunity, given that I have not had the chance to do that, to congratulate the minister on the Paid Parental Leave scheme. This scheme has been a very, very long time coming. There have been a number of us who have been in this space battling away for a long time and I know the minister has certainly been one of those. I want to put on record my thanks for such a terrific effort. I know that many families, and predominantly women, will take up the opportunity of the scheme. It will make a significant difference for working women in this country and will be one of the lasting legacies, certainly, of this minister. I also wanted to comment that this is the second budget that contains our changes to the pension. A significant step that this government and this minister have taken is to increase the base rate of the pension. Those of us who have been in this place for a while know that, each budget night, we used to have this awful circumstance where pensioners and carers were faced with wondering whether the former Treasurer would put some money into their pensions. Each year they went, cap in hand, almost begging to get some extra money, and the then Treasurer would announce another one-off bonus, saying how terrific that was. But we knew that carers and pensioners were absolutely struggling from day to day. Those on single pensions in particular were in real trouble; single pensioners who did not own their own homes were in terrible trouble. What this government and this minister have done in increasing the base rate of the pension is a significant achievement in fundamental social justice for those who are reliant on our social security scheme. I certainly commend her for that. Both last year’s and this year’s budgets included funding for these pension reforms, but I am also aware that some elements of the government’s pension reforms are yet to take effect. What I would like the minister to tell the chamber is: how will the government’s changes to pension advance payments and pension supplements change this financial year? I also want to take the opportunity to ask the minister to pass on to her counterpart who covers human services and Centrelink my personal thanks, not only for the terrific work that the financial information officers at Centrelink have done in assisting people to make decisions around the changes to the pension, but also for providing significant information through pensioner forums. In my electorate we had two forums. More than 500 people, for two hours, hammered away at the financial information officers for all sorts of quite complex details. They did a fantastic job, and I know they had a lot of follow-up appointments. I want the minister to also pass on my thanks to those Centrelink staff who had to implement the pension reforms. 5651 16:22:00 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 0 Ms MACKLIN —If I can go back to the member for Wakefield’s remarks first, I appreciate that they were very much about the importance of income management. He understands just how important it is to make sure that we are able to deliver on income management. I will take the income management question that the member for Lyne raised, and I will come to his other questions in a minute. One of the important things that we have in this year’s budget is the money to introduce the new arrangements for income management. Of course, all of this is contingent on this legislation getting through the Senate over this fortnight—hopefully that will occur. If it does, the government will commit $350 million over the next four years to implement these changes, in the first instance in the Northern Territory. I want to pick up another point that the member for Wakefield made—I think very well—about the importance of income management for those people who really need help with managing their finances, getting their finances together. I have spoken to a number of people in both the Northern Territory and Western Australia, where people can be referred for income management by child protection authorities. In Perth and the Kimberley, people can volunteer to be income managed. One of the things that people always say to me is how important that has been in helping them get their finances in order. Some people will say it has helped them to pay off their credit card debt, save for a car, or meet whatever other priorities they have. In this year’s budget, as part of the $350 million, we will be allocating an extra $53 million over four years for financial counselling—in this case, just in the Northern Territory—because we do understand how important it is for those who are having difficulty managing their money to tie together the benefits of income management and provide advice so people can learn to do that for themselves. We already fund a range of money management and financial counselling services across Australia, including in remote parts of the Northern Territory. This will add to that service that we have available. To answer the related question that the member for Lyne asked about income management, in the first instance it will be rolled out in the Northern Territory because the Northern Territory has the largest number of very disadvantaged communities in Australia. It is not a constitutional matter and, to my knowledge, it has not been discussed at COAG. We have of course discussed this matter with the Northern Territory government. The legislation currently before the Senate will enable us to start rolling out this new form of income management in the Northern Territory. We have said that, at the end of 2011, we will do a comprehensive evaluation as to how effective income management has been in helping the sort of people that the member for Wakefield talked about and, at that point, we will consider where else we will roll it out. The legislation, assuming it goes through, will enable us to roll it out elsewhere, but the budget—given this session is about the budget—enables us to roll it out in the Territory. To go to the separate question that the member for Lyne raised about Aboriginal Connections, I would like to take that on notice if he does not mind. I am very aware of the concerns that he raised in general about the level of disadvantage in Kempsey. We must continue to expand the services that are offered in Kempsey. The member would know that we have recently made some announcements in that regard, particularly for children. I am of course concerned about any suggestion of a reduction in the availability of employment services in the area that he talks about. I am very happy to follow that up and get back to him. The member for Higgins asked a number of questions about the Indigenous housing program in the Northern Territory, otherwise known as SIHIP. I am not sure whether she is aware that an independent review was undertaken of the Indigenous housing program, the findings of which we published earlier this year. The press release that she referred to in fact relied on the findings of that independent review. That independent review actually said that SIHIP is now on course to meet its targets of 750 new houses, 2,500 refurbishments and 230 rebuilds. With respect to all of the questions that she asked about this review, I suggest she have a detailed look at that. These matters were problems—I am the first to acknowledge that we had a number of problems at the start of this program. We also recognise that this is the largest public housing program ever embarked upon in the Northern Territory. It is true that there were difficulties at the start but, in response to the problems that were raised, the Commonwealth sent a number of senior officials to Darwin for some months and the work done by those officials, along with senior officials from the Northern Territory government, was very important in getting this program back on track. We now have houses being built in hundreds of locations right across the remote parts of the Northern Territory and, of course, we are very pleased that this independent review found that it is on track to meet its five-year targets. I just remind the member for Higgins that these are five-year targets. That was what was agreed between the two levels of government. She asked about New South Wales. The New South Wales government has decided that it is more economic to buy existing houses—they are much cheaper than what they could build them for. Of course, it means that these houses will now be made available to Aboriginal families to be able to address problems of overcrowding in the places that the New South Wales government has decided are a priority for it. That is a decision that it has made, recognising how important it is to bring additional housing stock into the public housing system in New South Wales, which will now be made available to Aboriginal people in those places. The member for Ballarat also asked me some questions about both paid parental leave and pensions. She specifically asked about the issues around the changes that are going to start on 1 July. These are additional parts to our reform package that we announced last September, but Centrelink needed a little bit more time to put them in place, given the huge package of reforms that were part of the pension changes. What is going to happen on 1 July is that, first of all—I am sure the member for Ballarat will be very pleased to know—the second annual carer supplement will be paid. That will be paid in the first payment period in July. It is the case, as the member for Ballarat outlined in her remarks, that carers no longer have to rely on whether or not a government is going to pay a bonus, which was the case under the previous government. Carers can now know that, as a result of the legislation that we put in place— 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Order! Your time has expired. Government members interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the minister want some additional time? PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms MACKLIN —I just want to answer the member for Ballarat’s questions. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The minister has the call. Can I just explain to members on both sides: it is often more productive if a minister can answer several questions from people. The minister would like to complete that list of questions that have come from members. So I call the minister and I anticipate she will be finished in a minute or so. Then I will call the member for Higgins and we will have another round of questions before the minister answers. PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms MACKLIN —Thank you. Just going back to the member for Ballarat’s questions, the carers supplement will be paid. Of course, that is now guaranteed in legislation. That is an annual $600 payment. Many carers will get double that because they are on both the carer payment and the carer allowance. I am sure that will be a very welcome payment at the beginning of July. The other changes that are happening from 1 July are changes to the advance payments. Pensioners were also very keen that we improve the advance payment arrangements. This does not just cover age pensioners; it is also for disability support pensioners, those on the carer payment, widow B pensioners and wife pensioners. Pensioners are going to be able to get up to three advance payments a year. For singles it will be up to just over $1,000 and for each member of a couple up to $758.10. That is the maximum. Of course, they have to be repaid, but it does enable people who have big bills to get advance payments. The second issue the member for Ballarat raised was the changes to the pension supplement, and the good news about that is that we are making it more flexible for pensioners. What we did last September was create a new pension supplement and of course we increased it. At the moment that is paid with people’s fortnightly pension but what we are enabling pensioners to do from 1 July—and it is entirely their choice—is take some of that pension supplement quarterly to help them budget and pay for their quarterly bills if they would like to. So they are two additional measures that will start on 1 July which I am sure pensioners will be very pleased about. 5654 16:35:00 O’Dwyer, Kelly, MP LKU Higgins LP 1 0 Ms O’DWYER —I thank the minister for her attempted answer to my question. The questions that I asked were all post the SIHIP review. They were detailed questions and I would like them placed on the Notice Paper for a formal written response. I have additional questions regarding Indigenous employment to the minister. How many Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders have been assisted into employment through the Indigenous Employment Program? How many have remained in employment after the 13 or 26 weeks review time? 5654 16:36:00 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 0 Ms MACKLIN —The second question is a question for Minister Arbib, so you are not in order with that question; that is not to do with my portfolio. That is the first thing. As far as the SIHIP review is concerned, I think the member is also confusing two different reviews that were done of SIHIP. One is called the post review of SIHIP. That was done last year and published, I think, in August. It was post that review that we made a number of changes, and then in this calendar year—I think it was around February—we also had an independent review, which we have also published, which says that we are now back on track. Honourable members interjecting— 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Since the minister did answer that question from the member for Higgins, I will give the call to the member for Parramatta and then to the member for Murray. Prior to that the member for Higgins— Honourable members interjecting— 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—We will not have a debate about it. I will call the member for Parramatta, because I did give the member for Higgins the call prior to that. 5654 16:37:00 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 1 0 Ms OWENS —Minister, you may remember last year I brought a busload of women down from Parramatta. They came down for the apology to the forgotten Australians. They were of course women from the Parramatta Girls Home, known at the time as the Parramatta Girls—and, as people who survived some appalling treatment in that place, they still use that title as a matter of pride. At the time I was very pleased to hear the Prime Minister recognise the work of Bonney Djuric, who is one of my local women who has worked so, so hard on behalf of these women. I do not have to tell you what a watershed it was for those women; we were all there. But for many others in my area who actually could not make it—and it was not that they could not make it because they physically could not make it; they got up that day and were not actually emotionally ready to get on the bus—there is still great healing to come, and that goes for those who came too. Can I just ask you where we are with that process, what the follow-on has been like and what the government is doing? 5655 16:38:00 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 0 Dr STONE —Minister, in the Budget Related Paper No. 1.8 at page 166, on the budget measures for EOWA—the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency—there were no new budget measures in the 2010-11 budget for that agency. We know there is a major problem in Australia with gender pay equity deteriorating. In the last two years it has got worse. This is a serious issue of the rights of Australian women, who on average earn 18 per cent less pay compared to men in the same work. We have recommendations that the EOWA be particularly strengthened. These came from the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and in the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment and Workplace Relations following its consideration of these matters last year. I am concerned that there were no budget measures in relation to EOWA. Do you have something up your sleeve that you are going to bring out some time soon? Clearly, the agency cannot do the work it needs to do to address the gender pay equity issues. We are very disappointed that the agency was treated in the way it was. Of course, there are lots of other concerns about the legislation itself, which is not adequate anymore in terms of making businesses report on things like pay for men and women doing the same work. There is then the issue of violence against women, which I think we would all agree is very serious. I am sure it is of great concern to all parties. When will the government formally respond to the Time for action: the National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence Against Women and Their Children, 2009-2021? As you know, this plan was delivered in April 2009, but there has been no response. We have had a commitment to some sort of communication package around the issue, and that was made at about the time the national council presented its plan. We have not seen anything of that communication package. We do not know what is in it or when it will start. I think it is very serious if that whole area is being neglected when we know that, sadly, domestic violence against women and their children is increasing in our community. We also want to know when you are going to deal with the problems of the MACS, Multifunctional Aboriginal Children’s Services, centres. They predated the CFCs, the children and family centres. Why do you have those two types of Indigenous multifunctional centres coexisting but one, the CFCs, having greater financial support than the other? It is bad luck if you are in a community like Shepparton, with a multifunctional Aboriginal centre. You are being squeezed of support, your funding is diminishing and you have had to let go a lot of your special services for your special needs children. If they had more fortuitously had one of these new CFCs, they would have had a much better funding stream. We want to know what the difference is between those two types of centres. Why do they coexist? Why is one better funded than the other when they both serve children with very special needs? We also want to know how the MACS centres are to deal with four-year-olds, who, under the policy of your government, are supposed to have universal access to pre-schooling. As we know, the children in the MACS centres do not pay fees—that is part of the system, and it is a right part of the system. But if the children go off to a kindergarten they do have to pay fees, particularly in Victoria. So how are you going to handle in these multifunctional Aboriginal centres, and indeed in the children and family centres, the four-year-olds, who should be receiving early childhood education? Are you going to specially support upgrading the qualifications of the workers in these two centres? If so, when? I have a number of these MACS centres in my electorate, there are six or seven in Victoria, and the women—it is almost invariably women—who organise them are most concerned at the deprivation of their children, given this extraordinary and strange government parallel policy. We want to know what your department is going to do with the introduction of the National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care, which is to commence in 2012, in terms of implementation and compliance for other childcare centres which are not Indigenous specific. How will this framework be implemented or relate to the Indigenous childcare or multifunctional centres? At the moment, they think they will be left out in the cold, not get special attention and not have the quality assurances relate to them. They want to hear exactly what you have to say about that. I am disappointed with the budget. Clearly, it does not advance the needs of women in any way. I am very keen to hear your responses to these questions. 