2010-11-23 43 1 1 REPS 0 0 2010-11-23 The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 pm, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers. 3423 Condolences 3423 3423 14:01:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Ms GILLARD —Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I pay tribute to Emeritus Professor Frank Fenner, who died yesterday at the age of 95. Professor Fenner was one of Australia’s greatest scientists and a man of exceptional integrity, modesty and generosity of spirit. During World War II, he helped lead the effort to control malaria in Papua New Guinea, which had been badly affected and which hampered Australia’s war effort. After postwar studies he became a foundation professor at the Australian National University and an original member of the Australian Academy of Science. His finest hour was in helping to oversee the eradication of smallpox, which killed and disfigured millions of people each year. Frank Fenner was a selfless benefactor to scientific causes and in retirement maintained a productive output of books and articles. Until recently, he attended his office at the ANU, his red jumper a familiar sight around Canberra. Professor Fenner showed that Australians are capable of great things. Today we acknowledge his brilliance and his achievements but also the sense of public service that drove him to seek excellence in everything he did. I honour the memory of this remarkable Australian and offer my sincere condolences to his family, friends and colleagues, who today are mourning the passing of a giant. 3423 14:03:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr ABBOTT —I rise to support the remarks of the Prime Minister and to lament the passing of a truly great Australian, in fact he was probably the finest Australian scientist not to have won a Nobel Prize. Many other prizes, though, were deservedly heaped upon him for his work overseeing the smallpox vaccination program—which, as the Prime Minister has just observed, did finally eliminate that dreadful scourge from our world—the development of myxomatosis to help control rabbits in this country and for his antimalarial work in Papua New Guinea. It can be said of Professor Frank Fenner that he brought knowledge from the laboratory and magnificently applied it for the benefit of all mankind. We mourn his death but we celebrate a truly great life. 3423 14:04:00 Questions Without Notice 3423 3423 14:04:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 Mr ABBOTT —My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that electricity prices have risen by 42 per cent since this government took office and I refer the Prime Minister to analysis today from the Energy Supply Association of Australia showing that the government’s mining tax will drive up electricity prices even further. I ask the Prime Minister: how can struggling Australian families trust her to get anything right when her policies will drive up their cost of living? 3423 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. He refers to the minerals resource rent tax. The government is determined to deliver this tax because the Australian economy is in a phase of development where we are seeing huge growth in our resources sector, mining and profiting from assets that, by definition, can be exploited only once. While we are in that stage of this country’s development, it makes absolute sense for Australians to share in the wealth that is generated and for our taxation and national savings settings to be ones that benefit the rest of the economy and help balance growth for the long term. That is why the proceeds of the minerals resource rent tax will be used to cut company taxation generally, to particularly lift the tax burdens off small businesses, to grow our pool of national savings through superannuation, to provide a better retirement income for Australians in their old age and to have a better pool of national savings for our economy to draw on and, of course, to invest in infrastructure. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Higher taxes; the Labor way. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —The member for Sturt is helpfully chanting about higher taxes being the Labor way. Perhaps he should get out a book of economic statistics and remind himself that he was a member of the highest taxing, highest spending government in Australia’s history. When he feels ready to come to the dispatch box and apologise for that, we will be all ears. When we had the highest taxing, highest spending government in the nation’s history, what we were doing was drifting through a phase of Australia’s economic expansion, putting the proceeds of that economic expansion into recurrent expenditure, instead of doing the things that were necessary to drive long-term prosperity. We are determined not to make that mistake again, which is why with the minerals resource rent tax we will have a taxation system that enables Australians to better share in the proceeds that come from the mineral wealth in our ground and better balance economic activity. On the question of electricity prices, I say again to the Leader of the Opposition: he may be content to just sit with his fear campaigns and he may be content to see the next decade being another decade of underinvestment in electricity with all of the consequences for price and undersupply that would have for Australians, but the government is not content to see Australians face that burden. That is why we are dealing with questions of energy security and energy supply in the context of pricing carbon and beyond. Can I say to the member who asked the question: we know that he is long on complaint and short on solution. We are still waiting for him to deliver a policy that counts; and, yet again, here we are as the parliament works its way through the final week and the three-word slogans, the fear campaigns, the negativity and the wrecking continue day after day, after day. 3424 3424 14:08:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 Ms SAFFIN —My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer please update the House on recent developments in the Irish economy and any implications for Australia? Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Page asked a question which was in order. The Deputy Prime Minister has got the call. He will now respond to the question, and the House will remain silent. 3424 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Deputy Prime Minister 1 Mr SWAN —I do thank the member for Page for that very important question, because events in recent days in Ireland do tell us that the world is still living with the impacts of the global financial crisis. After a period of calm, what we do see is renewed volatility in Europe. This is driven by concerns about the Irish banking sector, which continues to feel the impacts of the global financial crisis. The Irish government is dealing with this. It has now asked for assistance from the European Union, and there is a formal process of negotiation going on. Australia does welcome these assistance efforts from the European Union and it does welcome the determination of the Irish government to deal with these questions, because these events absolutely underscore how patchy the global economic recovery is and they particularly underscore how different the position is in this country compared to so many other developed economies around the world. The position here could not have been more different. One of the reasons it is more different in Australia is that the Australian government took decisive action, which was opposed by those across the aisle. If they would have had their way, Australia would have been in recession. But the Labor government got the big economic call right for this country—absolutely right. This has been confirmed by the OECD in their report of last week. I know those opposite do not like to hear it because it underscores the fact that, they are so weak when it comes to the economy, they have no alternative and that, if they would have had their way, Australia would have been in recession. This is what the OECD had to say: ‘The stimulus package was among the most effective in the OECD.’ Opposition members interjecting— 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —They think this is funny because they do not understand the scale of the challenge that Australia faced in the past two years and they do not understand the future. Job recovery and job creation in this economy has been strong—unemployment at 5.4 per cent compared to 13.6 per cent in Ireland. The 650,000 jobs created in Australia in the past year demonstrate the strength of the Australian economy. There is also the fact that we are bringing our budget back to surplus in three years. The Australian economy is performing strongly, and it is performing strongly because of the strong economic management of the Gillard Labor government. It is the strong economic management of this government. We are in a stronger position than just about any other developed economy in the world. That is not accepted by those opposite, but we cannot be complacent about the future. We know this economy requires sound economic management to bring the budget back to surplus, unlike those opposite who had an $11 billion hole in their net savings in the campaign. We are committed to strong economic management. (Time expired) 3425 Distinguished Visitors 3425 14:13:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a delegation from Japan led by His Excellency Mr Seiji Maehara, Minister for Foreign Affairs. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 3425 Questions Without Notice 3425 3425 14:13:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 Mr HOCKEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, in October 2007 you promised the Australian people that you had ‘a set of policies’ to ‘lift the pressure off working families’. Since then, electricity prices are up 42 per cent, water and sewerage prices are up 45 per cent, mortgage interest rates have risen seven times in the past year and power prices are set to rise on the back of not just the new mining tax but also a coming carbon tax. Given all of this, how can the Australian people trust the Prime Minister to finally get it right and ease the cost-of-living pressures on Australian families? (Time expired) 3425 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question, though it always seems to me a little odd that the shadow Treasurer would evidence any interest in the cost of living, given he was the principal spokesperson for slashing wages under Work Choices under the Howard government. I well remember the days when he would walk into this parliament and defend rip-off after rip-off after rip-off as hardworking Australians had their penalty rates ripped off them— 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton interjecting— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Dickson is warned. And the member for Sturt is warned. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —their overtime rates ripped off them and their hours of work changed. He did not care one bit then what it meant for them in meeting their family’s cost of living, what it meant for them in paying their mortgage or rent, what it meant for them in keeping food on the table for their children. So, honestly, I do find it somewhat strange that the shadow Treasurer—having made the journey from the frontbench of the Howard government to being the shadow Treasurer of the opposition—has somehow found out that there are cost-of-living pressures for Australian working families. What is the record of the government and what are our future plans on the cost of living? We abolished Work Choices. That was very important for people’s pay packets and people’s ability to meet their cost-of-living challenges. Then we provided tax cuts three years in a row. So someone on $50,000 a year is paying $1,750 less tax than they were in 2007-08. That is 18 per cent less tax. Then, of course, because of the hard work particularly of the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, we provided a historically large increase in the pension, understanding that people on fixed incomes are often those that bear the principal brunt of the cost of living. We increased the pension by around $115 a fortnight for single pensioners and around $97 a fortnight for pensioner couples. Then we created the education tax refund. Across the long years of the Howard government, no-one ever turned their mind to how to assist families with the costs of getting kids to school. We created the education tax refund to do that, and we will extend it to school uniforms. Then we increased support for child care. When we came to office, the Howard government was providing a rebate of 30 per cent. We lifted it to 50 per cent. We have also provided the Teen Dental Plan, because we know dental bills do press on people. More than 200,000 teenagers have received more than one dental check under the scheme and almost a million have received preventative dental checks in total. But we want to do more and we will. We will increase the family tax rebate for parents of teenage children because we understand teenagers do not reduce costs for families—if anything they increase costs. We are moving to pay the childcare rebate fortnightly. We are providing paid parental leave—something not thought of across the long years of the Howard government other than to be opposed. We understand that Australian families do face cost-of-living pressures. That is why we are providing these measures of relief. I wait to hear just one idea from the opposition—just one idea. They are long on complaints, short on solutions, know everything they are opposed to. They have no ideas for change—not one policy that they can come into this place and put forward as their own. 3426 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 Mr ABBOTT —I have a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. It is designed to elucidate the idea that you do not make a bad situation worse with big new taxes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will not debate his question. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —I ask the Prime Minister: why is she determined to make cost-of-living pressures even worse with two great big new taxes on everything? And why does she want two cost-of-living taxes to be her unhappy Christmas present to struggling Australian families this year? R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: there is a limit to the breach of standing order 100 and that just crossed it. It was clearly just hyperbole and argument from the Leader of the Opposition rather than a supplementary question. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the House would understand that, over many parliaments, both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister of the day have been given a degree of leniency. I just indicate, as I have indicated over the past few weeks, that when we have a question couched in the terms that this one has been couched in it opens the door very wide on direct relevance. 3427 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —I do thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. We know that he is completely bored by economics and that his colleagues who served in government with him thought he was such a hopeless joke that he should not even be tolerated as a deputy leader, let alone a leader of a political party. Now we find that the Leader of the Opposition is so hopeless that he is starting to just make things up—absolutely make things up. He is in this parliament spruiking tax increases. He, of course, has made the whole thing up. The tax increase that working families would have faced before this Christmas, had the election result gone differently and had the Leader of the Opposition become Prime Minister, was his paid parental leave tax on companies which would have flowed through to everyday prices, delivered by the Leader of the Opposition almost immediately after he had pledged to the Australian people that he did not believe in increasing taxes. The person who went to the last election campaign determined to increase tax was the Leader of the Opposition. The person who would have visited a tax increase on Australian working families before Christmas, if he had become Prime Minister, was the Leader of the Opposition. The person who showed that disregard for the circumstances of working families and their cost of living was the Leader of the Opposition. No amount of making up figmentary tax increases from this government, pretending that somehow taxes are being increased and raising fears for families at Christmas time—so no amount of that imagination and delusion from the Leader of the Opposition—is going to change those uncomfortable facts. Then, of course, had the Leader of the Opposition become Prime Minister, we would have seen an $11 billion budget black hole, and the only thing we are yet to determine about that budget black hole is if it is the responsibility of the member for Goldstein, or the responsibility of the shadow Treasurer or the responsibility of the Leader of the Opposition because they all blame each other about where the $11 billion black hole came from—a party that simply cannot add up. Then we have the Leader of the Opposition coming into this place each and every day with his culture of complaint, with his slogans about stopping, ending, wrecking, demolishing. Well, who said these words on 21 September, ‘We are determined to be the party of ideas and of policy innovation’? Believe it or not, it was the Leader of the Opposition. So when you have had an idea let us know, because we have not seen one yet. 3427 3427 14:23:00 Cheeseman, Darren, MP HW7 Corangamite ALP 1 Mr CHEESEMAN —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the current standing of the Australian economy and what action the government is taking to modernise our economy to create opportunities for all Australians? 3427 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for Corangamite for his question. I know that he is concerned about cost-of-living pressures, about jobs, about the economic circumstances of working families and he understands that his constituents need a strong economy whereby they can have a job so that they can prosper. Yesterday in this House I explained the work that had happened in Afghanistan whilst I was at the Lisbon summit. But being at the Lisbon summit also provided me with an opportunity to talk to a number of world leaders including leaders of European countries—and that builds on the opportunities I had at G20 and APEC particularly. When I had those discussions, let me assure you, one of the first things that were said in those discussions was: how has the Australian economy come through the GFC, the global financial crisis, in such strong shape? How is it that you have created 650,000 jobs in circumstances where around the world the world has gone into recession and many economies are struggling with high unemployment rates that look like they will persist, recession and large amounts of budget debt and deficit which will lead to budget cutbacks, putting burdens on the same families who are struggling with unemployment? And they look at the Australian economy and they want to know how we have done it. We did it because as a nation we worked together. Employers played their part, unions played their part and the government played their part by their quick and decisive action to keep our economy growing and particularly to ensure that people had the benefits and the dignity of work. During the global financial crisis we acted to keep people in work, we acted to keep apprenticeships being created, we acted to help those who were made redundant get the best-quality employment services to maximise their ability to get another opportunity. We acted to support families with household assistance, we acted to keep credit flowing so businesses could have the opportunity to keep their businesses going and to have that credit. We acted to protect customers of banks and guarantee their deposits. But all of that work now means that, whilst our economy is coming out of the global financial crisis strong, we cannot sit on our laurels; we need to build the next waves of reform. Not for us the lazy ideas-free path of those opposite, not for us the lazy indulgence of the Howard years whereby the economy grew and the money generated was not invested in long-term growth. We will be investing in long-term growth—in skills, in productivity, in participation, in infrastructure. We have a reform agenda for our taxation system. We need to make sure that these reforms are delivered so that prosperity is sustained for the long term. It takes ideas, it takes policy innovation, it takes method, it takes patience and I would recommend to those opposite trying to exhibit some of those traits in their desperate and relentless search for at least one policy idea. We have not seen any of them yet. 3428 3428 14:27:00 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr MORRISON —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to specific warnings received by the government in February 2008 that closing the Nauru processing centre would add to people smuggling. Given that since February 2008 there have been more than 9,000 illegal arrivals on 190 boats, how can the Prime Minister now be trusted to get other policies right, such as the $43 billion National Broadband Network, when she could not protect our borders? Government members interjecting— DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr Bowen —A nice segue! 3428 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —I think it is because they both start with ‘b’. I think that was the connection that was on the shadow minister’s mind. I say to the shadow minister who has asked the question that, of course, the government does not comment on intelligence matters. But I would say to the opposition the following: they are making big assumptions on one sentence in one document. That is a very big call indeed. I would advise the shadow minister that the document released under FOI and referred to in today’s media was not a detailed analysis on people smuggling, or its causes or Nauru; it was about detention operations on Christmas Island. So now let’s look at the question of Nauru, and I can say to the shadow minister the advice to government in December 2007 was that people smugglers remained very active throughout the region, more displaced Iraqis and Sri Lankan nationals were seeking the services of people smugglers to come to Australia, illegal movements of asylum seekers were being caused by conflicts in Sri Lanka and in the Middle East, and that there is always chatter amongst people smugglers about a range of factors and of course they do deliberately misrepresent the policies of Australian governments—and that is not just our government—in order to induce customers for their evil trade. What I would also say to the shadow minister about Nauru—and I had the opportunity to travel to Nauru when it was in operation as a detention centre—is that what it should have had at the entry to the detention centre was a very big sign saying ‘Camp Detour’. That is what should have been up at the front of the detention centre because the truth is that 96 per cent of the people processed on Nauru and resettled came to Australia or New Zealand—overwhelmingly to Australia. So despite lots of talking tough by the Howard government about the people on the Tampa and the people afterwards, the reality is that offshore processing being done as a one-off by the Howard government meant people were processed and then overwhelmingly came to Australia. We are working on a regional protection framework and regional processing centre which will involve more nations than Australia looking to deal with people who are found to be genuine refugees so that offshore processing is not the simple detour that the shadow minister desires. I would also say that the shadow minister should be very honest with the Australian people. He has moved his slogan from ‘stop the boats’ to ‘lay out the welcome mat for more than 3,000’ with his new statements about the number of asylum seekers the opposition looks forward to welcoming should its policies ever be policies of a government, that is, should the opposition ever be elected. The shadow minister should be honest about that. He should also be honest about the nature of the document in his hand. E3L Morrison, Scott, MP Mr Morrison —In response to the Prime Minister’s invitation, I seek leave to table the document that was requested by the minister’s chief of staff. Leave not granted. 3429 3429 14:32:00 Bandt, Adam, MP M3C Melbourne AG 0 Mr BANDT —My question is to the Prime Minister and it seeks clarity as to the government’s submissions to Fair Work Australia in the equal pay case. Does the government agree that equal pay for these workers should be forthcoming as a matter of overriding principle? Or, will the government argue to Fair Work Australia that its self-imposed budgetary restraints are relevant to ending discrimination, effectively asking already underpaid workers to shoulder an unfair burden in getting the budget back into surplus? 3429 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for Melbourne for his question. It gives me the opportunity to clear up some misapprehensions which I believe have been created in recent newspaper reports. There have been newspaper reports on this matter which are simply wrong. The government entered into an arrangement with the Australian Services Union before the last election on pay equity for workers in the social and community services sector. We were able to enter into that agreement because we had introduced the Fair Work Act to get rid of Work Choices. When we introduced the Fair Work Act to get rid of the Work Choices of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer—which did so much damage to the pay packets of working families, particularly working women—we deliberately chose to make sure that the equal pay principle in the Fair Work Act was a broader principle than had ever been in federal legislation before. That is, it did not simply provide equal pay for equal work but it provided equal pay for work of equal value. It is the existence of that broader principle that has enabled the Australian Services Union to bring the pay equity case which is now before Fair Work Australia. And the government has been very clear. Under our agreement and in the submission that we filed with Fair Work Australia, we support pay equity and we support this case. What we have also done, entirely in accordance with our understandings with the Australian Services Union, is provide Fair Work Australia, the industrial umpire, with the full range of facts. Our heads of agreement and our discussions with the Australian Services Union before the election were certainly about the need for pay equity but they were also about the need for properly and appropriately dealing with the increased costs that governments and the not-for-profit sector would end up sustaining if this case was concluded in favour of the union’s application. In recognition of that, the union agreed that there would be a five-year phase-in period for pay changes flowing from the pay equity case, if that is what Fair Work Australia awarded. So in providing Fair Work Australia with details of the amount of money that this could cost, we are acting in accordance with our agreement, that is, providing information to Fair Work Australia that it needs to have and information that the union in its discussions with us recognised was important. They too were obviously concerned about the cost burden that could potentially flow from the case and that is why the agreement specifically deals with a five-year phase-in period. So there should be no misapprehension about this matter. I support and the government supports pay equity. I always have; I always will. My conduct and the government’s conduct in this matter is entirely consistent with that deeply held belief that I have had all of my adult life, and our conduct in this matter is entirely consistent with the heads of agreement that we entered into with the Australian Services Union. 3430 3430 14:36:00 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 1 Mr MELHAM —My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What is the significance to Australia’s economy of the visit to Australia by Japanese Foreign Minister, Seiji Maehara? 3430 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr RUDD —The honourable member’s question goes to the significance of the Japanese economy to Australia’s future economic wellbeing. From Australia’s point of view, with Japan all the figures are big figures. This is our second-largest trading relationship and our second-largest export market. It delivers to Australia the largest merchandise trade export of any country. Japan is also our third-largest source of foreign direct investment, an accumulated stock of something like $102 billion. There are some 10,000 Japanese students in Australia. There are 650 sister school relationships. And Australia hosts 355,000 Japanese tourists each year. These are big figures for Australia’s economic future. We welcome Japan’s recent expression of interest in joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We also look forward to being able to develop with Japan a comprehensive bilateral free trade agreement in the future to further underpin economic growth. That is why the government has today welcomed the visit to Australia by the Japanese Foreign Minister. The Minister for Trade, Craig Emerson, spent the better part of the morning with Minister Maehara on the details of our FTA negotiations. The minister advises me that these were very good and substantive negotiations. From Australia’s point of view, their successful conclusion is important. The minister will also be calling on the Prime Minister later in the day and I will be continuing my own discussions with him as well. When it comes to the future of the Japanese economy, we have a big interest in the economy of Japan continuing a program of fundamental economic reform. The current government of Japan, of which Minister Maehara is a leading member, has in recent days adopted new and significant reforms to underpin long-term productivity growth in Japan, including a new basic policy on agricultural reform and a new basic FTA policy as well. These are unprecedented and we believe that they point in a very positive direction in terms of this country’s interests in Japan. Beyond the economic, investment and trade relationship, our partnership with Japan also enters into the political and security space. Australia and Japan share a strong commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, arms control and disarmament. Minister Maehara and I have recently formed a cross-regional grouping within the United Nations committed to implementing the recommendations of the nuclear nonproliferation review conference convened earlier this year. Furthermore, this work builds on excellent work done by two former Japanese and Australian foreign ministers, including foreign minister Evans, in the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, which concluded its work at the end of last year. This represents the best available global blueprint on the future of the arms control, disarmament and nonproliferation agendas. Minister Maehara and I have also discussed the recent troubling developments on the Korean Peninsula. Australia and Japan share a profound concern about the new evidence concerning North Korea’s uranium enrichment program. Australia and Japan are continuing to work closely with the United States and the ROK to develop appropriate responses to these latest revelations. Australia and Japan enjoy a close and cooperative relationship. From the point of view of Australia’s long-term security and economic wellbeing and interests, this is a first-class relationship of deep significance. 3431 3431 14:41:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 Mr HUNT —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the 26 unheeded warnings that the government received about the dangers inherent in the Home Insulation Program throughout 2009. The program was eventually linked to at least 207 house fires, potentially four tragedies and nearly a quarter-of-a-million dodgy or dangerous home insulation installations. How can the Prime Minister now be trusted to get other policies right, such as the $43 billion NBN when she could not even safely give away free pink batts? 3431 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the shadow minister for his question. The matter he raises has been the subject of extensive discussion and indeed questions in this place. The answer that I am going to give him is not going to be different to any of my earlier answers on the question. I have acknowledged in this place—indeed, I believe that I acknowledged it on the very first day that I was Prime Minister—that the Home Insulation Program had become a mess and that the government needed to act to address the consequences of that program. And we have. 3432 3432 14:42:00 Mitchell, Rob, MP M3E McEwen ALP 1 Mr MITCHELL —My question is to the Leader of the House in his role as the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. How will the National Broadband Network drive critical productivity improvements? What is the role of House of Representatives committees in communications policy? 3432 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure and Transport 1 Mr ALBANESE —I thank the member for McEwen for his question. As a regional member, he understands how important national broadband will be for driving productivity in regional Australia. The NBN will turbocharge productivity. It will create some 25,000 jobs a year on average. Innovation from ICT is the single biggest driver of business productivity. And the NBN is already being rolled out on time and on budget. Services in Tasmania are being rolled out. More than 60 per cent of the regional fibre-optic infrastructure has been built, spanning more than 3,000 kilometres across the continent. Today I announced that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications will conduct a wide-ranging inquiry on the social and economic benefits of the National Broadband Network. That is as it should be. It will be chaired by Sharon Bird, the member for Cunningham, and ably deputy chaired by the member for Hinkler. This is a committee that has a proud record in this parliament and the previous parliament through its shipping policy inquiry and other inquiries and of working in a bipartisan way to get good outcomes in the national interest. I am sure that will occur in this case as well. It will complement the smart infrastructure inquiry that began in the last parliament. A forum was held here at Parliament House. That forum was addressed by people such as Glen Boreham from IBM. That forum talked about the great benefit of information technology and the revolution that is occurring for business productivity and economic growth. This inquiry will be able to meet in Canberra but will also get out there and research the benefits. But there have been previous inquiries by parliamentary committees of course. My attention has been drawn to the November 2002 report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. It is not surprising there were reports, because those opposite had, of course, 18 separate policies. One of the inputs to those policies, no doubt, was this report of November 2002. In the executive summary, it says: No wireless broadband technology is able to handle the data rates of the best wire-line technologies. Game, set and match. Eight years ago, they knew what the future was; eight years ago, they knew what should be done. I looked at who the chair of the committee was and it was that perennial backbencher of the Howard government, the member for Sturt. The member for Sturt, Christopher Pyne, was the chair of this inquiry—that perennial backbencher sitting up there. They would not let him sit at the front, but they let him chair these inquiries which fed into the 18 failed policies we saw from those opposite. Those of us on this side of the House are going to deliver world’s best practice, 21st-century technology, just like—I am reminded by the foreign minister’s last answer—in Japan. Japan is going to roll out high-speed broadband to every home by March next year. We need to keep up to the mark and not accept second best, and that is exactly what this government’s NBN plan is doing. 3433 3433 14:46:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 Mr PYNE —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the warnings she received about the maladministration of the school hall program from April 2009, warnings she described as ‘nitpicking’. As it subsequently emerged that the school hall program was beset with billions of dollars of waste and mismanagement, why should she now be trusted to get other policies, such as the $43 billion National Broadband Network, right? Why should she be trusted when she could not even manage a school hall program? 3433 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the shadow minister for his question. I do hope the opposition, at some point, comes to the realisation that just because you come in into question time and make things up, that does not make them true. I refer the shadow minister to the various reports and inquiries into the Building the Education Revolution program, many of which he called for. These include the Auditor-General’s report and the work done by Brad Orgill. The contentions and assertions in the shadow minister’s question are simply inaccurate. The best way of actually assessing what the opposition thinks about the Building the Education program is to watch the conduct of local members. You would not want to risk your life and limb by getting between an opposition member and a BER school opening. You would not want to risk your life and limb, particularly when there are scissors and a ribbon involved. It is just too dangerous to try to get between them and their desperate desire to be as closely associated with the program as is humanly possible. It seems a little bit remarkable to me that the member for Goldstein would be shouting out about this matter. I remember many colour shots of him in the safety vest and the hard hat inspecting Building the Education Revolution projects in his electorate. He could not have got closer to them if he tried. FU4 Robb, Andrew, MP Mr Robb —Who is making things up now? 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —He was trying to give his electorate the impression he was constructing them himself; that is how keen he was to be associated with this program. So I say to the shadow minister— FU4 Robb, Andrew, MP Mr Robb —On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask that you request the Prime Minister to retract a blatant untruth. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —As I did yesterday, I remind members that the procedures of the House contain other avenues to seek redress on matters where it is thought necessary. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —In conclusion, I say to the shadow minister who asked this question and who has made up the contentions in the question: perhaps he should talk to some of the members on his backbench who have been, and want to be, associated with Building the Education Revolution projects in their electorate. Perhaps on this matter it would be better to judge the opposition not by its puffed up confections in this parliament but by the actual conduct of its members in their electorates. 3433 3433 14:50:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —My question is to the Treasurer. Why is supporting smaller lenders important for competition in the banking sector? 3433 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the member for Dobell for that very important question, because it is indeed important to support smaller lenders for competition in the banking sector. In the decade and a half before the global financial crisis, the residential mortgage-backed securities market was a key driver of competition in the banking system and a key driver of cheaper rates in the banking system. But, when the global financial crisis hit, it destroyed investor appetite for residential mortgage-backed securities and it destroyed an important source of funding for our smaller lenders. This was despite the fact that RMBS in Australia were quite safe; they were a good investment. But the market was simply destroyed. It therefore became very important for the government to take action to support the smaller lenders and, particularly, to give them a hand to make sure that they were still competitive in the face of this destruction and carnage going on in global financial markets. That is why the government, first in October 2008 and again in November 2009, made two very substantial investments—up to $16 billion—in residential mortgage-backed securities. The government did this so we could get a source of cheaper funding to these lenders to keep the superstructure of the industry alive. It was very important. Not one single dollar of this investment of $16 billion went to the major banks. Every cent was invested in our regional banks, in our credit unions, in our building societies and in our wholesale funders—small lenders like the Bank of Queensland, Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, Suncorp, ING, Liberty Financial and the Australian Central Credit Union. Of course, this has been acknowledged by a number of the smaller lenders. Just take Mr Dunn from AMP. This is what he has had to say: … there is little doubt that without the government’s support of the RMBS program AMP would not have been able to continue to offer competitive mortgage and deposit products. And so improve the level of competition in banking. Or we could go to another smaller wholesale lender like Liberty. They said: The RMBS purchase program … played a key role in stabilising … securitisation markets. As a result, Liberty Financial has been able to provide much needed competition in the bank-dominated mortgage market … It has not just been about the mortgage market. It has also been about funding for small business. This is what RESIMAC has had to say about this program: It has been vital to committing a continual flow of finance to the small business community. They go on to say: Without such support there would be literally thousands of Australian small business owners who would have been deprived of access to finance. So this government has acted and it has acted to strengthen competition, particularly in these vital sectors. These actions stand in stark contrast to the shallow populism of those opposite. We are interested in the long term. We are passionate about our commitment to a strong and prosperous economy and a strong and competitive banking system to go with it. 3434 Distinguished Visitors 3434 14:54:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon representatives of the First Peoples Disability Network. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 3434 Questions Without Notice 3434 3434 14:54:00 Matheson, Russell, MP M2V Macarthur LP 0 Mr MATHESON —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the fact that the government of Western Australia has now joined with the New South Wales government in ruling out adopting the national curriculum until all of its problems are resolved. Given that the government has been unable to get delivery of the national curriculum right, how can she now be trusted to implement other policies such as the $43 billion National Broadband Network? 3435 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for his question. Unfortunately, the assertions in the question are wrong. Education ministers, including the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, are working through the national curriculum. We have determined to deliver the national curriculum— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —and the shadow Treasurer is bellowing. Of course, he never knew anything about this matter or the time frames for delivery, so I suggest he actually checks some of those time frames. I suggest to him, too, that he reflect on his 12 years of failure, being a member of a government that never did anything profound in school reform but was content to see disadvantaged kids in disadvantaged schools get a subquality education. They could not even be bothered getting a list of the most disadvantaged schools. To the member who has asked the question, the national curriculum is a policy which we are delivering, working with state education ministers. Inevitably, when you are engaged in a national reform of this nature individual states engage in a bit of pushback. States say that their system is the best. We have seen that played out in Australian politics before. I suspect we will see it played out to the end of time, and what that means is that you need fortitude, determination and patient work to deliver these reforms. That is exactly what the government has done and the minister for school education continues to do. We are determined to deliver the national curriculum because we want every child in every school to study a great quality curriculum and we particularly want to make a difference for those around 80,000 children who change school systems each year in the sense that they move interstate. It is hard enough to move interstate, hard enough to get used to a new school without walking into a classroom and not even recognising the curriculum. There are great efficiency benefits, too, as we move to a national curriculum. I have remarked before that we probably have more curriculum agencies and curriculum writers per head of population than any other nation on earth. It obviously makes sense to have a national curriculum, which means then that tools to teach the national curriculum and professional development programs can be shared. I also say to the member who asked the question that I am always in the market for listening to good ideas about education. If the opposition ever has one, feel free to give me a call, but I can confidently say that from 2007 to 2010 we did not see one from the opposition, and we certainly have not seen one since the election. 3435 3435 14:58:00 Lyons, Geoff, MP M38 Bass ALP 1 Mr LYONS —My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism. Will the minister update the House on the progress of energy market reform and how this is contributing to Australia’s productivity performance? 3435 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism 1 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I thank the member for Bass for his question, as he appreciates that energy reform has been regarded since the eighties as a key aspect of microeconomic reform in Australia. It has been about productivity and strengthening the overall performance of the Australian economy, because we all understand that an efficient and reliable energy sector is the cornerstone of productive activity in Australia. In that context I also remind the House that historically there has been a bipartisan approach to energy market reform. That is because our energy sector has been central to our capacity to attract investment. It also guarantees our ability to employ Australians. We are all very pleased with the level of unemployment in Australia at the moment, which is just over five per cent, and it is the envy of the OECD world. That is the view not just of the Australian community; I am also pleased to say it is reflected in a recent commentary from the International Energy Agency, which said in addressing the Australian energy market that Australia has ‘one of the most transparent and competitive electricity markets in the world and could well serve as a model for other countries’. The reason for that is that since we started this process of reform in the 1980s and 1990s the reform process has not only delivered for Australia lower energy costs for industry and households but also added $6 billion to Australia’s GDP. The reform has been driven by the Ministerial Council on Energy, with the support of the private sector. From time to time we focus on key deliverables which are about strengthening microeconomic reform and the performance of our energy market. A recent achievement is the agreement by the Ministerial Council on Energy to establish a long sought after framework for the retail supply of energy going to both gas and electricity. The use of gas is going to grow in Australia and the need for a national gas market is central to moving to a low-emission economy in the future. We then go to energy consumer framework considerations. Legislation is currently before the South Australian parliament to deliver this key deliverable. This will enhance productivity by allowing companies operating in multiple states to operate on one platform to ensure that different customer systems operating across different states have a key opportunity to move to a uniform approach. We have also been working on the movement of workers across state and territory boundaries. That is very important in emergency situations such as bushfires or floods. Historically this movement has been very difficult because of the different regulatory requirements. We are making good progress with those outcomes. The Energy Efficiency Opportunities program is also central to energy market reform. To the end of 2009 this program had identified savings equivalent to 2.9 per cent of Australia’s energy use. That reduces the need to invest in new generational capacity. Productivity is about ongoing reform and energy is a prime example. I only wish the coalition would front up to the debate on a price on carbon because that is just as important for energy security and market reform. 3436 3436 15:02:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer her to the secret review of the NBN business case, the very commissioning of which suggests the government lacks confidence in the economics of its $43 billion project. Given the unhappy consequences of the government’s ignoring so many warnings concerning its policies on home insulation, school halls and border protection, why is she so determined to drive the NBN legislation through the parliament this week without having read or released the review of the business case let alone the business case itself? 3436 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for Wentworth for his question. I was momentarily distracted by Right here in Goldstein. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will come to the question. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Having had the opportunity to study that yet again at length, let me respond to the shadow minister’s question—there is a bit of a theme here—by pointing out the amazing hypocrisy of it. That would be the theme of the day. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will lower that prop. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Of course the amazing hypocrisy of the shadow minister’s question is that he has been carrying on in this parliament day after day suggesting that the government was not doing enough due diligence on the NBN and now he is in here today criticising me for doing too much due diligence on the NBN. I know that most members of the opposition change their convictions as frequently as they change their ties about everything other than Work Choices, but this has to be a land speed record. Between yesterday and today the approach and the analysis of the opposition has flipped 180 degrees. To the shadow minister I would say this: he might wake up every morning asking himself what he believes in on that day, but here on the government benches we know, and here on the government benches we are pursuing a long-term vision. In pursuing that long-term vision, we are engaged in patient and methodical work to bring that vision to life. In bringing that vision to life for the National Broadband Network, just like with major projects in the past we have engaged an independent expert firm to provide the government with some advice—just like was done in the various privatisation stages of Telstra, just like has been done by the NBN Co. board itself. It has engaged Goldman Sachs to provide advice. I do not know whether the member for Wentworth in his next question is going to suggest that engaging Goldman Sachs to provide advice is an inappropriate move, but I would find it quite odd if he did. So, as to the shadow minister’s question, yes we are ensuring through patient work, through careful work, that we do have a further stream of advice—and that is entirely appropriate. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —Mr Speaker, for the information of the House I seek leave to tender the contract between the department of finance and the consultant. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Leave is not granted. 3437 3437 15:06:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 Ms HALL —My question is directed to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. How is the government planning to ensure Australians have adequate retirement savings, and how have these plans been received? 3437 Shorten, Bill, MP 00ATG Maribyrnong ALP Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation 1 Mr SHORTEN —I am pleased to report that the Gillard Labor government has an optimistic vision and a realistic plan to increase retirement savings through real reform. Of course, the House understands what real reform is: the minerals resource rent tax. That tax will allow the real reform of lowering the corporate tax rate. Under a Labor government we will put a two in front of the corporate tax rate in Australia—something unimaginable under the coalition. This tax will not only ensure a better deal for small and big business but also, most importantly, ensure adequate retirement for millions of Australians. This country needs to move the superannuation guarantee from nine to 12 per cent. We are a great country and one of the gifts of the 20th century bestowed by the generations who came before us is the gift of longer life, which will mean four and a half thousand centenarians by next year. Opposition members interjecting— 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr Murphy —Give young Bill a go! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister will resume his seat. The member for Reid’s sentiments may be correct but he should not be interjecting either. The minister has the call. The House should remain silent. 00ATG Shorten, Bill, MP Mr SHORTEN —As I was saying, one of the gifts of the 20th century to the 21st century is that Australians are living longer than ever before. Opposition members interjecting— 00ATG Shorten, Bill, MP Mr SHORTEN —The coalition would know that. We have tree changes and sea changes. We have grey nomads. We have the frontbench of the coalition. But in order for this country to gain the benefits of longer life we need to make sure that our Australian citizens are not retiring into poverty when they finish work. 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Moncrieff is warned. L6B Fletcher, Paul, MP Mr Fletcher interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Bradfield will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a). The member for Bradfield then left the chamber. 00ATG Shorten, Bill, MP Mr SHORTEN —All of the baby boomers of Australia will start to turn 65 from next year. There are four and a half million baby boomers and it is important that they do not retire into poverty. So we have a plan to increase people’s superannuation from nine to 12 per cent. It is because of Labor that we have $1.2 trillion in retirement income available today and we have a superannuation system in Australia. Indeed, these proposals have been well received not only by senior Australians, Choice and the trade union movement but also by the Financial Services Council of Australia. I will inform you of the views of the CEO of the Financial Services Council of Australia: The research shows the longer we delay the move to 12 per cent superannuation, the greater the cost for working Australians. Mr Speaker, you are probably aware that the CEO of the Financial Services Council of Australia is none other than John Brogden, the former Liberal leader in New South Wales. He gets it. The people get it. We understand that we need to move from nine to 12 per cent. Labor has a plan for our superannuation. I invite the coalition: it is not too late to come on board. You should get behind increasing superannuation from nine to 12 per cent and doing something for the retirement incomes of all Australians, just as the Gillard Labor government is doing. 3438 3438 15:11:00 Andrews, Karen, MP 230886 McPherson LP 0 Mrs ANDREWS —My question is to the Treasurer. Given that the Treasurer is the person who will sign the $43 billion cheque to introduce the National Broadband Network, can he tell the House why he has not even bothered to read the National Broadband Network business case? 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —Peter Dutton set you up on that question. 3438 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —Was that a Dutton special? 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —Yes, that is right. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —I think I said on radio this morning that I have had my head in the middle of the NBN for the past three years. This government has done all of the due diligence that would be required of a great nation-building project. Those opposite are so bereft of economic vision or any alternative policy that they can do nothing but come into this House and deride a great nation building project which will do good things for the thousands of small businesses on the Gold Coast, in North Queensland and in Far North Queensland. We have put forward a comprehensive program and we have put forward comprehensive analyses. We have had an expert committee, we have had a study by McKinsey and KPMG, and now we have the business case. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —You have not read it! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for North Sydney is warned. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —We are developing that business case and we are working with the ACCC. But all that those opposite can do, because they are so short sighted, bitter and intent on demolishing the NBN, is carry on with their negative approach. The people of Australia want more than that from an opposition. They want a government that will address the long-term challenges and this government is addressing those challenges. LKU O’Dwyer, Kelly, MP Ms O’Dwyer interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Higgins is warned. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —We will do all of the work and all of the due diligence that is required to make this a fantastic success for Australia. 3439 3439 15:13:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 1 Mr GEORGANAS —My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. What is the government doing to maintain the sustainability of the PBS and what has been the response to these reforms? 3439 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms ROXON —I thank the member for Hindmarsh for his question. He represents one of the oldest electorates in the country, so he would be acutely aware of any changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the impact those changes might have on patients, particularly pensioners. The good news for the member for Hindmarsh, the parliament and the community is that, thanks to the support of the Independents and the Greens, in both the House and the Senate, the government’s PBS reforms have been passed by this parliament. What that means is that the price taxpayers pay to pharmacies will now more accurately reflect the market price instead of the current listed price, which is often much higher. This sounds technical but it is a very, very important measure. It means that we will save nearly $2 billion worth of expenditure and that means we will be able to invest in new drugs when they become available and need to be listed on the PBS. It means we can invest in training more doctors and nurses that are needed in our health system and, most importantly, it is an important fiscal reform in that the government is actually using the market price rather than an arbitrary price to benefit consumers. I was asked by the member for Hindmarsh whether there has been any response to these reforms. I think it is important for the House to be aware that—despite the support from Medicines Australia, the Consumer Health Forum, pensioner organisations and the Greens and the Independents—two voices in the community opposed these reforms. One of those voices, not surprisingly, has been the Liberal Party, who argued that we should not go ahead with these reforms, that we should look at other proposals being put forward and that we should find other ways of making these savings. Interestingly, the second voice has been the Generic Medicines Industry Association. The Liberal Party, particularly the member for Dickson and the Leader of the Opposition, said we should go back and look closely at their proposals. We have done that. We have looked at their proposals. The reason we did not accept those proposals is that they were going to require pensioners to pay an extra $5 per script for their medications. I can tell you what: this government did not increase the age pension so that the member for Dickson and the Leader of the Opposition could put their hands into pensioners’ pockets and take the money back via increased prices for medicines. We were not going to allow that to happen, and the Liberal Party stand condemned for opposing sensible reforms that give the benefit of market competition to the taxpayers and allow us to protect consumers and invest more in health reform. 3440 3440 15:16:00 Roy, Wyatt, MP M2X Longman LP 0 WYATT ROY —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. I refer the minister to the fact that we now know that neither the Prime Minister nor the Treasurer have read the National Broadband Network business case. As the minister responsible for the NBN in this House, has he read the National Broadband Network business case and, if not, does he know any ministers who have? 3440 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure and Transport 1 Mr ALBANESE —I thank the member for his first question in this parliament. The premise of his question is wrong; we know nothing of the sort. We know none of the assumptions that he asserts in his question. As the Leader of the House, I would advise him and all members opposite to be very wary of asking questions that the Manager of Opposition Business does not have the ticker to ask himself. 3440 3440 15:18:00 Parke, Melissa, MP HWR Fremantle ALP 1 Ms PARKE —My question is to the Minister for Trade. What is the government doing to improve our exporters’ access to key markets and why is this important? 3440 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP Minister for Trade 1 Dr EMERSON —I have just been checking, Mr Speaker, that we have the new paradigm of peace, light and sweetness. I thank the member for Fremantle for her question. Australia has always been a great trading nation. It is a great trading nation now and will always be a great trading nation. It is terrific to receive a question from the member for Fremantle, who is a member of parliament from a great trading state. Western Australia, along with Queensland and other states, have been enormous beneficiaries of trade liberalising policies overwhelmingly implemented by previous Labor governments. The House might remember that the Whitlam government provided the first reductions in tariffs with the 25 per cent across-the-board tariff reduction. Then it was the Hawke and Keating governments that refashioned the Australian economy from an inward looking economy—inefficient, with very high protective barriers that supplied a narrow domestic market—to an outward looking economy engaged with the world. It has been estimated that the refashioning of the Australian economy by previous Labor governments generated $3,900 worth of increased income for the average household in Australia. There have been great gains from trade. I am following in the footsteps of the former Minister for Trade, the member for Hotham. I know that he applied great energy to his task. If I can replicate that energy then we are in for a very good future over the next couple of years in terms to trade liberalisation. I thank the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs for their efforts in inviting to Australia, Seiji Maehara, Japan’s Minister for Foreign Affairs—who also has responsibility for trade. Just recently, Japan released a very important document, its comprehensive economic partnership agreement, whereby the Japanese government, very sensibly and with great foresight, outline a new approach to trade liberalisation which will involve domestic reform of agriculture in that country. We were pleased to host Minister Maehara for lunch today. We encourage, very strongly, the minister and Prime Minister Kan’s government in their efforts to open up the Japanese economy, including their agricultural industries, to more foreign trade. These are very encouraging times in terms of our increased investment and engagement with Japan. I want to make sure that the minister and the Japanese government know that we are right behind them in these reforms because they are also embracing the sort of trade liberalisation that Labor governments in this country adopted. All power, all strength to the Kan government for making these important decisions. We have agreed to re-energise the FTA negotiations with the next round in January. I am glad to get a little bit of support from the opposition. We will take any support we can get because they have done nothing but be negative for the last couple of weeks—in fact, since the election. Negative three-word slogans are no substitute for trade policy reform and economic policy reform. That is why we welcome the visit of Minister Maehara today. It has been a great day, and I am sure we are going to do a lot more good work this afternoon when he meets the Prime Minister. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 3441 Questions to the Speaker 3441 3441 15:22:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 Mr PYNE —Mr Speaker, part of the agreement I signed with the government and the Independents about the management of the House for which you are responsible was that there would be 20 questions or questions until 3.30 pm. We have not got to 20 questions today and it is not 3.30 pm, so I wonder why the government would not be keeping to the agreement and I would ask you, as Speaker, to recognise the member for Barker so he can ask his question before half past three. 3441 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister has asked that questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 3441 Personal Explanations 3441 15:23:00 Secker, Patrick, MP 848 Barker LP 0 0 Mr SECKER —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the member claim to have been misrepresented? 848 Secker, Patrick, MP Mr SECKER —Most grievously, Mr Speaker. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I call the member for Barker. 848 Secker, Patrick, MP Mr SECKER —In the Portland Observer issue of 22 November, journalist Bill Meldrum says that I have abandoned the Green Triangle Region Freight Action Plan. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the previous member for Wannon, David Hawker, and I were responsible for getting the funding for the study of the Green Triangle Region Freight Action Plan under the Howard government. Secondly, the article said that Mr Grant King had said several phone calls had been made to my office but none returned. Not only were no calls made to my office by Mr Grant King; he has actually denied making any phone calls to my office and he has also denied making this comment. For the first time in my 12 years in parliament I intend to take up these lies with an official complaint to the Press Council. 3441 Documents Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 15:24:00 —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: Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts—House of Representatives Standing Committee—Managing our coastal zone in a changing environment: The time to act is now—Government response. Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984—Report for 2009-10 Debate (on motion by Mr Hartsuyker) adjourned. 3442 Committees 3442 3442 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that the Senate agrees with the resolution relating to a Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office and, in accordance with that resolution, appoints Senators Cameron and Faulkner to be members of the committee. 3442 3442 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip and Chief Opposition Whip nominating members to be members of the Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office. Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 15:25:00 —by leave—I move: That Ms A. E. Burke, Mr Champion, Mrs D’Ath, Mr Pyne, Ms O’Dwyer, and Mr Oakeshott be appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office. Question agreed to. 3442 Bills R4431 3442 Bills R4460 3442 Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request. 3442 Motions 3442 15:27:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Leader of the House 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —by leave—I move: That: the Privileges and Members’ Interests Committee (the Committee): develop a draft Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament; and report back to the House by the end of the Autumn 2011 sittings; in considering the matters in paragraph 1 above, the Committee give consideration to: the operation of codes of conduct in other parliaments; who could make a complaint in relation to breaches of a code and how those complaints might be considered; the role of the proposed Parliamentary Integrity Commissioner in upholding a code; and how a code might be enforced and what sanctions could be available to the Parliament; and the Committee consult with the equivalent committee in the Senate on the text of a Code of Conduct with the aim of developing a uniform code, together with uniform processes for its implementation for Members and Senators. I am pleased to move this motion today. It seeks to initiate a process which will lead to the implementation of one of the commitments contained in the government’s agreements with the Independents and reflected in the agreements with the Greens. All these agreements make reference to the establishment of a parliamentary code of conduct. We have consulted with the parties to those agreements and with the Presiding Officers on the most appropriate way to move this initiative forward. This motion reflects the outcome of those consultations. It is proposed that the Privileges and Members’ Interests Committee develop a draft code of conduct in consultation with the equivalent committee in the Senate with the aim of developing a uniform code of conduct for members and senators. It is the government’s hope and expectation that the work of these committees and the eventual adoption by parliament of a code of conduct for members and senators will make a positive contribution to parliamentary standards and the standing of parliament in the general community. I commend the resolution to the House and thank the Manager of Opposition Business for his cooperation. Question agreed to. 3443 Matters of Public Importance 3443 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Cook proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to take real action to address the historic level of irregular maritime arrivals to Australia. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 3443 15:28:00 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 0 Mr MORRISON —This is a government that has lost its way again. As long as Labor has lost its way on border protection, the people smugglers will continue to find their way to Australia—and they do, in ever-increasing numbers: 9,188 people have arrived in 190 boats. It is clear that the people smugglers will continue to make hay while the Gillard sun of failed policy continues to shine on their activities. This year we have had an all-time record of 122 boats and counting—double last year’s number—and this continues to fill the Gillard government’s trophy cabinet of policy failures: most boats in a month, most boats in a financial year, most boats in a calendar year. But that is not all. Beyond that there is the record of budget deficits and debt and the record of the pink batts fiasco and the record house fires that resulted from that. There is GroceryWatch, which the minister would be familiar with, Fuelwatch, which he would also be familiar with, and the school hall rip-offs and rorts. But I suspect that the trophy cabinet is not full yet because there is one big one yet to come, and that is the $43 billion NBN, which will make a strong challenge soon to enter that trophy cabinet of policy failures. Contrast Labor’s failed record on border protection over the last three years of 190 boats with just 10 boats in six years under the last coalition government. Fewer than 250 people came during that time, after the full suite of measures were introduced. That is less than half the number of people that now normally turn up in a regular month under this government. It is worth noting that, between 2002 and 2007, the average number of asylum applications received in industrialised countries was just over 410,000. It peaked in that period, in 2002, at 609,000. That was the year that we had zero boat arrivals in this country. Last year there were just under 365,000 asylum applications. I think that puts paid to the government’s claims about soaring levels of push factors, because what is clear in this debate is that it is the government’s policy failures that are in error in this issue. Where did it all go wrong? We got a very good indication of that this morning when we read in the Herald Sun that Ben Packham—after 18 months of a long wait, I note—was finally able to get the return on his freedom of information application. There is only one paragraph in the section that I have here but there are plenty of other blank pages that I noticed and that I cannot really read because they have all been taken out. One point that was made in this section makes it very clear. It says: … a range of risk mitigation strategies— This is what was said on 25 February 2008, just weeks after the government took up the Treasury benches opposite. The department said: … a range of risk mitigation strategies have prevented significant boat arrivals in recent years, That was the advice of the department to the government after they took office. In other words, the system was working. In addition to that, it said: … current intelligence on issues including the closure of Nauru suggest the possibility of increased people smuggling efforts. This was a clear warning that their early decision to close Nauru had sent a message to people smugglers and that, even more significantly, there were further risks that lay ahead. Instead of seeking to shore up our border protection regime, having heard this advice in the face of these threats, this government did the opposite. They followed through with the closure of Nauru. They abolished temporary protection visas. They gave people smugglers back a product to sell. The policy of turning boats back, promised by this government prior to 2007, they reversed and the long-held universal offshore processing regime soon became a thing of the past. Like the homeowner being told by the police that there was a burglar about, what this government did was the policy equivalent of opening the windows, leaving the back door unlocked and leaving the house unattended. That is what they did in policy terms when they received this advice. This is a government that knowingly and willingly dismantled a successful policy regime it inherited from the coalition. They had the issue under control and, in the face of advice that risks were increasing, they chose to touch it and fiddle around with it. As with so many issues, everything this government touches turns to mush. Three years ago today you could count the number of people in the immigration detention network who had arrived in this country illegally by boat literally on fewer than the fingers on one hand. There were four. One, two, three, four—that is all. Three years later, we have in our detention network more than 5,100 people who have arrived in this country illegally by boat. If that does not wake this government up to its policy failures, then, frankly, I have no idea what will. There is no sign of a return from their slumber. This is another record the government has set, with the blow-out in the population of our detention network. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship claimed today, in his defence of the increasingly indefensible in his portfolio, that the success of the coalition policies cannot be borne out by analysis of the documents released today. If the minister is struggling with his comprehension, let me remind him of the words of his own leader in terms of the success of the Howard government policies versus those of his own: another boat arrival, another policy failure. That means 190 policy failures under his government: 36 since the election and 28 on his own watch. Part of the problem, I think, is that Labor is unclear as to what the job of the minister for immigration is when it comes to illegal boat arrivals. The minister’s predecessor, Senator Chris Evans, when he thought he was in a club at the University of New South Wales, speaking to academics, said: ‘My biggest failure as minister for immigration is not that I reversed a system that was working. It was not that I had allowed so many boats to arrive through my own failed decisions as a minister.’ His great failing was that he had failed to control the debate. That is what it is to this government. It is all about the talk; it is all about the spin; it is all about controlling the debate. The new minister, who I understand was speaking in one of his local papers, thought that his job was to elevate the debate. The job of the minister for immigration is not to stop the boats; it is to elevate the debate. My tip for the minister for immigration—passed on to me by the Leader of the Opposition—is that the job of the minister for immigration, when you have such an unprecedented crisis of this nature, is to stop the boats. We are not auditioning here to be talk show hosts. We can leave that to Tony Jones. We are here to develop and implement policies that protect the integrity of our immigration program, and that means implementing policies that stop the boats. The government’s answer has been repeated failure. We have had the Oceanic Viking debacle, the discriminatory asylum freeze and the never, never solution for East Timor, and who can forget the Sea Patrol audition by ‘Commander’ Bradbury and the Prime Minister in Darwin. That has been the response of this government. The other response has been to simply open more beds. Something else this government can put in its trophy cabinet is that it has set the record in net terms for opening more beds in detention centres than in public hospitals. Maybe the Prime Minister should make Minister Bowen the minister for health. He could open ‘Bed Watch’ or something like that. Since the government were elected three years ago, they have announced the opening of an additional 6,000 places in our detention network, more than 3,000 of these onshore since the election, contrary to what they led the Australian people to believe during the election. During the election, the government held out regional processing centres as their only policy to address the unprecedented rate of illegal boat arrivals. Even ‘Citizen Richo’, as he was described in this place, has described this proposal as ‘increasingly ridiculous’. Those in the region have been even more acute in their observations because they have described it as ‘an asylum magnet’. The Prime Minister of East Timor is still waiting for a proposal after almost five months since this thought-bubble bubbled to the surface. The Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship envisaged that this centre would accommodate 2,000 people. The Prime Minister cannot tell us that; we have to get that information from the secretary—the only person who seems to have thought about these issues. What we learn from this is that, since the thought was first bubbled by the Prime Minister, 2,424 people have arrived illegally by boat in Australia. So the government had better get a wriggle on because the capacity of this centre has already been exceeded by those who have arrived while the Prime Minister continues to think about her idea and not actually put one in place. There is no timetable; there is no budget—nothing is budgeted for this in MYEFO; there is no plan; there is no support for the proposal; and, as a result, the Prime Minister should frankly end the charade of this ‘increasingly ridiculous’ proposal, as described by the good ‘Citizen Richo’. The costs of these failed policies are significant in both economic and human terms. Our detention centres continue to breach capacity. There are around 3,000 people on Christmas Island in facilities that can cope with a maximum of 2,500 and that were originally built for just 800 people. The budget has blown out by more than $1 billion, with annual costs in this output class rising from $111.5 million in 2008-09 to what is more than half a billion dollars this year. The full costs have still not been brought to book by the Treasurer, who claims that next year there will be a 50 per cent reduction in offshore asylum costs for this government. If the Treasurer is going to rely on that assumption for his budget surplus in the years to come, I think he should think again and I think the Australian people should think again. In fact, as Darryl Kerrigan would say: ‘Tell him he’s dreaming.’ Seventy per cent of the people in the network have been there for more than three months, compared to 30 per cent earlier this year. The government’s answer to all of this has been one of repeated failure. We stress that it is about time that the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and the government came up with some real policies to address the deteriorating and rolling crisis in the detention network. Self-harm, protests, riots and brawls are once again regular features of our detention network. This is the inevitable consequence of Labor’s failed policies. This behaviour cannot be condoned, it cannot be rewarded in the assessment process and nor should it intimidate this government into further policy weakness. There is also the denial of a place, which we need to understand as a result of these policy failures, to those who are seeking our Special Humanitarian Program support as offshore applicants. Other speakers will also speak to that matter. The costs of this matter go beyond the financial costs. They go to the integrity of our refugee and humanitarian program as a whole. This is a mess of the government’s own creation. The way out is the same as last time, and that is to have policies that stop the boats. The coalition has a clear and proven policy to stop the boats. We need to reinstate temporary protection visas and deny the people smugglers a product to sell. We need to reopen the Australian taxpayer funded third-country processing centre in Nauru—the closure of which started this fiasco. Unlike East Timor, they are ready, willing and able to go—the government just needs to pick up the phone. We need to demonstrate the government’s resolve by restoring the policy to turn back boats where the circumstances allow. We cannot and should not be intimidated by the threats and actions of people smugglers. We need to tighten the appeal system and use the UNHCR model for a review by a single case officer. This model is practised by them around the world and would end the process of taxpayer funded endless appeals. We need to end Labor’s no-doc entry process for illegal boat arrivals where fewer than one in five has documentation and they are ultimately given the benefit of the doubt. We need to do this by using the powers under the act to provide a presumption against refugee status where it is reasonably believed that those making claims have discarded or destroyed their documentation as recommended by people smugglers. We need to implement a fair dinkum returns policy to ensure those whose asylum claims have failed go back to their home country. These boats have been turning up for two years, if not longer, and we are still waiting on a returns policy of this government that can address those failures. We cannot run a Hotel California policy on asylum seekers here. We cannot run a policy which says that, even when you check out, you never leave—because that is what is happening under the policies of this government. We need to quarantine the integrity of our Special Humanitarian Program by ensuring that the number of visas available to offshore special humanitarian visa applicants are quarantined and are given priority processing. They are the ones who should not be waiting longer because of this government’s failures. We need to give them priority processing over illegal boat arrivals and other onshore applicants who do not face the same risks as those who sit in our detention network. These are real policies. Here is a seven-point plan that this government could pick up today, but instead we are stuck with more beds and more talk. That is where this government has left us. Their only response is more beds and more talk. They have got to stop pretending to be talk show hosts and focus on the debate. They need to focus on stopping the boats. That is the job of this minister who sits opposite me today. That is his job. He needs to take it up as his job and he needs to implement policies that stop the boats. (Time expired) 3447 15:43:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS McMahon ALP Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 1 0 Mr BOWEN —The member for Cook had an opportunity to bring some honesty to this debate on behalf of his party. He had an opportunity to come clean on his policies, but instead we had a reprise of the election campaign—a call for real action. I am more than happy to go through the charade of real action that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister present as their policy. The shadow minister put forward his plan, he called it a seven-point plan today of so-called real action. I am more than happy to go through it, point by point, with the shadow minister, with him having taken the opportunity to raise it in the House. What a charade it is. We have, first, temporary protection visas. The shadow minister is very proud of temporary protection visas. He seems very proud of the fact that the number of people who came to Australia by boat after the introduction of temporary protection visas went up. He points to the fact that the number of boats went down, as if that was a great achievement, but singularly ignores the fact that the number of boats went up. Even more tellingly— E0H Laming, Andrew, MP Mr Laming —So what! DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr BOWEN —‘So what!’ he says. The number of people went up and the member for Bowman, in a brilliant interjection, which must be recorded in Hansard, says, ‘So what!’ A policy was introduced which was designed to reduce the number of people coming to Australia and it increased the number of people coming to Australia. My honourable friend, the genius from Bowman, says, ‘So what!’ What it means is that it was a failed policy and it was failed in more than one respect. The shadow minister takes great delight in lecturing us about encouraging people to come to Australia by boat. He lectures us that domestic policies can encourage people to get on a boat and come to Australia. He would know, because the temporary protection visas encouraged women and children to get on boats and come to Australia. In 1999, 13 per cent of asylum seekers from Afghanistan and Iraq were women and children who arrived by boat and, by 2001, the two years of the protection visas had increased that to 48 per cent. Maybe the member for Bowman would say, ‘So what!’ about that, but he has gone quiet all of a sudden because not even he would say, ‘So what!’, not even the member for Cook would say, ‘So what!’, not even the Leader of the Opposition would say, ‘So what!’ because they would acknowledge—I would think—that it is a bad thing that a policy would encourage women and children to get on a boat. Then we have stage 2 of the real action charade—and this is turning the boats around. I was very encouraged to hear the shadow minister for immigration on radio 5AA recently accept that it was a very limited set of circumstances where you could turn the boats around. E3L Morrison, Scott, MP Mr Morrison interjecting— 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—The member for Cook will contain himself. DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr BOWEN —The member for Cook could have taken the opportunity in his MPI contribution to tell us what those limited circumstances are. I think the Australian people have the right to know what he as the alternative minister thinks those limited circumstances are. The member for Berowra has indicated publicly in the past that we are right when we point out that you cannot turn the boats around. The member for Cook might want to indicate where he is going to turn them around to, given that Indonesia will not accept them. He might want to indicate to the naval personnel in Australia’s north in what circumstances he would ask them to risk lives by turning boats around, risking that they would be sunk. The member for Cook might have taken the opportunity to let our naval personnel know when he would ask them to risk their lives. He still has the opportunity at any time of his choosing, but he has not taken it in this debate. At least we know it is a very limited set of circumstances.  That is a relief. The alternative Prime Minister sitting in Kirribilli on the boat phone would not need to do it very often, because we know that they would say it is a very limited set of circumstances but we do not know what it is. Then we have had the reopening of Nauru—the third stage of the real action charade. We had the shadow minister for immigration in his Jessica Fletcher moment on the doors waving documents, saying he had a smoking gun, he had found the weapon. But he did not repeat different parts of the information released in relation to the same FOI request. He could have quoted this document, which said: … results of the previous government’s policy of excision as part of the suite of broader measures are unclear. Or he could have quoted this one: The vast majority of those who arrived at excise offshore places and who were found to be refugees were settled in Australia and New Zealand. He chose not to quote that. We closed Nauru because it was the right thing to do. The shadow minister lectures us about the length of time that people are in detention. What did we find when we came to office? The average length of stay for people on Nauru was 501 days, a year and a third. And the longest wait in Nauru was five and one-third years, and the member for Cook lectures us about the length of time that people are in detention. It was five and one-third years. E3L Morrison, Scott, MP Mr Morrison interjecting— 0J4 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr Ruddock interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Cook and the member for Berowra will both cease interjecting now. 0J4 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr Ruddock interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Berowra will cease interjecting. DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr BOWEN —I am more than happy for the honourable member for Berowra to keep going, Mr Deputy Speaker. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —But I am not. DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr BOWEN —It is most enlightening, but I respect your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, out of respect for your office. The shadow minister for immigration had the opportunity to be honest about the Nauru policy. He had the opportunity—and he still has it, to be honest—about whether people processed in Nauru did or would have the right of legal appeal to judicial review in Australia. The member for Cook could tell us: has he sought legal advice on whether people processed in Nauru by Australian officials would have the right to appeal? We have seen him slipping and sliding over this, either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the law on appeals from Nauru into Australia. The member for Cook has yet to confirm whether he has received that advice from somebody other than from ‘Lord Brandis of Brisbane’ for a change. That might be nice. But that is part of his charade. E3L Morrison, Scott, MP Mr Morrison interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Cook will cease interjecting. DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr BOWEN —Of course, we have the minor technical issue—the member for Cook says Nauru would be open by now; it is ready and waiting to go—that there is no centre available in Nauru. It has been converted to a school and it has been converted into government offices. E3L Morrison, Scott, MP Mr Morrison —I’ve been there. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Cook. DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr BOWEN —and those other parts have been dismantled. So there is that minor technical issue. E3L Morrison, Scott, MP Mr Morrison interjecting— DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr BOWEN —The member for Cook complains that there is no provision— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I remind the member for Cook that he has been warned. DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr BOWEN —in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook for a regional processing centre. The difference is that we have not said that it would be running this month. There is no provision in the opposition costings for a Nauru processing centre either. They went through the whole election campaign. How much was in the costings? A big fat zero. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The minister will resume his seat. The honourable member for Cook will absent himself from the chamber under the standing orders. The member for Cook then left the chamber. DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr BOWEN —It is a shame to see him go, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I do respect your ruling. Of course, we have had the latest chapter in the real action charade and this one even tops the boat phone for wacky ideas. This is one that has come out from the shadow minister in more recent times, the announcement that the first 3,750 boat arrivals in Australia each year would receive a protection visa and others would presumably go into indefinite and arbitrary detention. This is a masterstroke of a policy! So we create a scramble to be one of the first 3,750 people to get to Australia in that period, and if you happen to be the 3,751st you stay in detention indefinitely on an arbitrary basis and your application will not be processed. Once again the member for Cook has the hide to lecture us about the amount of time that people might spend in detention when his policy is mandatory, arbitrary detention. All of this was put to the House in a motion moved by the member for Cook in recent weeks, that this was the Liberal Party policy and they called on the House to vote for it. The Liberal Party then tried to withdraw that motion in the Selection Committee. I wonder why that could be the case. Perhaps it is because they could not guarantee a unanimous vote on their own policies by their party room. When it did come to a vote, when the Selection Committee had the hide to force them to vote on their own motion, conveniently we found that some members of the opposition were paired so they avoided the embarrassment of having members of their own party vote against their policy, because there are honourable members opposite who know that things like temporary protection visas are a cheap and nasty policy which have no effect. We have the shadow minister say we need a returns policy, and that is one area where the honourable gentleman and I agree; we do need to see people whose asylum claims have failed returned to their country of origin. Recently, as is on the public record, I have been progressing a returns agreement with Afghanistan. In going through this, I asked my department officials, ‘How many people from Afghanistan who arrived in Australia on an unauthorised boat in the years of the Howard government were returned involuntarily to Afghanistan? Over the 12 years how many were returned?’ Zero, not one—and again we find the member for Cook lecturing us about the need for a returns agreement, lecturing us about the need to return people who are not accepted as genuine refugees in Australia. This government has been getting on with the job of progressing that, because we believe in taking those sorts of actions whereas the opposition prefer rhetoric. They prefer rhetoric to action. The Leader of the Opposition loves rhetoric like ‘peaceful invasions’ and ‘armadas’. He loves to stoke the issue but he does not want to stoke the policy response. Real action involves breaking the business model of people smugglers. It means engaging with our regional partners to remove the incentive to move from country to country within the Asia-Pacific. But it escapes the wit of the opposition to think of that. It escaped them for 12 years and it escapes them now because it is all too hard. Instead we see their tired old policies of a bygone era and what we will see is an increasing call for the opposition to come clean and be honest about their policies, not to engage in rhetoric. We saw this again in recent days when the shadow minister was asked this: if the minister for immigration and if the government introduce a package into parliament to deal with the High Court case which opened up judicial appeal for people from offshore areas, what would be your response? He was entitled to say, properly, that they would need to look at it. He was entitled to say they had not yet been briefed by the government, which had not yet reached their position, but they would keep an open mind. That is not what he said. He gave a very clear indication that the Liberal Party would not support it. So it does not matter what the government does in policy terms as the opposition are more interested in scoring points than in coming up with a detailed policy response. We want some honesty from the opposition. We want some honesty from the opposition about Nauru. We want to know about the legal advice they may have received about whether it would open up channels of appeal into Australia. We want to know how much it would cost. We want some honesty about the farce of turning back boats and about when the shadow minister and the alternative Prime Minister would authorise naval personnel putting their lives at risk to turn back boats as part of their policy stunt. We want some honesty about the latest little farce of a policy, about this scramble and this move to indefinite mandatory detention, this latest symbolic farce in the policy development of the opposition. Some honesty about this from the opposition would go a long way. We will engage and we have engaged in an honest public policy discussion about these issues. We have said very clearly that these are issues that we are dealing with. We recognise that 6,170 people claimed asylum in Australia in 2009 and that makes us the 16th in the world and the 21st per capita in relation to asylum claims around the world. That compares to 33,250 in Belgium, 41,980 in Canada, the same number in France, 27,650 in Germany, 17,600 in Italy, 17,230 in Norway, 24,190 in Sweden, 14,490 in Switzerland, 29,840 in the United Kingdom and 49,020 in the United States of America. So these are issues, and we will deal with them in an open and honest way, something the opposition have singularly failed to do. They have their cheap policies and they have their sound grabs but what they do not have is sound policy. Sound policy not sound grabs—that is what we want to see from the opposition and perhaps we might hear it from the shadow minister for border protection as we did not hear it from the shadow minister for immigration. 3451 15:58:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 0 0 Mr KEENAN —I see it is clear that the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship could not even use the 15 minutes that had been allocated to him to defend this government’s failed policy, which is relatively extraordinary I would have thought. But this government is already defined by some very clear characteristics. These characteristics are becoming very obvious to the Australian people. The first characteristic is a complete and utter lack of direction. For a newly elected government it is extraordinary that they have absolutely no agenda. They do not seem to have any idea why they want to be in office. We have a Prime Minister who seems completely incapable of outlining why she sought the prime ministership and, quite frankly, why she still seeks to occupy it. We have never had a re-elected government in this country to be so bereft of new ideas, to be so bereft of anything to do once they have been elected. The second defining characteristic of the Gillard Labor government is a complete lack of courage. This is not a government that runs away at the first whiff of grapeshot; this is a government that does not even have the courage to start the fight in the first place. Remember the things that they outlined as the policies that they would tackle when they got into government. They were going to tackle the greatest moral challenge of our time. They were going to tackle ‘root and branch’ tax reform as outlined to them in the Henry review. The third thing that characterises this government is gross incompetence: the pink batts program—they failed to give away free pink batts; the school halls rip-off; ill-considered spending programs; and dangerous new taxes that were drawn up on the back of an envelope. Finally, the fourth thing that characterises this government is that, as well as having a lack of agenda, a lack of courage and extraordinary incompetence, there is a complete failure to take responsibility. We saw it here today with the minister’s response. The whole point of being a minister is that you make decisions and then you are accountable for them to the Australian public. But ministers in this government never accept the blame for the things that have gone wrong. Nothing is ever their fault. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the situation with the illegal boat arrivals. We heard the minister give the standard response from this government about why it is that our borders are now completely out of control. And that is, it is nothing to do with them; it is all the result of international factors that they cannot control. Clearly that argument has been blown out of the water today. It has already been assaulted by the region as the minister and the Prime Minister wander around selling their half-baked ideas for how they are going to tackle this problem. Everybody in the region, Malaysia and Indonesia, fully understand that and say publicly that the influx of boat arrivals into Australia is completely the result of Australia’s domestic policies. We have had further evidence of that today. Not only does the region understand it; the Australian Public Service understands it. We saw in the FOI documents that were outlined in the Herald Sun that a confidential briefing was provided to this government when they came to office that the closure of the Nauru detention centre was going to result in a big boost for the people-smuggling trade. This document shows clearly that the government knowingly and willingly dismantled the strong border protection regime that they had inherited despite the fact that even their own Public Service was telling them what was going to happen as a result of dismantling that robust policy system. We saw it from the minister—it is not his fault, it is all international factors. No-one from the government has ever outlined what actually changed in the international system when Kevin 07 was elected. Kevin 07. Remember him? What changed in Sri Lanka? The civil war was ongoing when the Labor Party was elected. What changed in Afghanistan? The conflict was ongoing. DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr Bowen interjecting— E0J Keenan, Michael, MP Mr KEENAN —The Afghanistan situation had been going on since 2001. What changed in Iran? What changed in Iraq? Absolutely nothing. The whole point is this: what changed was Australia’s domestic policies. The region knows it, your own public servants know it, and the whole of Australia knows it. If you cannot admit it you are never going to be able to tackle this problem. That is the sad thing about Labor’s response. If they cannot identify that they are the cause of this problem then they certainly cannot do anything to fix the mess that they have created. We have heard also from this minister today about the ongoing comedy that is the regional processing centre for East Timor. Pretending that this is ever going to happen is as unhelpful to this problem as refusing to identify that it is domestic issues that have caused it in the first place. If you pretend that we are going to be able to establish a regional processing centre on East Timor then you cannot look for actual solutions to this problem, such as talking to the government of Nauru, who are willing and able to host this facility if the Labor Party ever asks them to do so. While the government buries its head in the sand and continues this state of denial that we have seen on display again today, people smugglers are more and more emboldened and they send illegal boats at an increasing rate to Australia. We have just seen another grim milestone passed by this government. The rate of illegal boats coming to Australia was double this year what it was last year. If they do not do anything about this problem, if they refuse to acknowledge that they have this problem in the first place, then we are going to continue to see the collapse of our detention capacity. As the minister wanders around looking for new places to put illegal arrivals, we are going to see emboldened people smugglers increasing the rate that they bring people to Australia illegally. This is going to be our fate if the government refuse to take action on what is a clear and present policy problem for Australia. This failure to take action has ramifications for every single Australian. The cost blow-out of $1.1 billion—and that of course is a very conservative estimate—means that this government’s failures on border protection will cost every single Australian $500. There are also significant consequences for individual communities who now have to host the consequences of this failure. Inverbrackie in the Adelaide Hills and Northam—and I would like to say a little bit about that later on if time allows me—are facing the consequences of having to host these facilities. They were clearly and consistently misled by the Labor Party in the lead-up to the election. The Labor Party pretended they actually had a plan to do something to stop the flow of illegal boats and they pretended that they actually had any hope of convincing the East Timorese to host this regional processing centre. While the minister is in the House I want to make reference to an issue that he has not addressed but which I think is very important. Following the overcrowding on Christmas Island and in other detention centres around Australia, there was a riot in November 2001. Some of the people who were involved in that disturbance went through the Western Australian court system in November of this year. What the magistrate had to say when he handed down his judgments on these events was damning on the Labor Party’s administration of the immigration department. He said that the immigration department had effectively sabotaged a police investigation into the incident. Just to refresh the House’s memory, this was an incident that involved differing racial groups housed at Christmas Island in what are incredibly overcrowded facilities—there are 2,800 people in a detention centre that was originally built to house 800 people. These groups set upon each other with weapons. The result was that the immigration department shipped those people to the mainland within 48 hours of that disturbance. That was described by Magistrate Malley as bizarre. He believed that that showed ‘little or no regard as to whether those they were releasing had committed serious or criminal acts’. He further went on to say that the department had in effect assisted these people to evade prosecution and that the department had shown reckless disregard for the significance of these events. The minister has not commented publicly on these things at all. But he will have the opportunity to do so at some stage later on today. It is very important that he does so. The former coalition government faced a similar problem to the problem that is facing this current government: a surge in illegal arrivals. The difference is that we did not bury our heads in the sand. We drafted policy prescriptions that had the effect of driving people smugglers from business. The result after those tough but necessary policy prescriptions were taken was that we had a rate of arrival of three arrivals per year from the year 2002 until the year 2008. Three arrivals per year—a weekend’s work for this government under this minister. We took the tough but necessary decisions that worked to drive the people smugglers from business. This government continues to bury its head in the sand and do nothing to protect Australia’s borders. 