5656 16:43:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —Unlike the previous member, I am very pleased with the budget. I am not at all disappointed. The aspect of the budget that I am particularly pleased with is the Paid Parental Leave scheme. I would like to congratulate the minister on the role she has played. Everyone knows it was an absolutely enormous role. It is not something that started in the lead-up to this budget; indeed, it has stretched over many years. I would like the minister to detail for the House the implementation process and the funding and payments that will be made available through the Paid Parental Leave scheme. I would like a total overview of the Paid Parental Leave program as set out in the budget papers. I think this is vital information. It is information that the constituents I represent in the parliament would like me to give to them. 5656 16:45:00 Chester, Darren, MP IPZ Gippsland NATS 0 0 Mr CHESTER —My question is fairly general in nature. It relates to my contention that the regional or urban Indigenous experience is not much better than the remote Indigenous experience in many cases. There is a lot of newspaper coverage about the Northern Territory and about remote locations, and the discussion here today has tended to focus on those areas too. I would argue that it is also a problem in many regional Victorian towns in my electorate, including Morwell, Bairnsdale, Lakes Entrance and Lake Tyers Beach. I know the member beside me would know about problems in Shepparton and towns like that. Problems associated with substance abuse, with domestic violence and with lack of participation in the education system, leading to poor health outcomes and low participation in full-time employment, are significant issues in urban and regional Indigenous experience, and I do not think we focus on that in this place as much as we should. I think the key to the future for our young Indigenous people is going to come through education, from early childhood onwards, through access to better health care and through the decency of having a real job at the end of it all. While there are pockets of excellence in my electorate—people working very hard and achieving some great things—the disadvantage is still very pronounced. I would like to know whether, within the budget papers, there are measures focusing on the regional or urban Indigenous experience. Is there an acknowledgement by the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs of the enormity of the problems we face in regional towns in Victoria? I would be interested to know if there are any programs the minister is considering or if there are ways for my community to engage with the minister’s office to make sure that local solutions are being put forward that can actually deliver outcomes for us in the Gippsland region. 5657 16:47:00 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 0 Ms MACKLIN —I will start with the question from the member for Parramatta which went particularly to money that is in this year’s budget—which I am sure she is very pleased about. I ask her to pass this on especially to those people who are known as the ‘Parramatta girls’—there is $26.5 million in this budget for the Find and Connect service. The member for Parramatta will recall that the Prime Minister announced this service when he made the apology to the forgotten Australians and the former child migrants. That service is going to provide a national website and a single online access point to help those care leavers find their past records. Some of those records are held by past care providers and some of them are held by government agencies. We want to be able to link in with state and territory indexes. Some states have more information available to them than others. Of course, it is also the case that some of the forgotten Australians have moved. For example, someone may have been in a home in Parramatta but now live in Western Australia. We want to make sure that it is nationally available and that we can link the state and territory systems. There will be a national 1800 number for care leavers to call if they want to talk to somebody who is trained to help locate personal records. There will also be a national network of specialised case managers to help care leavers locate and access their personal records and, where possible—and we do recognise that it is not always going to be possible—to help them reunite with their family members. Case managers will also connect care leavers with counsellors and with other support services where that is required. We will also be giving priority access to those care leavers who are aged or terminally ill. It is important to be able to do this as quickly as possible for those people. Some of this money will also be spent on new counselling support services, specifically for care leavers, with appropriately trained and skilled providers. We recognise just how emotional it is going to be for these people while they search for their families and consider whether or not they want to be reconnected. If they do want that, it could be very positive; but, of course, there may be circumstances where it is very difficult. That has been a very positive outcome of this year’s budget—a commitment that the Prime Minister made, and of course kept. The member for Murray asked a number of questions that relate to issues that are not in my portfolio. As with the member for Higgins, she needs to go to the consideration in detail for the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. That is where early childhood development is funded. All of the questions she asked about early childhood development belong with the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. She needs to keep up; those changes were made when we came into government. The other questions that she raised about violence against women are not in my portfolio responsibilities either. We are just seeing if the Minister for the Status of Women is available; otherwise, I will take the questions on notice. But I would particularly draw the attention of the member for Murray to additional funding in this year’s budget for legal assistance. Both the Minister for the Status of Women and I are very pleased to see this additional money for legal aid. It will be very important for women who are victims of domestic violence. I will pass on the member’s questions to the relevant minister. (Time expired) 5658 16:52:00 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 0 Dr STONE —In relation to paid parental leave, can I ask the minister: when do you expect to have the payroll tax issues resolved? They are of great concern to very small businesses. I understand you have begun some negotiations with the states, so when are businesses likely to be assured that the problems have been resolved? We are concerned that discrimination against women might be the outcome in some cases, where payrolls have to reflect the second income—with a person on maternity leave and someone on paid parental leave. As you know, we are concerned that this unfinished business should have been resolved a very long time ago. We are concerned to know how those negotiations are going. When are we going to know just how that particular issue will be dealt with? In relation to the six months you have already built into the legislation as a moratorium time when businesses do not have to act as paymasters for their employees on paid parental leave, we are keen to know if you would consider extending that six-month moratorium. I know you are saying that the government will continue through the Family Assistance Office to act as paymaster for casual, contract and other employees who do not readily have someone they can nominate as an employer; so can you consider extending that six months to allay some of the fears of small businesses who are most concerned about the red tape and the increased problems with their payrolls. At this point in time they have nothing to guide them, other than being told: ‘Well, it’s a bit of a mess. We’ll give you six months while we sort it out.’ We also have a problem with the Fair Work legislation in relation to the eligibility—under which you can return to your position or a like position—and that particular eligibility not matching the paid parental leave criteria, which is 330 hours, 10 months work over a 13-month  period and so on. How does the government intend to align these two criteria so that we can be sure that the woman—the primary carer is usually a woman—returning to work after 4½ months leave can be secure in the knowledge that there will be a job waiting for her if she has not in fact had 12 months of continuous employment with that employer making her eligible for that special entitlement? On the question of safety of women and children, as you are aware, new settlers—particularly women who are in family reunion categories, humanitarian refugees, refugees who come through the front door and people from a non-English-speaking background—need very special support in learning the English language and in preparing for job training and entry into the workforce. We are concerned that these funds have been restricted or cut back while there is unfortunately a huge diversion of funds that were previously able to be spent on new settler services going to the crisis with the boat people on Christmas Island. A billion dollars has blown out there. Can you inform us of what is happening with those new settler services, in particular on the safety of women and helping women understand the cultural context of Australia? Where can they go if they are abandoned or need to leave an abusive relationship? For example, if you have a woman who has come to Australia on an overseas spouse or fiancé visa and she is not from an English-speaking background, as you know, at the moment with Centrelink she does not have any automatic rights to immediate support from our welfare services sector if she leaves her marriage. What is the government doing about that particular problem? Have you got some policies in mind, given that the overseas spouse visa categories are growing? The issue of abuse in those relationships is serious and in some parts of Australia it is worse than others. We were not able to discern any special additional—or, indeed, any support in particular—for those women, particularly in accessing Centrelink support, which would give those women a chance to be financially independent and escape an abusive relationship. 5659 16:56:00 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women 1 0 Ms PLIBERSEK —I believe that there were two questions asked earlier by the shadow minister that related to my portfolio responsibilities for the status of women. I believe they related to the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency and the review of the act and to the social marketing aspect of the National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. Firstly, on the review of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act and the agency, the review was designed to examine the effectiveness and efficiency of the existing legislation to make sure that it is cost effective and well targeted. The review has been progressing very well. One of the reasons that we pursued the review was that we were concerned about the continuing issue of the gender pay gap. We also wanted to look at the current reporting arrangements to see how they support changes in this area. A consultation report has been released and the findings of that report are being considered by the government at the moment. The findings are also being considered in the context of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment and Workplace Relations inquiry into pay equity. Both of the reports are being considered by the government at the same time. I believe you asked why there was no funding in the last budget for these measures. EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr Stone —Yes, I was concerned about whether there is additional support for EOWA to deal with the gender pay equity issues in particular. 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms PLIBERSEK —There is no change in the budget allocation for this because the government is considering its response to the report. We have not made an announcement of any changes in policy, so it would be strange to change the budget allocation without actually announcing any of the policy changes. I think the other matter that the shadow minister was asking about related to the social marketing campaign that was announced as part of the response to the report from the National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. I believe that you asked where the money was in the recent budget for that social marketing campaign. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Could I just advise the Main Committee that I have been advised that there are going to be divisions very shortly, so I would like the Minister for the Status of Women to conclude. It is five o’clock. The Minister for the Status of Women has the call and the Leader of the House does not have the call. 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms PLIBERSEK —If questions were asked of the appropriate minister, I would not have to qualify what the questions are. The social marketing campaign was funded as part of the $42 million initial announcement that we made. There is a $17 million allocation for that social marketing campaign. We said that we would release the social marketing campaign in 2010. We are in 2010 at the moment. You will see the social marketing campaign in 2010. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Portfolio Proposed expenditure, $1,569,504,000 5660 17:01:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —There are, of course, major budget commitments in the Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy portfolio. The National Broadband Network is the largest infrastructure project in Australia’s history, one that this government is very proud of. It will drive future productivity and growth across the economy and deliver high-speed broadband to all Australians, no matter where they live. The government has made an appropriate provision for the NBN in the 2010-11 budget, subject to a response by government to the NBN Implementation Study. When the government announced the NBN in April last year we also announced that a detailed implementation study would be commissioned. That study is now complete and was released by the minister on 6 May. After months of detailed analysis, the study confirms that high-speed broadband over a wholesale-only network for all Australians is achievable. It can also be built on a financially viable basis with affordable prices for consumers. The government will provide a formal response to this report in the coming months, after reviewing public submissions received on the study. The 2009-10 budget made provision for the government’s initial investment of $4.7 billion towards the NBN. So far, the government has made equity injections to NBN Co. totalling $312 million, and shareholder ministers will continue to make equity available to NBN Co. as required. Our equity injections are also made public as they occur through the notices tabled under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. In the 2010-11 budget the government will provide a further $1.8 billion to the portfolio to deliver its priorities. It will provide the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy with funding of $501.6 million. This is an increase of $106.9 million from the previous year. This reflects the rollout of the Regional Backbone Blackspots Program and the acceleration of the switch-over to digital-only television transmission. This will be offset, in part, by the completion of the NBN Implementation Study and termination of the Connect Australia program in 2009-10. The government will also provide the ABC with funding of $972.6 million, an increase of $40.6 million from 2009-10. The Australian Communications and Media Authority, with funding of $123.7 million, has an increase of $19.9 million from 2009-10, and the SBS, with funding of some $217 million, has an increase of $3.9 million from 2009-10 levels. The government will also provide $375.4 million over 12 years under the digital television switch-over program. This funding will assist commercial and national broadcasters to provide a digital television satellite service for those Australians who are unable to receive digital terrestrial transmission. It will provide for transmission of digital free-to-air television services for commercial and national broadcasters from a new satellite platform, the Viewer Access Satellite Television service; assist a number of communities to upgrade existing analog self-help transmission facilities to transmit national broadcasting services in digital; and provide for assistance through the Satellite Phone Subsidy Scheme for the installation of satellite reception equipment to eligible households currently served by analog television self-help retransmission sites that will not be converted to digital. The Digital Switchover Taskforce has been working effectively and cooperatively with broadcasters to undertake the planning needed to switch off analog TV. We are just 14 days away from seeing the first region in Australia—the Mildura-Sunraysia region—switching to digital-only TV. In conclusion, the measures that were announced in the 2010-11 budget will encourage a vibrant, sustainable and internationally competitive digital economy in Australia, which will assist in securing our prosperity into the future. 5661 17:06:00 Forrest, John, MP NV5 Mallee NATS 0 0 Mr FORREST —I am pleased that the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government made reference to the switch-over being only 14 days away. I would like to put some proposals to him in seeking further information. There is still an enormous amount of work to do, which I hope the minister is aware of. I express some disappointment because it has been over 18 months since, in November 2008, the government first produced the schedule for switching off analog. I was in the chamber when that happened, and I groaned. But after thinking about it through the Christmas period I thought, ‘This is a great opportunity for my region.’ We have had nothing but problems with television broadcasting for the 15 years I have been the member, so I saw it as an opportunity to work cooperatively with the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy. To his credit, he has heard the responses that I have been making, which have come from my constituents, about the inadequacy of the digital signal: it nowhere near offers the geographic spread that analog did. I live in fear, still, for what will happen in 14 days time, because a large number of black spots have been revealed. Some of those have been addressed, although I express some disappointment at the time it has taken to get the message through. I have been warning the minister since before Christmas about the problems my community of Robinvale has been having with its digital signal. After all this time, we still do not have a solution for Robinvale. It has been promised, but we will probably not have the digital signal delivered into the township of Robinvale until the 25th, when there will be five days to go until the switch-off. That means the people of Robinvale will not have the opportunity to take the time to make the right decision about which transmitter they want to point to. That is one complaint. I ask the minister to explain, via me, to my constituents why it has taken so long—18 months. We realise that when you are the first there are a few hiccups that have to be worked out, and we are the guinea pig. But the government has to understand that it has to do much better for the rest of regional Australia than it has done in Mildura. I hope that the lessons that have been learnt there are cemented in and that, in future, these things will be done much earlier than they have been in my part of the world. For example, the government announced last year that it would assist people on pensions with the full cost of any technical work they might need to have done to guarantee that their digital signal was to their satisfaction, such as replacement of the aerial or the set-top box. Yet the letters that came out from Centrelink were not sent until this year, and some people had already invested in a digital box and, in doing that, prevented their access to the subsidy. In the future, that has to be done much earlier. The government has seen fit to appoint a local liaison person. That is Kellie Boyce, and she has done a great job. She is a local person and knows the networks. But her appointment did not occur until early this year, which left the public relations sweep that has had to happen as a crunch in the last weeks before the switch-off. I continue to ask the minister to consider deferring the deadline. There is absolutely no reason why 30 June is the absolute deadline for Mildura. The minister argues to me, ‘Well, if you don’t have a deadline, there’ll still be people who’ll never do it.’ That is not true in my area. There is a thirst—a real thirst—to have the services from digital TV. People want it because there are more channels to watch and there are additional services that can be operated through it. We are going to have a crunch in the last four or five days. There are still communities whose only opportunity now is to access via the satellite. We have done the legislation. In my speech, I asked: when is the satellite signal going to be available? I asked the minister to please inform my constituents when all of that is going to occur. I may have some subsequent questions, and I hope he is going to address these one by one. My constituents are being cheated of the opportunity to make commercial decisions. The government is asking them to invest substantial amounts of funding, up to $1,000, for a new satellite dish, cabling and all the rest of it. They need to do that in a calm, considered environment where they can see the options available to them, look at the terrestrial signal and get some advice about its unreliability, have a look at what the satellite will offer and make a commercial decision. They are being asked to invest significant funds. They are going to be cheated of that because the satellite signal is still not available to them in Mildura. I say it is a very bad performance from the government on this, and I plead again to allow—(Time expired) 5662 17:11:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —I note that the member for Mallee says that his constituents will benefit from this—as they will. The new government funded satellite service is transmitting right now, well in time for the small number of households in the area that will need it to replace the analog terrestrial services. The VAST service commenced testing on 7 June and is available to all households in the Mildura-Sunraysia area that require satellite access to digital TV in time for the switch-over on 30 June. VAST set-top box receivers arrived in Mildura today, with retail and supplier orders also filled today. In fact, the first installation was completed today. Arrangements for the installation of a satellite dish can be made at any time. However, the majority of households that are likely to need the satellite service in Sunraysia are already using the existing Aurora satellite service. The new digital transmitter for residents of Robinvale was expected to commence services on 15 June 2010. Unexpected fumigation carried out at the site of the new Robinvale transmitter, which is a grain silo, has meant that this service is now scheduled to commence on 25 June 2010. The member for Mallee should stop his relentless campaign of fear about the digital switch-over in Mildura-Sunraysia. I know it is difficult for the member to accept that a Labor government has succeeded in bringing to regional and rural Australia television services equivalent to those that I get to enjoy living in Sydney. It is something that the Nationals failed to deliver for over a decade. But, for the sake of his constituents, he should get on board and stop fearmongering. He should welcome the initiative and leadership shown by Minister Conroy and the government. Minister Conroy has already assured the member for Mallee that the people of his electorate are very well prepared for 30 June. Almost 100 per cent of households in Mildura-Sunraysia have converted to digital. The last of the new towers will be up and running next week. The small number of households who will move from terrestrial reception to the new satellite system is being connected as we speak. The member for Mallee’s claims that hundreds of people will lose their television are just plain wrong. The member for Mallee says he is worried about people moving from the old analog satellite to the new digital satellite, but he knows that we are not turning off the analog satellite for another three years or more. The government is providing all necessary assistance to ensure that people are ready for the switch-off of the terrestrial analog signal. We have staff from the Digital Switchover Taskforce working around the clock in Mildura, installing set-top boxes, assisting people with information and connecting some homes to the new satellite service. The member for Mallee is causing confusion in his local community by calling for a delay in the switch-over, which is ready to go. The government intends to keep its time frame for the switch-off of analog TV in Mildura. It is important that people know what the deadline is and that it will not be changed. We are turning off the analog television signal in Mildura-Sunraysia at 9 am on 30 June. I congratulate the people of Mildura for their enthusiasm for this project and embracement of this fantastic new technology, bringing this regional community the same quality of services as that enjoyed in our major capital cities, and I look forward to a successful switchover on 30 June. 10000 Bevis, Arch (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AR Bevis)—I will call the member for Maranoa. I am tempted to give the member for Mallee an opportunity, but I think the general principle that has been applied in the past in these matters— NV5 Forrest, John, MP Mr Forrest interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Mallee will resume his seat. Honourable members interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The cross-chamber discussion will now cease. I would explain to the member for Mallee that the custom that I think has been generally followed is to enable those who have not previously entered the debate and are seeking the call to have that opportunity. I have no doubt the member for Mallee wishes to have the opportunity to receive the call to make some comments following the minister’s comments, and I will endeavour to give him that opportunity. But his colleagues might also like to consider that. 5663 17:15:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 0 0 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —I will be very quick. I want to talk about those self-help communities, of which there are 600 in Australia. I understand 100 of those communities will be receiving support by commercial operators to convert those signals from analog to digital, but I am worried about the other 500, particularly those small communities where it is planned to put a satellite dish to receive the signal as the way of receiving digital television. My concern in relation to that is for not only the individual households but also the motels or the individual cabins in tourist centres. Will they all get a dish or will that be a responsibility of the commercial operator? What will happen, say, in a caravan park where they can now receive the signal terrestrially? Obviously, they will not be able to have a satellite dish on their caravan or the individual cabin. How will people in those situations be able to receive digital television when the plan is to put it on each and every home in those communities which are now serviced by a self-help scheme? I would appreciate it if the minister could answer this question—or perhaps the department can give me an answer to that. The parliamentary secretary for Northern Australia will understand that outback tourism is a very important aspect of the economy. As you would appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, there will be many people, grey nomads, out in those rural communities and in the outback tonight wanting to watch Queensland make history in the State of Origin. How will they see it if they are in a situation where they do not have a dish and there is no longer terrestrial transmission? Will they be denied access? The minister spoke earlier about equity of access. I would like to think that there will be equity of access for those caravan parks, individual cabins and the motels where each room receives it terrestrially now. How will they get on? Or will this be a cost to those small businesses and those micro-small business in rural Australia? 5664 17:18:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 0 Ms RISHWORTH —I understand that Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy announced on 5 January 2010 that the government will fund a satellite service to deliver digital television to viewers in remote Australia and regional black spots. I am aware that $375.4 million over 12 years was provided in this budget to fund the satellite service, to fund ACMA to undertake the necessary planning work, and to provide a subsidy to viewers in communities reliant on self-help transmitters which are not upgraded to digital. The satellite service will be available to any viewers who cannot access digital TV via terrestrial means. It is also great to hear that the new satellite service will carry all current free-to-air digital television channels—I know many people around the country will be very pleased about that—including the original three commercial and two national channels as well as the new digital services, such as ABC2, ABC3, SBS, 7TWO, GO! and One HD. This will finally bring to viewers in regional, rural and remote Australia the same number of channels as is available in the capital cities. As I understand it, the VAST service will also feature a dedicated local news channel, giving viewers access to their local news, which I know is very important to a lot of people around the country. I also understand that the broadcasters have agreed to upgrade a substantial number of existing analog self-help retransmission facilities and that, where the broadcasters do not upgrade a self-help site or viewers are otherwise unable to access a broadcaster’s digital terrestrial signal, then viewers will have access to the new satellite in time for switchover. My question to the minister or the parliamentary secretary is this: can you explain why the government has decided to fund a satellite solution for reception black spots rather than continue to fund the community operated self-help transmission towers? 5664 17:20:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 0 Mr BALDWIN —I wish to ask three ranges of questions. The first is in relation to digital terrestrial transmission. I wrote a question on notice to the minister, being No. 1178, to which Minister Albanese responded. In it one of the sites in my electorate that was pointed out was that of Mount Douglas, which services the area of Vacy. That has an ABC and SBS transmitter only. Given that the government has given a fee rebate of $250 million, why isn’t the government pushing the broadcasters to install digital transmitters on sites such as that? That is given, Minister, that you will be paying, as I understand it, around $400 per satellite service in subsidy, given the people who are there, that would far outweigh the cost of putting in a digital transmitter. The second issue relates to the self-help services. Under the previous government’s television black spot program there were transmitters installed at Stroud, Booral, Forster, Elizabeth Beach, Smiths Lake and Nelson Bay. Taking the sites down in the Pacific Palms area, where the Smiths Lake transmitter and the Elizabeth Beach transmitter are, only one of those will be upgraded to digital—not the Elizabeth Beach one. Again, the subsidy that the government will be providing for digital satellite services will actually cost more than the $75,000 to $80,000 to install a digital translator. How do I know it will cost between $75,000 and $80,000 per translator? Because the very person who installed all these self-help transmitters has had the pricing done to put it in. This is the same person that worked on the digital self-help translator that was put in at Nelson Bay. The other thing that the minister failed to address in the answers was the directional aspect of the transmitter put in at Nelson Bay on Gan Gan Hill. It was originally to be an analog service but, because of the point of convergence with the interference of a range of signals, that was not able to be achieved. So they had to put a digital service in there, which took an extra period of time. That was originally an omnidirectional transmitter. That has now been wound back to be a directional transmitter—so we have people without television services. On the issue relating to satellite reception, for the life of me I cannot understand why people are now going to have to put a second satellite dish on their roof because the one that they may have there goes to Optus. Local government planning laws provide an exemption for a development application for one satellite dish. If you are going to put a second satellite dish on, then you will be required to submit a development application which will have to go through the normal scrutiny—and costs—involved. And of course internally you will have a second set top box, so there is another box inside. The government, with its failure to plan and failure to negotiate, did not see fit to actually work with people like Foxtel and AUSTAR to reduce the number of boxes and reduce the number of satellite dishes. The government has said that this will provide local television. But while receiving local news is one thing, receiving local advertising is an entirely different matter. There are small businesses in local communities that invest in advertising on those regional broadcasters because they can get their message out to their local catchment area and encourage people to spend and invest in their local area. But I say this to the minister, in his failure to understand the requirements of a small regional community: if the ads are coming out of Sydney, Canberra or Melbourne for the major part of the day and people are seeing specials in Sydney or Melbourne when they are living out in Gloucester, Dungog, Vacy or Pacific Palms and receiving satellite transmission, it is taking income and opportunity, and therefore jobs, away from local areas. I accept that, with the general geography and topography of an area like mine, not all areas can be serviced by terrestrial means. But the areas that are currently being serviced by terrestrial means, including the self-help transmitters, should all be upgraded so that they can receive local programming and local ads, which will provide local opportunities. (Time expired) 10000 Bevis, Arch (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AR Bevis)—Under the notional allocation, we have four minutes left of the time allocated for this debate. Obviously the parliamentary secretary needs to get the call. I did indicate to the member for Mallee—and I thought some of his colleagues might have taken my hint—that they present me with a problem in standing, given the convention of allowing someone to speak who has not already had the call. I understand that the member for Mallee wants to make a brief contribution, so I am going to depart from the normal arrangements and give the call to the member for Mallee. 5666 17:26:00 Forrest, John, MP NV5 Mallee NATS 0 0 Mr FORREST —Just briefly, I want to respond to the pathetic response from the minister asserting that I am running some kind of fear campaign in my constituency. It is absolute nonsense. The reality is that I am spending more time in people’s lounge rooms than the task force is. Every time I go down the street, someone is complaining about the lack of reliability of the signal. No-one has cooperated more in a non-political sense to get this right—and I want to get it right. The minister’s response was pathetic, political and completely unnecessary, and I refute it. I am simply conveying to you what my constituents are telling me. It is not a fear campaign. There is no need for 30 June. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I am going to call the parliamentary secretary. The notional allocation of time for this debate is nearing an end. In doing so, I should just point out that it is not possible to ask questions of the parliamentary secretary, but the parliamentary secretary is at liberty to make whatever contribution he wishes to. 5666 17:27:00 Gray, Gary, MP 8W5 Brand ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Western and Northern Australia 1 0 Mr GRAY —There are a number of questions which I must respond to. I will pick up some of the points made by the member for Mallee. I do note that in the preamble to his questions he mentioned the amount of work he had been doing in the Sunraysia-Mildura area in support of the switch-over. That is both understood and appreciated. But we also know that under the new system 16 channels will be available to people living in that area. With regard to television reception and coverage, as has been conceded by the member for Mallee, the new system does really provide a better footprint than the former analog system, which created inconvenient black spots and made reception difficult for many regional television viewers—and families. But it is also necessary for us to be aware as members of parliament that the way in which we address these issues in our communities is critical and that the service provided by TV is an important one for all communities across Australia. The member for Maranoa raised questions about caravanning and camping and the capacity of grey nomads to receive acceptable television signals on their trips around Australia. We will get back to him with a detailed answer to those questions. I appreciate his interest in that area. The member for Kingston raised a matter to do with satellites and black spots. I would like to get to that answer as quickly as I can. The current government is funding a new satellite service that will deliver vastly improved content for self-help communities in the remote areas of Australia. Communities will have access to a modern and adaptable delivery platform with virtually universal coverage, supported by the government. Not only will this provide a solution for today’s self-help communities and release them from the cost of maintaining terrestrial facilities; it also allows for future expansion of communities around Australia, avoiding the need for multiple new transmission facilities to be installed at local community expense. The use of satellite also achieves an increased level of access and content without the use of scarce broadcast spectrum and so has no impact on the digital dividend which flows from the switch-off of the analog systems. The proposed sale and subsequent use of the digital dividend for new wireless and other services will have an ongoing positive impact on the entire Australian community into the future, which is a key factor to be considered against any proposed expansion of current terrestrial television. It should be noted that, of the self-help sites not included on the published list of candidate sites to upgrade to digital, there are over 480 which currently retransmit the remote area broadcast services, meaning that those communities only receive the four analog services and news, advertising and other local material relevant to remote parts of Australia. Moving to the satellite service will, for the first time, provide these communities with the same level of services that are currently provided in metropolitan areas. In addition, some of these communities are actually in regional licence areas but are too isolated to retransmit their local services. The availability of local news on the satellite service will, for the first time, provide local regional news to these communities. The initiatives taken by the government in the area of the digital economy since 2008 have been genuinely revolutionary. In my home state of Western Australia we see that work has already begun on the new fibre optic link from Perth to Geraldton. It is a critical link that links our universities in Perth with research centres in the north. It is not only important for current university activities but critical, given the advent of the Square Kilometre Array radio telescope and the opportunities that are presented by this $2.5 billion investment in our science future and in infrastructure in regional Western Australia. The Square Kilometre Array radio telescope will sit in concert in a rapidly growing area due to resource developments in the mid-west iron ore province, which will also take advantage of the new digital spine that will extend from Perth to Geraldton. I note that the mayor of Geraldton, Ian Carpenter, has spoken many times of the importance of this link and of the cooperation from the state government of Western Australia in the development of the proposed Square Kilometre Array. The support of it both in Western Australia and internationally is critically important to the science future not just of our nation but also of Western Australia. 10000 Bevis, Arch (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AR Bevis)—The time agreed between the government and opposition for consideration of this portfolio has expired. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Defence Portfolio Proposed expenditure, $23,519,162,000 10000 Bevis, Arch (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AR Bevis)—The Main Committee will now consider the Defence portfolio under Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011. It will first consider the Defence segment and then the Veterans’ Affairs segment of the Defence portfolio. 5667 17:33:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 0 Mr BALDWIN —The first area that I wish to raise with the minister relates to Australia’s program LAND 121, phase 4: the $1.5 billion acquisition of around 1,300 vehicles. I note with great interest that in a press release, on 26 May, the Minister for Defence Materiel and Science announced: “Three Australian based companies will be awarded up to $9 million each for the development of protected mobility vehicle prototypes, putting them in the running to land a manufacturing contract for up to 1300 vehicles … I am happy to announce that Thales Australia, Force Protection Europe and General Dynamics Land Systems are the three companies that will be given a shot. Minister, if I can take your mind back to Wednesday, 29 October 2008: at the 10th Land Warfare Conference in Brisbane, then defence minister Fitzgibbon put out a press release and in that press release was the initial announcement of becoming engaged with the JLTV program. In fact, in that press release—which shocked many in Australian defence industry—it was announced that Australia was becoming involved with the technology demonstration phase of the US joint light tactical vehicle program, and that we were spending around $40 million investing in that program. The part that the Australian defence industry was most shocked at was the penultimate paragraph in this press release, which quoted Mr Fitzgibbon as saying: “Should the JLTV be selected, it is anticipated that there will be opportunities for Australian industry in the manufacturing of associated vehicle trailers and ongoing maintenance support for our fleet … So the question that I have to you in relation to this, Minister, is: why did it take your government so long—it had to be dragged, kicking and screaming—to provide equality of opportunity for the Australian defence industry? In fact, during one of the annual report inquiries by the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Vice Admiral Tripovich was asked, ‘Would Australian industry be disadvantaged by the fact that they had not been provided investment nor been approached initially to be engaged in the program?’ and he said words to the effect that it would be very difficult for Australian industry to catch up and to be involved. So we are glad that you have made this investment. But the question that you need to answer to me, please, and to the Australian defence industry and people at large, is: given the success of the Thales Bushmaster as a high-quality product, a product in theatres of operation in which—touch wood—no-one to date has been killed and one which many can thank for the continuation of their lives because of the success of this vehicle, why is it that Australian defence industry was excluded from the initial inquiry and investigation? It is fine to come to the table and say, ‘We have now given this money,’ but the bigger question is this: your government was prepared to sacrifice Australian jobs and home-grown technology—which is now being exported globally—for the sake of giving money to US contracts. And, Minister, could you also answer the following question. Not one of these prototypes being developed in the US has been able to meet the specifications put forward by the Australian Defence Force, and the fact that these vehicles weigh more than the specified seven tonnes means that they are not meeting the criteria for being slung underneath a Chinook. Where does this now place Australian industry? Could you also answer the following questions. When do you expect a decision to be made as to when the prototypes in Australia will be finished? When do you expect final complying prototypes from the USA? And where will this money sit in the forward budget estimates for the acquisition program? Minister, it is Australian defence industry and the people that work there that hang in the balance, on your decision. 5668 17:38:00 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 0 Mr OAKESHOTT —I rise to ask you, with your defence service personnel responsibilities hat on—and I understand there were some portfolio changes only recently and I congratulate you for taking on this issue—some questions. I have raised this issue in other forms but I do think it is one that goes to the heart of what I consider to be cultural issues, within, particularly, the Defence Materiel Organisation and the human services and governance aspects of the DMO. In particular, I wish to raise the question of the Jane Wolfe case that has recently been before the Federal Court. Jane Wolfe’s employment was ended, according to the Annual Report of 2008, by the Department of Defence. However, Federal Court action was taken and, only last month, she was reinstated with a very clear ruling from the Federal Court that any issues that were raised either through the Australian Government Solicitor or through the CEO of the DMO were completely unfounded and she was to be reinstated immediately. My understanding is that she is back at work in the SES. She was a senior executive service employee and continues to work there. The question is: how on earth did we end up in a situation where the CEO of the DMO, within four months of the employment of Ms Wolfe, sought advice from the Australian Government Solicitor, using the Public Service Act over the subsequent period and using former employers to write affidavits, and the Public Service Commissioner using that information to trigger a termination notice? We ended up with court action taking place and questions being asked around the Financial Management Act, with regard to when legal advice was received that said there was no case. Yet the CEO of the DMO and the DMO in general knowingly continued, either with their internal counsel or with outside legal advice, to spend taxpayers’ money to run what was, essentially, a dead case. From all accounts, $2 million worth of legal expenses was racked up. This is a significant cost to the taxpayer that is worthy of an explanation from the minister and the government. How on earth could it happen that someone employed at the SES level for only four months had what on the surface looks to be a vendetta run, and allowed to be run, against them within the culture of the DMO and the Public Service in Canberra? I ask the minister to explain, and I have asked this in another form, the implications of that Federal Court ruling. Is a code of conduct inquiry now going to take place against the CEO of the DMO? If not, why not? If so, what form will that code of conduct inquiry take? In relation specifically to the Financial Management Act and to the Public Service Act, what are the implications from the point of view of the minister’s confidence in the DMO executive team and the way they run their governance structures, their human resources and their duties? A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 5.43 pm to 5.56 pm 5669 17:56:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 0 Mr BALDWIN —The issue I shall now raise with the minister is that of defence family healthcare clinics. Minister, you would be aware that on 12 November 2007 the then shadow minister for defence, Joel Fitzgibbon, and Kevin Rudd, our now Prime Minister, stated: A Rudd Labor Government will invest $33.1 million to extend free basic medical and dental care to spouses and children of Australian Defence Force personnel. Federal Labor’s four year plan will extend free basic medical care to 12,000 ADF spouses and children by funding 12 Defence Family Healthcare Clinics. …                     …                   … … priority will be given to the establishment of Defence Family Healthcare Clinics at remote and major regional bases. That was one of the early promises to be broken. I want you to take this question on board given that your government has a package of 36 GP superclinics, of which only three have been delivered. In the last budget you promised another 23 GP superclinics. You promised 12 clinics would be located at Lavarack Barracks at Townsville, Robertson Barracks at Darwin, Cairns, RAAF Edinburgh, Elizabeth North, RAAF Amberley, Jerrabomberra, Williamtown, Shoalhaven, Singleton, East Sale, Karratha and Pilbara. So why isn’t your Defence portfolio team—whether it is your Minister for Defence, your previous minister for defence personnel, or you in your role—strongly advocating, because you recognised in your pre-election manifest that access to GP and dental services for defence families who by nature of their posting cycle are rather transient, and pushing for these GP superclinics to be established in those areas because that is where the need is? Minister, you would be aware that your government decided, in breaking the promise, that it would put out a funding trial which made up the gap payment between whatever the GP was charging and the Medicare rebate, and that you provided vouchers for access to dental care —I think it was $300 vouchers, a long way from your promise. And you have rolled that out to Lavarack Barracks at Townsville, Robertson Barracks in Darwin, Cairns, East Sale, Karratha, Pilbara and, in addition, Katharine and Puckapunyal, but also Singleton. I ask you to take on board this scenario. We have an army base at Singleton and we have a RAAF base at Williamtown. We have defence housing right across that region. In particular, we have defence housing in and around the Ashtonfield-Maitland area. So there may be two neighbours in defence housing—one may be posted to Singleton and the neighbour posted to Williamtown—living side by side. Minister, can you tell me where the equity is when the one that is posted to Singleton gets the gap payment paid to them on the GP and gets the voucher for the dental rebate, but the person living next door—serving their nation, serving at Williamtown—gets nothing. Where is the equity in that? Minister, given that your government decided that you were going to embark on 12 family healthcare clinics and that you acknowledged that Williamtown and Singleton were both areas of need, why is it that your rollout of a so-called trial—which was just handing a bit of cash and a couple of vouchers out—is restricted? Where is the trial required in handing out cash—something your government seems to do so well on a broad range of things? Why wasn’t it provided to all of those people you originally identified? Minister, could you answer these questions: when do you propose to end the trial—are you listening, Minister?—and roll the program out across all of those that are in regional and remote locations? What is going to be the future financial limit of their benefit under this scheme? How much has your government allocated for this scheme in 2010-11, how much funding will be made available for this in the forward estimates and, Minister, will you commit to pushing your own government to develop some of these promised GP superclinics in areas in and around these Defence Force bases where access to medical services is much needed? 5670 18:01:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —The 2009 white paper says that reserves will be brought closer to the regular force. Can the minister explain what actions have already been undertaken to achieve this? One of the key areas that need to be discussed is: what future actions will be put forward to achieve this and when will the approved Reserve future force implementation plan be released? I know that Army has submitted its Rebalancing Army plan and its options to the government. The government has had it for over 12 months. It has said it is looking at the implementation plan for the Rebalancing Army and an integral part of that, says the government, is the approved Reserve future force. But the question is: why is it taking so long? The government has had options for 12 months. It knows what the options are to rebalance the Army. It knows what options Army has given it to find the 1,721 Army positions that are needed to notionally rebalance the Defence Force. May I suggest, Minister, that one of the key problems is that the options may be unpalatable. Even though those options may be unpalatable, it is still worthy of you to let the community and, indeed, the reserve force know what the options are because, right now, over 20,000 reservists are thinking that you intend to pull out 400 ARA CATA staff—a reduction of 40 per cent—so you can use those positions to rebalance the Army. Right now, they believe you are looking at disbanding the Federation Guard, that you are looking at combining Pilbara and NORFORCE and that you are looking at converting a regular squadron of air defence down at Woodside to an Army Reserve squadron. Army Reserve units believe that you will be looking to close Army Reserve units. The government has given no indication that it will keep Army Reserve units going and active, and the units are looking for that commitment from the government. The previous government put in place the High Readiness Reserve. In this government’s last budget—for the current year, 2009-10—it committed to a High Readiness Reserve of 1,360. Without any fanfare and without any discussion with the reserve community, the current budget has reduced that to 800 and then 900 through the forward estimates. The question is: why the change? Why the reduction in the High Readiness Reserve? You committed to six company-sized forces, with all the ancillary of the High Readiness Reserve, but the budget shows you are not prepared to fund it. Minister, the white paper says the reserves will be brought closer to the regular force. All of the actions, all of the rhetoric, all of the failure to release the reserve future force plans and to release what you are doing with rebalancing the Army—all of that is at odds with your stated aim that you will bring the reserves closer to the regular force. 5671 18:05:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 0 Mr BALDWIN —Minister, I would like to address the issue of the ADF gap year, a program which was initiated by the Howard government. In its first year, it was planned to have 700 people in the program, with a split of 100 Navy, 500 Army and 100 Air Force, and that target was achieved. In fact, the coalition thought that program had great benefits not only for recruiting prospects, but also in providing a taste of military life for those who may go on to university and want to come back to the military. Minister, I note that the budget papers of 2008-09 showed that you dropped from 700 to 623 participants. Further, when I look at the 2009-10 budget I note that you are down to 549; 2010-11, 509. This is a long way back from the original 700, and indeed nearly half of the original 1,000 participants the program was supposed to grow and develop to. Minister, I would like to point out some numbers which I am sure you would be aware of that show how positive and successful this program is, despite recruitment being an issue from time to time. In the financial year ending 30 June 2009, from the 647 people involved in it, 187 had transferred to the permanent services which was made up 41 to the Navy, 125 to the Army and 21 to the Air Force; 278 had transferred to the Reserves which was made up of eight in the Navy, 231 in the Army, and 39 in the Air Force. Minister, given the amount of money that is spent on recruitment advertising, wouldn’t you agree that having those numbers come together out of such a program is a relatively inexpensive way by comparative standards to attract recruits? Wouldn’t you agree that not only do these young people get the opportunity to observe and experience military life, but, more importantly, the military get a chance to observe those young people and pick out potential star recruits for ongoing training and development? My question overall in relation to this is: why, when your government talks about employment opportunity and, in particular, the rhetoric about the importance of ADF personnel, are you cutting back on a very successful program that has led to great recruitment into permanent and Reserves? I have heard my colleague, the shadow parliamentary secretary for defence, raise questions about Reserves and sustaining those reserve forces. It appears that your government has a very strong track record in saying one thing, but doing something entirely different when it comes to the men and women of the Australian Defence Force. Minister, could you please answer those questions. And I would also ask you—if you cannot answer it now, then I would ask you to take it on notice—to deliver to me the exact economic benefit from having people in the ADF gap year and what you would consider the number of people transferring into the Reserves and permanents saves you in your recruiting budget? 