3453 16:08:00 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 1 0 Ms BURKE —Often when you are in parliament you do feel as though it is groundhog day. The tragedy of this debate is that it is groundhog day. It is not a tragedy—it is saddening and in some respects sickening—that again the opposition has to demonise human beings to score cheap political points. They talk about illegal boat arrivals. The Parliamentary Library has put out a fact sheet about asylum seekers and refugees. They called it ‘What are the facts?’ Yet again, we are not getting the facts. We are getting hysteria and dog whistling. Listen for the whistle; you can hear it. Are we, in parliament, followers or leaders? Do we follow the public or do we lead them? Should we have debates on the reality of the situation and ask the public to look at things in the light of day and come with us or should we descend into talkback radio farce and go as followers? I say that we should be leaders. The member for Stirling said that we should be leaders. He said that there is a lack of a direction and an agenda. I would say that about the opposition. What is their direction? Where is their agenda? They should talk about that instead of beating up on these people who are seeking asylum on our shores. We have to remember who we are talking about. Let us look at the UN convention definition of a refugee. It reads: … owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. That is who we are talking about. We are not just talking about boats coming here; we are talking about the people in the boats who come here seeking asylum on our shore. Surely we can raise the level of the debate. The member for Cook demonised the current Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and the previous minister for attempting to be leaders in this debate and not just followers. The Parliamentary Library’s fact sheet—which they have had to go and produce to take some of the hysteria out of this debate—says: The magnitude and complexity of the issues arising from the flow of asylum seekers and refugees globally poses huge challenges for the world’s destination countries, including Australia. These countries universally struggle to maintain a balance between controlling national borders and offering protection to millions of displaced people. When the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) was established in 1951, there were approximately 1.5 million refugees internationally. At the end of 2008 there were an estimated 42 million forcibly displaced people worldwide, including 15.2 million refugees, 827 000 asylum seekers and 26 million internally displaced persons (IDPs). It is estimated that there were an additional 25 million people displaced due to natural disasters. …            …            … Australia has a long history of accepting refugees for resettlement and over 700 000 refugees and displaced persons, including thousands during and immediately after World War II, have settled in Australia since 1945. We need to put in perspective the burden that we are accepting. It seems like there is this mass coming to our shores, which is just not the case. Let us talk about the facts, not the hysteria. Let us be leaders, not followers. The number of arrivals to Australia remains low by world standards. The overwhelming majority of asylum seekers still head towards Europe or North America. Worldwide, about 380,000 asylum claims were lodged during 2009. These claims were made in 20 settlement countries. So we have an enormous mass of people, and only 20 countries taking them. The United States was the largest single recipient of asylum claims. It received nearly 50,000. Canada received over 30,000. The European Union received about 250,000 asylum claims in 2009, with France receiving 40,000 and the UK and Germany receiving 30,000. Eight other EU countries received more than 10,000 asylum claims. By way of comparison, Australia received about 6,000 claims. Let us put this into perspective; let us talk about the reality. Let us be leaders, not followers. Let us look at where the majority of these people come from and how they arrive here. They arrive on planes. The majority of these people arrive on planes. We are talking about this nation of our borders being overrun. E0J Keenan, Michael, MP Mr Keenan —Not without a visa or a passport. 83S Burke, Anna, MP Ms BURKE —That is not the case. You can still get on a plane without a valid visa or passport. E0J Keenan, Michael, MP Mr Keenan —No you can’t. 83S Burke, Anna, MP Ms BURKE —You can. The estimates vary. But it is likely that between 96 per cent and 99 per cent of asylum seekers arrive by air originally. The majority of asylum seekers who arrive in Australia arrive by air. Let us be leaders and not followers. Let us talk about the actual facts. Let us not whip up the debate yet again. Why do we keep demonising these individuals? The majority of them under the Howard government and the majority under the Labor government have become or will become Australian citizens. The majority have been found or will be found to be refugees and settle in this country. Does anyone think about the long-term impact that all these debates have on these individuals and how they then settle into our country? Does anyone think about how we then ask them to become model citizens after we have locked them up in Nauru for five years or on Manus Island for seven, while we continually use these debates for cheap political point-scoring? Let us be leaders, not followers. The other thing we need to remember is that the vast majority of asylum seekers never make it to the developed world. The vast majority of asylum seekers are sitting in Pakistan or other Third World countries as we speak. If we are going to talk about dealing with this issue, why are we not talking about it at an international level? That these people seek to come to Australia is not just our issue; it is a worldwide issue; it is a growing issue and we need to deal with it in a respectful manner. We need to stop being hysterical about it. We need to realise that the vast majority of the asylum seeker population will go to developing countries. They will seek asylum in those developing countries, seeking refuge from even worse circumstances—and we want to beat up on the Australian situation instead of talking about what we are doing about the international problem? There is also the notion that somehow there is this backdoor approach—that the asylum seekers are coming through the back door. The majority of these people have no other option but to seek to flee by precarious means. The majority of them do not have papers; they are not legally recognised in their country of origin and cannot just rock up to an Australian embassy. It is not possible for them to just go somewhere in their country and line up and form a queue. This ridiculous notion keeps being propagated by the opposition. The opposition just want to keep talking about how they are going to stop boats and reintroduce TPV’s. As the minister has outlined, neither of these ideas works and neither of them has worked. The member for Berowra, when he was in the chamber before, was screaming, ‘Turn a boat around; turn one around and they will stop.’ They tried that with Tampa—it did not exactly stop the boats, did it? It has not put people off seeking to come to this country by precarious means. We do need to stop people getting into leaky boats. I remember SIEVX. People do not talk about that; they do not talk about the hundreds of people who drowned attempting that risky voyage. We do not want people to get on leaky boats. The opposition keeps propagating this view that it is somehow in Labor’s interests to keep going on about encouraging asylum seekers. Well, we do not want people to risk their lives. We do not want to see people put their lives at risk. That is why TPV’s were so notoriously bad—because they encouraged women and children to put their lives at risk. Again, the minister has outlined this situation. During the period 2005 to 2007, I conducted an inquiry on behalf of the ALP into maritime protection. The then government went on about its great border protection. In fact, the borders were incredibly porous then; there were no controls. We went to community after community in Indigenous areas who were terrified that their livelihoods were being pilfered daily by Indonesian fishermen. There was no consideration about border protection on that issue. Have you gone and looked at the beautiful trochus shells harvested off the coast of WA? The entire harvest of those shells was illegally taken by Indonesians within a short distance of the shore. The Howard government did nothing about that situation; they did nothing to protect our borders against illegal fishermen; they did nothing to protect our borders with respect to gun control. Hopefully, one day the hysteria on the other side—the demonising of people—will end. (Time expired) 3456 16:18:00 Gambaro, Teresa, MP 9K6 Brisbane LP 0 0 Ms GAMBARO —This government has lost control of our national borders and it has turned our national immigration policy into an international humanitarian crisis. The Prime Minister’s fixation with the 24-hour news cycle and short-term political fixes has destroyed whatever humanity was left in the system, since the Rudd government’s fundamental changes to the system saw large and unsustainable numbers of unauthorised arrivals. Prime Minister Gillard used to head media releases, when she was the shadow minister for immigration, with ‘Another boat, another policy failure’. Besides the various aspects of the failure of the Labor Party to maintain our borders which some of my colleagues earlier—the member for Cook and the member for Stirling—outlined, there are other issues of dire importance. Those are the issues of offshore refugees. Offshore applicants for asylum and relocation to Australia are treated like second-class citizens compared to those who come by boat, under Labor’s approach to the special humanitarian program and to aspects of our annual refugee intake. This problem has been caused by the gross increase in the number of illegal boat arrivals which, I might add, only started to become a problem when this government came into power in 2007. The government’s policy on immigration shows that the government does not care about people stuck in overseas detention camps. These people are trying to escape harsh and unjust treatment by following the UNHCR’s legal processes. This government does not care about people living in tent cities in the Sudan, in Ethiopia or in Kenya, or about those who are fleeing religious, economic or social persecution. The government does not care about refugees on the borders of Burma, Iraq, Bhutan or the Congo who have fled for their lives from oppressive regimes and are trying to settle through the UNHCR and who are doing so through the legal processes of the UNHCR. This government does not care. Why? Because these refugees are not one of the 9,000 irregular maritime arrivals or other arrivals to Australia since they watered down the policy in 2008—they are out of sight and out of mind. But the people who are in refugee camps on the edges of war-torn regions of the world and those fleeing persecution through the appropriate legal channels are just as worthy of Australia’s protection as those who have come and will continue to come to Australia illegally by boat. A particular visa that I want to speak about— WF6 Danby, Michael, MP Mr Danby interjecting— 9K6 Gambaro, Teresa, MP Ms GAMBARO —The member opposite is getting very agitated, but he knows full well about subclass 204 visa, known as the ‘women at risk’ category. It is a visa for women and young girls who are at risk and who are of great concern to the UNHCR. Those concerns are well founded, with many of these women and young girls at risk from sexual and physical abuse, victimisation, harassment and human trafficking. A fact that our Prime Minister ought to understand is that there are women around the world who are facing undue persecution and require humanitarian assistance. The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, says that violence against women is the most common but the least punished crime in the world. There are two terrible realisations: first, that women and girls around the world are not receiving the protection they need; and, second, that here in Australia we can do nothing about it because of the historic level of irregular maritime arrivals caused by the Labor government’s failed policies. The increase in the numbers of onshore applicants to be processed has flowed over to negatively impact on our special humanitarian intake and it prevents women suffering starvation, rape and violence in so-called ‘safe’ camps from being able to apply. Under the current circumstances, if all or a majority of the 7,750 humanitarian visas are allocated to onshore applicants or their families, too bad if you try to apply offshore because you will be put in the queue; too bad if you are a young woman being trafficked around the world in the sex trade; too bad if you are suffering persecution because you are a woman and you cannot leave your country; too bad if your life is being threatened and you require urgent resettlement, because this Labor government officially has no control over this country’s immigration policy. ‘If you do not come by boat, then you will not be considered’ is the message that this government is sending to refugees, and that is the message that will only make a bad problem worse. There are genuine refugees who non-government organisations and groups write to me about every day. They are in camps and tent cities, and they deserve to come to Australia. This matter of public importance will ensure that they have the opportunity and the fairness of treatment that they deserve. At the last election the coalition put forward a policy of 1,500 offshore Special Humanitarian Program entrants to be sponsored by church and NGO groups. For example, the Salvation Army, from whom I have received a letter—and I am sure honourable members would have received one recently too—at Hobsons Bay at Altona wrote about this particular issue. They say that Australia has a moral obligation to Australian citizens whose families are being tortured and abused in totalitarian regimes. That is why SHP was designed, with the costs minimised because sponsors are responsible for the cost of travel. Now we have been told that asylum seekers have basically used all of the visas from the SHP pool and only split families will be given a real chance of receiving a visa. The families that we are assisting have put their applications through the correct channels. They have not sought out people smugglers, but now they are told that they do not have a real chance of obtaining a visa. That is what is happening under this government’s failed immigration policy. People offshore are not being treated fairly. There are some who have called for an increase in the SHP quota as a way to rectify the situation. This is a very short-sighted approach. The current level of 13,750 persons has bipartisan support. The approach to raise the quota would result in only stretching resources and having a greater impact on the budget. It would also result in the government, which is already struggling to pay its current debt, having to pay more, and that would be irresponsible. Leading organisations will also have increased numbers to deal with. We have the Red Cross, other non-government organisations and church groups already stretched to capacity being stretched even further. We have some of the best resettlement services in the world. These services provided to SHP recipients currently in Australia will be severely compromised. Humanitarian entrants generally have the highest settlement needs due to their experiences. They also have a great deal of access to many services in this country. They have been traumatised by many experiences overseas which have caused them to leave their country. An increase in demand for these services, as people are calling for, would also result in case coordination, information and referrals being scaled back. It is important that we recognise that there are many applicants offshore who need our services. Our aim is to ensure that individuals arriving here under SHP are given every opportunity to rebuild their lives and to become fully functional members of the Australian community. Among the current humanitarian intake, most entrants have lived in unstable conditions for protracted periods of time and many have also experienced physical violence directed towards themselves or their families. They deserve our support and assistance. I know that the current settlement services are all working well to ensure resettlement and integration because I speak to many groups. I recently attended an event with the Sudanese community in Brisbane. I was privileged to speak to many members of the community and some who have settled here under the Special Humanitarian Program. They spoke of their wonderful, positive experiences in being settled here. They were grateful for the settlement services that they encountered and they pointed out to me that some of the basic support services that they had received on arrival had helped them with technology, life skills, household and workplace appliances and the many values and practices of the Australian way of life. Now they have jobs as a result of our settlement services. This is the type of positive outcome that would be endangered if we overload our current settlement services. Offshore applicants need to be treated with respect and they need to be welcomed, not scaled back because of this government’s failed immigration policies. 3458 16:28:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 0 Mr DANBY —Here we are yet again, discussing this issue because the opposition has once again wheeled out its old faithful political weapon—hysteria and exaggerated rhetoric about unauthorised boat arrivals. Debate surrounding unauthorised boat arrivals in this country has had many low points, as I said last night, but some of the lowest occurred during the recent election campaign. We all remember the opposition’s extraordinary ads with red arrows indicating hordes of people coming to our shores from Asia and the Middle East. Who can forget the overblown rhetoric of the member for Warringah, the Leader of the Opposition, that Australia was suffering a ‘passive invasion’? Today, we heard from the member for Cook more exaggerated rhetoric about an ‘unprecedented catastrophe’. Even if, at its worst, we get 6,000 unauthorised arrivals, we are a country of 22 million people so what is he talking about? The debate descended into the downright bizarre when the member for Warringah, the Leader of the Opposition, suggested that he would establish a ‘boat phone’ to facilitate turning boats back. Of course, he would not do that. We all know that the rhetoric of the member for Warringah is worse than what he would actually do. He would not push women and children back out to sea. Nor would the member for Cook or the member for Stirling—and of course the member for Brisbane, who has spoken here so movingly about refugees—do it either. But slogans and publicity stunts are what we have come to expect of the opposition, rather than measured and sensible responses to this difficult issue facing our country. The fact that there are boats arriving in Australia in an unauthorised manner is an issue, but it is far from the overblown, hysterical, end-of-days issue painted by the opposition. The reality of the situation can be seen by examining figures on the number of asylum seekers Australia receives and accepts compared to other countries around the world. From July 2008 to 25 October 2010, there were 8,141 unauthorised arrivals, including 443 crew, in 212 vessels intercepted in Australian waters and taken to Christmas Island for initial processing. Many of those people will not be granted a humanitarian visa in Australia, but those who are will become part of Australia’s humanitarian visa quota—just as the member for Brisbane said, perhaps unintentionally, this is because they are equally suitable as refugees as some of the people picked out by our representatives overseas. They are equally suitable because, by the criteria they are judged by, these people are judged to be refugees and therefore Australia has responsibilities to meet. The quota for our immigration program this year, as it has been for many years, is 13,500 people, and I will say again that the overall number is not altered whether a few thousand people arrive in an unauthorised manner or none at all. That 13,500 is just one very small part of our immigration program, which totals around 180,000 people. In 2009, an estimated 377,200 asylum applications were recorded in the 44 European and non-European countries reported on. This is nearly the same number as in 2008, when there were 377,100 claims. As the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship pointed out, Australia ranks 36th amongst countries accepting refugees from overseas. As for the rhetoric that these people are coming to Australia because Nauru was closed down, Nauru was closed down because of simple economic rationality. It was empty for months, and the Australian government saw no reason to keep it open, particularly when we had, as it appeared at the time, the enormous Christmas Island asylum seeker centre that had no people in it. The government dealt with the Nauru centre quite rationally; it was not done to excite people smugglers. The number of asylum seekers coming to Australia, substantial though it is, is dwarfed in the context of the 2009 UNHCR report, which said a total of 42 million people were forcibly uprooted by conflict and persecution last year. This worldwide total included 16 million refugees and asylum seekers and 26 million internally displaced people uprooted within their own countries. Eighty per cent of the world’s refugees are in developing countries, as are the vast majority of internally displaced people. Major refugee-hosting countries in 2008 included Pakistan, 1.8 million; Syria, 1.1 million; Iran, 980,000; Germany, 582,700; Jordan, 500,400; Chad, 330,500; Tanzania, 321,900; and Kenya, 320,600. Clearly, when put in a global context, the number of asylum seekers arriving in Australia is tiny. You would not know this if you saw the member for Cook last night in the Main Committee—all red-faced and hysterical about this issue. We have come to expect this exaggerated rhetoric from the opposition. As my colleague and friend the member for Chisholm put it, they are followers and not leaders. The government is developing a policy response to this issue that is focused on regional engagement. We will successfully manage this issue of unauthorised arrivals only by working with our neighbours—those countries through which the vast majority of unauthorised arrivals transit. Those of us who remember more than what happened yesterday will recall that during the Fraser government there were regional processing centres in Vietnam and Malaysia, and they had bipartisan support. This was a mature and rational way of dealing with the problem. The government’s policy may not necessarily be a quick fix, but it will achieve a lasting result. As I have said previously, every person who is seriously involved in the asylum seeker issue knows that the central issue for Australia is what happens in Indonesia. Thankfully for Australia the government in Indonesia is democratic and the best friend Australia has ever had. Indonesia has an excellent President and an excellent Foreign Minister. The possible passage by the Indonesian parliament of legislation giving sentences to people smugglers is much more germane to people in the Adelaide Hills than is the hysteria displayed last night in the Main Committee by the member for Cook and his colleagues. This is the kind of mature policy response that Australian leaders, not followers, ought to be pursuing with our friends in Indonesia. None of us support people coming in unauthorised ways to Australia and being assisted by people smugglers. We should be pursing cooperative solutions to this issue. I cannot understand the opposition’s policy. I was chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration when the shadow minister for immigration, the member for Murray, voted on the committee in 2009 for asylum seekers to be treated more humanely and more rationally. She voted for that policy. That was the time when the opposition ought to have been demanding any changes they wanted to make to our migration policy, to the way we receive asylum seekers, rather than making hysterical political points during an election period with red arrows coming down to Australia, boat phones and passive invasions, when we really had to deal with a group of asylum seekers who need to be housed in a particular centre in the Adelaide Hills. Our policy is about ensuring that Australia retains its rightful role of welcoming a reasonable number of the world’s refugees while maintaining the security of our borders. With the member for McMahon, the current minister, at the helm I have every confidence that our policies will succeed. The cheap political slogans implicit in this motion will not. 10000 Sidebottom, Sid (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Sidebottom)—Order! The time allotted for this discussion has now expired. 3460 Committees 3460 3460 3460 16:37:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 0 Ms SAFFIN —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the fourth report for 2010 of the committee relating to referrals made in October 2010. Order that the report be made a parliamentary Paper. HVY Saffin, Janelle, MP Ms SAFFIN —by leave—This report addresses three works, in New South Wales and South Australia, with a total estimated cost of just over $155 million. In every case the committee has recommended the House of Representatives agree to the works proceeding. The works in this report are: The proposed HMAS Penguin and Pittwater Annexe redevelopment in Mosman and Clareville, New South Wales, by the Department of Defence, at an estimated cost of $63.3 million; The proposed development and construction of housing for Defence at Largs North (Bayriver), Port Adelaide, South Australia, by Defence Housing Australia, at an estimated cost of $38.2 million; and The proposed integrated fit-out of new leased premises for the Australian Taxation Office at 12-26 Franklin Street, Adelaide, South Australia, by the Australian Taxation Office, at an estimated cost of $54.2 million. Let me start with the HMAS Penguin redevelopment. The committee inquired into a substantial proposal that will update a number of very old facilities. The committee undertook a site inspection on the base, and is very strongly of the view that the works are needed. The Royal Australian Navy Diving School has made do with very limited space, and ageing buildings, and the committee fully supports purpose-designed accommodation for the school. The committee is particularly concerned about the current accommodation for the submarine and underwater medicine unit, which is entirely unsuitable for its purpose. The committee fully supports the proposed new facilities at HMAS Penguin. In Adelaide, the committee considered two proposals. Firstly, Defence Housing Australia has proposed the development of vacant land for housing, including the construction of some houses for members of the Australian Defence Force. The committee was particularly concerned by a small amount of contaminated land that remains on-site, and has recommended that DHA fully remediate this small area of land as part of the project. The committee has had an ongoing interest in the provision of ‘accessible housing’ by Defence Housing Australia, and the committee is delighted that DHA has undertaken to build its future homes to the silver level under the new Livable Housing Design Guidelines. This will ensure that its houses are flexible, capable of easy adaptation to the needs of residents of all ages and abilities. The committee commends DHA for taking this important decision. And secondly, the Australian Taxation Office has proposed a new fit-out for its entire Adelaide CBD staff. This project would provide the ATO with a single location, realising organisational efficiencies as well as creating a greater sense of community. The ATO is consolidating a number of properties in Australian capital cities, and the committee is interested to see that these new projects benefit ATO staff as well as the organisation. The committee is pleased to have the assurance that, despite these consolidations, the ATO is not reducing its presence in regional and rural Australia. This is the first report of the new parliament, and the committee has worked hard to ensure that these proposals, originally referred during the last parliament, were dealt with as quickly and efficiently as possible. The committee has also fully implemented its new Manual of Procedures, which includes greater scrutiny of the confidential costings of each project. I would like to thank members and senators for their work in relation to these inquiries. I commend the report to the House. 3461 Bills R4430 Debate resumed from 22 November. 3461 Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) 16:43:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 3461 Bills R4424 3461 Debate resumed from 29 September, on motion by Ms Kate Ellis: That this bill be now read a second time. 3461 16:43:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 0 Ms LEY —I am pleased to speak on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Budget Measures) Bill 2010. This bill is detrimental to Australian families and the coalition is opposed to this legislation. Decreasing the cap on the childcare rebate and removing indexation for the next four years will further increase the financial pressure on Australian families who are already struggling to meet the costs of child care. Over the next few years the number of families affected by capping the rebate and freezing the indexation will increase from 20,700. This will be a progressive increase for families as more and more are affected over the duration of the indexation freeze. The Prime Minister, in her previous role as Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, acknowledged that 20,700 families will be affected. Clearly, as inflation kicks in and fees rise that number will only go up. The cost of child care will also continue to rise further because of the national quality framework measures, which will increase overheads and running costs for childcare centres. In their submission to the inquiry into the childcare budget measures legislation in June 2010, the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union stated: ‘It must be recognised that without alternative allocation of funding, the proportion of affected families will certainly increase over the subsequent years. We draw attention to the fact that childcare fees have risen by 34.9 per cent since June 2005, more than two and a half times the headline inflation rate over this period. With the capping of the childcare rebate and continuing fee inflation the cost of future fee increases will be increasingly met by parents at all income levels, exacerbating the cost of child care for many families.’ But the minister has her head firmly in the sandpit on this one and is deaf to the concerns of parents and even, remarkably, to the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union. I might just add that that union has changed its name I read today in the press, airbrushing the word ‘union’ completely out of its title and calling itself ‘United Voice’. Surveys, focus groups and marketing consultants indicated that, amongst other things, people could not spell ‘miscellaneous’. That is a bit of trivia, and I now return to the serious subject matter of the bill. This capping of the rebate comes on top of the decision to implement the national quality framework agenda, which will further increase the cost of child care. The former CEO of GoodStart estimated that costs in New South Wales could increase by up to $20 a day. So where you have parents currently paying $105 a day for their 18-month-old to attend child care that cost will potentially increase to $125 a day. Cuts to the childcare rebate mean that this family will be even further out of pocket as they were already receiving the maximum rebate prior to the national quality framework price increases. That means that, if you are already receiving the maximum rebate of $7,500, any increases above that in your fees must be met by you, 100 per cent, with nothing to offset them. This bill aims to generate savings of $86 million over four years and the savings, according to the minister, will go towards the cost of implementing the government’s national quality framework agenda. These cost increases, which really do concern members on this side, will come about as a result of higher staff to child ratios and the need for more highly qualified staff. This equates to higher labour costs for a given number of enrolments. These overheads will not be able to be absorbed by childcare providers, so of course they will be passed on to parents. Research undertaken by Childcare Alliance Australia showed that 74 per cent of parents surveyed would have difficulty meeting additional costs of $13 to $22 a day. This increase in costs may force many parents out of the workforce or they may need to cut their hours as child care becomes too expensive. The alternative is to seek additional forms of care for their child. The concern here is that parents will be forced to use backyard care, thus negating any form of quality regulation. There is considerable pressure on parents when it comes to finding appropriate child care. Every member of this parliament should have firsthand examples of that. We do know about unqualified child care or friends struggling to help out. And grandparents are always under pressure but perhaps feel unable to say no when they are asked whether they can take the children a couple of days or an extra day a week. There is a range of unsatisfactory arrangements. The minister has been critical of the quality of child care in Australia in an attempt to justify her reform agenda. The argument on which she based the need for the capping of the childcare rebate is fundamentally flawed. She said that many childcare centres are failing to meet basic safety, hygiene, education and wellbeing standards. She said that audit and accreditation decisions made in association with NCAC had found that toileting and nappy-changing procedures were not done in accordance with advice from recognised health authorities and dangerous products, plants and objects were accessible to children. I am sure those things are true but they have nothing to do with this agenda. They are decisions and circumstances that would quite rightly be addressed by licensing bodies in each state. No child should be attending a centre that does not follow proper health regulations and that has potentially dangerous items that children can reach. There is no need to cap the childcare rebate and introduce a quality framework because of those things. Those things will be addressed by the state bodies in their normal licensing, regulation, accreditation et cetera. Childcare providers tell me that they already do that to death. We really can have confidence in the safety and quality of our centres. The minister bases her decision about this legislation, which will cap the childcare rebate and increase the cost of child care to Australian families, around the argument that our childcare centres are somehow not up to scratch. It is disingenuous and it is insulting to the hard-working private and community providers of those childcare centres. The minister fails to recognise many things, but one of them concerns the qualifications of childcare workers. While there are thousands of childcare workers who do not have a university or a TAFE qualification, many of these people have been in the industry for years. Many have raised their own children. They have on-the-job experience second to none. And, most importantly, they love their job and they love the children they look after. Nowhere does the minister acknowledge the fabulous job done by many of these childcare workers, instead she is adamant that only a qualification will do. I have firsthand experience with each of my children attending child care. Often children form an incredible bond with their carers. As a parent, my No. 1 priority was that my child was safe, happy and in a caring environment. I am sure that would be every parent’s priority. I can guarantee that just because someone does not have a qualification does not mean that they cannot impart some of life’s valuable lessons to our children. All of the literature that we have seen over recent years concerning disadvantaged children and children at risk says that the key to developing resilience in the early learning years is in forming a bond with a person who cares. It does not say anything about qualifications or university degrees. Important though those things may be—and of course they have their place in the early-learning environment—we should be conscious that there are people who, at the moment, are being dismissed as not needed in the future because they do not have the qualification that the minister and this government insist on. Particularly in rural and regional communities, many are already struggling to find child care for their children. But, despite all the rhetoric on increasing access, the government are actively working against this agenda. They are increasing the costs of child care and imposing a quality framework to which the childcare sector has not had sufficient opportunity to respond. Lack of access and increasing costs will undoubtedly force many parents to either withdraw their children from child care or seek alternative, less attractive, care options. If parents have no choice but to work in order to meet the mortgage repayments—and those are going up—or pay off the car or other debts, they may resort to placing their child in care arrangements that are far from ideal. The coalition believe there was a serious lack of consultation with the childcare sector on these proposed changes. We have concerns about the impact of these changes on the accessibility of child care. We have concerns about the feasibility of the framework, particularly surrounding the prerequisite qualifications for staff. All in all, the government has failed to put forward a consolidated, coordinated approach to child care. Certainly, improving the quality of child care is a very worthwhile aim, but it is just as critical that child care remains affordable and accessible. The actions taken by the Gillard government show just how out of touch with Australian families Labor has become. The government is ignoring the cost ramifications, instead intent on its own poorly consulted and poorly designed agenda. Families are struggling at the moment. Many are experiencing real financial stress, with rising interest rates making the servicing of the mortgage an increasing struggle for many families. There are car repayments; there are credit card bills; there are gas and water bills to consider; there is the cost of electricity, which, particularly in my home state of New South Wales, is increasing all the time. The Labor government need to understand that people are doing it tough. Instead they are intent on increasing the cost of child care for Australian families. They just do not get it. If we move for a moment from the social aspects of this policy to its economic aspects, we see there is a productivity agenda that should be addressed. We know that in this country women’s workforce participation rates are extremely low; the OECD has told us this. The Henry tax review looked at the question of underparticipation, if I could put it that way, in the workforce, and the minister’s other portfolio is employment participation, so she should be well aware of these facts and well aware that there are mothers, usually, who are waiting to return to the workforce, keen to do more time and anxious about losing their skills. The threshold question for those families is the cost of child care. Do members opposite understand that threshold concept? Child care, thanks to governments of both persuasions over the years, has decreased in cost. I can remember, as a young mother on the farm, facing the questions as to whether I could afford to put children in child care, whether I had to set up a playpen at the dairy or keep an eye on them while I was in the shearing shed—both very unsuitable options, I can tell you—or whether I would just delay returning to study and training. In the end I went to university when I was 30. But the only reason I did was that there was affordable child care on campus. It was safe and reasonable and my budget would allow it. So these really are threshold questions for families, the first thing they think of: is there child care available, is it close to where I live, can I afford it, is it safe et cetera? What I am seeing from this government, who have lost their way, is that they are working actively against that agenda and then trying to say to the opposition that we have a problem with safe, hygienic, properly run childcare centres and somehow we do not want child care to be of a high standard. That is outrageous. It is a claim that they should not make. There is a productivity aspect to this agenda that we should not overlook. The key finding of an April 2010 treasury department working paper is: … in contrast with previous Australian estimates, the cost of child care does have a statistically significant negative effect on the labour supply of … mothers. This finding supports policy that reduces the costs of child care to encourage maternal labour supply. So the Treasury is telling us: reduce the cost of child care and you will encourage mums back into the workforce. I say again: parents who have already reached the new maximum childcare rebate of $7,500 a child will have to meet the entire increase in fees. If you are a low-income family you will be forced out of formal care because you will not be able to meet 100 per cent of the increase in fees. These families might not be affected by the initial reduction in the cap but they will be affected by the freeze on indexation. Because parents are already struggling financially, there will be a large number of children unable to access an early-learning program at the present time. The worst thing that we could do with a policy like this would be to remove the options of maybe an extra one or two days a week for families who really do need child care because the children have early-learning difficulties, are at risk in some way or for whom child care has been recommended as a very important option at a time in their life when the family is not managing well. Eighty-six million dollars is the amount the minister says this will save, and in her second reading speech she said that it would be put towards making the government’s quality agenda happen and supporting ‘the government’s quest to increase the quality of child care and early education in Australia’. That does not give me a lot of comfort. Apart from opposing this measure, I would like to see $86 million attributed to something more concrete than supporting ‘the government’s quest to increase the quality of child care’. Perhaps that money will be paid to state governments. Perhaps it will be absorbed in the increasing bureaucracy surrounding this agenda, and that, I think, is the sad thing. We have a COAG process. We have a hundred million dollars allocated by the government just to support the marketing and administrative components of the COAG reforms. This has nothing to do with the reforms themselves, it is just the marketing and administration—the glossy ads, the TV campaign and more people working behind the scenes. But, as always, at the grassroots, at the cutting edge where the rubber hits the road the relationship between a carer and a child in a childcare environment that families can afford is left until last. The government has been very tardy with its legislation. The first quarterly payment of the childcare rebate for 2010-11 was due to be made to families by Centrelink from 18 October 2010. That is because, the way it currently stands, it is paid quarterly in arrears, and that would be for the first quarter of a current financial year. The government had plenty of opportunity to introduce this bill to meet its own deadlines; however, it appears that the minister has stood by and watched as her legislation has disappeared from the agenda time after time. This in itself is a clear indication, I believe, that the minister has grave misgivings about her own legislation or that for some reason the government has some hesitation about bringing it in. Here it is, at the 11th hour, already not working to meet the needs of families in terms of the payment schedule. Child care has been an absolute embarrassment for the Rudd-Gillard government. Their elaborate scheme to end the double drop-off was a promise they found easy to break. When it came to building 260 childcare centres, they suddenly found that real buildings are considerably more challenging than the Lego models that the government’s own hollowmen had been playing with. It is a desperate cash grab from a desperate government and it does show how out of touch they have become with ordinary Australians. Families are struggling to pay their bills and make ends meet. The coalition opposes this legislation and urges all members of the House to do likewise. 3466 17:01:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —I speak in support of the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Budget Measures) Bill 2010. I was interested in the comments of the previous speaker, the member for Farrer, who said that she was able to go to university at 30 years of age because she had affordable child care. Yet, if memory serves me right, I think she actually voted against legislation in this chamber in the last 24 hours that would have made childcare facilities available, which were provided by student associations, at campuses in regional and rural areas across the country. If memory serves me right she was in this chamber. So the person who said that she is all in favour of affordable child care is the same person who in the last 24 hours voted against the provision of child care at university campuses and the like. That is the reality, so there is a degree of hyperbole and hypocrisy about the previous speech. When you have a look at what we are doing here, you can see that we are setting the childcare rebate annual cap at $7,500 per child per year and pausing indexation of the maximum rate of the childcare rebate for four years. Let us look at the facts. We heard the fiction from the member for Farrer. I do not want to take the alliteration any further but we heard the fiction from the member for Farrer and you can hear the facts from me. Here are some facts. In referring to child care and to education in this country the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Curtin, when she was the education minister, said: It is unacceptable in country with Australia’s relatively small population to have a fractured and inconsistent system that can change dramatically between States. She was referring there to early childhood education. In 2006, Australia had one of the worst rankings in public expenditure and early childhood education. We were 13th out of 14 in the OECD. What a farce. What a fiasco. What a failure under the Howard coalition government. Did they bring in paid parental leave? No. We had that ridiculous policy proposed by the now opposition. It has festered across there. They sit there with their idea on paid parental leave, which is a great big tax on people. If they ever get onto the Treasury benches that is what would happen. Let us look at what an independent report said in relation to early childhood education, and this report was tabled on 22 April this year. The Childcare Vacancies Quarterly Snapshot is a snapshot of the state of child care in Australia. This was not made up by us. It is a statistical analysis of the Australian childcare market over the previous five years. We had been in power for only 2½ years when this was looked at. The findings were very interesting; it said: In 2004 families earning $55,000 a year— I would think that the average Australian would probably think that is pretty middle class— spent 13% of their disposable income on child care, this has fallen to 7% in 2009. We were in power in 2009 and the coalition was in power in 2004. In 2004, 13 per cent of disposable income; seven per cent by 2009 under us. The report found that the Australian federal government, the Labor government, ‘funding for child care had more than doubled in the past four years, up from $1.7 billion in 2004-05 to $3.7 billion in 2008-09’. Facts, not fiction. This is the reality. When we came to power, we had a look at what was happening with respect to assistance for families. We were the ones who made a difference. We fulfilled the commitment which we took to the 2007 election campaign, which was to deliver an increase in the childcare rebate from 30 per cent under the coalition government to 50 per cent of out-of-pocket costs, from a maximum of $4,354 to a maximum of $7,500 per child per year. So it is a bit rich for coalition spokespersons to come into this place and give us lectures on what they think about regional and rural areas and about child care. The facts do not bear out any commitment from them to child care. We believe that the 800,000 Australian families who place their children in child care every week deserve to know that the childcare facilities in which they place their kids are safe, happy and stimulating and that they are learning environments. That is what the minister was talking about in her second reading speech on 22 September 2010, and for her to be criticised about that by the member for Farrer is appalling. We are fair dinkum about making sure that we spend money and get the ratios right for child care. The quality of child care and early childhood education in this country is critical. When the coalition were in government they spent a fifth of the average of OECD countries—our competitors in the Western world—on early childhood education. They decided to spend a little bit on child care and a little bit on early childhood education. They put up flagpoles in the state primary and high schools and, when it came to tertiary education, they foisted Work Choices on that sector. That is the way they linked their funding. That was their commitment to education for young people. The coalition should not come in here and give us lectures about their commitment to childhood education when the reality is that it was a federal Labor government, this government, that made the commitment to good quality education for children of all ages. I strongly believe that it is a matter of social justice and social equity that we provide affordable and accessible quality early childhood education and child care. As I said, we have backed it up with far more money than the coalition. The commitment is backed by an investment of more than $18.2 billion over the next four years—almost $11 billion more than what was provided by the coalition government in its last four years of office. The $86.3 million that we are going to save by this measure will be directly reinvested into the National Quality Framework, which will assist in better staff to child ratios. How can this be bad? This is a good thing. Each child will get more individual care and attention and there will be a boost in staff qualification requirements. We want staff in early childhood education to be focused on that. We have great childcare workers and some wonderful facilities in my electorate. When I think of great organisations and great facilities I think of Cribb Street Child Care Centre in Sadliers Crossing, Bush Kidz in Brassall and the wonderful work at the One Mile Community Child Care Centre in Leichhardt. We fulfilled an election commitment when we established the $1.6 million Early Learning and Care Centre at Yamanto, at the relocated Amberley District State School. They also received BER funding. I was pleased when the then Minister for Early Childhood Education, Child Care and Youth, the member for Adelaide, visited my electorate to open that centre with me. It is a wonderful facility. I am pleased that the staff are committed and that the kids are learning well. The kids make the transition from that centre to next door, to the Amberley district school. This is a fast-growing school. We have committed nearly $27 million to relocate the school. I commend C&K for the work they have done and the commitment of people, many of whom live in the Yamanto area, but also those military families whose children go to the Amberley district school. I am very pleased to see the progress there. We are making big commitments to early childhood education and care. One of the things that I am pleased to see in my electorate, as I think it makes a big difference, is the Home Interaction Program for Parents and Youngsters—HIPPY. It has been rolled out to 35 locations, of which 26 were established last year and into this year. My electorate is receiving one of these programs, and I warmly welcome it. I sent out a press release on 4 November this year about the fact that we were going to help children in Blair prepare for life and learning. I warmly welcome the expansion of this national home parenting and learning program to Ipswich and its surrounding areas, including rural areas. In 2011, HIPPY will be expanded to 15 communities across Australia, taking the number of communities involved nationally in this program to 50. It is an important initiative that gives young people the best chance in life as they start school. It will be a great asset to the Ipswich area as it will help many parents and children in our community. The program empowers parents and carers to be a child’s first teacher. I think this is important for not only the childcare workers who work in our wonderful facilities in Blair but also the parents, who are the best and first teachers of young people. The program provides education resources and home tutors to help families prepare their children for a successful start in school. The government has committed $32.5 million over five years to roll out the program, which will help up to 3,000 families nationwide. It is not always easy for mums and dads to provide such assistance, but the program will provide them with a bit of a helping hand, and this will be great for families in Ipswich and the surrounding areas. The Australian Red Cross, in partnership with the Brotherhood of St Laurence, has been selected to deliver the program in Ipswich. The program should be up and running in Ipswich by mid-2011. The fact that the Australian Red Cross and the Brotherhood of St Laurence will be working together on this program will make a difference to the kids in Ipswich and the surrounding areas by giving them the best possible start in life. This legislation is important. It is part of our overall agenda to make sure not only do we give good quality and affordable child care to young people but also that the bottom line is protected and we can make the system viable. We have raised the childcare rebate to 50 per cent of parents’ out-of-pocket expenses. We have made a difference there. We are looking to make further changes. The Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare has already foreshadowed some additional changes to ensure that payments are made more periodically to parents, and I look forward to her announcing that in the future. I think this will make a big difference to parents. Early investment in our children’s education is crucial, and getting them to focus on literacy and numeracy and to have a love of learning when they are young will make a big difference as they progress through school and on to university or TAFE. Learning is a lifelong experience and something that should be encouraged. The emphasis of the federal Labor government, of which I am proud to be a member, is to be applauded and welcomed and not criticised by those opposite whose record in this area is a disgrace. 