5672 18:09:00 Griffin, Alan, MP VU5 Bruce ALP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel 1 0 Mr GRIFFIN —Yes, but as the member pointed out, there are some issues which we will need to get back to you about. A number of issues have been raised. Given the time lines that we have got available to us, I will try and address all of them to some degree. I would also say to members that—the member for Paterson is now not listening to me—if you are of the view that you want any follow-up beyond the answers that I give today, and I suspect on some matters you will, please feel free to get back to me. I am happy to do that on a verbal basis or a follow-up in order to get you some additional material, if that is of assistance. Firstly, I will try to assist in that process with the member for Lyne. He raised some very serious issues around the question of a personnel issue relating to the Defence Materiel Organisation. As he understands, this is a very sensitive matter and it relates to both an individual’s circumstances and their employment and a range of matters which in some respects, as I understand it, are ongoing. I am happy to take it on notice and to get back to him. I know this is a matter that he sees as being very serious and I want to assure him that I also view it as being a very serious matter. That is with respect to that particular issue. With respect to the member for Paterson, he raised several concerns and I will endeavour to address them quickly in the minutes that I have left. As I said I am happy for him to come back to me and say if he wants further information on those particular issues subsequent to today. 5672 18:11:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 0 Mr BALDWIN —The questions I asked are specific. If you can’t answer them now—and I appreciate the time frame—you can take them on notice and respond. VU5 Griffin, Alan, MP Mr GRIFFIN —I am happy to do that. The points I would make in relation to JLTV are that the government is happy with progress with respect to this particular initiative. The shadow minister outlined a process that had been undergone with respect to developments in this area. The points that I would like to focus on in particular are that in 2008 when the then Minister for Defence announced our participation in this program, he stated that parallel to the joint light tactical vehicle program, Defence will also engage with Australian industry to explore other options to provide protected light mobility vehicles. In March 2009 the government announced that the Defence Materiel Organisation would release a request for a proposal for a manufactured and supported in Australia option, which following subsequent consideration by government was released by the DMO on 12 June 2009. Last month my colleague the Minister for Defence Materiel and Science announced that as a result of the DMO evaluation of responses received to the request for proposal, three companies will be asked to continue the development of the manufactured and supported in Australia option for government consideration in mid-2011. The parallel process of US and Australian options will ensure that all viable options available for the delivery of light protected mobility vehicles have been considered. This approach is consistent with Mortimer review recommendations and will ensure that taxpayers receive value for money and that Army and Air Force personnel receive the best equipment and protection possible. The three companies funded under the manufactured and supported in Australia option will be given around six months to produce two test drive-ready prototypes each. These JLTV prototypes will be delivered in the second half of this year. The 2009 public Defence Capability Plan has details of LAND 121 phase 4 and it indicates that the acquisition costs of this project will be in excess of $1.5 billion. The next issue that was raised by the member for Paterson relates to the question of defence family health care. This is obviously a key priority for government. The government originally made an election commitment to deliver 12 defence-specific clinics to provide services to approximately 33,000 Australian Defence Force dependants. This was estimated to cover about 47 per cent of the ADF dependant population at a total cost of $33.1 million over four years. The model and funding for this commitment was revised. In May 2008 the government revised the original election commitment to allow for a more flexible healthcare system which provided better access and choice to Australian Defence Force families. The current ADF Family Health Trial model provides eligible dependants with unlimited access to a range of medical practitioner services at no cost. Services are accessed from doctors from within their community. Eligible dependants will also receive $300 per calendar year towards non-cosmetic dental treatment. These services can be accessed by registered dependants anywhere in Australia. In revising the commitment, the government has committed approximately $62 million over four years to the ADF family healthcare trial. Under the trial approximately 16,000 dependants or 22 per cent of the ADF families are eligible to access basic health care in some of the most rural and remote locations in Australia. That trial is ongoing and an interim evaluation is currently being conducted. (Extension of time granted) With respect to the issue of gap years, from the 2010-11 financial year the gap-year intake will be reduced as follows: for the Navy, a reduction from 267 per year to 100; for the Army, no change and maintained at 317 per year; and the Air Force has suspended participation in the program. This reduction in gap-year targets from 700 to 417 from the 2010-11 financial year reflects the need to ease the pressure currently being experienced as to the training and operational capability of the ADF. When the gap-year program was originally proposed there was greater spare capacity in the recruiting and training systems. With strong recruitment achievement for all three services, continuing to conduct the program meant recruiting more people than Air Force could accommodate and it was adversely impacting on core training for both recruits and other personnel in the Navy and the Army. The gap year program is not intended to be a direct recruitment program but there are some participants who have continued with some form of ongoing service. As at May 2010, 406 of the 1,328 participants from previous years’ programs were serving in the permanent force and 433 were in the Reserves. The reduction of the gap year intake does not reduce Defence’s commitment to engaging with young Australians. It is important that young people be aware of the career possibilities available in the ADF. Offering a smaller number of high-quality places will do more to promote ADF careers than a larger number of positions that cannot be well supported. I am rushing because I am conscious of the time, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I apologise for my stilted and stunted delivery in that respect although some members would say it is better than normal! Reserves and the associated circumstances was the subject of the question raised by the member for Fadden. He raised a number of concerns with respect to that. There are a couple of points that I would make for starters. He mentioned, I think, options around the question of rebalancing the Army and that the review in relation to the Reserves was with government and awaiting decisions. I am advised that it still with Defence and actually has not come to government. That is what I have been told but I am happy to seek further advice with respect to that if his view is that it is otherwise. HWT Robert, Stuart, MP Mr Robert —The minister, to a question on notice, says it was with government. VU5 Griffin, Alan, MP Mr GRIFFIN —Please say that again. HWT Robert, Stuart, MP Mr Robert —The minister announced, to a question on notice, that it was with government. VU5 Griffin, Alan, MP Mr GRIFFIN —Then I stand bemused and will look further into the matter with respect to that. The point I would make in the context of the Reserves is that the Reserves play an incredibly important role within the modern ADF in terms of what they provide as part of the overall matrix of service provision across the ADF. That is acknowledged quite clearly in the Defence white paper. The government has committed to a better integration of part-time and full-time service in the ADF and to removing the factors which can impede the contribution that part-time forces can make to ADF capability. There have been some reports—and I think this was mentioned by the member for Fadden—about funding cuts to the Reserves. They are, in my view, misleading. In fact, the Reserves salary funding for 2009-10 has increased from 2008-09 for all three services. It is true though that in the past the Reserves have been able to exceed their allocated training budgets due to a necessity to backfill permanent roles. Due to improved recruitment to and retention in the permanent ADF—outcomes that I am sure the House is very pleased with—there are in fact fewer opportunities to do this. As a result some of the Reserves have had their training budgets limited. But the government is committed to ensuring that every reservist deployed overseas undertakes all the required training prior to the deployment, and we do not apologise for prioritising funds for this purpose. The government considers the Reserves an essential element of defence capability and is committed to ensuring effective funding for the Reserves into the future. 5674 18:18:00 Markus, Louise, MP E07 Greenway LP 0 0 Mrs MARKUS —As the minister would be aware, I have already spoken in parliament about a number of specific measures relating to the budget and of course this House has already dealt with legislation affecting measures relating to the re-review of the Clarke review. The budget provides $55 million for workers on the F111 deseal/reseal program operated by the Royal Australian Air Force between 1973 and the year 2000. The government’s response follows a parliamentary inquiry report tabled in June last year. I recently met with the F111 Deseal/Reseal Support Group, which is well known as the Goop Troop, who raised with me a series of issues which emerged after the government’s response was released. In response to questions in Senate estimates earlier in the month, the secretary to the department indicated that the government was aware of specific concerns and was working through these concerns with the group. Although I am pleased that this is happening, it is worth asking why these issues were not worked through prior to the government’s response. Was there consultation between the report being released and made public and then the government bringing about a formal response? Specifically, there are concerns about the number of documents that former workers are required to provide to the department in order to verify their involvement in the program. Fact sheet F111-05 guidelines for the use of statutory declarations in applications for tier classifications require claimants to provide two statutory declarations, one from the claimant and the other from a co-worker or a commanding officer who has already had their claim accepted. When asked in Senate estimates how many claims had already been accepted, the department conceded that at that point there were none. Further, the fact sheet notes that evidence is tested for plausibility. When asked about this, the department indicated that this was an issue they were working through with the support group. Of course, what we would have liked to have seen was an explanation to the Senate committee of— Honourable members interjecting— 10000 Vale, Danna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DS Vale)—Order! The member for Greenway is entitled to be heard in silence. E07 Markus, Louise, MP Mrs MARKUS —the basis for the requirement existing, as was requested. Despite it being an offence to make a false statutory declaration, clearly decision makers may have some doubt about the veracity of the two statements made by former members of the Australian Defence Force. Is that the case? In the inquiry’s report on page 103 the following is recorded: One of the difficulties encountered by many claimants was the lack of maintenance records held in relation the F-111 maintenance workers. Any of us who have spoken to any of the people affected are aware of this. It continues: Defence advised that after an exhaustive search by RAAF, including interviews with former 1 and 6 Squadron personnel, aircraft maintenance records prior to 1992 were unavailable. It goes on to say: Many contributors to the Inquiry have commented on the fact that individual aircraft maintenance records, which would have proven their involvement in the formal DSRS programs, are unavailable. That is also well known. The inquiry’s recommendations on statutory declarations were accepted with modifications by the government. The accepted recommendation was modified to require two statutory declarations. Understandably, there is concern within the ex-service community about these requirements. There appear to be, on the face of it, serious concerns with the way the government has developed its response to this particular area and too little consultation between the inquiry’s report being tabled and the government’s formal response. Now it appears to be being mopped up after the fact. I ask the minister to explain the lack of consultation with affected ex-service people prior to the government’s response. I also ask the minister to brief this House on the extent of his further negotiations on the package and what areas remain of concern to the affected individuals. Further, I ask the minister to detail for the House the time line for the establishment of the claims unit inside this department to manage the expected increase in claims as part of the government’s response. What will the target claims-handling times be? How many staff will be engaged in the process? Also, given that the parliamentary inquiry recommended extensive training for departmental staff, what training has begun and how will the staff training be reviewed and assessed? 5676 18:24:00 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 0 Mr OAKESHOTT —I rise on an issue that we have previously put before this House and I know the minister is fully aware of in regard to military superannuation as part of the Veterans’ Affairs portfolio. Last month— VU5 Griffin, Alan, MP Mr Griffin interjecting— IYS Oakeshott, Rob, MP Mr OAKESHOTT —But it would still be worthy of consideration and any response, please. I am happy to hear otherwise if you are going to push it across to Treasury. Last month a notice of motion was supported in this chamber, in what I would hope was a bipartisan way, that identified military service as a unique type of service within the public sector. The motion also acknowledged that CPI was not an appropriate index for superannuation generally and for military superannuation particularly in this instance—and that does, I understand, fall in line with the Matthews report findings that CPI was not an appropriate indexation mechanism for the future. What Matthews did say, I understand—and I stand to be corrected—was that, until a more appropriate indexation is found, CPI is it. The motion before this place last month, rather than just leaving that as the end of the story, sought to change the way military superannuation is indexed and asked the parliament and, by association, the executive and the minister to consider the option of twice a year pegging military superannuation to the CPI, to male average weekly earnings or to the new age pension index, whichever is the higher, as an interim measure until some oracle finds a new indexation of cost of living that is a more appropriate model. My question is: how has that been received by the department and the minister; and has any costing of options been done? Has any costing at all been done on changes to military superannuation indexation outside of CPI? And, Minister, have any submissions gone either to you from the department or from you to the cabinet on this very important topic of improving the way a unique type of public service is recognised by superannuation into the future? 5676 18:27:00 Markus, Louise, MP E07 Greenway LP 0 0 Mrs MARKUS —The government raised a great number of expectations before the last election, and it is not the first time I have said that. I note that the government intend to issue further discussion papers on reviews of advocacy funding in the veterans community and that this will follow a discussion paper on pharmaceutical costs for war-caused disabilities. There seems to be a lack of action by the government with regard to these issues. While consultation is important, the government do appear to be delaying making any hard decisions on matters that they indicated would be addressed before or close to the next election. I would like to read something the current Minister for Veterans’ Affairs said in 2006, which was basically what he thought of the then minister: Decision making in veterans’ affairs should be as free of politics as you can make it. That will not always be possible but it ought to be an objective we strive for. But independent reviews are rarely an answer in themselves. You have to be prepared to accept their recommendations or have good and clear reasons not to. … At times governments have used independent reviews as a mechanism to divert criticism and to try to put a hold on things while they cool off politically. Veterans on disability pensions were deeply disappointed when, after the Treasurer said on Brisbane radio on 12 September 2008 that disability pensions would be considered in the Harmer review, that did not eventuate. Minister, as you would be aware, there is also concern in the veterans community that legislation supported by the Labor Party in opposition in 2007 was later undone by the Labor government. The government legislation which was passed by the parliament last year—specifically, legislation enacted to increase some veterans pensions—did not deal with veterans who were disability pensioners. The legislation explicitly broke the link between the pension MBR factor established by legislation of the previous, coalition government, which you supported and which was passed last year. Veteran disability pensioners are concerned that they are going backwards and are now worse off under this government than they were under the previous government. The explanatory memorandum accompanying the Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Disability, War Widow and War Widower Pensions) Bill 2007 stated: The changes contained in this Bill will also increase the general rate of disability pension and introduce a new method of indexation for general rate disability pension. The 5 per cent increase to general rate disability pension will increase the rate to $338.94 per fortnight with effect from 20 March 2008. General rate disability will then be indexed immediately with reference to both CPI and MTAWE with effect from 20 March 2008. This will be achieved by indexing general rate disability pension by applying the pension MBR factor, which is the same proportional or percentage increase as applies to service pension. This figure is obtained by dividing the newly indexed maximum basic rate of single service pension by the previous maximum basic rate of single service pension. This methodology is the same as