3469 17:14:00 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 0 Dr STONE —There are some 800,000 families who make use of professional child care in Australia. We need to stress that the old idea that child care was an optional extra for mum so that she could play tennis for the day—or that it was a luxury—is an absolute nonsense in the 21st century, when so many know that, unless they can have that professional, affordable and accessible child care, they simply cannot earn the second income that is going to make the purchase of a house, paying down their mortgage or paying their bills possible. When child care in Australia gets beyond the means of the average family to pay, we have a serious problem. No longer does the mother-in-law or the mother of the woman who is working live just next door. It is not a case of reaching into the community and saying, ‘You mind my kids while I go to work.’ That probably never did happen, but it certainly does not happen now. So we have this extraordinary situation where this government is choosing to save $86.3 million by stripping—out of the pockets of working families—a childcare subsidy which makes it possible for that second income to be earned. When I went around Australia consulting specifically on Labor’s plan to remove the indexing of the childcare rebate, to remove some $300 a year out of the subsidy that those parents rely on, I said to parents in childcare centres, ‘How are you going to manage with this; is it going to be a problem?’ The then minister of the day, Minister Ellis, had said, ‘This will only affect a few rich families; less than one per cent’—and we, of course, know Labor does not like rich families—‘so it is not a problem.’ When I went around Australia, I found that it was your average earning family, your single parent family, saying, ‘We are already doing our calculations. If our fees are to go up $5 or $10 a day, if any change in the amount of fee we are to pay occurs, we are going to have to re-evaluate if it is a sensible, rational decision to go out to work each day and earn a salary because the net return to us per week is just too little.’ If you, as this government is doing, imagine that the costs of a new National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care is not an enormous impost on the sector, then you really are not tuning in to what is happening across Australia. We have childcare advocates and childcare associations—both the for-profit and not-for-profit sector—saying, ‘Of course, we believe in standards of quality for child care and early childhood education.’ So does the coalition, let me stress, despite the misinformation given in the second reading speech. We believe in quality child care and early childhood education. But this government managed a COAG agreement which took no notice of the fact that, if you require a much smaller ratio of teachers to children in care, if you demand much higher qualifications of staff involved, if you put a limit on the size of those in care to gain a certain category of registration, you put the prices up exponentially. This is already occurring right across the sector due to the costs of utilities going up—energy—whether it is gas or electricity. The costs of wages are to go up shortly. So you have incredible increases in costs in child care at the same time as you have this government removing part of the subsidy that was making it possible for the second income to come into the household to pay the mortgage, the rent and for the car. What an extraordinary calculation. The government put in the demand that a new framework be implemented without doing the proper costing. Why would we be surprised because this government fails to do proper costing on most major projects. Before us we have the National Broadband Network which was not costed. We did not have a proper costing of the insulation installation debacle. We did not have the Building the Education Revolution costings. So I guess not costing the National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care cannot be a surprise to us. But the problem is that, at the same time, they have chosen to remove $86.3 million out of the subsidies for families who desperately need to work to make ends meet. Then we move on to say that the indexing of that subsidy is to be removed for four years. This is now a long haul for families looking carefully at their salaries and wondering how they are going to pay their mortgage if the childcare fees are $100 or so a day—as they are quite commonly right across the system—and still make ends meet. The previous speaker ranged over the area of early childhood education. These days there is a blurring of the distinction between child care and early childhood education, most specifically in the area of four-year-olds. There is a hybrid model where some children remain in professional child care in accredited places and receive a curriculum that has been designed to prepare them for their following year in formal education, the primary school system. I want to know—and a lot of other people out there in the community want to know—what on earth does Labor mean by guaranteeing universal access to early childhood education in the year preceding their primary education for 15 hours a week with qualified teachers? That is the statement. Does ‘guaranteed access’ mean that I am going to get a preschool built in Whroo or Bearii or in Waiaa or Girgarre in my electorate where I have preschool aged children who have no access within 40 or 50 kilometres to another early childhood education centre? The Koondrook centre closed, sadly, because the parents could not afford the fees. They are recovering from seven years of drought. They could not afford the $100 to $150 a term, given that a number of the mothers are also trying to work, they could not afford the volunteering time—commonly called the ‘milk and fruit time’—and they simply had to back away from that early childhood education centre. So its very existence was under threat. Is the Labor government going to ride into Koondrook and say, ‘Oops, we guaranteed universal access. We are now going to underwrite the losses in the Koondrook not-for-profit community childcare centre?’ Are we going to be serious about how it continues into the future? I do not think so. Indigenous outstations in outback Western Australia, Northern Territory and South Australia only have a handful of very small children—four-year-olds, for example. Is this federal government going to make sure that they have universal access to early childhood education? I do not think so. So what does this statement actually mean? I suggest it means nothing in reality. It is a feel-good thought bubble out there. If this Labor government had been serious, they would have said that they had mandated a year of early childhood education for every child. It would typically be for a four-year-old for the year before they entered their primary schooling and it would be for at least a minimum of 10 hours a week with qualified teachers in registered centres and that access would be free, universal and compulsory. Is this government going to consider that sort of mandating? I do not think so. So let us get away from the nonsense being spoken by the other side that they are the champions of early childhood education in Australia—and, yes, we are way behind other developed countries in our preparation of children for their primary schooling—and let us also get away from the nonsense that this government has been amazing in its offering of professional, affordable and accessible child care. It was this government who abolished the start-up grants for family day carers. Family day carers were typically women, mothers, offering professional child care in their own home. It is the most affordable and often the most accessible child care for a lot of women, particularly those in country towns where they do not have enough kids for a childcare centre to be established. What did this government do? They abolished the start-up grants of over $1,000 for family day carers. This government also turned its back on the funding of part-time long day care centres, particularly those in remote places like the Wheatbelt of Western Australia. Women came to me in despair and said, ‘We need to work in our communities’—as nurses, as teachers or as administrators—‘and we don’t have any other options for child care in our small communities. We only need three or four days a week.’ But Minister Ellis of this government declared that she did not want to fund part-time long day care centres or family day care centres because she thought they might be in danger of falling over after becoming financially unviable. What she did, of course, was guarantee that those centres could not employ anybody without more than a six-month guarantee of government support. In fact, she rang the death knell for these small centres. I am very pleased to say that a lot of pressure from the coalition made her think a little harder about that, but that was the upfront government statement about early childhood education in part-time circumstances. We had the shocking situation in Australia whereby this government decided that the Active After-school Communities program supported through the Australian Institute of Sport, a program started under the John Howard government and launched originally in Launceston, was to cease being funded. At the same time we had an obesity epidemic in Australia. This after-school care involved young people experiencing different sports, sometimes in teams and sometimes individually, and also being provided nutritious snack foods. It was universally applauded as a great place for kids to have good care after school while at the same time it was very beneficial for their physical and emotional development. What did this government do? Until enormous pressure was put on it by the coalition, it said, ‘No, we’re not going to fund it beyond the end of this year.’ As that particular program depended on regional coordinators, a number of them had already moved on by the time this government finally said, ‘Oops, we might have got that wrong too.’ So we had the Labor government once again saying it did not really understand what was happening out in the after-school and holiday program providers sector. It did not understand that you do need coordinators of those sorts of activities as you just cannot depend only on volunteers. Whenever the childcare sector puts its head up and says, ‘Please, give us a break and understand the costs of providing professional child care in Australia and stop stripping away the subsidies and support for families,’ I am very disappointed to say that what they get, as we had in the second reading speech, is reference to how unhygienic and dangerous childcare centres are. So we have this very serious situation where the childcare sector are being bullied into going quietly rather than complaining that they are being forced to put up their fees or contract the size of their service in order to comply with the conditions that are now being placed on them. In Queensland alone, as you will probably recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, hundreds of childcare places have already been identified to be lost to the sector on the basis that, in order to comply with the new national quality standards, they are forced to have smaller sized facilities. I do not know what those parents are going to do when they do not have any places. That is particularly so for the very young people, the babies, whose places are most in demand. It is very often the case that, because of the very much higher costs of servicing the needs of babies in care, they are the places that are let go. So as someone who regularly has mothers and families coming to me saying, ‘What are we going to do?’ I am very concerned. I am talking about communities in Nagambie and Mansfield, communities in rural and regional Australia, where the need to have a second income is more desperate than it ever has been. Those communities are saying, ‘What can we do to convince this government that we have to have the childcare rebate indexed and we need to have restored the hundreds of dollars that are now stripped away when the annual cap is reduced back down to $7,500?’ The government also gets very excited about the fact that it is now going to have the childcare rebate paid fortnightly rather than quarterly, as was the case before. I would have hoped that the Labor government would have looked at our coalition policy which said that it is an even better idea to pay it weekly directly to the facility, so there is no cash flow problem, it is administratively much more simple and it cuts out the red tape. I really commend that coalition policy to the Labor government. That would be one small move towards a far fairer and more affordable situation for 800,000 Australian families. (Time expired) 3472 17:29:00 Leigh, Andrew, MP BU8 Fraser ALP 1 0 Dr LEIGH —Child care underpins this government’s participation agenda and quality child care is critical for Australian parents. Emily Murray, who is a volunteer in my office, has done some back-of-the-envelope sums to work out the share of Australian workers whose participation in the labour market is underpinned by having access to child care. Her estimate is that there are 305,825 parents who can enter the labour force as a result of formal child care. In other words, our participation rate is 2.7 percentage points higher than it would be if parents did not have access to quality child care. Quality child care is also critical for children themselves. Through high-quality child care children learn social skills—learning to interact with their peers—and cognitive skills: from counting to reading to shape recognition. Economists—and I was one before I entered the parliament—have increasingly developed a research interest in early childhood. Nobel laureate James Heckman is chief among those who are exploring this area. Increasingly the research in this field is uncovering the fact that, particularly for the most disadvantaged, high-quality child care can be a great leveller, it can be a great secret to breaking the intergenerational poverty cycle. I spoke a little about this in the adjournment debate on 18 November. Child care provides greater choice to Australian families and, put simply, it makes for happier parents. When I drop off my two little boys at the Acton Early Childhood Centre at the Australian National University on the way to the parliament, I am certainly pleased to be leaving them in the hands of carers that I know will give them an interesting, engaging and stimulating experience all the way through the day. I spoke in the 90-second statements by members yesterday on the ACT Children’s Services Awards—awards which recognise the terrific work done by early childhood workers across the ACT. This work is backed up by an investment of more than $17 billion over the next four years—some $10 billion more than the amount provided in the last four years of the former coalition government. The Labor government has delivered on our commitment to increase the childcare rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent of parents’ out-of-pocket expenses and we have increased the maximum from each child in care to $7,500 a year. Under the former coalition government the rebate was 30 per cent and the maximum was less than $4,500. The comments from those opposite today reflect the fact that Labor governments always face higher standards, and we have met those. We are happy to meet those higher standards but we would also like a little more honesty from those opposite—to have those opposite willing to walk in here and say ‘Well, you’ve done an awful lot, you’ve really raised the bar here and frankly you are providing more support to Australian working families than we ever did in our time in office.’ In 2004 the out-of-pocket costs after subsidies for a family with one child in long day care and earning $55,000 a year was 13 per cent of their disposable income. In 2010, out-of-pocket childcare costs had declined to just seven per cent. Labor has also delivered on our promise to pay the childcare rebate quarterly so parents do not have do wait until the end of the year to receive crucial assistance. And watch this space for further reforms. The direct effects of the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Budget Measures) Bill 2010 have been covered by previous speakers. It will do two key things. It will reduce the childcare rebate annual cap to $7,500 per child per year from July 2010, where indexation had previously taken that cap to $7,778 per child per year; and it will pause indexation from the maximum CCR rate for four years, that is, until 30 June 2014. Why are we doing this? We are doing this in order to save $86.3 million over four years. This money will help fund the government’s $273.7 million investment in early childhood education and child care. That money will help invest, for example, in the $82 million implementation of the National Quality Framework, also referred to as the National Quality Standard for early childhood education and care providers, currently being prepared for introduction in January 2012. In her second reading speech, the Minister for Employment, Participation and Childcare and the Minister for the Status of Women pointed out that the National Quality Framework is necessary because the National Childcare Accreditation Council reports that many childcare centres are failing to meet basic safety, hygiene, education and wellbeing standards. The minister pointed out that, of the 1,129 centres that received an accreditation decision during the first six months of 2010, 30 per cent failed to ensure that toileting and nappy changing procedures were consistent with advice from the recognised health authorities; 26 per cent failed to ensure that a child’s learning was documented and used in a planning program; 34 per cent failed to ensure that staff members supported each child’s needs for rest, sleep, comfort and sun protection; and 32 per cent failed to ensure that potentially dangerous products, plants and objects were inaccessible to children. The member for Murray referred to this as bullying. Far from bullying, Labor’s quality childcare agenda is ensuring that in the small minority of centres where there are problems—a few hundred centres in the case of the evidence I have just cited—the government has a quality framework that is able to ensure that Australian parents can drop their kids off in the morning without the fear of the sorts of problems that the National Childcare Accreditation Council has documented. Labor believe that we can do better and we must do better when it comes to the safety, wellbeing and early learning of Australian children. So we are working in partnership with state and territory governments to implement this National Quality Framework in order to lift the standard of child care right across Australia. The National Quality Standard is going to improve staff to child ratios so every child gets more care and more attention. The new system will raise staff qualifications to ensure that they are better able to lead activities that help children to learn and to develop. It is going to introduce a quality rating system for all childcare services so that parents know the quality of care on offer and can make more informed choices. It will reduce the red-tape related to services so that providers only have to deal with one regulator. That means that the providers can spend less time on paperwork and more time with the kids in their care. From my own experience at my sons’ childcare centre, that extra time is crucial. When the director is able to move out among children, get to know them and assist the other carers rather than being in his or her office they can make a real difference to the care of children. That is how this red tape reduction will assist Australian families. In her second reading speech, the minister said: The 800,000 Australian families who place their children in care each week deserve to know that they are safe and in a happy and stimulating learning environment. The minister pointed out that the National Quality Framework will increase educator to child ratios. It will introduce educator requirements and the terrific rating system. That is going to ensure that childcare services only need to deal with the one regulator. Labor’s childcare reforms go on. We will provide $59.4 million to improve the quality of the 142 budget base funded early childhood services in rural and remote Australia. We will provide $1.9 million to support new regulatory measures for ongoing stability in the childcare market in the wake of the ABC Learning crisis. That includes developing measures that would require large childcare providers who enter the market to prove their financial viability. In finishing, I would like to point out that 97 per cent of parents are not eligible for the full rate of childcare rebate. Their ability to pay any varying costs of child care is not increased by the measures in this bill. But what the measures in this bill will do for all parents who use child care is give them that sense of confidence and that sense of certainty that every childcare centre in Australia will be a great childcare centre. They will know that, wherever they drop their children off in the morning, those children will be safe, happy and learn new skills. They will know that their children will come home at the end of the day engaged, interested in learning, more curious and more interested in the world. That is what great child care can do. Through Labor’s quality childcare reforms, which are the heart of this legislation, we are going to ensure that every childcare centre in Australia will be a quality one. 3474 17:39:00 Chester, Darren, MP IPZ Gippsland NATS 0 0 Mr CHESTER —I rise to speak on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Budget Measures) Bill 2010. In doing so, I want to highlight my community’s concerns with the increased cost of living and this government’s failure to deliver on the promises that it made in relation to child care. I note that the previous speaker was seeking credit for achievements made by the Rudd and Gillard governments. That is all very well, but you also have to own up to some of your faults and some of your mistakes. I will dwell on those in a few moments time, particularly in relation to the pre-election promise made in 2007 to deliver 260 childcare centres in schools when only 38 have been built. The budget measures contained in this bill will result in an additional cost to an estimated 20,700 Australian families. But over the next few years it is also anticipated that the number of families affected will increase as a result of the cost of child care rising further through the national quality agenda, which will inevitably increase the overheads for childcare centres. Some industry groups are predicting cost increases of up to $22 per day as a result of the National Quality Framework. There is no doubt that these costs will be passed on to parents. The coalition is opposed to the removal of indexation for the childcare rebate and the reduction in the cap for the current rebate. Despite the claims to the contrary, the government has a poor record when it comes to child care. The minister tried to gloss over things in her second reading speech but the Australian public will not be fooled. This is a government that has been very long on spin and promises and very short on delivery when it comes to child care. I refer to the example of the promise to build 260 childcare centres on school grounds. Tomorrow the government reaches its three-year anniversary. You would think that over three years the government would be well on its way to building these childcare facilities. After three years, you would think that perhaps the government might even be halfway through. Not a chance. I would like to refer to a media report that was in the Australian in April this year. At that time, the government announced that it had decided to ditch this policy. It was the Rudd government at the time—this was before the knifing of Kevin. The report read, ‘The Rudd government has quietly dumped its election pledge to end the double drop off by parents by building 260 childcare centres on school grounds.’ At the time, the childcare minister, Kate Ellis, said that it would cause disruption for parents and unsettle the childcare industry after the collapse of the childcare giant ABC Learning. She also announced that the government would finish building the 38 childcare centres that had been started. Talk about getting elected under false pretences. That was a cornerstone of the Rudd government’s election in 2007. Those 260 centres were promised. You have to wonder whether the 38 that had been started have been finished yet. I raise this broken promise because it goes to the core issue of trust in this government. You cannot trust a government that will not deliver on its promises—and particularly one that does not deliver on promises made to families and promises that were such an important part of the then opposition’s platform at the 2007 election. The people in my community of Yarram in my electorate would not need any reminder of this fact. I have told the House in the past about the plans by the Yarram community to build a childcare service. The fact is that the service is lacking at the moment and is desperately needed so that professionals can be attracted to the community. When the announcement was made by Minister Ellis in April this year that the government was abandoning its plans, she acknowledged that there were circumstances in which families faced challenges finding child care that met their particular requirements. She said that she would continue to keep a watching brief on the childcare market and childcare vacancies and take action if required. A week later in another press statement she said that all Australian families deserved high quality, affordable and accessible childcare services, no matter where they lived. She said that a separate funding program would help them achieve that. We have a minister who said that all Australians deserve access to high quality child care and we have a town—Yarram in my electorate—that needs childcare services. But nothing has happened except another example of a broken promise. The broken promise that I am specifically referring to this time dates back to the 2007 federal election and the Labor candidate at the time, a lady by the name of Jane Rowe. The context of this is that the coalition candidate at the election, my predecessor, Peter McGauran, provided a guarantee of $1 million to build a childcare centre in Yarram if the coalition won the election. The bold headline of the Yarram Standard News of 31 October 2007 read, ‘Labor backs childcare centre’. Not to be outdone by the Liberal Party, Ms Rowe had announced that the Labor Party would provide in the vicinity of $1.5 million for a childcare complex. So one-upmanship was obviously heavily in play. To me and the people of Yarram that was a fair indication that, no matter what happened in the election of 2007, childcare services would be accommodated in the town. If it was a coalition government, Peter McGauran had his heart set on delivering a $1 million facility; if it was a Labor government, the Labor candidate had promised $1.5 million. The story from the Yarram Standard News says, in part: Ms Rowe has pledged a child care centre would be incorporated into a broader community centre, rather than built as a stand alone complex. “If we can get together and build a multi-function centre, rather than putting in a child care centre and having two facilities to maintain, we would provide one centre that will cater for the lot,” she said. …            …            … “There is no doubt there is a need for child care all over the place but I don’t think that a one-off centre would suit Yarram. I think there needs to be a more comprehensive service that goes beyond child care,” she said. That must have been the problem in the first term of the Rudd government—the community was after a childcare centre and Ms Rowe, as your candidate, was after much more than a childcare centre. That clearly was a problem. That problem does not exist any more, because the Yarram community has now agreed that they would like a children’s services hub. Obviously, they would like the government to honour its promise—the $1.5 million promised by Ms Rowe on 31 October, 2007—and to deliver on it. As I referred to earlier, however, 260 childcare centres were promised in the previous term of this government but only 38, it is claimed, have been built. I recently met with representatives from the local community along with the council and state MP Peter Ryan. There is a genuine community commitment to this project. The proposal, as it now stands, is for a Yarram community centre, which is right along the lines of the children’s hub promised by the Labor Party in 2007. So, quite frankly, there is nothing stopping the government; there is nothing stopping the minister from doing more than keep a watching brief and actually coming down to the Yarram community. I extend an open invitation to the minister to come to the Yarram community and meet with this community group and work with us on delivering the promise that was made to this community several years ago. The Yarram community centre, if it is built, will enable people from within Yarram district to access a range of children’s services that have not been previously made available in that community. It would be fair for those opposite to ask us what we, under my predecessor Peter McGauran, did in our term in government and that is a fair criticism. I think it is fair to say, ‘You had 12 years in that position; what did you do for the Yarram community?’ I think that is only reasonable in these circumstances. But, given that there had been a clear commitment from both sides, the people of the Yarram district had every reason to believe that, whichever party formed government in 2007, some action would be taken. Three years later, we are still waiting for action. I implore the minister to do more than just keep a watching brief and to come to Yarram and work with my community to ensure that the Yarram district community does receive the type of service that it deserves and the type of service that the minister herself has constantly referred to: All Australian families deserve high-quality, affordable and accessible child care services … Currently, there are no childcare services in Yarram and I urge the minister to work with this community in the weeks and months ahead. The issues surrounding the government’s budget measures and this childcare bill before us extend beyond just one community in my electorate. I have also met with residents in Omeo who have very similar concerns about their inability to secure funding for childcare services. I also listened very closely to the contribution to the House of the member for Murray, because she has had similar experiences with some of the more rural and remote parts of her electorate. It is very difficult, under the current rules, regulations and funding models, to secure services for some of the smaller communities in regional Australia. Omeo was one of those communities adversely affected by the local government amalgamations in December 1994—a decision made by the then Kennett government in Victoria. It is fair to say that some of the smaller communities suffered more significantly, I would say, than the big regional centres. As someone who was working close to local government at that time—I was involved with the East Gippsland Shire—I think it is a fair criticism to make that the ‘one size fits all’ approach to local government amalgamations caused some degree of disharmony and some degree of financial stress in many small regional communities. Omeo was once a seat of local government. It lost that status under the amalgamations and lost a lot of professional staff from the community, something the community has never really recovered from. Following the withdrawal of the local government staff came the withdrawal of state government staff from the Department of Sustainability and Environment, VicRoads and other organisations. I raise this in the context that there are many issues facing a small community like Omeo. One of the biggest concerns the residents have raised with me about getting the town back on its feet is the issue of childcare. Despite the fact that the minister says: All Australian families deserve a high-quality, affordable and accessible child care services no matter where they live— and I stress ‘no matter where they live’, because it is a very interesting point—the funding models that are currently available do not work for all communities. We need to work with these local communities to develop individual and innovative solutions to the local problems they are faced with. As I said, I have met with community representatives in the Omeo area and I gave them an undertaking to raise their concerns in the House. Omeo, for those who have not been there, is a small town in the High Country of Victoria. It is in a beautiful setting and it has a great history and heritage, with links to the goldfields. It is set in the foothills of the Great Dividing Range and there is easy access to the snowfields. It is a town which is determined to improve its fortunes in the future, whether through regional tourism or through being a service centre for other industries in the immediate vicinity. It is a great place to raise a family, but it is also a place where services are very hard to deliver. Even though houses are more affordable in the Omeo community, families often need two incomes or 1½ incomes and they need access to childcare. In a moment, I will refer to some stories from my constituents about their experiences with trying to access childcare in Omeo. Professional people have left the town and school enrolments have suffered, so the town is continuing to dwindle. It needs an injection of government resources to ensure that people, particularly people with professional skills, can remain in the town and raise their children and be heavily involved in helping this town back to get on its feet. I make my comments tonight not with any anger or bitterness but to reflect the community’s disappointment with the direction the town is taking. Several people have written to me to express their concerns about the lack of services in the Omeo district and I will quote a couple of them. One communication was from a local business owner who has trouble getting staff because her staff cannot access childcare services and have trouble making their shifts. She points out that: We are one of many businesses that are affected by the school holidays and the common sudden cancellation of childcare, sometimes only minutes before our staff are going to drop their children off. The population numbers are such that we do not have a very big pool to source good, suitable staff from and we want to retain the staff we have. It is about time the rural areas were looked after as well, if not better than the city areas. We came up to Omeo from Kilsyth and are appalled by the discrimination towards small towns in the way of suitable services to keep the small towns prosperous. Another one is from a lady who is a paramedic, who has actually now been forced to leave Omeo because she cannot access childcare services. I will quote from her experiences: I currently travel from Omeo to Traralgon in order to maintain employment with Ambulance Victoria. I pack up the children on a fortnightly basis and we all travel down to stay with my Mother-in-law for four days. I go to work and Nana looks after my girls. It is exhausting for us all as my Mother-in-law is an aged pensioner who has barely recovered from a battle with breast cancer. …            …            … After completing my shifts, we all pack up and travel back to Omeo … As you can see, this is obviously not an ideal arrangement and definitely one that cannot be sustained. With community support and with an extension of child care hours and days in Omeo, my family would be able to remain in this beautiful part of rural Victoria. We love living here. We love the close community spirit and lifestyle opportunities that Omeo’s region has to offer. It is with great regret and heavy heart that we have chosen to leave and move back to the Valley where we can easily receive the child care support my family needs … I know the child care issue has been an ongoing problem for many years, and with many families before my time fighting the same battle. I wonder how long this cycle will continue until something is done to keep young families like us in this region. As I said, it is not through anger or bitterness, it is just disappointment, that we have got young families who are prepared to move to a town like Omeo and then cannot stay once they have children. The promises were made in 2007, specifically in relation to Yarram but more generally across Australia, to build 260 childcare centres and the program has been pulled. At the same time there are communities that are still waiting and still urging the government to work with them, to show some flexibility and abandon this one-size-fits-all approach which prevents them securing funding at the moment. Children’s services funding models often restrict the capacity to provide childcare and education services in some of our more remote communities. The Omeo and district community has been challenged by government policy and funding models for service provision for a number of years and I am not pretending that this is a new problem or that it is just this government which has failed to deliver for this community. If we are serious about promoting opportunities to live and work in regional communities, we have to get serious about service delivery and that includes child care. There are many aspects of this bill before the House that are completely irrelevant to people in my electorate because they cannot access childcare services and access any rebate in the first place. We need to improve the delivery of services to children in regional areas to give them every opportunity to achieve their full potential in later years. One of those areas is child care. I urge the minister to consider the impact of future decisions on service delivery outside our capital cities. 3479 17:54:00 Bird, Sharon, MP DZP Cunningham ALP 1 0 Ms BIRD —I rise this afternoon to speak on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Budget Measures) Bill 2010, which amends the Family Assistance Act 1999. It returns the childcare rebate annual cap to $7,500 per child per year and suspends annual indexation for four years until 30 June 2014. It should be indicated that the bill will generate over $6.3 million to be directly reinvested in the National Quality Framework, allowing higher quality care to be provided in our childcare system. I will come back in later comments to the importance of quality care. These reforms will allow for better staff-to-child ratios, hence allowing children to get more individual care and attention; a boost to staff qualification requirements, allowing childcare workers the opportunity to better lead activities that help kids learn and develop to their full potential; and high-quality care from which 800,000 families will benefit. Although nationally the impact of the bill will be fairly minimal, I indicate that in my electorate of Cunningham the median average income is under $100,000 a year and many of these families will benefit from the reforms proposed in child care. I should also indicate it will also help fund our $59.4 million investment in improving the quality of 142 budget based funded early childhood services, predominantly located in rural and remote Australia, that provide care to some of the most vulnerable children in our community. As the previous speaker, the member for Gippsland, indicated, the importance of reforming the childcare area is particularly important for those of us who come from regional areas. I notice my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs is at the table, with whom I have just finished a meeting with a delegation of great people from the city of Geelong talking about regional development in their area as well. There are many synergies between the two. I just want to acknowledge that for many of us in regional areas, as the former speaker said, the provision of quality child care is particularly important for the future of our young people. That is exactly part of what this bill sits within: a reform agenda of this government to provide better quality child care at more affordable rates. The important point that needs to be acknowledged in the impact of the bill, because it is a budget bill, is that the vast majority of Australian families will not be affected by the changes that are proposed. My understanding is that about three per cent of families who currently use child care will be affected by these measures and many more will be supported by the redirection of funds into the quality program. In order to reach the cap, most families would need to place their child in care for 10 hours a day for more than four days a week at average fee levels. That is the group we are talking about. In fact, if you look at the average cost of the use of child care across Australia, the vast majority of people are much lower than that—most parents are around 2½ days per week. So less than one per cent of families who use child care will be impacted by the proposed changes in this budget bill. It is important, therefore, to acknowledge that part of the government’s commitment that has been ongoing since the election of 2007 has been to provide better affordability for families in child care. We want them to have affordable, accessible and quality early education and child care. The reason that we are committed to that is we well understand that the foundations that young people get through childcare activities in a variety of formats before they commence school is particularly important. There is a role for government in ensuring the quality of the delivery of that care, and the focus on the reforms in this area has been particularly important to me as a former educator. The commitment is backed by an investment of more than $18.2 billion over the next four years. As the former speaker—I thought quite generously—acknowledged from the other side of the House, it was an area where there had not been enough done by the previous Howard governments. This $18.2 billion is almost $11 billion more than was provided in the last four years of the coalition government, so this is a significant commitment to this important area. Overall, we are investing $14.9 billion to help 800,000 Australian families annually with the cost of child care. This is through the childcare benefit and the childcare rebate. We have delivered on our commitment to increase the child care rebate from 30 to 50 per cent of parents’ out of pocket expenses. That is a particularly important measure that has been put in place to assist families cope with the cost of living. We have increased the maximum for each child in care to $7,500 a year. Under the coalition government the rebate was 30 per cent and the maximum cap was less than $4,500. In 2004, the out-of-pocket costs after subsidies for a family earning $55,000 a year with one child in long-day care was 13 per cent of their disposable income. For that same family now, in 2010, the proportion has declined to seven per cent of their income. That is an important commitment to assisting families cope with the cost of living, but we are also committed to ensuring that they have confidence and a reasonable expectation that child care is also of quality and will be preparing their children for their future in school. We have also delivered on our promise to pay the childcare rebate quarterly, so parents will not have to wait until the end of the year. I well remember as an opposition member people being particularly frustrated by the whole process of having to pay out and then wait until the end of the financial year to get that money back. To further help families manage childcare costs, for the first time parents will be able to choose to access their childcare rebate payments fortnightly. When it comes to improving the affordability of child care, our record stands solid. We have provided important support to assist families to manage their costs of living. This bill proposes not only an affordable program for child care but also a quality program. As a former teacher I am passionate about the fact that, particularly for young people who might come from quite disadvantaged households, the provision of quality child care is very important in good transitions to school and provides a much greater chance of success in a child’s schooling. Parents need peace of mind that the place they drop their child at for child care is safe, happy and stimulating. That is fundamentally what quality comes down to. It sounds simple but they are really important concepts for people who leave their children in child care. Although many childcare centres across Australia are doing well in these areas, the National Childcare Accreditation Council’s latest report did show, sadly, that too many childcare centres were failing to meet those basic safety, hygiene, educational and wellbeing standards. The report showed that, of the 1,129 centres that received an accreditation decision between 1 January and 30 June, 30 per cent failed to ensure that toiletting and nappy changing procedures were consistent with the advice from recognised health authorities; 26 per cent failed to ensure each child’s learning was documented and used in a planning program; 34 per cent failed to ensure that staff members supported each child’s needs for rest, sleep, comfort and sun protection; and 32 per cent failed to ensure that potentially dangerous products, plants and objects were inaccessible to children. We believe that we can and must do better against these quality standards for our child care. This is why the government has been working in partnership with state and territory governments to implement a national quality framework. The intention of that framework is to lift the standard of care across Australia. The national quality standards are intended to improve staff to child ratios, so every child gets more individual care and attention, which is very important at those early developmental ages; to raise staff qualifications, in order to ensure staff are better able to lead activities that help children learn and develop; to introduce a quality rating system for all childcare services, to provide information that is meaningful to parents so that they know the quality of care on offer and they can make informed decisions—this government has a great track record on providing good quality information to parents, and the My School website is a good example of that; and to reduce red tape related to services, so providers only have to deal with one regulator and can spend less time on paperwork and more time on the kids in their care. The issue of red tape and the whole process of filling out forms and reporting has been regularly raised with me over my years as a member, so if we could get a national framework that allowed reporting to a single regulator that would ease the pressure on the providers themselves. We must do better when it comes to the safety, wellbeing and early learning of our children. That is what the whole childcare reforms framework is about. Parents expect nothing less of us and providing national leadership to ensure those quality reforms are delivered is one of our most serious duties. The child care budget measures bill 2010 directly addresses the childcare rebate and provides savings which can be redirected to the quality agenda of the national quality framework, and it supports the imperative I have talked about—providing affordable, accessible and quality child care. In an economic context we already have ample evidence that, if we want to increase productivity and participation, we need to ensure that all children get a quality education and that all young people go on to undertake vocational education and training or university studies which set them up for the future. The foundation block for so much of that are those early years of life and how young people transition into kindergarten and into starters school. It can be a make or break period and if child care is being provided it is very difficult to argue, on a social or an economic basis, that the government does not have a responsibility to ensure a quality framework around that child care. For those reasons this budget bill sits within an important government reform agenda. It certainly has my support and it should be supported by the House. 