that used to index above general rate disability pensions in accordance with subsection 198(5E) of the VEA. However, the explanatory memorandum accompanying the Rudd Labor government’s Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Pension Reform) Bill 2009 says: Step 1 of the Method statement requires that the amount substituted under section 59LA for the amount specified in point SCH6-A4 of Schedule 6 on 20 September 2009, be worked out as usual. It should be noted that the operation of 5 section 59LA on 20 September 2009 is also affected by item 7 of Schedule 2. Item 7 is a transitional provision to ensure that the pension MBR factor is calculated as if the amendments made by Part 1 of the Schedule had not been made. The effect of this is that the pension MBR factor determined under section 59LA will not be distorted by the statutory increase to the maximum basic rate of single pension. That is, for the purposes of section 59LA on 20 September 2009, the “current single pension MBR amount” is to be calculated as if the statutory increase of $1,560 provided for under new subsection 198FB, had not occurred. (Extension of time granted) It appears from these two statements that the intent of the Rudd Labor government’s 2009 legislation was to undo the previous, coalition government’s legislation passed with Labor’s support in 2007. I note in this regard that material the minister is providing to promote the government’s efforts in veterans affairs takes credit for passing on pension increases which were legislated for by the coalition government just prior to the 2007 election. I note that, were it not for changes enacted by the coalition government, disability pensioners receiving a special rate would not have received anywhere near the $44 increase they received this year. Madam Deputy Speaker, through you I ask the minister to justify the breaking of the nexus of the pensioner MBR factor for all veteran disability pensioners legislated by the previous government. Further, I ask the minister to explain the cost provided by the department this month that re-establishing the nexus would cost $583 million over four years. How is this cost broken down? What are the costs per year? How many people will be affected? Thank you for the extra time. 5678 18:34:00 Griffin, Alan, MP VU5 Bruce ALP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel 1 0 Mr GRIFFIN —There are three main areas that have been raised and I will try and go through them in some detail. I will try to do them in the order they were received. First off, on the issue of the F111 deseal-reseal, this was a government response to an inquiry that the opposition, when in government, refused to do. The day I made the commitment the then minister, the member for Dunkley, refused to make a commitment. He said that as far as he was concerned the position with respect to compensation and support for the deseal-reseal people was over, finished, kaput—that was it. So what we have here is a package of some $55 million, and every single dollar of that is in excess of what the previous government was prepared to do. That they have an interest in it now I think is laudable but late. On the question about consultation, this was a response to a parliamentary inquiry that involved both sides of the parliament, that involved submissions from interested parties, that involved a series of hearings. As a result of that process, which was loaded up with consultation, a series of recommendations was made. In fact, there was then quite a deal of comment publicly about those particular recommendations. The government then considered those recommendations and that report and responded to them. The key reason there was not consultation in the final stages in the consideration of the response to the parliamentary inquiry report was that there were budgetary issues involved; it was part of a budget process. But in fact it was the consideration of a set of recommendations which had come out of a process which had involved extensive consultation. Having said that, there was no doubt—and there was no doubt from the government’s point of view—that there would need to be discussions about the implementation of the system, because once we introduced what we were planning to do we would need to talk to parties with respect to the detail of implementation. And that is what we have been doing. The secretary of the department, I and others met with representatives of the deseal-reseal group in Brisbane a week or two after the budget to go through some of those concerns. Frankly, the reason we did it then was to give them some time to consider the question of what was there and for them to develop up their questions so that we could actually have a real discussion about how we go forward on this. The government is committed to working through those concerns and the intention, as the deseal-reseal group representatives know, is to have regular meetings with them to go through any of the particular questions that they might have in order to endeavour to resolve them. As I said in the House at the summing up on this, one of the representatives there, Kathleen Henry, who had had a long involvement on this issue, said to me on that day that she thought we had got ‘90 per cent of this right’. That was subsequent to the discussion we had at the DVA office in Brisbane. Does that mean all the concerns have been addressed with respect to those who have concerns in this area? No. Frankly, they never will be, because of the nature of some of those concerns and the circumstances around them. The shadow minister asked the question about when the implementation unit is going to be up and running. The answer is that it is. We are currently advertising the position for the key person who will be in charge of the unit, but the unit itself was established just before the budget in order to be available to take concerns and considerations from that time on. The commitment from this government’s point of view and from my point of view as minister is that we will work with those groups to resolve those concerns, to ensure that we have a system which gives those people who have developed conditions with respect to their exposures a fair shake, a fair go and compensation where it is appropriate as it is outlined under the legislation. There are concerns about the operation of the administration in this area, and those concerns go back some time. This government is committed to working those concerns through. Again I stress that it is admirable that there is now concern on the other side of the House about how we might deal with the estimated $55 million additional support that will go to these people. But when all they were asked to do was to commit to hold an inquiry they would not even do that. The next issue I will go to is the one raised by my good friend the member for Lyne, who has done his best today to test that friendship across a couple of issues—but that is okay. (Extension of time granted) Military superannuation is an issue of enormous concern within the wider ex-service community. There is no question about that. I think members are aware of that. But I think we also have to remember that it has not been a concern just now; it has been a concern for a long time. It has been a concern for a long time and it is an issue on which the previous government refused to take action. They refused to take action over more than a decade when it was a concern and when, frankly, the budgetary position of the government was such that they had a good deal more flexibility than we currently face as a result of the global financial crisis. This government made a couple of commitments, and the issue of commitments was something that was raised by the shadow minister, and I will pick up on that in this process. Several commitments were made around the question of military superannuation. In the context of this particular issue, there was a commitment to have a review into the indexation method. That became the Matthews report, which came down with a set of recommendations that the government accepted. It is quite clear that the recommendations Mr Matthews came down with are at odds with what the ex-service community would have liked, wanted to hear and believed was appropriate. I understand that concern. I could go into justifying that in the context of the difference between a superannuation payment versus an income support payment versus a disability compensation payment. I have done that on other occasions but, given the shortage of time, I do not know if that is appropriate at this stage. The issue that the member for Lyne was particularly interested in was where we are going from here. As I have said on the public record, the overall position of the government with respect to military superannuation is an issue which has been vexed for some time. We had the Podger review from the previous government, and when we released it and consulted with the broader ex-service and defence communities it became clear that they did not want it. That has been an issue for government to consider. We have to consider that and we will be making announcements with respect to how we go forward on this issue in the weeks ahead. I am fully aware and understand that there will need to be a firm decision from the government prior to the election, and I undertake to ensure that there will be. On the indexation issue, though, I am not going to stand here and say that I believe that that is necessarily in any way going to deal with those concerns. Frankly, post-Matthews, the government faced a choice: can we suggest this issue is live at this time, or is it frankly fairer and more reasonable to make the point that in this environment and at this time it is not? We took the latter view, and we have been panned for it. I understand those concerns. Frankly, this is an issue which has been under consideration for quite some time by both governments, and it has not been acted upon. That point needs to be made. I know that ex-service organisations are going to continue to push with regard to these issues. I certainly am going to be engaging with them about these matters in the weeks and months ahead. But I am not going to lay out false hope that I think we are likely to resolve those concerns quickly or easily. In terms of the question of submissions and where they might have gone, there has been a range of work done on this because we know it is an issue of concern. The question of that information is something we are still considering within government. As the member would understand, in those circumstances I really cannot discuss those details. But I do want to assure him I understand the significance of the issue. I will move on to some of the other points made by the shadow minister. He made a couple of points. One suggested that this government had taken credit for certain initiatives taken by the previous government around the question of, for example, indexation around disability pensions. Guilty as charged. I do take responsibility for it. I take responsibility for it based on the fact that the key decisions that were taken mirrored, to a large extent, policy announcements that were made by me, as shadow minister, just before the 2007 budget. I accept that; I am guilty as charged. Ex-service organisations told me at the time and subsequently that there would not have been a change if we had not moved. I do that again on the basis that essentially the government of the day made a change in the 2007 budget but clearly had no intention of moving on this issue and did not move on this issue until September at the RSL Congress in the lead-up to the election because they felt they had to move because we had led the way. I would also add that the policy document that the shadow minister refers to actually says that these were initiatives implemented in legislation under the previous government with mutual support. That particular document has some 42 commitments in it, and of those 42 commitments, as I score them, something like 32 have been implemented and nine are in the process of implementation. Some of those are things like the Vietnam veterans family study: the funding is there; it is just taking time for it to be done. (Extension of time granted) There is only one action that has not been taken up, and that was blocked in the Senate. So, in fact, action has been taken on the Commonwealth Dental Health Program, but it has been blocked in the Senate. I am sorry, I have not been able to get a commitment up, and the reason I have not is that the opposition opposed it. On the issue of disability pension rates and the issue there around the MBR factor: the key commitment made before the last election—and it was mirrored in the debate for the legislation—was about the link to male total average weekly earnings. That was what the previous government promised; that was what we supported; that was what we did. The MBR and the formula associated with that is a mechanism that was utilised to achieve that outcome. The Harmer review of pensions, of income support payments, actually led to a change in the base rates. But the real point there was maintaining the intention of the formulas, which was to link the disability compensation payments to MTAWE or CPI, whichever is the greater. The Treasurer’s comment in relation to the consideration of disability compensation payments in the context of the Harmer review has been taken out of context, because it was about considering the overall situation of what people were facing in terms of their income circumstances—the point being that those who were on compensation payments invariably have access to income support payments in addition to their compensation payments, as they should. The point with respect to that is that those Harmer increases went to those disability pensioners who were in the lower financial situation because they were accessing support payments and they therefore got those increases. But the key point in relation to the disability compensation payments was maintaining the link to MTAWE, and that was done. The formula alteration was to ensure that that was done into the future. It was necessary because of the nature of the mathematical formula employed to ensure that an outcome was achieved. If you go to the debate—if you go to what the previous minister said when that legislation was being passed in the first place to increase the disability compensation payments prior to the last election—you will see myriad references by the previous minister to standards of living and male total average weekly earnings. The reason he referred to that was that that was what the debate was always about, that was what the link was always about, and that was what Labor’s commitment was always about. And that was clearly understood. The debate subsequently has been to draw a link to the service pension. The service pension is an income support payment. The link was never about that when it came to the question of disability compensation payments; the link was always about maintaining their value within the broader community. It has been suggested that disability pensioners in the veterans affairs area have gone backwards. They have not gone backwards. The value of their compensation payments has been maintained to MTAWE, which was what they had always asked for in the past. And those disability pensioners who were on lower levels of income were in a situation where they also gained the increases from Harmer for their income support payments. I am very happy to provide details to the opposition with respect to what that impact has meant for individuals according to their financial circumstances. The government’s commitment through Harmer, and the government’s commitment through what it supported at the last election in relation to disability compensation payments, has been maintained and has been honoured. In the process, some people have misinterpreted it, and some have attempted to make out that our commitments were something different from what they were at the time. That is unfortunate but it does not get away from the key point, which is that the government did what the government said it would do, and the government maintained the value of those disability compensation payments according to male total average weekly earnings, which was always what the argument was about. The final point I will make is this. The shadow minister wanted some figures around the question of the actual cost with respect to what it would take to re-establish that percentage nexus, as outlined in her speech, with respect to increasing disability pensions to take those points into account. I do not have those details with me but I could give you a couple of basic points. What you can say is, in very rough terms: 29,000 TPI pensioners or thereabouts and that is in excess of some—I will get a figure on total disability pensioners yelled to me in a second. But the point in relation to that is that the figures that have been on the net around this have suggested that it would involve an increase of in excess of $110 per fortnight with respect to the TPI payment. So, as a starting point: take $110 per fortnight; multiply that by the number of fortnights; multiply that by the number of TPI pensioners—that will be one of your core components. Then, when you go to the question of the general rate disability pensioners, it will be according to what rate they have got and a similar adjustment according to the value of that payment on a percentage basis, which I think has been named as being in excess of 10 per cent. (Extension of time granted) On the issue of other disability pensioners beyond the special rate, figures from around March 2010 indicate that there are some 93,000 pensioners beyond the special rate, bringing it up to a total of about 123,722 as of March. That is the basic core of it. But I am happy to provide additional information to the shadow minister, outlining the detail of what that means in terms of the payments. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Attorney-General’s Portfolio Proposed expenditure, $3,992,303,000 5682 18:50:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 0 Mr PERRETT —Today is 16 June, not a particularly special day in a lot of ways, though it is my brother Simon’s birthday, but the literally-minded might know that it is Bloomsday. Those who struggled through Ulysses would know. Anyone from Queensland or New South Wales would know it is State of Origin night—even Victorians would know that. The Attorney-General and I are keen followers of rugby league. Whilst we have our differences on State of Origin night, we both know that we want a good game. I have always been a strong follower of State of Origin and used to love this night until my wife spoiled it for me many years ago. She has worked in child protection for 20 years and she gave me some horrible data. On State of Origin night, the state that loses experiences a significant spike in incidents of domestic violence. It has spoilt the game for me in a lot of ways because I want every State of Origin game to be a draw. Obviously that does not happen. On nights like this, I do think of what is going to happen after the game, after the final whistle has blown. The women’s legal service in Annerley in my electorate provides free legal advice and information to women in Queensland, particularly those living on the south side of Brisbane. Unfortunately they might encounter some of the people who suffer after the final whistle in tonight’s game. The legal support they offer is often provided at the most vulnerable times for women, when they are facing domestic violence or at risk of homelessness. The women’s legal service is run by women for women. They offer an advice hotline, legal information sessions and individual legal advice and referrals. They rely on the generosity of lawyers, who offer their time to provide legal support. Thankfully, even though lawyers receive a hard time, there are plenty of generous lawyers throughout Queensland and throughout Australia. I started my legal career in 1997 and my first boss Michael Quinn taught me that it is important that every lawyer do pro bono legal work for the community. It is good for the community and good for the soul, but it is especially good for the community. The Commonwealth government has also provided further funding to the women’s legal service to support this vital community service. The people who work in the legal service in Annerley help to save lives. They help to change lives also. Could the Attorney update the House on what the government is doing to improve access to justice, including funding for legal assistance services? 5683 18:53:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr McCLELLAND —I thank the honourable member for Moreton for his question. I hope one of us at least wins tonight. Pleasingly, departmental representatives are here tonight because I would like to acknowledge their work. It is as a result of their work that the government has been able to invest an additional $154 million over four years into legal assistance programs, legal aid commissions, community legal centres and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal centres. This is the largest injection of funds into the sector in well over a decade. The investment is going to play a key role in ensuring that disadvantaged Australians have the means to resolve disputes early before they escalate and before they become entrenched. I will say a few words shortly about domestic violence, which is a particular concern. Consistent with the government’s Strategic Framework for Access to Justice in the Federal Civil Justice System, which the government announced in September, the funding will focus on early intervention and reinforce the shift away from expensive and lengthy litigation wherever possible. From 1 July, an additional $92.3 million over four years will be provided for legal aid, $34.9 million over four years will be provided for Indigenous legal services and $26.8 million over four years will be provided for community legal services programs. In fact, this will take the Commonwealth’s total funding for legal assistance services to over $1.2 billion over four years, and we believe the funding injection will make a real difference. The Rudd government has allocated an additional $92.3 million over four years, as I have mentioned, to legal aid commissions across Australia. This additional funding will mean that legal aid commissions will be able to help disadvantaged and vulnerable Australians, including—in response to the member’s question—women and their children at risk of violence in respect to their legal issues and what is necessary to protect them. The new funding will underpin the new National Partnership Agreement on Legal Assistance Services which is currently being negotiated with the states and territories. The new partnership will include revised guidelines for greater flexibility so that Commonwealth funds can also be used for state family violence and child protection matters where there is an overlapping Commonwealth family law matter. This is be the first time since 1996 that Commonwealth funds will be able to be used and dedicated specifically to domestic violence issues. Funding will also increase the availability of legal assistance in a range of other areas, including consumer credit and debt and for civil law matters which, if left unresolved, not only impact on individuals but also ultimately lead to ongoing social problems. The government has allocated an additional $34.9 million over four years to Indigenous legal aid services, which will mean that these services will be able to be provided to Indigenous Australians. These services will include duty lawyer services and casework services in a whole range of matters. The services we are providing to Indigenous Australians are not limited to federal matters. In the area of community legal centres we have allocated an additional $26 million over four years to the Commonwealth Community Legal Services Program. The additional funding will be allocated to over 80 centres. It will focus on areas of Commonwealth priority—among which are legal assistance to support areas of family law, including domestic violence—and ensure that people are able to get early and targeted legal advice and information to avoid litigation. The Rudd government is committed to ensuring access to justice for all Australians. I am proud of the Rudd government’s record in this respect. The $154 million in additional funding, along with the $70 million that we have injected into legal assistance programs over the last three years, demonstrates our real commitment to making an accessible justice system. 5684 18:58:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 0 0 Mr KEENAN —It seems that, when time is limited, running through all the questions I want to ask is a process that works. After I have done that, perhaps the Attorney-General and the minister could respond to questions. If they would nod and accept that, it would be great, and we could then proceed on that basis. Question 1: in the 2009-10 budget, it was stated that funding arrangements for the Air Security Officer Program, otherwise known as the air marshal program, would be reviewed in the 2010-11 budget. Can you confirm whether the government has scrapped this program; and, if so, when will it end? If there are plans to continue it, will the Attorney-General or the minister—whichever they prefer—detail the amount of funding? Question 2: as part of the government’s announcement to spend $69 million over the next four years to introduce biometric data checks for Australian visa applications, does the government have any plans to initiate biometric data sharing arrangements with Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Indonesia? Question 3: will the Attorney-General—or, probably more appropriately, the minister—give a breakdown of the government’s 2007 election promise of 500 extra sworn AFP officers? How many have actually been recruited and sworn in; and, since December 2007, how many staff have been made redundant? Question four: will the minister identify what allocations have been made for the purchase of the new Bay class vessels for Customs? We understand an allocation was made in the budget, as it was announced, but we understand that due to ongoing negotiations with the possible tenderers the final costings of the vessels cannot be revealed. However, given the Prime Minister’s intention of bringing the budget back into surplus in 2014, and therefore that no new major budgetary measures could be announced, can the minister identify exactly where in this budget funds have been allocated to cover the cost of these vessels? Question five: with reference to the R18+ classification for computer games public consultation, given that submissions have now closed and the government has received approximately 60,000 submissions, will the Attorney now confirm whether the government will be supporting an R18+ classification for computer games? Question six: with reference to a report in the Australian on 15 June this year, despite only one per cent of border detections occurring at our ports yet resulting in 80 per cent of the cocaine, MDMA and amphetamine-type stimulants coming into Australia, can you explain what is being done to combat the flood of illicit drugs coming through our ports? The final question: with reference to the Western Australian government’s recent moratorium on people smugglers being processed in Western Australia, will the Attorney confirm whether the government will stop using Western Australia as a dumping ground for people smugglers and distribute the burden of detaining these criminals across all states? 5685 19:01:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Home Affairs 1 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —Given that there were about eight questions, I am not sure whether we can get through all of them. There were a few rhetorical ones thrown in—I think, about 12. In relation to the air security officers, they are funded out of the $759 million that funds the Australian Federal Police at our international airports. This is a very significant initiative and, of course, the government are doing everything it can to dedicate resources to our airports. They are areas where terrorists would like to pose threats to the community. Complementing that $759 million, I recently announced the proposed changes to criminal offences that would apply to serious hoaxes made to airports, or to our aircraft, or assaults that may be made to aircraft crew. I hope the opposition supports those proposed amendments. In relation to the security officers themselves—the sky marshals that are flying—the program continues and there has been no cut to the funding. In relation to the numbers that are used, we and indeed the previous government have never disclosed the number of officers. For accountability purposes, I want to make it clear to the House that the reason we do not disclose the number is for security purposes, but I can assure the member for Stirling that we have maintained the program and not cut the funding. E0J Keenan, Michael, MP Mr Keenan —I did not ask for that. 5685 19:03:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 0 Ms SAFFIN —I ask the Attorney-General if he could— E0J Keenan, Michael, MP Mr Keenan interjecting— 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr Brendan O’Connor —Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order. I understand there is an ultimate convention in this place that, whilst you may have foreshadowed the seven questions you have, other members have a right to ask questions of ministers and the Attorney. 10000 Vale, Danna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DS Vale)—Order! The member for Page has the call. HVY Saffin, Janelle, MP Ms SAFFIN —Thank you. I ask the Attorney-General to please turn his mind to issue of serious and organised crime, but before I get him to do that and come to my question there are some comments that I would like to make in this particular area. I was astounded when I found out that organised crime—and it is a significant security threat—is estimated to cost the community more than $15 billion each year. That is an alarming amount of money that it costs us. I would posit that it is even more than that. I also note that in November 2009 the government launched the Commonwealth Organised Crime Strategic Framework. It made sense to have a comprehensive strategic framework to bring a more effective approach to tackling organised crime. As organised crime is just that, it requires an overarching response. The measure forms part of a national response to organised crime that includes the biennial Organised Crime Threat Assessment and Response Plan, and there have been some legislative steps to implement that. Today the Minister for Home Affairs gave a ministerial statement about the Australian Federal Police. It was interesting to hear, because the Australian Federal Police play a large and significant role in responding to and trying to lessen organised crime and serious crime threats in Australia. The government’s five-point plan, which the minister referred to, included a comprehensive federal audit of police capabilities, now known as the Beale audit, which we have all heard about in this place. The audit, authored by Roger Beale and released in December last year, set out a road map for reform to meet modern policing challenges. We know that over the last 30 years, and in particular over the last 10 years, the Australian Federal Police have become quite a different force to the one they were all those years ago. One other comment I would like to make about the Australian Federal Police—and this is something of which the Attorney-General and the Minister for Home Affairs may not be aware—is that when I worked in Timor-Leste in 2006, when the Australian Federal Police were deployed there along with the Australian defence forces, I got the opportunity, probably a rare opportunity, to work very closely with them on the ground, and they are playing more of that role in the region. The role is not specifically to do with serious and organised crime but rather to do with peacekeeping and law and order functions, helping our regional police forces to reorganise and get on their feet. But it also gives them a broader understanding of our region and how to tackle organised crime, because organised and serious crime is not just in Australia; it goes beyond our borders. The AFP in Timor-Leste were led by Steve Lancaster and I worked very closely with him and all the other police from different states and territories in liaison and in assisting them with functions on the ground. One of the best books I have read about organised crime is by Bertil Lintner. It is about organised crime in South-East Asia, which involves Australia, and it has some very significant information and, I would say, lessons for us. My question is to the Attorney-General: what are we doing to combat it? 5686 19:08:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr McCLELLAND —I thank the honourable member for her question and her interest in this matter. Organised crime costs the Australian community in the order of $15 billion a year. It impacts on all Australians. Whether it be crime on the streets from things such as car rebirthing, narcotics on our streets or the distortion of legitimate markets, which impacts upon decent Australian businesses, organised crime has a very significant effect indeed. For that reason, in his national security statement at the end of 2008 the Prime Minister recognised organised crime as a national security priority. Among the measures we have taken is, firstly, the establishment of the Organised Crime Strategic Framework. That was announced last November by me and the Minister for Home Affairs. It is the first of its kind. It allows us to better identify and prioritise the threat that organised crime possesses so that we can best direct our resources to dealing with it. The framework comprises three elements: a routine threat assessment that provides a point in time assessment of crime types and prioritises according to the level of activity in Australia and the potential for harm; the response plan that aligns law enforcement resources according to the priorities identified in the threat assessment; and multiagency approaches to ensure that joint operations between law enforcement agencies will continue on identified priority threats. The framework is in addition to some significant legislative measures that the government has taken earlier this year. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill No. 1 and bill No.2 introduced amendments to strengthen our existing criminal laws, including criminal asset confiscation laws, new criminal offences targeting those involved in organised crime and enhanced police powers to infiltrate organised crime networks. The government is committed to ensuring that there are no safe havens for organised criminal activities in Australia. In terms of measures in this budget, as a key pillar of our domestic framework I recently announced, again with the Minister for Home Affairs, that the government would invest $14.5 million to establish the Criminal Intelligence Fusion Centre in the Australian Crime Commission. This will be a significant new tool to assist Australia’s law enforcement agencies to combat organised crime. The establishment of the Criminal Intelligence Fusion Centre is a key capability identified in the Commonwealth Organised Crime Strategic Framework. The Criminal Intelligence Fusion Centre will enhance the Commonwealth’s ability to link financial intelligence and data with criminal intelligence to identify the highest threat criminal targets. Investigators and analysts from Commonwealth agencies, such as the Australian Taxation Office, Centrelink and the Australian Federal Police will be co-located within the Australian Crime Commission to establish this capability. The Criminal Intelligence Fusion Centre will provide law enforcement agencies with real-time intelligence, optimising their prospects for disruption, laying criminal charges and capturing the proceeds of crime and unexplained wealth. Funding of $24 million over four years will also be provided to AUSTRAC within the Minister for Home Affairs responsibility for new analytical technologies to improve its targeting of serious and organised crime. Following the money trail has been shown to be one of the most effective ways of investigating organised criminal activity. Commencing 2011-12, AUSTRAC will recover for its regulatory activities in accordance with the government’s cost-recovery guidelines, a cost recovery for the regulatory activities, which of course is in the interests of those businesses and industries that are regulated, because the viability of those systems is clearly in their interests. In terms of international cooperation, the attorneys-general of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand and I have met in person twice in the last 12 months, and we have agreed to progress strategies for working together to combat organised crime in recognition of the increasingly borderless nature of organised crime. In fact, in the last month we signed a declaration to combat organised crime, and that provides important framework for our countries to work together to combat organised criminal activity extending beyond our borders. 5687 19:13:00 Wood, Jason, MP E0F La Trobe LP 0 0 Mr WOOD —My first question is probably best suited to the minister. It is in regard to a newspaper article appearing in the Knox Journal on 27 February 2008 on page 13. This is an issue regarding my electorate of La Trobe. It says: For a moment last week the office of Home Affairs Minister Bob Debus— I note it is the current minister’s predecessor— promised the Federal Government would contribute $150,000 for crime cameras in Boronia. But confusion ensued on Monday when Mr Debus’ office said the promise was actually for closed-circuit television system in Berwick— which is also in my electorate. So my question to the minister is: will Boronia or Berwick be getting closed-circuit TV cameras? I will go on to further questions, though. 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr Brendan O’Connor —I have got a couple of other questions, too, Jason, to deal with. We have got a number of other matters on notice that you want me to answer. E0J Keenan, Michael, MP Mr Keenan —You have had an opportunity to deal with those. You answered one and sat down. 