3482 18:07:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 0 0 Mr RANDALL —I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Budget Measures) Bill 2010. I will say at the outset that this bill is noble in its intentions; however, it is short on delivery to the people in my electorate of Canning. This bill seeks to cap the childcare rebate at seven and a half thousand dollars per annum for the next four financial years, with the intention of generating $86.3 million in savings over that period of time. The Labor Party needs the savings to help fund the national quality framework, which is estimated to cost some $273.7 million. Currently, the child care rebate is $7,778 indexed. In other words, the intention of this bill is to provide, on current figures, $278 less per annum. As I said at the beginning, the intention of this national accreditation program is quite noble. This agenda had been agreed to by the states and territories through COAG in December 2007. The national quality agenda has three key elements: the national quality standard, enhanced regulatory arrangements and a quality rating system. The national quality standard will seek to introduce nationally consistent staff to child ratios and staff qualification requirements. It seeks to enhance the quality of each service by applying an assessment rating of one to five against seven quality criteria. The national quality standard qualifications prerequisites will require many workers to either upgrade their qualifications or see them possibly leave the industry if they cannot. This gives no consideration to the life experience and maturity of these workers, as many of them have worked in this industry for years and have raised their own children. Higher staff to child ratios and more highly qualified staff will mean higher labour costs for a given number of enrolments. Increasing staff levels will lead to services cutting places or possibly being forced to close if their business model is no longer viable because of the wage and cost pressures. The coalition supports improved quality standards because we want to ensure the best possible start for our young Australians while they are in care; however, this framework has been developed without sufficient consultation with the child care sector and it certainly needs to be reviewed. It needs to be noted that teachers, teacher’s aides and carers in this area are currently some of the lowest paid workers in Australia. The consistent message to me from people in my electorate is that there are qualified people in this area who battle to exist on the meagre pay—it is barely above the basic wage. Coming to government in 1996, the coalition went through a similar process for the accreditation of the aged care sector. Yes, reform is needed in a lot of care sectors. The difference is that when we put in place the aged care reforms they came with not only sufficient money to implement them but also sufficient incentives for people to invest in the business of providing aged care beds and facilities. That is the difference between what is being organised here and what was done previously in another care sector. As I said, families are going to have this rebate capped. It is expected that there will be more than 20,000 families financially worse off as a result of this bill. It could not come at a worse time, as increased cost-of-living pressures are hurting working families. You do not hear the Labor Party talking much about working families lately. It was one of their focus group buzzwords under the leadership of Prime Minister Rudd, but it does not seem to have carried over into the new paradigm. I wonder why. The Labor Party talk about workers and working families, yet they are more interested in the elite latte set in the leafy suburbs than in working people. As I have said many times in this place, the best thing you can do for a family is to give them a job. We found out recently that the unemployment figures have risen. The cost-of-living pressures for families were recognised by the Rudd government, but they failed again. They were going to have Fuelwatch, GroceryWatch—in fact, they were going to watch everything. They watched a whole lot of things and had hundreds of committees report and look into these matters, but those reports are now gathering dust on the shelves. Those reports might have recommendations or surveys, but they have not actually been dealt with or implemented. Most of them have been shoved sideways onto a shelf with little done about them. As a digression, Madam Deputy Speaker D’Ath, do you remember the thousand people who came to this place for what I nicknamed the ‘kilo brain’ competition early in the last parliament? Whatever happened to all the ideas that came from that? They evaporated. I have not seen any of them. Returning to this bill, the fact is that many people who face cost-of-living pressures are going to find they will either have to pay more or won’t be able to pay at all. I heard the member for Cunningham say that she was a schoolteacher. So was I in a previous life, and I am happy to say so. My wife is also a teacher and most of my family are teachers. We know a bit about education and the need for quality care. The goals and ambitions around this bill are very noble, but the consultation and the money are not there. Putting a child into child care is a serious business. If you have children you might have been in the situation of having to drive your child early in the morning—when it is cold or hot, whatever—and walking with them into the childcare centre and hoping that the people in that centre are good and caring people. I recall an experience I had where my wife and I made the mistake of taking our daughter to a particular childcare centre. We thought we had done the right thing and checked it out first. We wondered why she was so reluctant to go to this place until we found out from other mothers that the treatment at the centre was pretty ordinary. We felt really sick about having to put our child into that sort of care until we were able to find an alternative place where the care was far better. It is a serious business if you cannot afford to stay at home with your child but have to return to work. My wife had to return to work as a schoolteacher because of cost-of-living pressures. We had a mortgage. We had all the things that most Australian families experience. Cash was tight. We needed two incomes coming into our house. You put your child into care knowing that kids who go to childcare centres end up with more communicable sicknesses like coughs and colds than other kids who have the opportunity to be raised at home. Parents who have to put their children into child care are willing to pay for it. But when the cost of child care gets close to the amount of money they earn, they you have to ask, ‘Is it worth while putting my child into this childcare centre, with all the dislocation that goes with it, when I am barely earning above what I am paying in childcare fees?’ This is the conundrum that a lot of families face. In the Canning electorate most couples with children earn a gross weekly income of between $1,400 and $1,700 and most single parents earn a gross weekly income of between $500 and $600—much less than the average full-time adult income which is about $1,200 a week. Obtaining affordable child care is the major concern for many parents in my electorate. Not only do the Labor Party want to stop the future indexation of the childcare rebate; they want to immediately reduce the amount of the rebate. Through this bill, the Labor Party want to reduce the childcare rebate to the 2008-09 level. So much for Labor ‘moving forward’. They are going backwards on this issue. The member for Cunningham spoke about how much money the government was providing and all that sort of stuff. You have to ask: ‘Is this new money? Is this re-announced money?’ Some of Labor’s promises like the double drop-off and the childcare arrangements post the ABC Learning failure have not materialised. How can we trust the government to deliver on something as serious as this when their history on these sorts of issues is one of failure? The Labor Party claim that the national quality framework they are developing will improve childcare services. Hopefully it will, but at what cost? At the cost of working Aussie families doing it hard? Some industry groups have already predicted that childcare fees will increase by up to $22 a day. Imagine this additional cost for a single working parent who only earns $600 a week. The increased cost of child care could force people out of jobs, out of study or out of further training. The Labor Party basically want to rip off Australian families so they can continue their wasteful spending on some of the big budget, ill-informed projects like the Building the Education Revolution and the pink batts program—areas where money went down the drain. There is no point having better child care if parents cannot afford to put a roof over their child’s head or food on the table. We do not really know whether childcare services will be better. We hope they will. Overheads for childcare centres will increase. Who will bear these extra costs? These costs of course will be passed on to parents. Childcare workers may leave the industry or be forced to upgrade their qualifications. That will mean fewer workers in the sector if they do not have the financial capacity to upgrade. The national quality framework qualification prerequisites give no consideration to the experience of workers and the work they have already done. The national quality framework will lead to childcare services having to increase staff levels and may force some operators to shut their doors, which will mean fewer places for child care. The competition for places is already tough. The coalition is supportive of improving the quality of child care. As a father and as somebody involved in education previously, I want Australia’s children to have the best possible start to their education. However, the Labor government’s national quality framework requires much more consultation with the childcare sector and it must be reviewed. The Building the Education Revolution started off admirably, but many people now say, ‘Rather than a small building that could not fit a fridge or having to have two gyms in the one school, we would have liked more funding for teacher education and quality training for teachers, and smaller class sizes.’ We saw that failure again with the pink batts issue. I hope that, as was said in the MPI debate today, this is not another trophy of failure that will go into the Labor Party’s trophy cabinet. They failed to discuss and they failed to consult. The major losers in this whole exercise are not just the working families of Australia but also the children of Australia who are entitled to receive care. We owe them more and to do so we need to make sure these proposals are properly funded and that there is proper consultation to get the best possible outcomes. 3485 18:22:00 Livermore, Kirsten, MP 83A Capricornia ALP 1 0 Ms LIVERMORE —I am pleased to have the opportunity to support the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Budget Measures) Bill 2010 and to talk about the achievements of this Labor government in the area of child care and early childhood development and education more broadly. They are achievements that we are very proud of and they are built on an unprecedented level of investment by any federal government in child care and early childhood education. Overall, the Labor government is providing more than $17.1 billion over the next four years for early childhood development and support for child care. Ensuring that children and their families have access to high-quality, affordable child care is a key part of the government’s objective of building a stronger, fairer and more productive Australia. Access to affordable child care is important so that families can maximise their employment and training opportunities. And the national focus on early childhood development and education in all settings, including childcare centres, family day care, kindergartens and schools, is vital if our children are to get the start in life they deserve and a chance to participate fully in the future success of Australia. So first to the bill, which makes some changes to the childcare rebate. It is important to note, after listening to the previous speech, by the member for Canning, the great improvement that this government made to the affordability of child care for working families across Australia. The previous government gave families a childcare rebate equal to 30 per cent of their out-of-pocket childcare expenses. Families could claim that rebate up to an amount of $4,354 per year. In 2007 Labor promised, and introduced on coming to government, a substantial increase in the childcare rebate. Families using child care are now able to claim a childcare rebate of 50 per cent of their out-of-pocket childcare expenses. Consequently, we increased the maximum amount of rebate claimable for each child in care to $7,500 a year. That is a big jump in assistance to families for a vital service that can really put pressure on their budget. In fact the maximum limit is 72 per cent higher than it was under the Howard government. The Labor government also took steps early in its term to make the payment of the childcare rebate to families more frequent than had been the case under the Howard government. In our first budget, in 2008, we honoured our election commitment to increasing the childcare rebate and also made it possible for families to receive the rebate payment quarterly rather than annually, as it had been under the previous government. Those of us who were in the parliament during the Howard government remember when the rebate was introduced by the Treasurer at the time, Peter Costello, and families were told that they would be waiting 18 months to receive their first payment from the government. When we came to government we acted quickly to address that, and the rebate is now more generous and paid to families when they need it, every quarter. That is a big jump in the assistance the government gives to families to help them meet the costs of the child care that they rely on so much to make their family life and their family finances work. We understand the pressures that families are under and have acted to make child care more affordable for them through these measures: the increase in the childcare rebate and the move to pay the rebate quarterly. Of course, we went to the last election with a further commitment to paying the rebate to families on a fortnightly basis, and that will be implemented in time for it to take effect midway through 2011. We are obviously very mindful of making the rebate work for families to help them meet the costs of child care. It was good to see those changes in the 2008 budget—the increase in the rebate and the change to quarterly payments—reflected in the most recent data on childcare availability and affordability. The report State of child care in Australia, released on 22 April this year, showed that out-of-pocket costs to families have fallen across all income levels. For example, in 2004 families earning $55,000 spent 13 per cent of their disposable income on child care. This fell to seven per cent in 2009. The bill we are debating this evening implements a budget measure that will make a change to the childcare rebate affecting a small number of families. From 1 July this year the childcare rebate annual cap will be set at $7,500 per child per year. It is important to note that there is no change to that cap but there is a change to the indexation arrangements. Indexation of the maximum rate of childcare rebate will not occur for four years and therefore the annual cap of $7,500 will continue unchanged until 30 June 2014. The change in this bill needs to be understood in the context of our overall approach to the budget this year and going forward. This measure to keep the childcare rebate annual cap at $7,500 for the next four years delivers $86.3 million in savings. At the time the government put in place the package of stimulus spending and projects to protect our economy from recession in 2009, we made a commitment to fiscal discipline and a budget framework to ensure a return to surplus when normal growth recovered. The 2010 budget required the government to stick to those rules we set for ourselves and that meant finding savings to offset new spending measures. In this instance, the projected savings of $86 million from this measure will go towards some important new initiatives that were also announced in the budget. First of all, there is $59.4 million to improve the quality of 142 budget-based funded early childhood services in rural and remote Australia. This funding will help those centres to improve infrastructure and staff qualifications and will benefit some of our most isolated and disadvantaged children. In addition we have announced $81.9 million to implement the new national quality standards. This includes the first national ratings system for child care and early education services so parents have the information they need to make those important decisions about the best care for their child. There is also $1.9 million to support new regulatory measures to help achieve ongoing stability in the childcare sector in the wake of the ABC Learning crisis. This includes developing measures that require large childcare providers in the market to prove their financial viability—something that no-one would argue against after what we saw happen with ABC Learning. Since taking government we have taken steps to improve the affordability of child care through assistance to families. Now we also need to continue our work with the sector on standards and quality. These three budget initiatives progress that quality agenda. It is fair to ask what effect the change in this bill to hold the annual cap to $7,500 until 2014 will have on the affordability of child care. The vast majority of families receiving childcare rebate—an estimated 760,000, or around 97 per cent of families—will not be impacted by this change in the year following its introduction. On average, families use only 26 hours of care per child per week. This measure will mostly impact on the small number of families who use care for much longer periods, such as 50 hours per week, or those who use more expensive child care. Those families who are affected by this change will on average have a reduction in childcare benefit of an estimated $5 per week, or $266 per year. Compared to that very small proportion of families who will be minimally affected by this change all families are benefiting, and will continue to benefit, from the significant lift in the childcare rebate cap introduced by the government. As an example, a family earning $80,000 with one child in full-time care would have received a childcare rebate of $3,359 under the Howard government. Under this government that same family receives $5,598 in childcare rebate. They are better off by $2,239 under our more generous system. We came to government with substantial commitments to improve the affordability of child care and we have delivered on that commitment. Not long after coming into government we were also faced with a crisis of viability in the sector. The collapse of ABC Learning at the end of 2008 threatened the closure of hundreds of centres across Australia. There was a very real prospect of families losing access to care for their children and thousands of childcare workers losing their jobs and entitlements. The collapse of ABC Learning was very much a product of the company’s unsustainable business model, but it can also be attributed to the Howard government’s hands-off, let-the-market-rip approach to the childcare sector. The Howard government did not care that child care was effectively an essential service for the families that relied on their local childcare centre. It did nothing to ensure the ongoing viability of the whole sector, preferring to leave it to the market and those who sought to exploit opportunities while the going was good. It was left to the Labor government to clean up the mess when ABC Learning fell over. We worked with the receivers and provided funding to ensure that the doors of ABC Learning centres stayed open, giving families assurance that their children could continue to receive care. Had we not acted quickly, over 62,000 families would have had to find alternative care or potentially give up work. I am pleased that the government has been able to play such a positive role in steering the potentially disastrous collapse of ABC Learning to a conclusion that has been able to give assurance to parents and strengthens the sector by creating a better balance between private and not-for-profit providers. The recent report about the state of child care in Australia shows that, since we came to office, child care has been more accessible and affordable. The other aspect of child care that is just as important, and which this Labor government has really put on the agenda, is quality. Quality in child care—whether that is achieved through better staff to child ratios, improved staff qualifications or the early years learning framework—is part of our drive for improved developmental and educational outcomes for children. Despite all the evidence that tells us how important the first five years of a child’s life are in their overall development, for many years the federal government has not been seriously involved in policy or funding in this crucial area. This neglect was showing up in all kinds of indicators telling us that young children in Australia were being short-changed: not enough attention was being given to their needs and there was not enough investment in quality childcare and educational opportunities for children under the age of five. Too many children were starting school, and are still starting school, without having a chance to participate in activities that promote their development and get them ready to learn. We want to turn that around and the government has put massive funding towards improving the opportunities for children and in turn their educational and developmental outcomes. Our total investment in early childhood education and child care will be $17 billion over the next four years. One of our priorities has been to work with the states and territories to achieve universal access to early childhood education. Our commitment is that by 2013 every child will be able to access a quality early childhood education program in the year before they begin formal schooling. This will be a play based learning and development program for 15 hours a week, taught by four-year-degree university qualified early childhood teachers. It will be available across a range of settings, including childcare centres and family day care, so that it fits in with parents’ arrangements. I am pleased to say that the Queensland government has already responded by promising to build over 200 new kindergartens across the state, because we have a lot of catching up to do in this area of early childhood education. For too long the federal government has had a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ attitude to early childhood education and development. The previous government did not see it as their responsibility at all. They were content to just take pot shots at the states whenever it suited them to blame the states for any perceived shortcomings. We have a different approach: we want to know exactly what is going on with our children—the good and the bad—so that we know where extra support and investment is needed. We are doing that through the Australian Early Development Index, which asks teachers to answer a series of questions about the children in their class in their first year of school. The data that is compiled is broken down region by region and will help communities to better understand how their children are doing by the time they start formal schooling. The data shows that there is a lot of work to do in my electorate to bridge the gap that exists in children’s experience of preschool education. While children in Central Queensland scored around the average for things like their wellbeing and readiness to be at school, the measures that rely on some formal educational experience showed the lack of access to preschool education for many children in the area. I am pleased that during this year there have been a number of announcements by the state government that they will be opening kindergartens in conjunction with many of the schools in my area. In the context of early childhood development, cost-of-living pressures for families and the way that the government is supporting working families with their cost of living, I want to mention paid parental leave. This is a very important initiative, which we have waited far too long for in this country and which comes into effect from the start of next year. Parents will be able to be paid for 18 weeks at the minimum wage on the birth of their child. I am very proud to be associated with this initiative through this government. These investments in child care and early childhood education and development are necessary and urgent if we are to achieve our goals of a fair and prosperous country. They increase the value of investments in other parts of our education and training system, because we know that every dollar spent on a child before the age of five has a cascading effect throughout the rest of their education and beyond. I am proud to be part of a government that places such value on children through these measures. We also realise that valuing children means supporting their parents. Our time in government has seen child care become more affordable and accessible, and we will continue to support families by giving them this support through the childcare rebate and these other measures on quality. 3489 18:37:00 Tudge, Alan, MP M2Y Aston LP 0 0 Mr TUDGE —When the Labor Party went to the election in 2007 their big pitch to the electorate regarded the cost of living. They made the claim that the Howard government had given up on working families and their day-to-day concerns. They claimed that only the Labor Party was in tune with their needs. So they talked about petrol prices going up. They talked about grocery prices. They talked about electricity prices. They talked about housing affordability and they even had, if I recall correctly, a housing affordability summit. They also, of course, talked about interest rates. The cost-of-living pressure facing everyday Australian families was one of the central themes in their bid to be elected. They told us that they had plans to fix the cost-of-living pressures. They were going to take the pressures off families. Prices were going to drop. They had two big policies to supposedly address the issue of the cost of living: GroceryWatch and Fuelwatch. So this was their claim, their pitch and their basis for being elected in 2007. We now know that this claim, which helped the Labor Party get elected in 2007, was based on naivety or was a lie. I do not know which one it was. Perhaps they honestly thought that a website to monitor grocery prices would actually bring down the costs of fruit and vegetables, milk and bread. Perhaps they did. Perhaps they honestly thought that a website to monitor petrol would actually bring down prices at the bowser. Maybe they were that naive to think that those things would actually make a difference to everyday prices. I am prepared to give the Labor Party that benefit of the doubt, but my suspicion is that Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and the Labor Party knew that their policies would make no difference to the cost-of-living pressures. My suspicion is that they went to the election— 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! The bill is the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Budget Measures) Bill 2010. I ask the honourable member to come to the bill. M2Y Tudge, Alan, MP Mr TUDGE —I will be coming to the bill very soon, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was talking about cost-of-living pressures, and this bill directly relates to cost-of-living pressures. We know that the Labor Party, as I was saying, did not deliver on their promise to address the issue of the cost of living. Their two big policies in 2007, GroceryWatch and Fuelwatch, have since disappeared and, if you look at what has happened to prices across the board since November 2007 when the government was first elected, you will see that water and sewerage prices have gone up 46 per cent, electricity prices have gone up 42 per cent, gas has risen by 29 per cent, medical costs by 20 per cent and we have had several interest rate rises. 210911 Tehan, Dan, MP Mr Tehan —Seven or eight! M2Y Tudge, Alan, MP Mr TUDGE —As the member for Wannon points out, it is seven or eight. So instead of addressing the cost-of-living pressures over the last three years, the government has made things alarmingly worse for Australian families—and, what is more, there are many plans to continue to put upward pressure on the cost of living and make things even harder. If you look at some of the things that the government are planning on doing which are putting up cost-of-living pressures on families, they have cut back on the private health insurance rebate, so private health insurance is likely to go up. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member must come to the bill as the main point of his speech. His speech cannot be such a broad address. This is an address to this bill and the member must address the bill. M2Y Tudge, Alan, MP Mr TUDGE —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is within this context of cost-of-living pressures that I am opposed to this particular bill in this House because the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Budget Measures) Bill 2010 represents just another way in which the government is going to put pressure on many Australian families. It is another way in which they are going to raise the cost of living for families in Australia, and that is the particular context in which I raised those other things. This bill before the House makes child care that little bit more expensive. I have talked about electricity prices, medical prices, fruit and vegetable prices, petrol prices et cetera, but as a result of this bill child care will also become that little bit more expensive. The bill seeks to set the maximum per child amount of the childcare rebate to $7,500 per annum and suspend indexation until July 2014. So this sees a reduction from the current indexed amount of $7,778 per annum. On the basis of the government’s own figures, families will now pay an additional $86.3 million for child care over the next four years. That is $86.3 million in additional childcare costs from the party who claimed that they were concerned about cost-of-living pressures and were going to put downward pressure on them. In addition, the national quality agenda measures are likely to increase overheads for childcare centres, and some industry groups predict that associated cost increases of between $12 and $22 will come about as a result of the national quality framework—and of course every family that uses child care will be affected by those price increases. Child care is essential to many families today. It is not a discretionary service. It is often the case that a family has no choice but to use child care, whether it is a single parent who needs to access child care in order to go to work to pay the bills or whether it is couples for whom the cost of housing and other living costs are going up so enormously. As I was saying before, such costs are now so high that both members of a couple need to work in order to make ends meet and to pay the mortgage. The Howard government recognised the importance to families of child care and the cost pressures back in 2005. That is when the Howard government introduced the child care tax rebate and backdated it to 1 July 2004. It was introduced because the coalition understood the importance of families being able to have affordable, accessible and good quality child care and that this was an essential part of a family being able to manage its work and its family obligations. The question must be asked: why is the government now pulling back on its assistance to families using child care? The answer of course is because it has spent such enormous amounts of money over the last few years on a multitude of issues that it is now in serious financial trouble. It has taken Australia from a budget surplus of $20 billion to a deficit of approximately $50 billion. It is still continuing to borrow $100 million per day. So this bill is a measure to try to claw back some money for the budget. But my argument is, instead of clawing it back from parents who badly need child care so they can go to work, why doesn’t the government look at some of the other measures which the opposition have put forward through which legitimate savings can be made? This bill will not help Australian families struggling to meet cost-of-living pressures. It will not help them afford child care more easily. On the contrary, it will make getting child care that little bit harder for over 20,000 families across Australia. It is time that the government put a stop to all its new taxes and to its efforts to claw back savings from badly needed government services, such as child care. This bill should be opposed. 3491 18:46:00 Jones, Stephen, MP A9B Throsby ALP 1 0 Mr STEPHEN JONES —I rise to support the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Budget Measures) Bill 2010. It is an important bill and it forms part of our plan to assist working families as they cope with the costs and vicissitudes of modern family life. It goes hand in hand with the assistance that we are giving to working families through the education tax rebate, the doubling of the funding that the Labor government has given over the last three years to child care and early childhood education, the introduction of fair and reasonable workplace relations laws for the families with children who are occupying childcare centres and the workers in those childcare centres, and of course keeping unemployment low through the worst financial crisis to hit this nation in the last 100 years. Whilst I am dealing with the issue of cost pressures, I might respond to some of the observations made just now by the member for Aston. Interest rates are still lower today than they were when Labor came to office in 2007, and we are the only country in the OECD to have unemployment below five per cent. Most other comparable countries are dealing with unemployment in excess of 10 per cent. If you want to talk about cost pressures on working families, the best thing you can do to alleviate cost pressures on working families is ensure that people have a job. Child care is an industry that is changing, and so too must the Commonwealth government’s approach to child care change to ensure that we meet the new demands of the industry and ensure that it is appropriately regulated. The sector is growing at a rate of around 250 new centres per annum. There are around 4,750 long day care centres in Australia. Around 75 per cent of these are privately owned, 22 per cent are community owned and around three per cent are in the government sector, run predominantly by local governments. Around 800,000 families and 870,000 children are using approved childcare centres each week in Australia. This is an increase of over eight per cent since 2005. It is important that we ensure that we continue to meet the costs and address the issues associated with families who have their children in child care and who are in need of child care to assist them in their daily working lives. I make the observation that the out-of-pocket costs for families have fallen across all income levels. Indeed, families earning $55,000 a year spent around 13 per cent of their disposable income on child care in 2004. This figure fell to seven per cent in 2009. Clearly more work needs to be done, but we are heading in the right direction. The measures within this bill will generate an additional $86.3 million in savings that are going to be specifically redirected to support the government’s quest to increase the quality of child care and early childhood education in Australia. I make the important point that, as we bring in new social innovations and new policies to support working families, we need to do that in a broader fiscal context to ensure that all of our policies are properly costed and affordable. It is one of the things that distinguishes our approach to these matters from that of members opposite. Members opposite went into the last election with a $10 billion black hole of unfunded promises, whereas each and every one of our promises has to be offset by savings and has to fall within our strict fiscal rules. The Gillard Labor government’s $273.7 million investment in the national quality framework, which has been endorsed by COAG, will improve educator to child ratios so that each child gets more individual time and individual attention—a proposition which is very difficult to disagree with. It will introduce educator qualification requirements so that educators are better able to lead activities that inspire youngsters and help them to learn and develop. It will develop a new rating system so that parents know the quality of care on offer and can make informed choices. It will also reduce regulation burdens so that services only have to deal with one regulator. This is particularly important for national operators operating across numerous state and territory jurisdictions. This measure will also help to fund our $59.4 million investment in improving the quality of the 142 budget based funded early childhood services which are located in rural and remote Australia and provide care to some of Australia’s most vulnerable children. We are doing this because the government believes that each of the 800,000 Australian families who place their children in care each week deserve to know that they are safe and in a happy and stimulating learning environment. The Australian government is committed to providing Australian families with access to affordable, accessible and quality early education and child care. This commitment is backed by an investment of more than $18.2 billion over the next four years. That is almost $11 billion more than was provided in the last four years of the former coalition government. Overall, we are investing $14.9 billion to help 800,000 Australian families annually with the cost of child care through the childcare benefit and childcare rebate. We have delivered on our commitment to increase the childcare rebate from 30 to 50 per cent of parents’ out-of-pocket expenses and to increase the maximum for each child in care to $17,500 a year. Under the former coalition government, the rebate was only 30 per cent of out-of-pocket expenses and the maximum cap was less than $4,500 per annum. So it really is quite galling to hear the complaints of members opposite that the Labor government is not doing enough to support working families and their childcare needs. The rebate under the former coalition government was only 30 per cent and the cap was less than $4,500 per annum. So we have moved that a long way in our four years in government. We have also delivered on our promise to pay the childcare rebate quarterly—a significant improvement for working families in meeting their household budgets so that parents do not have to wait until the end of the year to receive crucial assistance. To further help families manage their weekly childcare costs, for the first time parents will be able to access their childcare rebate more regularly, and we hope that by July 2011 we will be able to introduce fortnightly payments of the childcare rebate. The Gillard government has a very clear record of supporting Australian families to manage their budgets, particularly when it comes to the costs associated with early childhood education and with child care. We know that parents support these measures. Research conducted earlier this year by the union representing childcare workers, the LHMU, showed that over 90 per cent of parents support childcare reform and over 84 per cent of those parents would support a small increase in fees if it led to better education, better care and a higher quality service for their children. When it comes to improving the affordability of child care, the record of the Gillard Labor government stands head and shoulders above those opposite. We are getting the balance right between quality and affordability. That is because we know that cost is only one part of the equation when it comes to decisions about child care. Parents also need the peace of mind that when they are dropping off their children at care they will be in a safe, happy and stimulating environment. Indeed, it is in our national interest to ensure that working families with very young children can participate in the economy knowing that, as they drop their kids at the childcare centre on their way to work, their children will be cared for to the highest possible standard. 210911 Tehan, Dan, MP Mr Tehan interjecting— A9B Jones, Stephen, MP Mr STEPHEN JONES —The member opposite mocks at this, but I am proud to be part of a government that is working in partnership with state and territory governments to implement a national quality framework that will lift the standard of child care across Australia. We believe in continuous improvement in this area. We believe that government has a role. We believe that we should not just leave it to the market to rip because we have seen the disastrous consequences of that with the recent collapse of ABC Learning. Through the national quality framework we will improve staff-child ratios so that every child gets more individual care and attention. We will raise staff qualifications to ensure that staff are better able to lead activities that help children learn and develop and we will assist the workers in these childcare centres to acquire those qualifications and support them through that process. We will introduce a quality rating system for all childcare services so that parents know the quality of care on offer and can make informed choices. This, I can say through personal experience, is an important issue because most parents, and I am a parent with children in child care, have got so much going on in their working lives that they do not have the ability to do a detailed audit of all the childcare services available in their area and it will be of great assistance to know that an accredited childcare provider will meet a national standard and will be, at the very least, complying with a quality rating system for all equivalent childcare services. We will in the same process reduce red tape related to services, particularly by having a single national provider so that providers only have to deal with one regulator—they can spend less time on paperwork and more time with the kids in their care. There is no doubt that parents see quality child care as an important issue and are willing to pay a small amount more to get the best start in life for their children. We have been upfront with families and the sector about these moderate cost changes and we have made sure that the changes will be introduced over a number of years so that the cost increases will be gradual. Hopefully, as the economy recovers, as we fully expect it will due to the work of this Labor government in partnership with workers and businesses throughout Australia, we will be able to ensure in the years ahead that any increases in costs will be offset by increases in wages. We have undertaken this important reform because we know that the research tells us that the early years shape the future happiness, the future health and the future wellbeing of our children. It is therefore disappointing that the Leader of the Opposition wanted to put the national quality standard on hold indefinitely. Indeed, when you read and study what the standard is about, it is hard to believe that any reasonable-minded Australian could disagree with what is being proposed. Federal Labor believe that we can and must do more when it comes to the safety, wellbeing and early learning of our children. That is what parents expect of us and, through our quality reforms, that is exactly what we will deliver. On this side of the House, we are readying our economy for the challenges of the future. We are ensuring that our children are ready for that future. That includes providing Australian families with access to affordable, accessible, quality early education and child care. We are also building on the National Broadband Network, dealing with pricing carbon and tackling climate change and all the other costs that have been alluded to in the course of this debate to ensure that the working families that we represent have a decent shake at getting ahead in the years ahead. I commend the bill to the House and thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this important matter. 3494 19:01:00 Tehan, Dan, MP 210911 Wannon LP 0 0 Mr TEHAN —I rise tonight to speak on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Budget Measures) Bill 2010. Or perhaps what it should be titled, if we were being truthful, is the ‘reduce family assistance legislation amendment (child care) (try and fix the budget) measure’. The small community of Casterton, in my electorate of Wannon, has been struggling for several years to fund a new, quality day care centre. In August I announced that the coalition would fund the entire $1.2 million project if the coalition were elected to government. The Labor Party, unfortunately, refused to help this small community and match this promise, so families in Casterton have been left disappointed and still struggling to gain funding for the new centre. This example goes to the heart of what we are discussing in this bill tonight. As reported in the Casterton News, local families have battled authorities for years to get a quality day care centre built in Casterton. They are forced to use the former health centre building that was built decades ago and is totally unsuitable for this purpose. To their credit, local families in this small regional community have created their own action group to try to raise the funds desperately needed to improve the quality of child care offered in the region. The Casterton Day Care Action Group has been campaigning for the centre for several years and is trying to raise upwards of $75,000 so it can contribute a share towards the project. The project was originally costed at $800,000 in 2007, when it was put to the Glenelg Shire Council. I commend the Glenelg Shire Council for putting the day care centre on their agenda and understand their desire to provide such a service, but I am also extremely cognisant that they are facing competing demands, especially because the Victorian state Labor government has failed to provide adequate road funding and other necessary infrastructure for the region. I would like to place on the record again that a coalition government would have delivered quality childcare services at an affordable rate to Casterton by providing $1.2 million for the building of a child and family complex, which would have provided desperately needed childcare services for that region. This announcement, if we had formed government, would have been a great reward for the Casterton Day Care Action Group, who have been working so hard to secure support for this centre. They have met with me on numerous occasions to outline their needs, and it is a great shame that their hard work was not rewarded as it would have been if the coalition had formed government. The coalition recognises that investing in children’s wellbeing at an early stage greatly increases their self-confidence, health and educational prospects later in life. We believe all families should have access to quality services for their children, whether they live in the city or in the country. If delivered, this investment, importantly, also would have eased the burden on Glenelg shire ratepayers into the future, because direct investment by the Commonwealth in this project would have enabled the shire to save on the expenditure it had forecast to outlay. The coalition initiative would have encouraged skilled professionals to stay in the region and also would have helped encourage other professionals to come and work locally due to the provision of proper child care. I would like to place on the record my support for the coalition at the state level providing $500,000 towards the building of the Casterton child and family complex. It once again demonstrates that we on this side understand the importance of providing child care in rural and regional areas and shows Labor’s complete disinterest in doing so. Sadly, this is another case where we have to look at what the Labor government does rather than what it says. At the 2007 election Labor promised 260 new childcare centres but scrapped the plan before the 2010 election, using the highly cynical excuse that there was no demand for new centres. The Casterton community would argue with the government on that point, and I would encourage the minister to talk to the Casterton Day Care Action Group so she can hear firsthand that there is still demand for childcare centres. Hopefully, this would prevent in future such cynical media releases that argue that such demand does not exist. Hopefully—and this goes to the heart of this bill—it would lead to the Gillard government being upfront and honest with the Australian people, and they would clearly state the reason that they are ignoring the needs of towns like Casterton: because of their massive budget blow-out. We should not be under any misapprehension as to why the Gillard government, in this bill, are now slashing the subsidies to parents paying childcare fees and capping the childcare tax rebate, making it even harder for working parents to afford child care. They are doing this because they cannot manage themselves, let alone manage the economy. It was only two years ago that the Rudd-Gillard government deemed that childcare costs were rising and putting increased pressure on families who were struggling to pay their bills. To this end, the Labor government increased the childcare rebate by 30 per cent in order to address the growing concerns about increasing childcare costs. What has changed, I ask, from 2008 to now, such that the Labor government now thinks that childcare costs have not just stopped increasing with the consumer price index but in fact fallen? The Labor government must feel that families are not struggling, to propose a reduction in the childcare rebate from the current indexed amount of $7,778 per annum to set the maximum per child amount of childcare rebate to $7,500 per annum and suspend indexation until July 2014. Does the government think that families are not struggling to make ends meet, despite the increasing cost-of-living and inflationary pressures they are adding with their proposed carbon tax plans and their failed schemes wasting billions of taxpayers’ dollars? The BER is highlighted just down the road from Casterton at Dunkeld, where $800,000 has been wasted. The pink batts fiasco— 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! I ask the honourable member to address the bill. 210911 Tehan, Dan, MP Mr TEHAN —I am addressing the bill, Mr Deputy Speaker. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The chair will determine whether you are addressing the bill and you have not been addressing the bill. I ask you to come back to the bill. 210911 Tehan, Dan, MP Mr TEHAN —I will come back to the bill. It is this mismanagement of the BER and the pink batts fiasco which has led to this bill. What this bill basically is is a cash grab from the government, with 21,000 families losing up to $9 a week, and as the years progress and the consumer price index increases, taking the cost of child care with it, the burden on families will grow even further. And that is the point I was trying to make, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the money had not been wasted, there would be no need to cut family assistance to child care. Rest assured, sadly, that the government’s mismanagement and waste of taxpayers’ dollars will continue unabated as well. Let us call this bill for what it is—a cash grab. Nowhere is this reflected more than in the growth that is estimated in the savings, rising from $5.7 million in 2010-11 to $42 million in 2013-14. This will come from those parents trying to access child care. Some industry groups predict associated cost increases of $12 minimum to $22 maximum a day as a result of the national quality framework, so add those costs on to it as well. If the worst-case fee increases projected by industry representatives come to pass, it would substantially increase the impact of this change. It is obvious that as the indexation freeze progresses, the financial burden on families will only grow. How can the Gillard government argue that something that increases its coffers by cutting funding to families will not be to the detriment of those it is taking the funding away from? This is Labor’s spin at its best. This government knows no shame. How it could argue that cutting funding from families struggling with increased childcare costs is fair is beyond belief. The government is squeezing the life out of Australian families already. In my electorate, small rural and regional communities are already being forced to fundraise for kindergartens, for community centres, for improved health services and for aged-care facilities. They are being forced to fundraise within an inch of their existence. These communities will not be helped by this bill. These communities are often under some of the greatest strain in the nation, as local government rates are forced upwards because state Labor governments continually cost-shift services onto rural councils. That the government still wishes to make it more difficult for these families is beyond belief. Let us look at their record. Child care: in my electorate of Wannon, if you want a childcare facility, you now cannot get one. And if you are lucky enough to have access your costs will go up. Kindergarten: under the Gillard government’s so-called universal access to early childhood education reforms, it is looking more and more likely that kindergartens across rural Victoria will be forced to close. So, rather than providing universal access, this policy will be actually taking it away. Tertiary education: there is a well-recognised growing divide between country students accessing tertiary education and their city cousins. What is the Gillard government’s solution? To make it harder, not easier, for country students to access tertiary education by cutting the independent youth allowance. How anyone can think that making tertiary education more expensive for country students will address this divide is well and truly beyond me. So with this bill we will have the learning trifecta. The Gillard government are making it harder for families to access child care, they are making it harder for their children to go to kindergarten and they are making it harder for students to access tertiary education—and all this coming from a Prime Minister who brags that her biggest claim to fame is her education credentials. This bill is shameful in its cynicism. It is nothing but a cash grab and that is why I oppose it. I go back to where I started. It should be retitled the ‘reduce family assistance legislation amendment (childcare) (try and fix the budget) measure’. 