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr Brendan O’Connor —Okay, do what you like. E0F Wood, Jason, MP Mr WOOD —I believe I have the call. E0J Keenan, Michael, MP Mr Keenan interjecting— 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr Brendan O’Connor interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The member for La Trobe has the call. If the member for Stirling would like to have a further opportunity there are opportunities after other questions have been asked where he can have another five minutes. E0F Wood, Jason, MP Mr WOOD —I am happy to table that newspaper article too, Minister, if you want to have a look at that. The second question is regarding the Safer Suburbs Plan. Every single grant has gone to either a Labor electorate or a marginal Liberal electorate. The safest Liberal electorate to receive funding was Cowan, with a 1.7 per cent margin. The following four Liberal seats received funding: Bowman received $500,000, with a margin of 64 votes; Swan received $1.4 million, with a margin of 0.1 per cent; Stirling received $1.6 million, with a margin of 1.3 per cent; and Cowan received $2 million, with a margin of 1.7 per cent. The following 12 Labor seats received funding: Robertson received $680,000, with 0.1 per cent margin; Solomon received $2.25 million, with 0.3 per cent margin; Hasluck received $1 million, with a 1.3 per cent margin; Longman received $1 million, with a 3.6 per cent margin; Franklin received $495,000, with a 4.5 per cent margin; Wakefield received $2.725 million, with a 6.6 per cent margin; Lindsay received $300,000, with a 6.8 per cent margin; Macquarie received $70,000, with a seven per cent margin; Makin received $75,000, with a 7.7 per cent margin; Corio received $300,000, with an 8.9 per cent margin; Richmond received $200,000, with an 8.9 per cent margin; and Lingiari received $300,000, with an 11.2 per cent margin. I just want to know what the actual selection process is, apart from favouring Labor or marginal Liberal seats. Is there a selection process? How has it worked out that the Labor seats greatly outnumber the Liberal seats? And how much is left in that funding pool? Just to remind the minister: the first question was about the status of closed circuit TV cameras in Berwick and Boronia, and the second question was about the funding of the Safer Suburbs Plan, which appears to be strongly skewed in favour of government seats or very marginal Liberal seats. 5688 19:17:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Home Affairs 1 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —In response to the first question asked by the member for La Trobe, I am advised that there was no commitment made prior to the election on that matter. I am advised that my ministerial predecessor in the previous government did not make a commitment on lighting. I do understand that the local member, who happens to be the member before me and who asked the question, may well have been lobbying for this initiative. I am sure it is a very important initiative. I have to say that he obviously failed to get that infrastructure in place under the previous government. But I can confirm, given the advice I have received, that there was no decision by this government to provide infrastructure. That is not to say that they are not legitimate claims. E0F Wood, Jason, MP Mr Wood —It’s from your government. 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —What the member for La Trobe is referring to is a newspaper report. I am sure he speaks to that newspaper more often than my predecessor did. All I am saying is that I saw that report prior to the member referring to it today. I have sought an answer as to whether commitments were made by this government on that initiative and the answer is no. My point is that there has been no commitment on that matter but that does not detract from quite possibly legitimate claims about needed infrastructure. I am very happy to look at the issues that the member for La Trobe raises about those communities because I am concerned if his electorate and communities are in any way less safe because of infrastructure that was not put in place by the previous government or because of something that we have yet to commit to. But I can confirm that there was no decision made by my predecessor on those matters. On the second question, I will take on notice the comments he has made about the types of seats that have received funding. I can only say that the Safer Suburbs Plan is a very important program. It brings together the federal government, state police and local municipalities, working very closely with local communities, including Neighbourhood Watch and other organisations, to ensure that we not only reduce crime in our streets but reduce the fear of crime. I am very proud to be associated with this very important initiative. The member for Brisbane is in the chamber, and I want to acknowledge the work he did prior to the last election on that very important initiative. E0F Wood, Jason, MP Mr Wood interjecting— 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —Therefore, it is somewhat ironic that the member for La Trobe, who is in a marginal Liberal seat, is now complaining that Liberal marginal seats are receiving the funding. I am happy to look at the cross-section of seats but, more importantly, I will be looking at the reasons for which the decisions were made and the advice I received from the department to provide that funding. I am sure the member for La Trobe is not suggesting that some of those communities should not be in receipt of this infrastructure. But I am happy to take on notice his concern in relation to the nature of the electorates that have been provided that support. 5689 19:21:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 0 0 Mr KEENAN —Earlier I had the chance to ask a series of questions which the government has refused to even acknowledge. The minister did respond to the first question that I asked, which was about the air marshals program. It seems remarkable to me that two ministers cannot walk into this place and just answer questions on their portfolio areas in the 35 minutes that have been allocated for scrutiny. Surely for ministers of the Crown it is not that difficult to come in here and answer questions for 35 minutes on areas within their portfolio without going through this ludicrous parody of government members getting up and asking dorothy dixer questions and the minister then reading a prepared answer. I know there is a great tradition in this place of subverting any measure of accountability, but quite frankly I think that this process today is a farce. I have seen ministers come in here and just answer questions, without having to get dixers from their own side, because they feel confident addressing areas within their own portfolio. 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr Brendan O’Connor —Do you want to ask a question? Which one do you want me to answer? E0J Keenan, Michael, MP Mr KEENAN —I have actually asked a series of questions which I am happy to repeat for you now. You had the opportunity to answer some questions before but apparently you were not competent enough to be able to do that. So for the minister’s benefit I will repeat those questions. Question 2: as part of the government’s announcement to spend $65 million over the next four years to introduce biometric data checks for Australian visa applications, does the government have any plans to initiate biometric data sharing arrangements with Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Indonesia? Further, I ask: will the minister give a breakdown of the government’s 2007 election promise for 500 extra sworn AFP officers? How many have actually been recruited and sworn in? Since December 2007 how many staff have been made redundant? I also ask the minister—and I will give him his full five minutes to respond to these issues, which I assume a competent minister would actually be able to do—about the budgetary allocation for the Bay class vessels within the budget. Given that the government has said that there are going to be notified expenditure announcements, that would of course change the calculations in relation to the surplus in 2014. Can he direct us to where in the budget the allocation for those vessels is? Question 5, and I think this one is for the Attorney: referring to the public consultation on the R18+ classification for computer games, now that submissions have been closed and 60,000 submissions have been received, will the Attorney confirm whether the government will be supporting an R18+ classification for computer games? Furthermore, I ask, referring to reports in the Australian on 15 June 2010: despite only one per cent of border detections occurring at our ports, yet resulting in 80 per cent of the drug importations coming into Australia, can the minister explain what has been done to combat the flood of illicit drugs coming through our ports? Finally, I ask: given the Western Australian government’s recent announcement that they were not going to house people smugglers in Western Australian prisons, will the minister confirm whether the government will stop using Western Australian prisons or whether they will evenly distribute the burden of detaining people smugglers across all states? He now has five minutes to answer those questions, and I am sure he should have all those facts to hand. 5690 19:25:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Home Affairs 1 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —In relation to the first question asked by the member for Stirling, the Australian government do take our border security seriously. We announced in the budget an investment of $1.2 billion, of which there will be—not $65 million—$69.4 million over four years for the introduction of biometric checks of international passengers in overseas posts. This will strengthen Australia’s capacity to verify the identity of foreign nationals. This is a very important part of our border security efforts, using 21st century technology to protect our borders and make our citizens safe. Of course, the shadow minister should know, firstly, that the matter really should be directed to the minister for immigration—although I am happy to take it. Also, at the time, the immigration minister and the foreign minister said that, for security reasons, they would not speculate or comment on which countries are in or out of the biometric technology. We have made it clear that this technology is needed. We have said that a number of countries will undergo risk assessments in terms of biometric technology, but it would undermine the initiative to disclose publicly those countries. Therefore, I am quite surprised by the comments of the shadow minister suggesting that I should do so. It is an important initiative and it is certainly an important part of the weaponry to protect our borders. In relation to the commitment of 500 new Australian Federal Police officers, I am very proud to say there was a five-point plan clearly enunciating the government’s commitment to enhancing the numbers of sworn officers. We have a commitment and a time line in place. I am happy to inform the member for Stirling that, to enhance the number of sworn officers in our police force, in our first budget we allocated $191 million and, in this year’s budget, we have allocated a further $23 million. As of today, there are 280 extra officers and the Australian Federal Police is already 220 sworn officers ahead of the number in the time line outlined before the election. In relation to redundancies, I am not aware of any significant redundancies and will take this matter on notice. In relation to the Bay class vessels, it is true that there are commercial-in-confidence issues and, for that reason, the precise amount allocated for these vessels is not disclosed. This is a very important enhancement of our capability. The vessels that we are looking to purchase will provide greater capability for our personnel, who, as I think everyone in this chamber would agree, do very dangerous and difficult work in challenging circumstances and to whom we need to give the best assets we possibly can. I am very happy to say that we have taken that into account in the decision. Of course, we cannot go to the precise number, but I can inform the member for Stirling that the amount that is to be allocated in the budget will be in a contingency reserve until after the tender. The tender is about to be announced, and there will be a very rigorous process to ensure that we get value for money. We want to make sure that we spend well and receive the best possible results for Customs and border protection. That is the answer—it is within the budget documents, but it is in a contingency fund. I can refer the shadow minister to the budget but I think he understands why we cannot disclose the actual sum. The classification of R18 video games has been a matter of significance for a significant proportion of our community. Nearly 70,000 people have put forward their view as to whether we should equate a classification level for video games to that which exists for films. This is a complex issue. It was discussed at the last attorneys-general meeting about a month ago and there was an agreement that there will be further discussions. Whilst overwhelmingly the number of those who were asked their opinion indicated that they wanted to see an R18 classification, we said we would look at the weight of the arguments and not just the numbers and we would have to reach agreement with the attorneys-general. (Extension of time granted) We are working very closely with the attorneys of the state governments on this matter. I made very clear that, whilst the overwhelming number of petitioners were in support of the introduction of an R18+ classification rating for video games, we would listen to the weight of the arguments and we would also get evidence from academic studies to really determine the social impact that these games may have. I believe everyone around the table at the attorneys meeting—the Attorney and I and the state attorneys—believe it is an important issue and do not want to be rushed. We have not made a decision and we will be having further discussions with state governments at the meeting following the next meeting. That is our position. I might go to the port security question first. Customs and Border Protection employs an intelligence-led, risk based approach to inspection and examination of air and sea cargo. This was a change. We believed that we needed to make sure that we assessed cargo based on risk and not just assume that each piece of freight was as risky as the next. Customs and Border Protection should be applauded for that approach. In my view that has led to a far more effective approach to detecting illicit drugs coming into our ports. We will continue to work very hard to ensure that we do detect these illicit drugs. In relation to the West Australian government raising concerns about people accused of federal offences, by convention the states where the alleged offences occur have been the place where federal prisoners have been sent. The shadow minister may know that it is a constitutional obligation for state governments to receive federal prisoners, whether it be drug trafficking, people-smuggling or other Commonwealth offences. Federal governments do not house prisoners. We rely upon not only the correctional facilities of the states but also the courts to process these matters. I am, of course, aware of the WA Attorney-General’s concerns about accommodation. There have been decisions made by the agencies of the Commonwealth and state governments to disperse some of those accused of people-smuggling offences to other states, including Queensland. But, as for a moratorium, there is a constitutional obligation for the states to receive federal prisoners. There is no obligation for the federal government to fund those states to house those prisoners, but we do so under the Grants Commission. I am happy to continue to talk with Christian Porter and other attorneys about how we deal with this challenging issue. I am sure that no state government would say to us that that they do not believe we should be tough on people smugglers. I am yet to hear a government suggest that we should be doing anything other than prosecuting people smugglers, because of the consequences that arise because of that trade. We are dealing with the issues and I will continue to talk with state governments so that we can properly process these people who have been accused of Commonwealth offences. As for any moratorium, as I say, there is an obligation on state governments but we are looking now to disperse those accused of breaching Commonwealth laws so that we can share the load. I know the Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department has had those discussions with the Attorney-General of Western Australia only last week. 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! I am informed that this section started late so I will extend the time for five minutes. That will be taken up by the member for La Trobe asking questions. There may be no time to answer. 5692 19:35:00 Wood, Jason, MP E0F La Trobe LP 0 0 Mr WOOD —Mine are pretty straightforward questions regarding the home insulation scheme. How many AFP investigations are underway at the moment? How many AFP officers are on those investigations? Government members interjecting— E0F Wood, Jason, MP Mr WOOD —Do you want me to continue or do you guys want to have a chat? 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will make his contribution. The honourable member for La Trobe has the floor. E0F Wood, Jason, MP Mr WOOD —How many investigations have been referred to the state police? As the Attorney-General, are you aware of state police investigations? How much money has been spent or allocated in the AFP’s budget to investigate matters relating to the home insulation scheme. I know there are two levels. The first level I am looking at is when you have fraudulent installers going to houses. They have defrauded the Commonwealth, for example, when they have said they have met a contract for installing pink batts in a house but in fact they have ripped them in half or supplied very few. At the other level I believe we have had international groups using call centres to make completely bogus claims on properties which do not exist. 5692 19:37:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr McCLELLAND —I will answer in the time available. Obviously, the investigation of criminal matters by the Federal Police is a matter dealt with by the Minister for Home Affairs. Can I say that the government takes any suggestion of fraud of a government service very seriously. I was stopped by a schoolteacher of my daughter, the other day, to point out to me that on a schoolteacher’s income he would not have been able to afford insulation of his home. He has had his first winter quarterly bill and it is considerably lower. E0F Wood, Jason, MP Mr Wood —How is this relevant? JK6 McClelland, Robert, MP Mr McCLELLAND —It is directly relevant because of the consequences of fraud that have ultimately damaged a program. Poor work performance and fraud have damaged a program that would have resulted in many working-class families, who would not otherwise have had access to these resources, having lower power bills in the first quarter of this year. Obviously the second quarter, in winter, will also reflect lower power bills on an ongoing basis. The government takes the issue of fraud very seriously. With respect to other matters, the Australian Federal Police is aware of allegations of fraud and is investigating those. You surely do not expect either me or the minister to have the numbers of officers that have been allocated. In terms of operational matters, you know and I know that those matters are not disclosed. I can tell you that the matters are being investigated by the Federal Police. I am not telling you, because you would not expect me to know, how many officers have been allocated to the purpose. I can tell you that the government takes any allegation of fraud with respect to this program, and indeed any fraudulent access to Commonwealth programs, most seriously. These matters are being investigated by the Australian Federal Police. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Debate (on motion by Dr Jensen) adjourned. 5693 19:40:00 Main Committee adjourned at 7.40 pm