3497 19:14:00 O’Neill, Deborah, MP 140651 Robertson ALP 0 0 Ms O’NEILL —I rise to support the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Budget Measures) Bill 2010, which amends the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999. I am very pleased to speak on this bill. I think it has the potential to provide good care in our community for our young children, who are engaging more and more in early childhood education. The outline of the bill lets us know that it is to return the child care rebate annual cap to $7,500 per child per year and to pause indexation of the annual cap for four years until 30 June 2014. Obviously, that saving is being directed in a very powerful way, a very symbolic way, in this legislative change. It is going to generate $86.3 million, which will be directly reinvested in lifting the quality of child care, through the national quality framework. That is going to deliver better staff-child ratios and improve staff qualifications. This is where I would like to spend most of the time that I am going to be speaking this evening: the implications of the lift in quality that is possible. The other outcome of the bill, which is something that is very important to achieve, is the funding of quality improvements in 142 budget based funded early childhood services that are predominantly in rural and remote Australia. These are critical services that provide education to some of Australia’s most vulnerable children. With regard to early childhood education, in my very first speech I referred to my anticipation of getting into primary school and commencing my own junior studies. It does not feel that long ago, but how much has changed in that period of time from when the first experience of schooling, education and access to educational professionals happened when one turned five. We have learnt so much in the last 30 years about the power of early childhood education and we know from this that we are impelled to act to improve the quality of the experience that young children have when they attend early childhood settings. My experience in the seat of Robertson gives me a sense of confidence about what it is that we are embarking on here. When I fell pregnant with my children the possibility of engaging somebody to help look after them was very important to me. Like many people who have moved into the seat of Robertson, we have dislocated up the coast and away from our families and our base, often in the Sydney suburban areas. Without family support the preschool, as a hub for new young mothers and fathers and as a hub for connection with other kids of the same age, becomes even more important. If we extrapolate that out into the rural and remote sector, that story is written even more largely. Commuters on the Central Coast rely on childcare services to provide the highest quality of care. We have 30,000 commuters heading to Sydney each day. Many of them are parents with young children and they need to know that at a distance of more than an hour away they are in high-quality settings. I am pleased to report to the House that during the recent campaign the minister and I attended a rather exciting afternoon at a preschool setting at Green Point. It is a perfect example of what happens when there is a high-quality agenda at the heart of what an early childhood centre is seeking to achieve. In that school we saw a great deal of care in programming and planning for each individual child. We saw excellence in terms of mentoring by older, experienced and well qualified staff building up expectations and capacities for younger staff to engage in the sorts of study that are going to increase the quality of experience and deepen their understanding of the complex elements of a growing child. We know that if we do well in early childhood, if we start off well with our young kids in this country, we give them a great start for a life in which health and wellbeing will be benefited by that good start. Schools are in fact hubs of the community and, as early childhood centres, they are the primary places in which many families connect with one another. They learn from staff who need to be highly qualified. Another key feature of the bill is the impact of the cap. This is an important issue to address, and I think it is very important to be upfront and say that this change is going to affect fewer than one per cent of families using child care who are earning less than $100,000 a year. The transfer of funding to a quality agenda is a critical and important development that this bill will provide for. In fact, by 2013-14 it is estimated that the average childcare rebate claim will be $2,300, which is well under the $7,500 cap. This national quality framework is going to deliver higher quality to almost 800,000 Australian families, and that is an important impact. One of the key questions that are being debated here this evening is that of affordability. The Gillard government has been answering many questions in the parliament since its return in the most recent federal election about our commitment to affordability in a whole range of areas. This is an important measure. We are on the record for increasing the rebate to parents from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. I happen to have had my children at a time when there was no rebate and I definitely understand that going from zero to 30 per cent had a powerful impact on my family’s capacity to budget and on cost savings. It took pressure off my family and increased our capacity to parent. The commitment we are talking about here tonight is backed by an investment of more than $18.2 billion over the next four years. If we compare that with what we saw from the former coalition government, it is almost $11 billion more than was provided in the last four years of the former coalition government. So any debate here that tries to create the impression that the Gillard government is not investing in early childhood care is simply a misrepresentation of the facts. Overall we are investing $14.9 billion to help 800,000 Australian families. This is an important part of our commitment to looking after the communities in which we are working. One of the things we know about early childhood is that it is important that we develop an ethic of care at these critical sites. We need sites where parents can have peace of mind that, when they drop off their child, they not only are going to be safe and happy but also are going to be in an educationally stimulating environment. My experience of lecturing students in English and sociology at the University of Newcastle put me in a situation where I had secondary, primary, and early childhood teachers working in the same room. Early childhood teachers who do quality training deeply understand that the learner needs to be at the centre of all of their planning processes. Learner centred programming is a critical skill that we need all our early childhood educators to be able to deliver. That kind of outstanding capacity to program and plan for individual children is not achieved by easy measure. This is not child minding; it is child caring at the highest level. It is about education and setting kids up for success in the future and success in their future educational experiences. Great quality early childhood sets up dispositions for learning in young people that can be with them for the entire learning experience, right through to adulthood. It is so important that we attend to it well. One concern that has been raised is the need for transparent measurement and accounting of what is going on in different childcare centres. As I said, in the seat of Robertson we often have families that have moved from one area to another. They do not have the benefit of the community experience and the grapevine that might tell them where a great childcare centre is or about another one that has perhaps not met those standards. It is important, through accreditation, to make available descriptions of what is going on in these early childhood centres to all Australian families who are seeking the best education for their children. The report from the National Childcare Accreditation Council lets us know that, sadly, there are some failures out there. Those on the other side would have you believe that everything out there is going very well, but the reality is that quality is something we have to strive towards at all points in time, and we need to critique what we are doing currently. We now have records showing that 30 per cent of centres, when audited, failed to ensure that toileting and nappy changing procedures were consistent with advice from recognised health authorities. This is an alarming statistic. There are great early childhood centres out there. There are great educators and great carers who are operating at the very highest level. But we have to acknowledge that there is a need to address that 30 per cent—which is not an insubstantial figure—of centres that have displayed noncompliance with what health authorities are recommending as best practice. We also have records that show that 26 per cent of centres failed to ensure that each child’s learning was documented and used in a planning program. I alluded to that a little earlier. We need to document what kids do, because sometimes our casual perceptions about what they are doing are not a very accurate measure of where they have been and where they might be heading. Also, when we have somebody else’s child in our care in an early childhood setting, an important part of the journey is sharing the records of what has been done while the parents have been away so the parents and the carers can jointly care at the highest quality level to make sure that the story of the young person’s learning is documented and can be gradually built on. It will be impacted by the professional learning of the teacher and conversations with parents, making sure that the best quality education is being offered from the earliest point in time. Sadly, we know that 34 per cent of centres failed to ensure that staff members supported each child’s need for rest, sleep, comfort and sun protection. As a parent, you sometimes wonder: ‘Have I always attended to all of those elements myself?’ But as a parent there is the imperative of care deeply bounded inside you. You just have to rise to that level, even when you are tired yourself. Parents set those standards through an exercise of love and care. We expect those standards to be met in our early childhood centres. To ensure that those standards are met, we need to make some changes. That is why we must invest in a quality agenda for our early childhood centres. I was alarmed to find that 32 per cent of centres failed to ensure that potentially dangerous products and plants were moved away from where children were playing. One of the liabilities that you have as a teacher is that you do visual audits everywhere you go. I can recall going to a number of children’s parties with my own children and seeing the odd rake turned up the wrong way, with the pointy ends facing up to the sky, while the children were all running around. I would have to go and do a bit of an audit of the site and remove those dangerous items. That mindfulness is an important part of the care teachers provide for the people in their care, and it is certainly a critical part of what early childhood carers do in looking after the children who are entrusted to their care. We believe that we can and must do better when it comes to the safety and wellbeing of our children in early learning. That is why we are working on partnerships with state and territory governments to implement this national quality framework. Clearly, making that framework explicit is the first step towards lifting the quality of care for all those young Australians who are being born now and who are about to enter into the early childhood setting. This will include improving staff-child ratios, raising staff qualifications, introducing a quality rating system and reducing red tape. These are the things we will achieve with our new agenda for early childhood. To revisit the key points, this bill is going to generate $86.3 million, and this will be directly reinvested in the national quality framework. Each child will be getting more individual care and attention. Staff will be better qualified, and our dedicated childcare workers will be better able to lead activities that we know will help kids learn, will help them develop and will lead to happier, healthier children. In summary, the measures proposed in this bill are very reasonable and aspirational. The changes to the budget will not affect the vast majority of Australian families, but they will fund essential improvements in the quality of care through the national quality framework, and 800,000 Australian families will benefit. I commend the bill to the House. 3500 19:30:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —The Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Budget Measures) Bill 2010 will set the maximum per childcare rebate to $7,500 per annum for the next four years, starting from 1 July and applying until July 2014. The Labor government has effectively removed indexation from the childcare rebate, which in 2009-10 was an indexed amount of $7,778. I can only assume from this move that, having wasted billions and billions of taxpayers’ funds on rorted and mismanaged schemes and programs such as the BER, the Home Insulation Program, the Green Loans program, Fuelwatch and GroceryWatch, just to name a few, and on Labor’s reckless spending, with nearly $90 billion of debt, a record $57 billion dollar deficit last year, a projected $41 billion deficit for this current year and current Labor government borrowings of over $100 million a day, the list is endless—and all this from a government that promised before the 2007 election to make child care more affordable and build an additional 260 childcare and early childhood education centres on school sites and community land to end the ‘double drop-off’. What we have now is the Labor government clawing back funds from Australian families with this measure, making families pay once again for their waste and mismanagement at a time when childcare costs are increasing, particularly with the implementation of the National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care. Through this legislation, the Labor government is aiming to generate savings of $86.3 million over four years to help offset the cost of this agenda. On one hand the government is taking away indexation from over 20,000 Australian families, a number that is expected to increase over the next few years, while on the other hand it is using the savings for its national quality agenda. But this simply picks winners and losers in the same way that the youth allowance debate picked winners and losers. I note in the Senate inquiry the National Foundation for Australian Women and the National Investment for the Early Years jointly pointed out that this policy change will result in increased costs for some parents. They stated: We draw to attention that this will inevitably mean that out of pocket expenses for some parents will rise, providing a further disincentive for women with dependent children to return to the workforce or to remain work-force attached. We in this House are all very well aware that increased and increasing childcare costs may well have a negative impact on women’s participation in the workforce. Child care is central to many women’s workforce participation. They cannot engage in the workforce without that childcare option. Families claiming the 2009-10 current maximum childcare rebate of $7,778 would be paying childcare costs of $15,556 or more each year, and full-time child care over 48 weeks at just under $70 a day will reach this limit. Parents who have contacted me are also concerned that they may well have to pay higher fees because of the higher staff ratios required by the quality agenda. An article in the Daily Telegraph stated: Parents face fee rises of up to $33 per child per day … The centres referred to, which supply nearly 13,000 childcare places, said: … fees for children aged under two would have to rise by 30 per cent … For a family using full-time care, the cost increases could amount to $2970 per year. That reinforces why the indexation of the childcare rebate is so important to families, given that, under the government’s changes from 2011 staff to child ratios for under two-year-olds will be cut from one carer to every five children to one carer for every four children and childcare centres will also have to employ a fully trained early childhood teacher. I note that there is a very strong and increasing need for childcare places, with the 2008 figures showing that over 1,300,000 women with children under the age of 15 years were employed either in full-time or in part-time work, either because of economic necessity or to pursue their careers. We all know that the participation of women in the workforce is and will be a key part of our nation’s productivity capacity. In the same year, 2008, over 700,000 children used some form of child care. I understand very well why improved standards and conditions for early childhood educators will ensure that quality care is provided to Australian children, but we must also be aware of the overwhelming importance of affordable child care to Australian families. That is why we are so supportive of our election commitment to improve access to quality, affordable child care for families, such as reintroducing indexation of the childcare rebate to help ease the cost-of-living pressures on families struggling to meet childcare costs, the very indexation that the Labor government is removing, and to pay the childcare rebate weekly and directly to childcare providers so that families will face smaller out-of-pocket expenses and there will be less pressure on family budgets—very important to families. We would also have reintroduced $12.6 million of occasional care funding which was cut by the Labor government. That decision affected many occasional childcare centres in my electorate, cuts that demonstrated yet again that the Labor government clearly do not understand the needs and issues facing families in regional and rural communities in Australia. If they did they would not have made that decision. The Gillard government’s decision to cease funding the Neighbourhood Model Occasional Childcare Program from July 2010 was a major blow to 28 affected childcare centres in Western Australia alone. Many of them still have no certainty in their ability to continue providing the services at all. This should be of concern to members on both sides of the House. In rural and regional areas, many of these centres simply do not have the numbers to sustain themselves on a full-time basis, but they need to provide that service because of the number of families who need the service. There are four occasional childcare centres in Binningup, Dardanup, Harvey and Nannup in my electorate of Forrest that are suffering as a result of that funding cut. All these centres have groups of great young mothers. They do not simply sit back and expect a handout from government. They take responsibility for these community based centres because they know that they will not be able to pursue their home based business or their job without it. They fundraise. They manage their own centres and finances. They play a direct role in their children’s day care but they cannot afford the increased fees caused by the loss of that federal funding. The state Liberal government in Western Australia has offered some support until 31 December, but after that time their future remains uncertain, and that is a very serious issue in these small towns. If you do not live and work in these sorts of areas, you simply cannot understand at all what it means to lose occasional child care, what distances these mums and their families have to travel to access the child care and their work and also how important and integral child care is to the way in which these communities function. This is a crisis for these centres and the families who rely on them. That is the way it is. Before the 2007 election, Labor promised Australian families that it would make child care more affordable, yet this legislation and the cut to occasional childcare funding demonstrate that the government has failed to meet its commitment. On the other hand, the coalition recognises the importance of affordable child care to help families meet increasing costs—they are ongoing. We support improved standards and conditions for early childhood educators to ensure quality care is provided; but, overwhelmingly, we have to be mindful that child care must be affordable and not at the expense of others in the industry. While I am here, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to congratulate Little Angles Day Care Centre in my electorate for receiving the National Children’s Service of the Year award. The centre provides an excellent service. However, I am concerned for the number of families in my electorate who may find that their child care is less affordable or not affordable under the changes being proposed by the government in this legislation. 3502 19:40:00 Bandt, Adam, MP M3C Melbourne AG 0 0 Mr BANDT —Child care is a matter that is of crucial importance to the Greens, and it was a matter of pivotal importance in my electorate of Melbourne during the recent federal election campaign. Many people in the electorate were acutely aware that the government had reneged on its promise to build the additional 222 community childcare centres and were somewhat taken aback by the rationale given for not building those centres—namely, vacancy rates in cities like Melbourne were around the 92 per cent rate. Before and during my election campaign, I received a number of representations from parents in the area who were keen to get their children into quality child care who said that the figure simply did not reflect the reality. We conducted a survey of all the centres in my electorate and found that the actual availability, especially for zero to two-year-olds in community centres, was somewhere in the order of 11 or 12 per cent and that, across the board, it was not that much higher. There is clearly a demand for affordable, quality child care. One of the things that was particularly notable about the survey that we conducted and the feedback that we got from parents was that they were voting with their feet. Even when there were vacancies with private providers, they preferred their children to be in community centres. One of the reasons for that is the quality child care that is provided by community and not-for-profit centres. These centres are also the hubs of the community, where people are involved in running the organisations and looking after their children. The bringing in of the ABC Learning Centres under the GoodStart model will not make an appreciable difference to either vacancy rates or fees in my electorate. The figures ultimately do not change and the vacancy rates hover somewhere between 10 and 20 per cent. The average time on the waiting list is well over a year and sometimes closer to 18 months. There are particular pockets in the electorate—areas like Flemington and Kensington—where, at the same time that the councils and the state government are projecting massive growth in the number of young families, there is no provision of corresponding planned investment in quality child care. The Greens are supportive of moves to increase quality in child care, and we have made our position clear in that respect. Also, we understand that the government is making the argument that that somehow needs to be funded, but it is with quite some hesitation that we approach the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Budget Measures) Bill 2010 and look at the methods that are being used to find savings. Having said that, there are a number of amendments that we will be seeking to this bill. In accordance with the agreement that the Australian Greens have with the Labor Party that assisted in the formation of this government, I will be supporting the passage of this bill through this House, but that is without prejudice to our right to move amendments and vote as is needed in the Senate. One of the key amendments that has been circulated in my name, although I will not be moving it here, is an issue that we will be pursuing in the Senate, which is to ensure that parents receive payments fortnightly—something that will make a significant difference. Ultimately, the answer to this question is a significantly higher level of investment in our community and not-for-profit council run childcare centres. They are doing a fantastic job and getting parents to vote with their feet by moving their children into them—as the long waiting lists attest. In the meantime, until the government gets back on track and starts building those 222 centres that were promised and that are needed, I urge the government to examine a short-term solution of an injection of funds to allow existing community childcare centres to expand. That would go a long way to alleviating some of the crisis and allow for greater quality childcare places to be provided. Some relatively small capital grants would go a long way for many existing community childcare centres who have the staff and the infrastructure. I know there are a number in my electorate who are in this position. If they had the funds to build one or two more rooms and employ some more staff, community needs would largely be met. I will be supporting the passage of the bill here, but that is without prejudice to our rights to move amendments in the Senate. 3503 19:45:00 Ellis, Kate, MP DZU Adelaide ALP Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare and Minister for the Status of Women 1 0 Ms KATE ELLIS —in reply—I take this opportunity to thank all of the members for their contributions in the debate on this important Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Budget Measures) Bill 2010 and also for the manner in which they have been conducted. A wide range of diverse issues have come up during this debate and I would like to take the opportunity to address a few of them and to set the record straight. The first thing I make absolutely clear is that ours is a government that recognises the importance of affordable child care. This is something that we do not just come into the parliament to talk about but that we have acted conclusively on. In fact, it is really interesting that some members of the opposition were coming in here and comparing this bill to the situation that existed under the Howard government as if they had something to be proud about. Whilst this bill is capping the childcare rebate level at $7,500, those who opposed capping it at $7,500 here tonight were quite happy under the Howard government to see that level set at just $4,354. The increase when we came to government was substantial. The amount of $3,146 a year or some 72 per cent is over and above what parents could claim each year under the coalition government and is the result of our increasing the level at which the CCR is capped but also increasing the childcare rebate from 30 to 50 per cent of parental out-of-pocket expenses. We have done more than just talk about affordability. We can measure the impact that these measures we have put in place have had on the Australian childcare market. From ABS statistics, it is clear that in 2004 the out-of-pocket cost after subsidies for a family with one child in long day care and earning $55,000 a year was 13 per cent of their disposable income. In 2010, this proportion of their disposable income has declined to seven per cent. To make very clear to the House and all of those who have raised issues about the importance of affordable child care, I restate for the record that this government recognises how important it is that child care be affordable and that this is a government that has acted to ensure that the level of affordability is increased. We are spending over double what the previous Howard government was spending on affordability. We have put our money where our mouth is in that regard. We also recognise that, whilst it is important that child care be affordable, it is important that Australian child care has quality. The bill that we are debating tonight will facilitate further government investment in our critical reforms to lift the quality of child care right across Australia. This is in response to the clear evidence that it is the early years which can shape a child’s life—they are absolutely critical. In fact, a child’s experience in their first five years shapes their future outcomes for life. Both domestic and international research show that one of the most effective measures of increasing educational attainment, social attainment and health outcomes throughout the life of a person is to make sure that we are investing in those critical early years. We also know that, with the evolving nature of Australia’s workforce and with the caring arrangements of families, more and more often those early experiences are happening in our childcare centres, so it is important that they have quality. Despite all this research, National Childcare Accreditation Council data has revealed that many childcare centres are failing to meet basic safety, hygiene, educational and wellbeing standards. Thirty per cent of childcare centres receiving accreditation decisions in the first half of this year failed to ensure that toileting and nappy-changing procedures were consistent with advice from recognised health authorities. Thirty-two per cent had failed to ensure that potentially dangerous products, plants and objects were inaccessible to children. I know from regular visits to our early childhood centres across Australia that they are filled with a remarkable workforce. They are filled with people who are amazing in their hard work, their passion and their dedication. But I also know from discussions with those workers that many of them would love to be able to give more individual attention to the children in their care and would love it if they could ensure that they were getting valuable results out of each and every one of those interactions. Our government believes that each of the 800,000 Australian families that places their children in care each week deserves to know and be confident when they drop their child off in the morning that they will be safe and will be well looked after throughout the day. We believe that we can and must do better when it comes to ensuring that the safety, wellbeing and early learning of our children come first. This bill will mean that the government can invest more money in these important reforms, which we think is incredibly important. This bill will also allow the government to provide an extra $59 million to improve the quality of our budget based funded childcare services. Our budget based funded childcare services are, as the name suggests, funded directly by government. This is because they are not deemed to be viable to operate otherwise. In other words, they are in communities with a level of disadvantage such that they would not be able to operate on normal market principles or they might be in an area that was so remote that these children would otherwise not be able to access early childhood education. These services are predominantly located in rural and regional Australia and they do provide care to some of our nation’s most vulnerable children. Sadly, it is the children from low-socioeconomic backgrounds who are most likely to miss out on these essential early learning opportunities, the very children who we know could actually benefit the most from those very experiences. So this $59 million investment will better support services to provide these children with high-quality early learning in an effort to improve their future health, their future development and their future wellbeing outcomes. Through the infrastructure and facility upgrades that this government will deliver, children will be able to learn and play in a safer and more appropriate environment in these particular communities. I would like to take a moment to touch on the contribution of the opposition in tonight’s debate but it is really rather difficult to know where to begin. The fact is that it has been rather difficult to identify exactly what the reason for the opposition’s position on this bill is. When our government first started our extensive consultations on the national quality reform agenda, the then coalition spokesperson, the member for Indi, complained. Her response was that we were spending too much time out communicating and consulting with parents and that the government was treating parents with contempt for holding additional consultations with them. Of course, the member for Indi then backflipped on that and criticised the government for overconsulting and today the member for Farrer has criticised the government for not consulting enough on these quality reforms, so those opposite might want a bit of consistency. Whether they want more consultations or whether they think the government has been wasting time by overly consulting is not clear from the discussion we have had tonight or over recent months. Indeed, when it comes to whether or not they support the quality agenda has been brought into question tonight. At least during the election campaign the Leader of the Opposition and the then coalition spokesperson, the member for Murray, claimed to be supportive of the government’s quality reforms. The member for Murray described it all on ABC radio as ‘the new quality framework which we, the coalition, totally support’. ‘Totally support’ before the election but after the election they come in here and argue against the very measures which would put it all in place! Today the member for Farrer has decided that it is no longer the case that the opposition are supporting the quality reform agenda, and she is rapidly backing away from the commitment. But perhaps if we want to note the height of hypocrisy of the backflips and the inconsistencies of those opposite, it is best demonstrated, however, by the fact that the coalition have not just flip-flopped on particular aspects of the quality agenda but have flip-flopped on this particular bill. Whilst people might have come in here, one after the other, to argue against this tonight, I note many of these very same coalition members, prior to the last election, supported this. When this very same bill was first introduced into the parliament the coalition supported the measure. It passed this very chamber this very year with the support of those opposite. I know that the shadow minister, who is sitting opposite, has also assisted us with a particularly original contribution to the childcare debate tonight. I think that she might actually be the first member of the opposition to come in here and claim that there is no link between quality child care and staff qualifications, that there is no link between quality child care and the ratio of staff to children. If you ask any academic or if you look at any study to see what increases the quality of early childhood care, the first two answers will be these. As for the first thing, the quality increases if you have greater attention. If you have a low staff to child ratio that means that children are getting more individual care and attention to detail, and if you have more staff to ensure a safe environment and build a relationship with those children, that increases quality. The other thing which clearly increases quality is if you increase the qualifications of those staff members, so if you make sure that they are trained in every way to get the absolute most out of those individual children. Given that particular contribution to the debate, I would like to humbly suggest that the shadow minister opposite might want to review her notes. In particular, she might want to review her criticism that the national quality agenda is actually not our issue at all and that it apparently is a state licensing issue to have a look at the accreditation details. That is true in one regard, except that the whole idea of these groundbreaking COAG reforms is that we will replace state licensing with a national benchmark. Those opposite have also argued that this has been a cash grab or that it has been increasing our coffers. On this point I think we need to be very clear. We heard a lot about this during this debate and we heard a lot about it during the election campaign. I know in my local community I had opponents putting out flyers about the ‘fact’ that we were about to slash funding to child care. So let us be very clear about the fact that this government has more than doubled our financial contribution to early childhood education. That is something that we are incredibly proud of. Let us also be clear about the fact that this bill is designed to make sure that funding is available for those early childhood centres who need it the most and to ensure that we lift the quality of all of those centres right around the nation. So I think we do need to talk about what the effect of this bill actually is, because this is not about a single cent going into savings measures; this is about making sure that the funding is allocated to where it is needed the most. The measure that we are debating tonight will return the childcare rebate annual cap to $7,500 per child per year and it will pause indexation of the annual cap for four years until 30 June 2014. This will generate $86.3 million that will be directly reinvested to support the government’s quest to increase the quality of child care and early education in Australia. It will also help to fund the government’s $59.4 million investment in improving the quality of the more than 140 budget based funded early childhood services, predominantly located in rural and remote Australia, that are providing care to some of our most vulnerable children. This adjustment to the childcare rebate will not affect the vast majority of Australian families who use approved child care. The average childcare rebate last year was less than $2,000. What we are talking about tonight is ensuring that a cap of $7,500 is set. In the current financial year we know that the vast majority of families, some 97 per cent, will not be affected in the slightest by this change. Importantly, this change will support the government’s important investment to lift the quality of child care right across Australia. I want to acknowledge the contribution from the member for Melbourne, who put forward the case that the Greens have been arguing for more regular payments, particularly fortnightly payments, and flagged that they may be raising this in the Senate. We are proud that it was one of our election commitments to ensure that families receive their payments more regularly. We committed to fortnightly payments after, of course, earlier moving from yearly payments to quarterly payments. So I would like to support the member for Melbourne in that regard, and the Australian Greens in long arguing that particular position. Our government recognises the importance of the early years. We are committed to assisting parents. We are committed to giving Australian children the very best start in life. We believe that our record is clear when it comes to delivering for child care and quality early learning experiences in Australia, and I commend the bill to the House. (Time expired) Question put: That the motion (Ms Kate Ellis’s) be agreed to. 20:05:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins) 75 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bandt, A. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Bradbury, D.J. Brodtmann, G. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. Crean, S.F. Crook, T. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Husic, E. Jones, S. Kelly, M.J. King, C.F. Leigh, A. Livermore, K.F. Lyons, G. Macklin, J.L. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. Melham, D. Mitchell, R. Murphy, J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. O’Neill, D. Oakeshott, R.J.M. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Rowland, M. Roxon, N.L. Rudd, K.M. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Smyth, L. Snowdon, W.E. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, A. Windsor, A.H.C. Zappia, A. 72 Abbott, A.J. Alexander, J. Andrews, K. Andrews, K.J. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Buchholz, S. Chester, D. Christensen, G. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Coulton, M. * Dutton, P.C. Entsch, W. Fletcher, P. Forrest, J.A. Frydenberg, J. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Griggs, N. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hockey, J.B. Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Jones, E. Katter, R.C. Keenan, M. Kelly, C. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. Matheson, R. McCormack, M. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Neville, P.C. O’Dowd, K. O’Dwyer, K Prentice, J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Roy, Wyatt Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. * Simpkins, L. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Tehan, D. Truss, W.E. Tudge, A. Turnbull, M. Van Manen, B. Vasta, R. Washer, M.J. Wyatt, K. 1 Plibersek, T. Bishop, J.I. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 3508 Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide —Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare and Minister for the Status of Women) 20:09:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 3508 Bills R4431 3508 Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bill. 3508 Committees 3508 3508 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senators Joyce and Milne have been appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office. 3508 Bills R4489 3508 Debate resumed from 17 November, on motion by Mr McClelland: That this bill be now read a second time. 3508 20:10:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 0 0 Mr KEENAN —I rise to speak on the Family Law Amendment (Validation of Certain Parenting Orders and Other Measures) Bill 2010. The family law framework largely deals with parenting arrangements and ensuring that they are in the best interests of children, particularly in situations in which they are at risk or where their parents or carers are separating. Child protection is principally dealt with on a state and territory basis under state and territory legislation, while parenting arrangements are dealt with under the Commonwealth Family Law Act 1975. Australian domestic law also enshrines some of Australia’s responsibilities under international law. Australia is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which is dealt with in the Family Law Act 1975. Notably, on 22 May 2006 under the former Howard government, this parliament passed amendments to its Family Law Act 1975. The Family Law Amendment (Shared Parenting Responsibility) Act 2006 applies to any court matter concerning children who were in court on or after 1 July that year. A stated objective of this law is to guarantee that the best interests of children are met by ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child. The primary objective of this law is to ensure that the courts always have the best interests of the child as the overriding consideration. Earlier, in December 2003, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs tabled a unanimous report titled Every picture tells a story. The committee was asked to consider whether ‘given that the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration, what other factors should be taken into account in deciding the respective time each parent should spend with their children post separation’. The committee, headed by the then member for Riverina, Kay Hull, heard evidence from more than 2,000 witnesses over the course of the six-month inquiry. One of the findings that informed its many recommendations was that the entire committee—across party lines—believed the following: ‘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, would be an ideal outcome.’ The so-called shared parenting laws were introduced by the Howard government in 2006 in response to that report. The policy objectives of the 2006 reforms were to: help to build strong healthy relationships and prevent separation; encourage greater involvement by both parents in their children’s lives after separation and also to protect children from violence and abuse; help separated parents agree on what is best for their children rather than litigating through the provision of useful information and advice, and effective dispute resolution services; finally, establish a highly visible entry point that operates as a doorway to other services and helps families to access those other services. The changes to the family law system included changes to both the legislation and the family relationship services system. The main elements of the legislative changes were to require parents to attend family dispute resolution before filing a court application, except where there are concerns about family violence and child abuse, and to place increased emphasis on the need for both parents to be involved in their children’s lives after separation, including the introduction of a presumption of shared parental responsibility. It also aimed to place greater emphasis on the need to protect children from exposure to family violence and child abuse and to introduce legislative support for less adversarial court processes in children’s matters. Face-to-face contact between children and their non-resident parents is an important part of parenting after separation. The 2006 family law reforms, which introduced the presumption of shared parental responsibility, have been the subject of misinformed criticism in some sectors. The majority of those were answered by the Australian Institute of Family Studies longitudinal survey and the Family Law Council’s report to the Attorney-General. These reports found that the 2006 reforms worked well and had been well received in the community. In particular, the number of court filings in children’s matters has been reduced by 22 per cent, which has resulted in speedier and more dedicated access for the less tractable and most worrying cases. The family dispute resolution process was very highly rated by its users. A substantial majority of parents with shared care reported that the arrangements worked well for them and for their children. One of the most controversial issues, however, arose from the reported cases in which mothers were allegedly being confined to remote communities by orders requiring equal parenting time for fathers. The coalition’s view was that the making of such orders arose from a misinterpretation of the reforms. In March, the High Court handed down its decision in MRR v GR, holding that court orders for shared time must be in the best interests of the child and reasonably practicable. The court held that restricting a mother to a certain location which denied her employment opportunities and caused her distress was neither in the best interests of the child nor reasonably practicable. The view of the Attorney-General’s Department is that the decision casts doubt on the validity of certain parenting orders made pursuant to the reforms. The orders that may be affected are those where the parents have equal shared parental responsibility and the court has not considered certain criteria relating to equal time or, if the case requires, substantial and significant time in accordance with section 65DAA of the Family Law Act 1975. As mentioned in the bill’s explanatory memorandum, the bill creates new statutory rights and responsibilities and ensures that these are exercisable and enforceable as if they had been made under the act, while preserving appeal rights against orders affected by the High Court’s decision. Those people with contested parenting orders will be able to commence fresh family law proceedings, where the court did not consider the reasonable practicality of the order, without having to demonstrate a material change in the circumstances. The bill also amends the act to permit a court to consider the statutory criteria in subsections 65DAA(1) and (2)—the best interests of the child and the reasonable practicality of the arrangement—in relation to applications for consent parenting orders where the parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility. This will allow the court to give appropriate weight to agreements between parents. The bill does not interfere with the 2006 reforms but seeks only to remove doubts as to the validity of orders made between the commencement of the reforms and the High Court’s decision. The few decisions that confined women to remote communities were a misinterpretation of the provisions, created misleading perceptions in the community and resulted in genuine distress for a small number of parents. The High Court’s decision and this bill should put the misinterpretations of the reforms to rest and reinforce the importance of the best interests of the children as the basic principle underlying the provisions of the act. I therefore commend the bill to the House. 3510 20:19:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —I speak in support of the Family Law Amendment (Validation of Certain Parenting Orders and Other Measures) Bill 2010. Basically, this bill arises out of a decision of the High Court of Australia in MRR v GR (2010) HCA 4. That full court decision was handed down by Chief Justice French and Justices Gummow, Hayne, Kiefel and Bell on 3 December 2009. The reasons were published on 3 March 2010. This bill overcomes difficulties caused by that decision. The genesis of this goes back to the 2006 amendments to the Family Law Act. I was critical of those amendments at the time in a number of fora—I was then practising as a lawyer and not yet a member of this chamber. The 2006 amendments went too far and the Howard government got it wrong with respect to family law changes at that time. A culture of expectation has developed amongst lawyers, the general public, the community at large, family consultants, judges and magistrates that equal parenting time is what happens. In fact, that is not the case. What happened at the time was that part VII of the Family Law Act was rewritten to create a hierarchy of considerations. There were primary considerations that a court had to consider and additional considerations the court could then look at if necessary. But a very complicated procedure was put in place whereby the court’s discretion with respect to family law, which could be found in the old part VII, was severely fettered. As a result, in many cases women were handing over children—particularly in what we used to call ‘contact arrangements’—in circumstances where they felt they needed to be ‘the friendly parent’ under the amendments and where they feared adverse findings by a judge or a federal magistrate, which would impact upon the continued residence of their children with them. The consequences of that were devastating for many children and, contrary to what the previous speaker said, those amendments have caused anxiety, distress and other difficulties in our family law system, in the Federal Magistrates Court and in the Family Court of Australia. This is not something that is esoteric, vague or obtuse; thousands of children every day, every week, every month are subject to orders of the court. Relocation cases are very difficult, and this is a relocation case, and as a result of the decision that was handed down changes are necessary because of the High Court’s reasoning. The changes here are necessary because the best interests of children are always the paramount consideration. That is what it says in section 60CA of the Family Law Act. That, of course, is the new provision put in by the Howard government, but it was always the case in the old legislation stemming back to 1975 that the best interests of the child were the paramount consideration. Section 61DA(1) provides a presumption, and it is a rebuttable presumption, of equal shared parental responsibility. Of course, that is what a court must look at. It must determine whether in fact there is equal shared parental responsibility and, having found that, the court then looks at whether there should be equal time and whether it is reasonably practicable for that to happen. That is always appropriate and only fair when there is a meeting of the minds between the mum and the dad and when there is geographical proximity—and often that is not the case when the tyranny of distance in a big country like Australia causes that not to happen. If the court finds that it is not appropriate for there to be equal time, the court then looks at whether there should be substantial and significant time with each parent and whether that is reasonably practicable. If that is not the case, then the court looks at any other orders it could make having regard to the hierarchy of considerations, the primary considerations being whether a child should have a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect children from abuse, neglect and family violence. What happened in this particular case—and this happens every day in this country—was that a child was born in 2002 as a result of a relationship, a father moved to Mount Isa in order to gain work experience as a graduate mechanical engineer with a mining company for a couple of years and the parties separated shortly after they had travelled back to Sydney for an awards ceremony when the mother said she wanted to stay in Sydney and the father said, ‘No, I have to go back to Mount Isa to live.’ She returned, following interim orders that were made, on 17 October 2007, and at a hearing before Federal Magistrate Coker—the mother and father were living in Mount Isa—he made the decision that the child live with each parent on a week-about basis. His decision was upheld by the full court of the Family Court and then the case went on appeal to the High Court of Australia. Interestingly, my good friend Graeme Page SC—an old colleague of mine from the Family Law bar in Brisbane—was counsel for the respondent in the case. Graeme is an excellent barrister and it was always of some regret to me that he was never appointed to the Family Court bench. I think he would have been a worthy participant on the bench. He is a very fine lawyer indeed, one of the best barristers practising family law in Queensland. The matter was considered by the High Court of Australia and the appeal really revolved around the interpretation of section 65DA, which requires the court to consider whether a child spends equal or substantial and significant time with each parent and whether it is reasonably practicable for that to happen. The court was indeed critical of Federal Magistrate Coker—again, a good federal magistrate in my experience; I appeared before him on numerous occasions—and his interpretation particularly of section 65DAA. The court made reference to the words at the beginning of subparagraph (c) of that section and the words ‘if it is’. When making an order a court must consider the findings it has made. In most cases where a Family Court order or a Federal Magistrate’s order is made, there is no finding made, effectively, and no reasons given because often they are consent orders. The parties have agreed to file consent orders in the Family Court or the Federal Magistrates Court, sometimes during litigation and sometimes before litigation starts, and they lodge those with an application to get them approved. Often a registrar, a federal magistrate or a judge will consider the matter and, if it looks in order, make the orders by consent. The problem is that the court is not really making any findings there. Section 65DAA requires the court to consider the issue if it is making an order. That is where the problem lay and that is why these things need to be changed and why this bill is before the chamber right now. It was necessary for Federal Magistrate Coker to consider, as he was obliged to do, whether it was reasonably practicable in all the circumstances, having made some findings. So the court did acknowledge that His Honour Federal Magistrate Coker ‘did not expressly address the issue of whether an equal time arrangement would be “reasonably practicable”‘. That is where the problem lies. This is not an obtuse problem. It really is a very significant problem because in every registry across the country—in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, wherever it may be—decisions are made all the time, as I said, without those findings taking place. This bill responds to that decision, which casts doubt on the validity of those kinds of parenting orders made, or purported to be made, without the court providing findings about the criteria set out in section 65DAA of the Family Law Act. The bill creates certain statutory rights and liabilities that are in line with rights and liabilities under effective orders to ensure that those families can continue with their parenting arrangements pursuant to valid orders, and the statutory rights and liabilities can be relied on in the circumstances. The bill validates any action that had been done. Often, as we know, orders are made pursuant to those orders and they are usually enforcement orders, and so they are valid. For parenting orders made with the parties’ consent after the commencement of the bill, the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court may, but will not be required to, make findings about the criteria set out in section 65DAA. So, what we are doing is correcting a problem caused by a decision of the High Court. It really comes back to some quite sloppy statutory drafting. When you look at section 65DAA, the High Court got it right—the legislative drafting was inadequate and a problem could arise in certain circumstances. It is important that we fix this problem and remove any doubts for families affected by parenting arrangements. We need to make sure that the parenting arrangements pursuant to those court orders are valid where they are made as a result of a determination by the Family Court or the Federal Magistrates Court after a final hearing or whether it is a consent order or any sort of parenting arrangement under a parenting agreement. It is important that schools and teachers and doctors and court counsellors and psychologists and anyone associated with families who have had a court order can have certainty and can rely upon those orders. This bill will preserve the rights of parties to appeal or seek variations of those parenting orders. It will ensure, as I said before, that the courts may, although they are not required to, consider those matters in section 65DAA when making orders after the bill commences. It is a practical and sensible change, and it fixes up a problem that has been highlighted by the full court of the High Court. I commend the legislation to the chamber. 3513 20:31:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 0 Ms SAFFIN —I rise to speak in support of the Family Law Amendment (Validation of Certain Parenting Orders and Other Measures) Bill 2010. The honourable member for Blair talked about the bill correcting a problem that was presented to us arising from a High Court decision. I know he meant that in the general sense, and it was a problem we had to grapple with—a whole lot of orders had been made over a period of years that did need to have some certainty put around them because of the decision of the High Court. I suggest that the problems started a long time before that. As the honourable member for Blair said, there was what he called inadequate legislative drafting and also there was the matter of interpretation. Interpretation is not always done in a vacuum; it is not always done in a pure black-letter sense. I can see that interpretation was somewhat of an issue with the High Court decision. I have not had the opportunity to go back over the second reading speeches, which I did look at at the time some of these changes came in. I have always been interested in family law, having worked in the area and having worked as a solicitor as well. At the time there was a lot of discussion about shared parenting—that was the trend and that became the norm—and shared parenting became writ large as equal time. There was certainly a big push for that and a lot of lobbying. With all of those things that were happening—there was the legislation itself and the acculturation of shared parenting—shared parenting came to mean equal time and it meant you had to live almost side by side, or you had to live in close proximity to make it work, and that became the norm. That is how I saw it, and I was interested in the issue not just from the legal aspect but also from the aspect of the best interests of the child. Every member in this House subscribes to, believes in and talks about the best interests of the child but those best interests can be really difficult to achieve in practice. Again, I have had some experience in dealing with those issues and trying to interpret what is in the best interests of the child in work that I have done before the courts, in work that I have done in juvenile justice and in work that I have done in a whole range of areas. In the early years, I was part of the lobby in Australia that got up the Convention on the Rights of the Child—and we got it up in a very bipartisan way. Giving expression to looking after ‘the best interests of the child’ can be really challenging. I have not been persuaded that the Family Court has always got it right. I say that in the context of knowing how difficult it is to get it right, particularly when the cases that come before the Family Court are usually quite protracted and there is a lot of emotion, a lot of angst and a lot of ill-feeling by the time it gets to the court for a determinative decision. That can be very problematic, and you almost need the wisdom of Solomon to make decisions about what is in the best interests of the child at that point. I was not surprised by the decision of the High Court when I read the case and heard it reported, as I had my own views about what the section meant and how it had been interpreted and acculturated. This bill brings certainty to decisions that have been made on the basis of an interpretation of this section. That is necessary, and we as a parliament and as legislators do have to bring certainty to those orders, to those situations. I hope that arising out of this decision and our creating certainty from what has gone before we can also start to look at the whole area of shared parenting. That can mean different things in different situations—there is no formula. That is the case in many areas. I know it can be dangerous to argue by analogy, but I am about to do it. I was on the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and we would apply the law when matters came before the tribunal for our decision and review. That can be very different to applying what had gone before us. The decision makers before us had interpreted the law in particular ways so that they could have a broad policy framework that provided certainty and allowed them to make their daily decisions. It did not mean that they always got it right. The social security law had changed to essentially say that people who moved to an area where they were less likely to get a job than in the area they had lived in would lose their benefits for a certain amount of time. It was interpreted into a policy framework that was based on a statistical analysis that did not always apply to individuals. A lot those cases would come before the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and, given the circumstances, the policy framework would not apply and they would fail. That can happen in all areas of the law that I have seen. I am not suggesting that it happened in this area, but I do know the climate that surrounded the decision to have shared parenting. There is nothing wrong with shared parenting—it works well when parents agree—but it can be really difficult to adhere to a strictly formulaic approach when you try to enforce something from the court. We do not live our lives like that and yet you can have decisions that require that approach. In supporting this bill, I would like to refer to the Attorney-General’s second reading speech, where he said: The rights and liabilities created by the bill are declared to be the same, and always to have been the same, as if the court had considered the relevant matters under section 65DAA of the Family Law Act before making the order. That is the essence of what this bill is about. He went on to say: The approach taken by the bill is based on a similar approach upheld by the High Court of Australia in a case known as R v Humby; ex parte Rooney (1973) … And it certainly does that. As the Attorney-General said: The bill has two purposes. First, it ensures that parenting arrangements under orders affected by the High Court decision continue to have effect. Second, it streamlines procedures for orders that are made in the future that provide for parents to equal shared parental responsibility for their child. Both of these purposes are critical. With those comments, I commend the bill to the House. 3515 20:41:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr McCLELLAND —in reply—I would like to thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate and express my appreciation to the opposition for the expeditious consideration of the bill. The Family Law Amendment (Validation of Certain Parenting Orders and Other Measures) Bill 2010 is an important bill that provides certainty to parents with parenting orders affected by the High Court’s decision in the case known as MRR v GR, which was decided earlier this year. The bill will ensure that parenting arrangements under these orders will continue to have effect, which will support parents continuing to be involved in their children’s lives. Things done or not done that relied on existing orders will be taken to be valid on the commencement of the bill, and parents with these orders will be able to rely on them as if they had been validly made. Appropriate safeguards are provided by the bill. These include the preservation of appeal rights and ensuring parents can, in appropriate cases, vary parenting arrangements under orders—including any that were made in contested proceedings—that were not reasonably practicable. The bill will also streamline procedures for the courts to make equal shared parental responsibility orders in the future when all parties to the proceedings consent to them. Where parties agree that parents will have equal shared parental responsibility the courts may—but will not be required to—give consideration to alternative equal or substantial and significant time arrangements. This measure will reduce costs and complexity, and it demonstrates the government’s commitment to supporting parents reaching agreement about parenting arrangements for their children. The bill is based on previous validation legislation passed by the parliament and subsequently upheld by the High Court of Australia. In summary, the bill will provide much needed certainty for families with shared parenting orders affected by the High Court’s decision. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 3515 Mr McCLELLAND (Barton —Attorney-General) 20:43:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 3516 Bills R4420 Cognate bill: 3516 Bills R4425 3516 Debate resumed from 22 November, on motion by Mr McClelland: That this bill be now read a second time. 3516 20:44:00 Zappia, Tony, MP HWB Makin ALP 1 0 Mr ZAPPIA —In continuing my remarks in respect of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill 2010 and the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2010, I make the point that the fundamental question that needs to be answered is whether the granting of rights to one person simultaneously denies the reasonable rights to another. This argument was frequently made during the consultation period by religious groups, who argued that a bill of rights removed their right to freely practise their religion. That argument is based on an assumption about what would be in a bill or charter of rights. An additional question that also needs to be asked is whether the rights of the individual should take priority over the rights of the wider community. These are complex matters and, not surprisingly, the complexity was reflected in the diversity of submissions put forward during the consultation. This legislation reflects that diversity and I believe provides a sensible compromise. I note that Australia is the only Western democracy that does not have some form of national charter or bill of rights. Of the 35,014 submissions received, 27,888 were in favour and 4,203 were opposed to a charter of rights. There have been two attempts—1944 and 1998—to amend the Australian Constitution and include a human rights charter. Both those attempts failed. Four attempts—1973, 1981, 1984 and 1985—were made to introduce federal legislation in respect of human rights. Only the Fraser government was successful with the 1981 Human Rights Commission Act. Constitutional changes were opposed by the states because they feared that any change would affect their ability to legislate. The ACT and Victoria have, however, since introduced their own charter of rights. Tasmania and Western Australia have deferred a decision on introducing their own legislation pending the outcome of the federal inquiry—which is what we are debating right now. Queensland and New South Wales had parliamentary committees inquire into this issue. Both committees rejected a human rights act. Another frequent objection to a human rights act is that power would be transferred from the democratically elected parliament to the unelected judiciary. That argument is very contestable. Politicians are just as likely to make politically popular decisions as they are to ensure that policies are fair and just. Because the judiciary is not elected it is more likely to administer laws which, in fact, are just. Members of the judiciary also have personal political views and at times have served in parliament prior to being appointed to the bench. Judicial appointments have also been made or rejected because of the political views of those being considered for appointment to the bench. So to suggest that somehow members of the judiciary are not influenced by their own political views or to suggest that because politicians are accountable to the public they are more likely to make fair and just decisions are two statements which need to be qualified. A bill of rights may in fact ensure more fairness and less political sway in judicial appointments. I am very familiar with one particular case where because of a particular person’s views rather than that person’s ability that person was not elected to the bench for many, many years. Ultimately, when he was, he proved to be an eminent member of the bench. Had a bill of rights existed in his time, perhaps he would have been appointed much earlier. However, the reality is that even without a bill of rights the judiciary are hardly constrained. In handing down decisions over the years, the judiciary have drawn on convention, precedence, written law, international law and international conventions and treaties to which we are signatories in order to determine their own decisions. I understand that in the Mabo case Justice Brennan alluded to an international convention to which this country had been a signatory. The Australian Constitution expressly provides for a limited number of rights. Among them are: section 51, which refers to the acquisition of property on just terms; section 75, which refers to the right to review of government actions; section 80, which refers to the right to trial by jury; section 92, which refers to freedom of interstate trade; section 116, which refers to freedom of religion; and section 117, which refers to a prohibition on discrimination based on residence. The obvious question is why those particular rights were written into the Constitution and others were not. If they had been, the current debate about gay marriage may well have been dealt with differently, as may have been the case with respect to the debate about the Northern Territory intervention. The case against a bill of rights has not been made nor can it be made without a draft bill being drawn up. Interestingly, past Attorneys-General—Lionel Murphy, Gareth Evans and Lionel Bowen—all had bills which attempted to introduce similar legislation, and none of them were successful. I nevertheless acknowledge the genuinely held concerns raised by many of those who oppose a bill of rights. This bill in my view strengthens the preservation of human rights in Australia and is one that we should support. In closing, can I also commend the committee—led by Father Frank Brennan and including Mary Kostakidis, Tammy Williams and Mick Palmer—for the consultation process that they oversaw as part of the report to parliament that we are now effectively debating. I believe that their work will be incredibly useful not only to this parliament but to future parliaments in determining our position on a bill of rights. It certainly gave the Australian community the opportunity to comment on what I believe is not only a matter of interest to the broader community but is very important for the future of this nation. I commend the bill to the House. 3517 20:52:00 Ferguson, Laurie, MP 8T4 Werriwa ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services 1 0 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —The Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill 2010 had its genesis in the human rights consultation undertaken by Father Frank Brennan—which involved a significant number of roundtables and 15 public hearings in every part of this nation, from the most remote parts of the country to urban areas—and Australia’s Human Rights Framework, which the minister announced in April this year. It is worth noting that, despite the fact that the government did not take up some of the central themes of the consultation and that its response did not meet the expectations of some people who are active in this area, Alex Boxsell in the Australian Financial Review, in reporting the Attorney-General’s response, said: Human rights groups have praised a federal government bill that will ensure legislation meets key international human rights treaties, Father Brennan’s committee noted that Australia had a ‘patchwork quilt’ of human rights and made 31 recommendations. The Attorney-General responded by noting that many views on how human rights and responsibility should be protected had been expressed during that inquiry. The main thrust of the legislation is to ensure that the legislation passed in this country recognises the significant number of international conventions that Australia has signed. Of course, we are well aware of this country’s groundbreaking role in the activities of the United Nations General Assembly in the period after the Second World War, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The international conventions include the International Convention on All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the convention on civil and political rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Convention on the Elimination of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The way in which it is contemplated that this will be acted upon is through a parliamentary committee and through the provision of reports from those responsible for the legislation that the suggested bill is in cognisance of those conventions. Also, importantly, there will be an education campaign, which will essentially concentrate on the Public Service. As people say, they can certainly be controlled by other provisions, but it is obviously desirable that there be more recognition of how actions affect individuals and the degree to which they correspond to the conventions that this country has signed. It has been a long road to achieving this measure. If we look at history since Federation, we see there were endeavours by Gareth Evans and Lionel Bowen, there was the 1967 referendum, there was the Human Rights Bill of 1973 and earlier convention in the early post-war years, and there was a failed referendum in the late forties. It is understandable that this is an area of some controversy. People are wary of signing up to conventions that they see, in some senses, as beyond our country’s control. We look at Europe and see the debate over the European Community and the reluctance of the United Kingdom, in particular, to sign up to those conventions. We see continuing debates in different countries, most recently in France over its treatment of Roma, and the situations in some of the Eastern European countries with regard to human rights at the moment. It is understandable that some people see any kind of movement in this direction as an erosion of national sovereignty. Equally, without taking a leadership role in some of these conventions, Australia will not have the international influence to accomplish outcomes similar to ours for people in countries where they do not have internal processes that work towards guaranteeing these rights. In his April response the minister also indicated that there was a move toward streamlining legislation into a single comprehensive act and that the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General would look into the feasibility of a national harmonisation of the nation’s antidiscrimination laws. On antidiscrimination, I note the contribution of the member for Banks in indicating that, both under the Labor Party and under the current opposition when they were in government, racial discrimination and whether legislation properly complies with UN conventions has been an area of great question. Whilst we make this movement forward, it is important that we ensure the committee is properly resourced and that the reports by various ministers and others responsible for a particular bill are not just pro forma and do not just go through the motions but are a thorough analysis of the degree to which the legislation coexists with and respects international conventions. I for one do not share the great confidence in the judiciary of many of my colleagues in this House. I think on balance that this is probably not as controversial and weak an outcome as others might think. I have a degree of reticence with regard to the judiciary. I actually believe it is often more politicised than many members of this House think. You have to have a look at a few US patterns. For instance, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt was having difficulty with labour legislation and industrial standards in the United States, the Supreme Court judges there decided, ‘Let’s get a bit more liberal with regard to the government’s legislation.’ All of a sudden, judges thought that bills that had been knocked back for the previous few years did conform to the US Constitution. It is an example that shows there is a question as to whether we can always trust in judicial decisions in this area. Another good example recently is Citizens United v Federal Election Commission in the United States. In a five-four vote—very close and, once again, a case where the votes of all the judges were predictable on conservative/liberal lines—the judges decided there was no way in which the McCain-Feingold legislation, otherwise known as the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, could limit spending by large corporations and unions, which had been the intention of that legislation. It was struck down because it supposedly was prohibited under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The same people, of course, in recent years managed by a similar of partisan majority—clearly along the same lines, though a few people changed in the interim—to make the very controversial decision with regard to the Gore/Bush election. I think I might be one of the few people in this House who will not be losing too much sleep or crying late at night about the fact that we have a provision that means that the parliament will have more say in this process. Members of parliament will have a committee which will review the legislation. That is a fairly open process. It is something that is transparent to the Australian people. The committee in its consultations was very much of the view that we should legislate for a bill of rights. I know that there are very strong sentiments in the electorate from a significant number of interest groups about going that way, but I do not really think it has been that significant a loss that we did not. I believe that this will be a way in which we will genuinely make significant progress. We know that often there is not a consideration of the way in which conventions are impinged upon by legislation. There is a lot of controversy in the immigration field. There have been a variety of cases around the question of the exclusion of parents from Australia and impacts upon the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That has been somewhat controversial on occasion, but it is a good example of legislation which has gone through the House before and which probably did not gain enough interest of members with regard to its adherence. I recommend the legislation. It is, in a sense, not the victory that many of the Labor governments in past decades, many of them crusaders in this issue, would have expected, but there has been a history of defeats of referendums around this issue. I note that the committee commissioned in the inquiry some independent research which showed that there were a significant number of people—37 per cent, I think—who did not have an opinion and were neutral. Of those who had an opinion, approximately 80 per cent were supportive of a bill of rights. I am not too clear tonight as to how that question was fashioned, but it is an indication that without a campaign against it, which is an important factor, there was broad support for a bill of rights. I commend the legislation. 3520 21:01:00 Vamvakinou, Maria, MP 00AMT Calwell ALP 1 0 Ms VAMVAKINOU —I rise to speak on the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill 2010 along with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2010. I welcome this legislation for an act to establish a parliamentary joint committee on human rights, and for related purposes, as I believe it serves to reflect the government’s commitment to implementing the legislative elements of Australia’s Human Rights Framework, which arose out of the recommendations put forward by the National Human Rights Consultation Committee. I also want to welcome the efforts of the Attorney-General, the Hon. Robert McClelland, who is in the chamber, for introducing this very important piece of legislation, which goes very much to the heart of our national judicial framework in protecting and promoting human rights in Australia. It is not possible to speak of democracy without checks and balances. A democracy that has defining rights and duties needs to function within a human rights framework that takes into account the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of its citizens. Democracy needs oversight mechanisms to ensure that power is not abused and that accountability exists within a legislative framework, whereby policy development gives due consideration to issues of human rights. In functioning democracies it is common that there are different ideologies that shape our political persuasions. So what is it that ensures that, regardless of the make-up of the executive and regardless of the make-up of parliament, there remains a framework of rights and freedoms, a framework which in itself recognises and affirms Australians’ human rights obligations? This involves the ratification of core United Nations human rights treaties as they apply to Australia. With this consideration in mind, it is incumbent upon us that legislation passed through this parliament is informed by, and indeed reflects, those human rights obligations as they apply to us. It ensures that rights and freedoms are beyond political expediency, that the rule of law and principles of justice operate within a defined framework. It is about recognising that, as Professor of International Relations at Adelaide’s Flinders University, Anthony J. Langlois, puts it: … human rights amount to little more than charity if they are not functioning in a democratic framework … That is why it is import to ensure that measures are put forward so that there is an early and ongoing consideration of human rights issues during the parliamentary process of policy and legislative development. During the 42nd Parliament I was a member of the Human Rights Subcommittee, which operates under the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. In the subcommittee’s inquiry into human rights mechanisms and the Asia-Pacific, the Human Rights Law Resource Centre put forward the opinion that, while parliamentarians were ‘essential actors’ in the protection and promotion of human rights, in Australia: … there are currently no formal domestic mechanisms to ensure comprehensive parliamentary scrutiny of human rights, including by independently monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the recommendations of UN treaty bodies or Special Procedures. That is why I especially welcome this bill, because it is through the establishment of a parliamentary joint committee on human rights that parliamentary scrutiny can be enhanced. Of particular importance is the reference point for the committee, which will be centred on the rights and freedoms recognised or declared by the seven core United Nations human rights treaties as they apply to Australia. It is worth mentioning those treaties. They are: the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; the Convention on the Rights of the Child; and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. They are very important oversight mechanisms which will serve to promote and protect human rights standards. They are guiding treaties for Australia to fulfil its international obligations. Treaties such as these have allowed for the introduction of very important pieces of legislation which have gone very much to the heart of our national judicial framework. When the federal government introduced the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Torture Prohibition and Death Penalty Abolition) Bill 2009, along with amendments to the Death Penalty Abolition Act 1973, torture was enacted as a specific Commonwealth offence in the Commonwealth Criminal Code. That fulfilled Australia’s obligations under the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment as well as highlighted Australia’s commitment to its obligations under the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This demonstrates that these treaties will serve as the reference point for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights as it examines acts, bills and legislative instruments for compatibility with human rights and inquires into and reports to parliament on human rights matters referred to it by the Attorney-General. While the bills before us serve to implement the legislative elements of Australia’s Human Rights Framework, it is also important to reflect on what the framework means in action. It is about reaffirming our commitment to promoting and respecting human rights in Australia. It is about education and information on human rights and responsibilities throughout the community. It is about engagement with the international community on issues of human rights both at home, in our region and across the globe. Ultimately, it is about ensuring accountability and transparency in the process associated with parliamentary scrutiny. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises that ‘the inherent dignity of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world’. So how do we apply this fundamental principle in examining bills for acts and legislative instruments? What are some of the considerable issues facing Australia that we need to ensure that our approach is compatible with human rights? Of course, there is the issue of fundamental rights of the Indigenous people of Australia. Addressing the gaps in health, education, employment and housing all need to occur within a human rights framework. For Australia’s Indigenous community, recognition within the Constitution is a human rights issue. Of great importance during this parliamentary term will be proposals put forward to amend the Constitution to recognise our first Australians. It is about recognising the struggle and the enormous sacrifices that so many members of Australia’s Indigenous community have made and continue to make in their efforts towards reconciliation and justice. As I have previously stated, targets associated with the Closing the gap report, investment in housing, health, early childhood, economic participation and remote service delivery will help ensure that Indigenous communities across Australia benefit from the government’s agenda. This agenda will see the advancement of the plight of Indigenous Australians strengthened by the establishment of the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples. It is about ensuring that we continue to move forward in our nation’s long journey towards reconciliation and about ensuring that Australia’s founding charter embodies the spirit in which the path of reconciliation is being shaped by Australia’s ongoing commitment to human rights and freedoms. I will conclude by quoting a part of the preamble of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It may appear obvious; but, because it is sometimes all too obvious and, hence, often taken for granted, there is a need to place a special emphasis on it. It says: … recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. It is in this spirit and with this in mind that our laws need to be enshrined and that I welcome the government’s human rights agenda. I commend these important bills to the House. 3522 21:10:00 Moylan, Judi, MP 4V5 Pearce LP 0 0 Mrs MOYLAN —It is interesting that, as far back as 1992—just before I was elected to this House—the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade delivered its first report titled A review of Australia’s efforts to promote and protect human rights. It was tabled in the 37th Parliament. It was a bipartisan report, with the conclusions and recommendations supported by both major parties and a dissenting report from the then Senator Dee Margetts. On the front of the report was a quotation from TS Eliot. It read: ‘Between the idea and the reality… Falls the Shadow.’ In fact, the full quote by TS Elliott is: Between the idea And the reality Between the motion And the act Falls the Shadow The ‘shadow’ between the very thorough 1992 report and its outstanding recommendations, as I said, supported by both sides of this House and the bringing of this legislation before the House has been a very long shadow indeed. It has been about 18 years long. Human rights are at the centre of our system of governance. Our democratic system is based on the separation of powers and the rule of law is designed to protect individual rights. So it has been a very long priority for Australian society to ensure adequate protection of human rights. It is one thing to enact black-letter law, as I have often said in this place, and quite another to change the hearts and minds of people. In matters to do with the equality of rights and human rights of women, Indigenous people, people with a disability and children in particular, old prejudices and antiquated notions have at times inhibited these rights and the rights of other sections of the community, and the changes have been hard won indeed. So we do have to be vigilant. We have to be always looking out and making sure that we are doing our job. The recommendations that were made for the drafting of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill 2010 are in general very sensible. In 2007, the Attorney-General announced that the Rudd Labor government would commission a panel—the National Human Rights Consultation—to inquire into how human rights in Australia could best be protected and promoted. The Attorney-General, in his second reading speech on the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill 2010 and the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2010, said that there was no predetermined outcome in mind. I am not quite sure that that was quite right. One option—a constitutionally entrenched bill of rights—was specifically excluded. Another option—a legislative bill of rights following the model adopted by Labor governments in Victoria and the ACT—I think, it would be correct to say, was the subtext and expected outcome of the entire process. The coalition’s submission to the National Human Rights Consultation recommended the establishment of a parliamentary committee to consider legislation from a human rights point of view. The following is the relevant portion of the coalition’s submission: … the Opposition urges the NHRC to recommend against the adoption of a statutory bill of rights as its preferred model. Instead, the Opposition recommends that expanded Parliamentary scrutiny of legislation from a human rights point of view is a better alternative. The option we propose has the advantage of locating greater emphasis on human rights at the heart of the political system itself, while it is free of the potentially undemocratic consequences of placing unprecedented power to resolve essentially political questions in the hands of the judiciary. Specifically, the Opposition invites the NHRC to consider recommending the establishment of a new Parliamentary Committee (either a Joint Standing Committee or a Standing Committee of the Senate), which would be given the specific task of considering legislation from a human rights point of view. The new parliamentary committee would able to examine legislation and to conduct broad inquiries relating to human rights referred to it by the Attorney-General of the day. Its operation would be similar to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. The purpose of statements of compatibility will be to inform parliamentary debate and, where appropriate, to justify restrictions or limitations upon rights where those restrictions are in the interests of other individuals or society more generally. The requirement to include statements of compatibility for disallowable instruments extends the responsibility for such statements from the committee to the executive. The workload and cost implications of this must be considered by the Senate committee. Notwithstanding the fact that the bill reflects coalition policy, there are some concerns about the breadth of the definition of ‘human rights’ in terms of seven international instruments and the possible introduction by the back door of those instruments into Australian domestic law. The coalition supports in principle the establishment of the parliamentary committee, however, it does hold concerns about the balance of the legislation, in particular the definition of human rights. Before we can ever fully implement and protect human rights, we do have to have a clear idea of what they are. It seems that there are a number of different definitions. I looked up the Amnesty International definition. It defines human rights as the basic rights and freedoms that all people are entitled to regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, race, religion, language and other status. Human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life, liberty and freedom of expression; and social, cultural and economic rights including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work and the right to receive an education. Human rights are protected and upheld by international and domestic laws and treaties. On the international stage part of that process is agreeing to international treaties, and over the years Australia has signed up to many treaties. For a very long time—in fact, for a number of years when I first came into this place and before—these treaties were signed by individual ministers, often without reference to the parliament and in some cases without reference to executive government. That is why under the Howard government we implemented a treaties committee which now oversights all international treaties and makes recommendations to government. This is a much more open and accountable system and I would foresee that such a human rights committee would have a similar role to play. The bill proposes a similar process for the human rights committee of this parliament. As with binding Australia to international treaties without proper scrutiny of the representatives of the people in this parliament, we should take much care in the implementation of human rights and ensure that the process is at all times open and accountable through this parliament. The Human Rights Law Resource Centre made a strong argument for the bill in their submission to the Senate inquiry. Human rights matter deeply to Australians and they rightly point out that they resonate with Australian democratic values, the rule of law and our sense of a fair go. While Australia has strong democratic and legal institutions, they do not provide comprehensive or even adequate protection for human rights. The patchwork quilt of human rights protection is missing pieces and these ‘inadequacies are felt most keenly by the marginalised and the vulnerable’. As their submission says:  … human rights are not enjoyed fully or equally by all Australians, including people experiencing homelessness, people with mental illness, Aboriginal Australians, asylum seekers and people with disability. I would add to that people with a mental illness and children. Earlier this week I spoke on the private member’s motion of the member for Fremantle regarding the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I commend the member for bringing that motion to the House as children are often the greatest sufferers of human rights violations. In speaking on that I shared many alarming statistics, and I feel it is important to share these again. Statistics from UNICEF show that, for every 100 children born today, 30 will suffer malnutrition in the first five years of life, 26 will never be immunised against disease, 19 will have no access to clean drinking water and 17 will never go to school—and, of those 83 that do, 20 will not reach fifth grade. It is also estimated that over one million children are trafficked each year and forced into work. The Liberal Party recognises that parliament can always do more to ensure that human rights are adequately recognised and that, where competing rights must be balanced, explain the reasons for its decisions. That is why our submission to the consultation recommended the establishment of a parliamentary committee specifically charged with the consideration of legislation from a human rights perspective. However, questions remain as to whether this bill, as drafted, achieves this in the way that is consistent with human rights law in Australia. In particular, the bill requires the proposed committee to have regard to seven international instruments. Some of those instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, are not controversial. However, there are others, such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which contain articles that are aspirational in nature rather than capable of being recognised as justiciable rights in this country. The coalition recognises, however, that the basic principle in forming these bills is the affirmation of the centrality of the role of parliament in balancing competing rights. It is always very tricky, as we know, balancing competing rights and balancing competing interests. To the extent that the government recognises the parliament as the only true democratically accountable institution of the Commonwealth and it must never abdicate its ultimate policy-making responsibility, the coalition welcomes this measure. Steps can and must be taken to incorporate the appropriate caucus of human rights law, but that is a matter for the other place and I trust that this House will approve the amendments that have been made. As I have said here tonight and on many other occasions in this House, you can have all the black-letter law that you like but it really comes down to changing hearts and minds and getting people to change the way they think about their rights in relation to other people’s rights and interests. I thought that in his speech to the House our shadow minister, the member for Stirling, made some pertinent comments and I will quote a little of his speech given that we are approaching time. He finished by saying: …the relationships of Australians with each other and their governments are those to be found in the Constitution, the statutes of the Commonwealth and the states, and in the common law. It is a fact that the principles underpinning and deriving from those traditions have informed the international conventions, rather than vice versa. The great and abiding traditions arising from these sources must find expression in these bills if the committee is to do its job. I say, ‘Hear, hear’ and commend this legislation to the House. 3525 21:24:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr McCLELLAND —in reply—I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill 2010 and also the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2010. All contributions, and I have listened for the last hour and a bit, have been very thoughtful and I would commend them highly to anyone interested in this area. Essentially, the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill 2010 together with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2010 implement the key legislative measures in the Australian human rights framework announced by the government on 21 April 2010. I note a number of speakers have thanked the consultative committee, which I will also commend. The changes in the framework are aimed at enhancing understanding of and respect for human rights in Australia and ensuring appropriate recognition of human rights issues in legislative and policy development. The bills will establish a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, introduce a requirement for statements of compatibility on human rights to be presented to parliament for all bills and legislative instruments subject to disallowance, amend the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 to integrate statements of compatibility into existing procedures for tabling legislative instruments, and amend the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act to include the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission as an ex officio member of the Administrative Review Council. Statements of compatibility on human rights for all new laws will establish a dialogue between the executive and the parliament and inform parliamentary debate on human rights issues considered by the executive and, as the speaker before me indicated, the issue of balance in that consideration. Additionally, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights will contribute to debate on human rights issues by examining and reporting to parliament on human rights compatibility with new and existing laws and in that sense that parliamentary committee process—mirroring much of the work that is undertaken by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties—will promote greater participatory democracy by enabling Australian citizens to have a direct say on how their rights might be affected by particular legislation. The amendments will also ensure an appropriate human rights perspective is integrated in the views of the Administrative Review Council by including the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission as an ex officio member of the council. The two bills comprise a package of reforms aimed at ensuring appropriate recognition of human rights issues in legislative and policy developments. The measures will deliver improved policies and laws in the future by encouraging early and ongoing consideration of human rights issues in the policy and law-making process and informing parliamentary debate on human rights issues. The bills have been referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for inquiry and report. The government looks forward to the committee’s report on the bills, which is due in December 2010. I think it is fair to say that during the course of the debate the opposition indicated broad support for the concept of the bills and essentially their potential concerns on which they reserve their position are in respect of what has been described as the breadth of definition of human rights, that breadth of definition being a reference in the legislation to the seven fundamental international human rights instruments. I point out to the House that that first stage of identification of human rights according by reference to those seven fundamental human rights instruments, which I suppose are collectively recognised as the core international human rights instruments, was as recommended by the Brennan committee. It was certainly envisaged that, in working through these issues and obtaining grounding and experience in referring to those fundamental principles, the parliament itself may in the future choose to prescribe or list more precisely those fundamental human rights that the parliament determines to be appropriate. It may well be that an early role of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights might well be to examine those instruments to obtain the views of the Australian people, to obtain the views of the parliament and to actually go through those instruments and list an Australian-specific point of reference to those human rights considerations that the Parliament of Australia regards as being specific and fundamental to Australia. This was envisaged as a two-stage step by the Brennan committee, and I refer that to members. It may well be that this could be the first stage of the process to that Australian-specific path. The government is committed to positive and practical changes to promote and protect human rights and I commend the bills to the House. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The question is that the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill 2010 be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 3526 Mr McCLELLAND (Barton —Attorney-General) 21:30:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 3526 Adjournment 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 9.30 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 3527 3527 21:30:00 Griggs, Natasha, MP 220370 Solomon CLP 0 0 Mrs GRIGGS —Mr Speaker, I rise tonight to update the people of Solomon on my rapidly approaching first 100 days as their representative in this place. During the course of the election I set out an ambitious plan should I be part of an Abbott-led government. Despite the outcome I find myself part of a vigorous, energetic and focused government-in-waiting. Mr Speaker I have, as I promised the electorate, been working hard for them to do all I can to make the electorate of Solomon a better place to live. I would like to focus on a couple of key items in my 100-day plan, including my desire to excise the suburb of Eaton so that the empty houses at RAAF base Darwin can be made available to Territorians as soon as possible. As I have advised this House previously, this is a major issue in my electorate. We are facing a housing crisis and yet we have potentially 396 houses that could ease the burden. I gave this issue top priority in my first speech. Since being elected I have written to the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel as well as the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence seeking meetings to discuss this very important issue. On 17 November, I hand-delivered a letter to the Prime Minister, asking for her immediate attention to this matter. Additionally, I have lobbied key Independents in the House of Representatives for their support. I am delighted with the support that I have received from my parliamentary colleagues and I am heartened that the community continues to support this cause. Through the ‘Save Eaton’ campaign and community group I am confident we can achieve a positive result. The next issue is an engineering and implementation study for Darwin Harbour sewerage system. Darwin harbour is two-and-a-half times the size of Sydney Harbour. It is central to the people of Darwin. The community was absolutely outraged to learn that raw sewage enters through what is known locally as the ‘poo shooter’. I have raised this issue in the parliament and formally written to the federal minister for the environment outlining the importance of this project and requesting a meeting to discuss funding. The next item close to my heart is the Natasha Griggs Mental Health Scholarship. This is a scholarship to be awarded to a person from my electorate of Solomon who is studying in the field of mental health. It is a $3,000 annual grant funded from my electorate allowance. This month I also attended the Menzies School of Health Research Oration to meet with keynote speaker Professor Patrick McGorry, and to hear his views on how we can expand mental health services in the Northern Territory. The next and possibly the most ambitious of all my actions is the delivery of a PET scanner for the electorate of Solomon. Let me state quite categorically that there are those in the health profession who look at such a commitment from an economic perspective. In fact I have had a health administrator say to me, ‘I worry about the finances.’ My response to her was simply, ‘I worry about the people.’ And I do not accept that a city like Darwin should not have access to the latest and greatest medical equipment. To date I have raised this issue in the parliament and advised the Minister for Health and Ageing that I would continue to make representations requesting funding for this vital diagnostic and treatment tool as well as other medical tools and facilities that the electorate needs, for example, a new hospital. There are many outstanding organisations and individuals in my electorate who make a significant contribution. I would like to take the remaining time to pay tribute to some of them now. The first is Rey Kristofer, a student from Darwin High School who has been highly commended for his piece ‘Rainbow’ in the Best Instrumental-Classical category of the Australian Children’s Music Foundation’s National Song Writing Competition for 2010. This competition is open to every primary and secondary student in Australia. I am delighted his talent was recognised nationally. I am also pleased to advise the House that two Northern Territory construction companies were awarded national awards at the recent 2010 Master Builders Australia Awards. I extend my congratulations to C&R Constructions, who won the National Alterations/Additions/Renovations Award for projects between $250,000 and $400,000. C&R won the award for a renovation in the suburb of Fannie Bay where they actually took the top floor off a two-storey dwelling, rebuilt it and then renovated the ground floor. I extend my congratulations to Caleb and Karl Gotts for this award. (Time expired) 3528 3528 21:36:00 Vamvakinou, Maria, MP 00AMT Calwell ALP 1 0 Ms VAMVAKINOU —Tonight I wish to speak about the Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation centre, or MITA, in Broadmeadows in my electorate of Calwell. Recently there has been much debate, both in the parliament and in the community, about the arrival of asylum seekers. Tonight, I want to tell the House about the developing relationship between my local community and the 130 unaccompanied minors, predominantly from Afghanistan, that currently reside at MITA. The history of the Broadmeadows facility dates back to 2004, when the then Howard government announced—without community consultation—a $120 million budget allocation to build a high security immigration detention centre on former Defence department land in Broadmeadows. Residents opposed the centre through a campaign called ‘Links not Locks’. We did not want a maximum security razor wire facility in Broadmeadows, and we were successful in averting this. Instead, a low security transit centre was established with a capacity for about 40 people to hold visa over-stayers for a few days before their deportation. Last week, media attention zeroed in on MITA as a result of an altercation between a group of the young residents, who argued over the use of a computer. The reporting led to some concern and tonight I want to clarify some of the issues and reject any suggestion that the MITA facility is a government secret or a threat to our community. In September, immigration minister Chris Bowen announced that, as part of the government’s contingency plan to deal with a global humanitarian crisis, the MITA centre would be expanded to accommodate a further 100 unaccompanied young male asylum seekers. As always, I believed that it was important to inform the local community about the expanded centre and, if possible, engage the local community with those who reside in the centre. As well as talking to the community, I recently initiated a regular soccer round robin at the centre, which I am pleased to say is growing in numbers and strength. I was always confident that my community’s reaction would be driven by their values of compassion and humanity. Broadmeadows is a proud, multicultural suburb that has been home to migrant and refugee settlements for 60 years. It is a community well qualified to respond to asylum seekers in a pragmatic and compassionate way. There has been fervent debate in this House about proposed detention centres and community impact. In relation to MITA, we were not asked if we wanted an expanded transit centre, but I have made it my aim since to seek my community’s involvement and goodwill as part of a process of dealing in a practical way with the current reality. I want to keep the community informed about the centre because I believe that it is the best way to maintain a positive and constructive dialogue on the whole immigration debate. To that end I have been visiting MITA regularly on a weekly basis for some months. I first toured the centre with the Mayor and CEO of Hume City Council and I have spoken to local councillors, our local police, local media and various community groups about the centre, its expansion and its role. We organised an Iftar dinner at MITA during Ramadan, together with members of the Turkish community, the local imam and former refugees who are now Australian citizens. The soccer matches that I have worked with the MITA administration to establish are aimed at fostering links with the community through sport and providing a physical outlet for the boys. Sport, especially the world game, is a great equaliser for teenage boys no matter where they come from, or what their circumstances. Since the MITA soccer matches began only a couple of months ago, more than 140 young men from the broader community have come to play against the formidable MITA teams, who rarely lose a match. We have linked up with the Banksia Gardens Community Group, the Brunswick Zebras Football Club, the Whittlesea Rangers, students from Melbourne University, the Latrobe University Centre for Dialogue and local schools, Ilim College and Isik College, as well as students from Alphington Grammar, who have invited the MITA team to their school. Pastor Albert Peck from the Hume Baptist Community Church has also visited the MITA centre and is now looking at arranging a series of volleyball matches to add to the interaction through sport. Last Saturday I took members of the Broadmeadows Progress Association to the centre as part of my ongoing community information process. Promoting understanding and building relationships is a far more positive way for us as a community to engage in the immigration and refugee debate than relying on sensationalist headlines. And we have seen many of them in recent times. So it is apt that I end with the words of Clare, the mother of young, Angelo, who comes to MITA every Saturday to play soccer. Clare says: ‘The issue of asylum seekers is not about theories, it is about real people and our acceptance of helping world citizens.’ 3529 3529 21:41:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP 0 0 Mr BILLSON —Mr Speaker, it is fitting that you are here, and the members for Calwell, La Trobe and Holt. My sweetheart, Kate, and my children Alex, Madeleine, Zoe and Bella enjoyed a great experience on Sunday. It was the welcome back to the Mornington Railway Preservation Society, a wonderful group of people who are restoring old steam locomotives and making use of the disused Mornington railway line. It has a history of about 25 years. Mr Speaker, in your days when you spent quality time down the peninsula I am sure that you would have seen the fantastic work of this organisation, a dedicated group of people. Their ambition was to reopen a heritage railway line, and they have achieved that ambition. They have focused particularly on steam-hauled passenger trains. In 1991, after seven years of hard work and lobbying, they were granted an order by the state government which gave them access to and operating rights along the line from Moorooduc to Mornington to operate a tourist railway. In the years since that time, they have put in an incredible amount of effort, resources, sweat and occasionally tears into developing the concept, restoring and acquiring equipment, raising money to pay for capital works and managing the railway’s daily operations. On Sunday, that all came together in a very special moment. It was a welcome back ceremony. After much effort, their prize steam locomotive, K163, was reborn after many months of restoration work during which diesel services were provided. The hardworking efforts of the volunteers, who selflessly donate their time and expertise, came together—as it did to build this great heritage railway vision—to bring back K163. Malcolm Swaine, the President of the Mornington Peninsula Railway Preservation Society was chuffed. He was ebullient on Sunday. I was honoured to attend with my family. In 2008, the society was disappointed to be informed by its boiler inspector that ongoing approval for the boiler in its steam locomotive, K163, could not be guaranteed beyond 2009-10 due to its deterioration. Interestingly, restoration of this boiler was very much a part of the original creation of the rail service. This steam locomotion, K163, used to be a static display at Jubilee Park Reserve in Frankston. There it sat with children playing on it. But concerns about liability and its deterioration caused the council to be advised that they had to remove it from that playground area. To the council’s credit, they decided to support its restoration. At that time, the boiler was re-created. In fact, it was first steamed up while it was still in situ at the park. But, after many years of effort, that great K163, an integral part of the railway tourism product, was relocated to where it now operates an outstanding service. What we celebrated on the weekend were countless hours of volunteer effort. It is interesting to note that Malcolm Swaine, the president, said that if the Mornington Peninsula Railway Preservation Society had been required to pay for the work undertaken by the enthusiastic group of engineers, boilermakers and other skilled artisans—I am led to believe 12,000 hours of work were put into that project—at tradesman’s rates, the cost would have been more than $1 million. The members of the engineering team that worked tirelessly on K163 included Gerald Spoor—he was the team leader—Peter Reyment, Lee Hayes, Ian Wilson, Robert Pill, Ray Pankhurst, Maurice Gilmour, Steve Perkins, Max Edbrooke, Ian Peters, Neil Hastings, Wayne McLaren, Stewart Walton, Dennis Hall, Ken Spillett, Brian Provost and Bruce Morton. Congratulations to each and every one of them on their success. Their efforts resulted in an enormous amount of enthusiasm on Sunday, as we were all able to travel down that section of rail line. This was the culmination of work that began in March 2009. The gentlemen—mainly gentlemen—came two full days a week over that 20-month period to put this effort into restoration of K163. I am told not only that it was very therapeutic for the gentlemen involved but that many of their partners talked about the respite it provided them as well. So it was of great benefit to all concerned. In the few seconds that are left, I will just put in a bit of a plug. Over the Christmas season—on the Sundays 5, 12 and 19 December—there are Santa specials running down the tourist rail line, starting at Mornington and Moorooduc. Is it not great that Santa has found the time to come down to the Mornington Railway Preservation Society to be a part of the steam locomotive experience? It is something quite special. There are services right throughout the year. Do yourself a favour—come on down to the Mornington Peninsula. If it is not God’s country, it is mighty close to it; it must be a local call to God. One of the things that you could do is have a go on the steam locomotive and really enjoy your day. 3531 3531 21:46:00 Byrne, Anthony, MP 008K0 Holt ALP 1 0 Mr BYRNE —That is a hard act to follow. I would like to see the member for Dunkley chase after Santa with his foot in its present state. Tonight, I will discuss a great initiative in my electorate of Holt, in the heart of the growth corridor in the south-eastern suburbs. My electorate is often associated with the Fountain Gate shopping centre and a TV series with a well-known couple who used to shop there. But it is so much more. My electorate is the heart of one of the most dynamic growth belts in Australia. Interestingly, some 22 per cent of people in Holt are employed in the manufacturing industry, the highest proportion of any electorate in the country. In total, 44 per cent of workers in my electorate are employed as technicians, tradespeople, machinery operators, drivers and labourers. These people are good working people. They make our country tick and they contribute to our national prosperity. The electorate is also one of the most heavily mortgaged in the country, with some 55 per cent of houses being owner occupied. My electorate lies, as the member for La Trobe knows, within the City of Casey—a council area the current population of which is approximately 246,000 people. At present, about 55 families, or 146 people, shift into the City of Casey each week. By 2021, the population of the City of Casey will be 320,000 and, by 2036, it is projected to be 450,000. Soon, the City of Casey is going to be larger than our nation’s capital city. There will be enormous demands on all levels of government to accommodate that growth and we must all work together, whatever our political hue, to plan and to provide the necessary infrastructure and facilities for those who move to our area to make it their home and there to create their futures and the futures of their children. We have been moving and accommodating that growth through our Building the Education Revolution and through the recent—particularly during the height of the global financial crisis—grants of well over $10 million to the Casey council to assist with infrastructure development and job creation. I know that this money has been well spent and has been appreciated by the council in its expenditure on the substantial Casey Fields development and on roadworks, sporting facilities, resurfacing and renovation. One astonishing fact is that there are 54,100 five- to 19-year-olds in the City of Casey. Many of these children will proceed to university. Many others will proceed to embark on a trade training course and achieve a much valued trade qualification. On this theme, one of my proudest moments as a member of parliament was when the then opposition leader, Kevin Rudd, articulated, during the 2007 election campaign, that a trade qualification was the equivalent of a university degree. This meant a huge amount to the many tradies in my electorate and to the many kids who aspire to get a trade. I suspect that one element that influenced the former Prime Minister was a visit he made to the then Eummemerring Secondary School Hallam campus in 2007, where he saw first hand the transformative power of targeted trades programs staffed by visionary teachers and innovators like Keith Pimblett and Tom Halloran. Tom had forgone a large salary as a successful tradesman to teach at the school. Keith had had a very successful career in business before moving into teaching. The results of their combined efforts were outstanding, both in school results and in apprenticeships and job opportunities provided. The former Prime Minister’s statement and what I have seen and observed provided a significant counterpoint to the long-held sentiments of those who derided the good working men and women who pursued trades in the eighties and the nineties. We know that, without the traditional trades and emerging trades, we just could not function as a community. We celebrate those who pursue a trades career and we celebrate their contribution to our community. One way of ensuring that continues was a commitment made by the then Rudd and now Gillard government to the construction of a trade training centre at Eummemerring. I recently had the pleasure of turning the first sod on the first amalgamated trade training centre being constructed in my electorate. The federal government has committed $10.4 million to the Hallam Valley Trade Training and Skills Hub. This project is a cross-sectoral trade training centre that aims to provide job-ready training in traditional and emerging trades for senior school students at Hallam Senior Secondary College, Fountain Gate Secondary College, Gleneagles Secondary College, Endeavour Hills Secondary College, Hampton Park Secondary College, Narre Warren South P-12 College and St. Johns Regional College. This hub has particular relevance given its proximity to major manufacturing centres, the hubs, employers like Bombardier and Jayco and groups like Apprenticeships Group Australia. This is the culmination of the vision of people like Keith Pimblett and Tom Halloran. We are providing the facilities needed for the future of our community. I had great pride in turning that sod, because I know the Hallam Valley Trade Training and Skills Hub is going to provide the future opportunities that tradies in our region need. (Time expired) 3532 3532 21:52:00 Buchholz, Scott, MP 230531 Wright LP 0 0 Mr BUCHHOLZ —We have heard many calls for greater regulation of banks, but I am not convinced that it is quite so simple. We should be careful in proposing increased regulation of the banking sector because we cannot be certain what the outcomes might be. The Greens claim that greater regulation will improve the banking sector. I am not so sure. The Greens-Labor government coalition does not understand the difference between facilitating competition through improving the operations of markets and stifling the operation of markets through interfering in commercial decisions. In basic terms there are 12 Australian-owned banks: the four big ones and eight much smaller. Thanks to the intelligent regulation and hard work of previous governments the big four are world-class banks. But we can do better. We are in an extended period of financial instability and this is exacerbated by two main factors: the first is the lack of prudential oversight of many international institutions, and the second is the incompetence and reckless spending of the current Greens-Labor government. The banks are businesses which provide a service for a fee and answer first and foremost to their shareholders. But not all Australian banks have the size and the reach which would protect them from movements in cost and prices. The smaller banks are price takers, not price setters. These are well-regulated banks which are trying to survive in a very competitive market. We need to be very careful that, in reacting to the business practices of the four majors, we do not end up disadvantaging smaller Australian institutions. In the past two years we have lost significant players in the home mortgage market. Before we legislate for greater regulation we need a general inquiry into the financial services system, and that means all of the sectors. So rather than add yet another layer of regulation to a business sector that is already heavily regulated, we need to better understand the issues. We need to target anti-competitive practices by giving the ACCC relevant powers to investigate anti-competitive price signalling. We need to level the playing field so that the big four cannot dominate the smaller institutions as easily as they do today. Most importantly, for the small business and home loans market, we need to ensure that the smaller institutions are not unfairly squeezed out of the market through compliance costs and dealing with government regulations. Before coming to this place, early in my working career I was employed by the banking sector so I speak with some authority on this very issue. I was employed in the agri-finance sector lending to both the rural and commercial retail markets. I note that clients that traditionally would have been granted a relatively ‘low risk rating’ today are struggling to secure basic finance requirements for their ongoing commercialism. Their business strategies have not changed; their debt-to-equity ratios have not changed. However, hardworking business persons and farmers are finding it increasingly difficult to secure funding for day-to-day operations. Quite simply, the banks have raised the bar on their lending guidelines. It would appear that the raising of the bar is associated with the lessoning of competition as a result of the larger banks’ mergers and acquisitions strategies. I am not saying for one minute that we regulate the market. However, I do want to speak to the point of the free market independence of the banks, in particular of the four majors, and remind them that, when commentators speak of the independence of the banks, they operate in an environment of the security of the four-pillar banking system—hardly open market conditions. Further, when the dark clouds of the GFC loomed the four majors sought the shroud of security from the government, options that were not available to the whole of the market. When the sun came out they quickly returned to a position of so-called independence, moving quickly to shift variable rates in excess of the increased cash rates set by the Reserve Bank. Our banks are not operating in a fully competitive market. We need more players in the marketplace to enhance competition, which has been the position of the opposition for some time. The banks are winding the heat up on their clients—the mums and dads who are mortgage holders and business owners in my electorate—by way of increased rates on overdraft limits and business loans, and I have a list as long as my arm of developers who are finding it increasingly difficult to conduct their businesses. Much of the international competition in Australian financial services has gone. St George Bank and the independent Bankwest have gone. This is why we need a targeted inquiry. We need to have good evidence before we act. My final point is that there is one big step that the government could take to take upward pressure off interest rates—that is, to cut back on their debt-fuelled and wasteful spending. This government stubbornly refuses to accelerate its deficit reduction program because of its addiction to spending. This is a government that will not take direct action to help the home buyers and small businesses of my electorate and the people of Australia. 3533 3533 21:56:00 Lyons, Geoff, MP M38 Bass ALP 1 0 Mr LYONS —I rise on this occasion to speak about the success of the Active After-school Communities program and, in particular, I wish to mention Scottsdale Primary School where the program has recently been presented with a Super Site award. The Active After-school Communities program aims to engage traditionally inactive children in sport and other structured physical activity to help them develop a love of sport. We know that without the AASC program more than 90 per cent of participating children would not engage in structured physical activity after school. Whether it is practising in the backyard, playing, competing, socialising with other parents on the sideline, or volunteering as a coach, umpire or official, joining a sports club can be beneficial for the whole family. I cannot reiterate enough how important sport is for communities. It brings together people of all ages and backgrounds. For example, in the Bridport Primary School, which has been running their program in conjunction with the local bowls club, 20 students participate in each session. They have been running the program since 2006. Many of the children and their families have been introduced to lawn bowls through the AASC program and have joined the club, with 10 now playing competitive bowls. Particularly worth noting is Andrew Whitmore, who participated in the program and has now gone on to represent Tasmania at the national championships. The program at Bridport has also offered other activities including golf, which is provided by the local golf club; tennis; netball; basketball; cricket; volleyball; circus skills; martial arts; soccer and dance. The Scottsdale Primary School has been involved in the AASC program since 2008 and on average 40 students have the opportunity to participate in the sessions which are run twice a week. I was most pleased to be present at the Super Sites award, which was presented to the school recently. Mr Duncan Walker, who took over the role of coordinator of the program at Scottsdale Primary School earlier this year, has been instrumental in engaging community members and local high school students as community coaches. Approximately 45,000 people in Australia have been trained by AASC regional coordinators to become community coaches. These community coaches include people from local sporting clubs; volunteers, such as retirees, family members and secondary and tertiary students; as well as private providers and teachers. These skills are valuable and these individuals are now real assets to their community. Australia wide the AASC program runs in 3,250 schools, with over 150,000 children taking part each term. The program reaches all corners and populations in Australia, including Indigenous, remote and rural areas. In my electorate of Bass there are 14 sites participating in the program and I have had the opportunity to visit many of them in full action. What I can tell you about what I have seen first hand is that the children involved are not only getting exercise but also learning how to socialise. They are making long-lasting friendships as well as gaining lifelong skills such as respect, tolerance, cooperation and discipline. We know that introducing children to physical activity at a young age is the best way to establish a lifelong enjoyment of sports, which has great flow-on health effects. This program stimulates the local community. I also wish to express my thanks to the program coordinator in our area, Mr Ralph Morris, for his efforts in ensuring the programs run smoothly. Encouraging children to participate in a sport can be a gift for life. I commend this program to the House and I wish the schools in Bass all the best with the continuance of this program. 3535 3535 22:01:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 0 0 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —I rise this evening to talk about the controversial Guide to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which was released by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority last month. The release of this guide is a slap in the face to the many farmers and communities who so often feel that they are not adequately supported, or consulted, on this issue by their state and federal Labor governments. Even the chair of the MDBA admits the guide is lacking and that the socioeconomic impacts the plan would have on the basin communities need more investigation. They have even admitted that their predicted economic impact on the communities of $1.1 billion and job losses of up to 800 are grossly underestimated. This Labor government, which during the election campaign said they would accept the report in its entirety, have performed some impressive acrobatic tricks to avoid any accountability for this report. A socioeconomic analysis and a parliamentary inquiry into the plan have both been put up as white flags. Recently in my electorate there were three community information sessions—one in Dalby, one in Goondiwindi and the other in St George. I was lucky enough to attend the Dalby and Goondiwindi sessions. I must give credit to those employees of the MDBA who are in the heat of a very intense battle and are sometimes wrongly vilified. But people are obviously quite angry and very concerned, and this was certainly apparent when I attended the Dalby and Goondiwindi meetings. More than 1,200 people attended those three meetings—farmers, families, small businesses, bankers and agricultural suppliers. My state LNP members were there, and Nationals from over the border. The people obvious by their not attending these meetings were state and federal Labor members of parliament. The Murray-Darling Basin is home to over two million people. It produces 40 per cent of the nation’s food—the food that we so often take for granted. The basin is an important socioeconomic face of our nation. The coalition in government started the process of important reform for the Murray-Darling Basin. We put aside $10 billion and drew up a 10-point plan, which Labor seems to have lost. Our plan was based not on buybacks and shutting down irrigator communities but on providing the support necessary to ensure basin communities are able to produce more food with less water. During the election campaign we released a policy that called for a full socioeconomic study of the impacts of basin reform, outlined a plan to get water saving infrastructure back on track proposed more funding for community adjustment and established a fund to identify and kick-start new projects for sustainable water use. For Australia to get really serious about re-engineering the basin, we need to start thinking of the basin not as one system but as two completely separate river systems—the Murray River system, which is south of Menindee Lakes, and the Darling River system, which runs through NSW north of Menindee Lakes. The reason that we should begin to separate how we treat these two systems is because the ecosystems which contribute to these two rivers are completely different. The Darling River, which begins and ends in NSW but is fed by tributaries in Queensland, particularly in my electorate of Maranoa receives its water from irregular but intense water flows, from flooding and tropical weather storms. The Murray River gets much of its water from regular winter rainfall patterns, including melting snow, and flow events continue for longer. In fact, there are many varied ecosystems within each river system. For example, the average annual rainfall at the headwater of the Warrego River is 28 inches but around Cunnamulla it is around 15 inches—yet we are still talking about the same river system. This shows just how difficult it is to assign on overarching plan to an entire basin which spreads across one-seventh of Australia’s land mass. What this plan, if implemented, would mean for the future of the basin is well understood at a community level. What happens in the Queensland area of the basin is a world away from what happens in Victoria. The Murray does not flow back to Queensland—water does not run up hill. Therefore, to enable the proposed Basin Plan to be more relevant to the communities in the northern regions of the basin and within my electorate of Maranoa, I believe that each system requires its own plan tailored to address the challenges experienced in these two ecologically and hydrologically different regions. (Time expired) 3536 3536 22:06:00 Smyth, Laura, MP 172770 La Trobe ALP 0 0 Ms SMYTH —I recently attended the first Reality Sleepout organised by representatives of the Knox City Council’s Affordable Housing Reference Group and supported by Apex Australia. The aim of the night was to generate greater awareness of homelessness in the outer-eastern Melbourne suburbs, including in my electorate, and to meet with others campaigning to help our homeless population. It was a good opportunity to meet with some of the local and state-wide organisations working to support homeless people and hear first hand from those who have experienced very real and very long-term homelessness. The event gave me cause to reflect on some of the federal government’s recent housing initiatives, both in my electorate of La Trobe and nationwide, and on the job that is still at hand. One of the excellent local initiatives in La Trobe which resulted from the federal government’s Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan is the development of 79 units of social housing in my suburb of Ferntree Gully in the La Trobe electorate. The site of the former Ferntree Gully Primary School is currently undergoing a transformation. It is not far from where I live and I have visually confirmed that the construction of the building is making a great deal of progress. It was very disappointing to see the former member for La Trobe and the state member for Ferntree Gully each voicing their opposition to the project which will provide housing to people who face disadvantage in our community and which has supported jobs during a time of financial crisis. It is disappointing because they have offered no meaningful or constructive suggestions to tackle housing availability and affordability in our area. Earlier in this adjournment debate we heard mention of wasteful spending. I must say that if spending on social housing to give people a roof over their heads and ensure that those people who construct those homes have jobs is wasteful spending, it is hard to understand what the opposition regards as worthwhile government spending. Once the Ferntree Gully social housing project is complete it is intended that around 15 per cent of the housing will be allocated to families who are homeless or at high risk of homelessness, 50 per cent of the housing is intended to be made available for low-income families who are in need of public housing and the remaining 35 per cent of units are intended to be provided to low-wage earners. This government’s Social Housing Initiative committed funding of over $5 billion over three and a half years for the construction of new social housing, and a further $400 million for repairs and maintenance to existing public housing units. In Ferntree Gully alone, the stimulus plan has enabled repairs and maintenance to 18 homes and the construction of the 79-unit social housing project on the corner of Dorset Road and Burwood Highway. Throughout the La Trobe electorate as a whole, this government’s stimulus package has supported 66 housing projects in total with an overall funding commitment of almost $19 million as at 2 November. This has been just one of this government’s commitments to public housing, housing affordability and homelessness. Members will recall that the Australian government undertook a major review of homelessness in 2007 and launched the white paper on homelessness, The road home, in December 2008. It set ambitious and laudable targets to halve the rate of homelessness by 2020 and to offer supported accommodation to all rough sleepers who seek it. The government also delivered a record investment of $10 billion to improve housing affordability and tackle homelessness. In Victoria, the federal government and the state government have agreed on an implementation plan for the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness, which will provide approximately $155 million over four years for initiatives to tackle homelessness. The implementation plan is very much focused on prevention and early intervention. The funding is aimed at addressing youth homelessness, homelessness of families and children, and homelessness brought about as a result of family violence, amongst other things. I will mention just a few of the measures that the funding will support: early intervention housing support for young people leaving care; family conciliation services tailored to young people; the establishment of at least one 24-hour youth refuge in each region; and 50 intensive psychosocial support packages for people with mental illness and psychiatric disability to improve social inclusion, in particular for those who are chronically homeless. The National Partnership Agreement also provides for a range of initiatives which aim to support those who are at risk of homelessness and those who are leaving institutional care. Of course, there is much left to do to address homelessness and housing availability, but in its first term this government put in place strategies to achieve much in this area and has provided much needed social housing in La Trobe. 3537 3537 22:11:00 Prentice, Jane, MP 217266 Ryan LP 0 0 Mrs PRENTICE —Tonight I speak on the Prime Minister’s commitment to hold a referendum during this term to recognise local government in the Australian Constitution. This matter has been discussed across Australia for almost half a century. On the eve of the Council of Capital City Lord Mayors meeting here in Canberra, there is no better time to commence a formal dialogue. Recognition is essential to ensure that local governments can continue to deliver their vital services to each and every community across Australia. Local governments in Australia are dynamic and exceptionally diverse. Councils range in size from the Brisbane City Council, one of the largest in the world and which works hard for a population of close to one million and has expenditures in excess of $2.8 billon, to the Jerilderie Shire in southern New South Wales, which has a population of approximately 2,000 and an expenditure of roughly $7 million. It is local governments that provide, operate and maintain community infrastructure, and that care for the environment and provide critical waste management services. Furthermore, local governments work hard for the communities they serve by ensuring that regional development, tourism, and economic and social advancement are appropriate and tailored to meet the needs of the communities they represent. It is clear that Australians feel a greater connection and sense of community with local governments than with any other tier of government. This claim has been supported in the Department of Finance and Deregulation’s Interacting with government report which recognised that local government is often said to be the level of government closest to the people. The Australian Local Government Association’s submission to the Senate Select Committee on the Reform of the Australian Federation provides further supporting evidence of the high regard the community has for the services provided by local councils, municipalities and shires. As many of our urban areas face the challenges of unprecedented population growth, it is local governments which are forced to ensure the maintenance of day-to-day services. Indeed, in south-east Queensland, where one in seven Australians now live, all citizens rely significantly on local government for their basic community services and they trust that local governments will be able to match services with record demand. Whilst there has been informal discussion for some time over the need to enshrine the place of local government in Australia’s Constitution, a recent decision of the High Court has called directly into question the Commonwealth’s power to finance areas for which it does not have an express constitutional power. Indeed, the pink batts disaster may have even been averted if local governments had the authority to deliver this program. The legal provision of services by local governments in Australia has been put directly into question by the recent High Court decision of Pape v Commissioner of Taxation. While local governments have worked hard and made tough decisions to generate a significant portion of independent revenue, they also rely on Commonwealth Financial Assistance Grants. The Pape case was a clear rejection of the view that the Commonwealth had wide discretionary spending power when funding the vital work of local governments. In short, the future of Commonwealth financial assistance has been called directly into question. In advice prepared by constitutional law expert Professor George Williams, a succinct legal argument has been made to support the view that a referendum is vital to ensure the capacity of the national government to fund local programs directly, especially regional and remote local government bodies. In his analysis, the implications for local government were made clear with the following observations: The Court found that the Commonwealth can spend money in areas that are listed in the Constitution as being a federal responsibility, but not in other areas in which the Commonwealth has no constitutional mandate. He went on to say: There is no express or implied provision in the Constitution that grants the Commonwealth responsibility over local government. The consequence is that the Commonwealth has no general power to directly fund local government bodies or activities under section 81 of the Constitution. In the court’s decision, Chief Justice French made it clear that section 81, as it presently exists, does not confer a substantive spending power upon those in this place. Consequently, as the Chief Justice himself observed, ‘The relevant power to expend public moneys must be found elsewhere in the Constitution or statutes made under it.’ At present this power does not exist. Further, local government today is mature enough that it should be properly and formally recognised in the Constitution. It should not be subject to the whim of state governments because their interference is often driven by political motives rather than sensible outcomes. This is particularly the case in the town-planning field. It is for this reason that recognition of local government in the Constitution is essential. Recognition that is tokenistic will not suffice. I call upon the government to move forward and engage with local governments to provide financial protection under our Constitution. Most importantly, I call upon the government to make it a genuine priority to take the real action necessary to enable a referendum on constitutional recognition of local government. There has been enough talk. This is a matter of critical importance to all Australians. I call upon the Prime Minister to ensure that, during this parliament, Australians are given the opportunity to constitutionally validate the work of local government. 3539 3539 22:16:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —The famous American author, Mark Twain, in a moment of cynicism, once said: In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination … Ipswich and surrounds have not always been known as the most tolerant place. Indeed once, in 1996, infamously, they elected a certain person who caused division, dissension and disharmony. But times have changed and people have moved on, and the community has moved on. On 10 November this year, I held a diversity workshop in my electorate of Blair at the Ipswich Civic Centre. Presenters from the Together for Humanity Foundation—Ronit Baras and Sheikh Ahmad Abu Ghazaleh—demonstrated to local educators and community workers the work they do with school children across Australia. The special guest at the workshop was Rabbi Zalman Kastel, founder and national director of Together for Humanity. Rabbi Zalman Kastel is the son of Hasidic rabbis. He is youth rabbi and Hebrew school principal in the North Shore of Sydney. He worked in Jewish outreach in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ukraine and Australia. He was ordained as a rabbi in New York and completed a graduate diploma in education with the University of New England at Armidale. Together for Humanity is a not-for-profit multifaith organisation. It was formed in 2002 to promote appreciation and cooperation of all people regardless of their differences. It receives funding from the federal government’s Department of Immigration and Citizenship for its workshops and programs, and also from the Queensland government through its Department of Communities. I urge governments at both levels to continue the funding for this wonderful organisation. Their impressive presentation demonstrated how effective programs and workshops are in challenging cultural and religious stereotypes. Together for Humanity run a variety of courses with presentations, workshops and camps, providing students with rich, in-depth experiences and opportunities to learn about diversity and commonality, and to question the assumptions about identity and build understanding and attitudes for living in harmony. Each program is conducted by at least three facilitators from diverse backgrounds—Christian, Jewish, Muslim and often Indigenous presenters. The program supports the development of skills and techniques for listening, self-monitoring and reflection. The programs range from one hour to two days and are suitable for primary school children from year 4 through to secondary school students. Forty or so people attended the workshop in my electorate of Blair. They provided positive feedback on the day. The sort of feedback we received included this from a local area multicultural partnership coordinator: ‘Today’s experience was very valuable—fantastic. The workshop was interactive and practical. The messages were powerful and very energising.’ A teacher at the Islamic College of Brisbane said: ‘The workshop was excellent. I loved the interactive components—interacting with other cultures.’ In fact, everyone who attended gave positive feedback. I would like to commend the Together for Humanity Foundation for their commitment to ending some of the assumptions and misconceptions we have about identity and behaviour. I would particularly like to commend the Queensland coordinators and presenters. Together for Humanity’s bottom line is: ‘Cross-cultural appreciation and cooperation needs to be addressed for the sake of our future.’ The message rings true to me, especially as Australia grows in population. As the member for Ryan said, one in seven people live in South-East Queensland. We have a diverse society in Ipswich and surrounds. Differences in belief can cause division. That is why these types of workshops are so important. They are important in our schools to promote appreciation and cooperation of all people regardless of their differences. Challenging cultural and religious stereotypes in the electorate of Blair is important and it is also important elsewhere throughout our community. Thomas Paine, a famous author, once said: The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion. That should be the motto of each and every person in this place, and each and every person across the country. I thank all those people who came to the workshop. I thank the Ipswich City Council for allowing us to run it at the Ipswich Civic Centre. I thank the local media for attending as well, and I commend to other members the running of these types of workshops in their electorates. 3540 3540 22:21:00 Tudge, Alan, MP M2Y Aston LP 0 0 Mr TUDGE —In question time on Thursday, 28 October the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport was asked questions about the Moreton Bay rail link in Brisbane and the Epping to Parramatta rail link in Sydney. In the minister’s response, he outlined the reasons that the federal government decided to make these rail links a priority. I raise this because the reasons the minister gave for prioritising these rail links are equally applicable to the planned Rowville rail link in my electorate. I would like to demonstrate this to the House. I have spoken before in this House about the Rowville rail link. The plan is for it to extend 12.3 kilometres from Huntingdale Station to Stud Park in Rowville via Monash University. The Minister for Transport described the Moreton Bay rail link as ‘a great project that will open up public transport travel for the people of Redcliffe Peninsula’. I am sure that this is the case, but I ask: why are the people of Redcliffe Peninsula any more deserving than the people of Rowville and its neighbouring suburbs? The minister said that the Moreton Bay rail link would ease urban congestion. Well, so would the Rowville rail link. In fact, the Knox City Council pre-feasibility study found that a Rowville rail link would take the equivalent of one entire lane of traffic off the Monash Freeway. This freeway serves the entirety of Melbourne’s south-east and is renowned for congestion and delays. In fact I have heard it nicknamed ‘the south-eastern car park’ on occasion. The minister then said that the Moreton Bay rail link would cut travel time to Brisbane’s CBD to just 45 minutes. Well, the Knox council study predicted a Rowville rail link would cut travel times to Melbourne’s CBD to just 30 minutes. The minister told the parliament that the Epping-Parramatta link was important because it would connect ‘people in Western Sydney to Macquarie University’. Again, the Rowville rail link would connect people in outer-eastern Melbourne to Australia’s largest university, Monash University, which currently has no rail connection. The minister told the parliament that the Moreton Bay rail link was important because it had been ‘talked about’ since 1895. Rowville rail link has not been talked about for that long but it has been talked about since 1969. Every argument that the minister has put in relation to the Moreton Bay rail link or the Epping-Parramatta link equally applies to the Rowville rail link. I believe that it should therefore be equally prioritised by this government. The minister says: If we are serious about tackling issues such as urban congestion and the quality of life in our cities, we have to make sure that we back up that commitment with real dollars … The Rudd-Gillard government has backed up this commitment with real dollars in relation to the rail links I have referred to in Brisbane and Sydney, but Melbourne’s east has not seen one dollar for rail from this government. Why has Melbourne’s east, particularly its outer east with its stifling congestion, been left off the list? Why won’t this government commit to the Rowville rail link? The only explanation is that this government seems to assess whether or not to put federal dollars into urban rail extensions not on the basis of need or cost but on the basis of how many marginal seats the project would serve. We could see at least a feasibility study into the Rowville rail link very soon, with the Victorian state opposition having committed $2 million in the lead-up to the state election this Saturday to conduct the feasibility study should it win the upcoming election. This is a very positive development. I am confident that a full feasibility study will come out with a positive result. If it does then I hope the government will apply the same logic to the Rowville rail link that it used to justify the Moreton Bay rail link and the Epping-Parramatta rail link. The Rowville rail link will take cars off our roads, ease congestion and increase commuter choice, and it would be a very good asset for outer-eastern Melbourne. 3541 3541 22:25:00 O’Neill, Deborah, MP 140651 Robertson ALP 0 0 Ms O’NEILL —I speak tonight on a matter that I expect many others might touch on this week, and that is the issue of violence against women. It is an issue many of us reflect on as we mark White Ribbon Day, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. The statistics in themselves are stark and shocking. One in three Australian women will be assaulted or abused in her lifetime. More than one Australian woman every week is killed by her partner or ex-partner. I know in times when quaint language was used to try to mask the horror of this reality such crimes were called crimes of passion. But such words can never hide the horror of violence perpetrated in the intimate space of relationship. The impact of violence against women is documented in some artworks on display in the parliament this week. They are works that were produced as art therapy by people who had been victims of violence, and amongst them is a display of drawings and artworks undertaken by a woman who was subjected to abuse as a child. She obviously had repressed those images but revisited them when the same crimes were perpetrated on her own children. The horror of that is very well conveyed by the drawings she has done, and one can only admire and respect her determination to tell her story, to stand up for her children and to fight back against the indignity that she suffered. She is a survivor and she tells her story. So many of the images on display talk about people healing the broken self with a new sense of hope. But why did these women have to suffer this in the first place? How could we let that be? The statistics I mentioned earlier, the terrible reality that we must address and reduce, mean that domestic violence is an issue many of us are confronted with in our electorates. Since my election to the seat of Robertson, I have had the honour of visiting the Woy Woy Women and Children’s Service. It is a women’s refuge, and two weeks ago I was there to see the work that they do. There was a group of women seeking refuge with their children, but I was also struck by the outreach worker, who had to go to extraordinary lengths to find excuses to meet women—in McDonald’s outlets around the country, at coffee shops and at playgrounds—to help them find some way out of the violent situations in which they were entrenched. This masquerade, the ‘hiddenness’ of it, is a big problem that we need to overcome. When you witness the sharp end of Australia’s domestic violence epidemic, it brings home to you—it brought home to me that day—the very great importance of White Ribbon Day. Cultures of violence need to be addressed where they exist. The reality is that while women can be aggressors in domestic violence it is far more common that men are the inflictors of violence upon women. We know that social change is hard to achieve, but social issues can be very well addressed through peer education, peer modelling, peer leadership and peer pressure of a positive kind. That is why those local, state and national football clubs, surf clubs and other sporting clubs who pledge to each other to prevent violence against women deserve our encouragement and accolades. To those who are still silent or those who think that domestic violence is not an issue that they will be impacted by, I repeat the alarming statistic declared on the White Ribbon website. It is a fact that one in three Australian women will be assaulted or abused in their lifetime. One of those women is likely to be your sister, your friend, your work colleague, your team mate, your future partner or your boss. Entrenched attitudes and behaviours do not change when people remain silent. It is time for voices to rise in disgust at this statistic, for cultural and behavioural change. The White Ribbon campaign asks men to swear an oath never to commit, excuse or remain silent about violence against women. The White Ribbon campaign in Australia is led by more than 1,000 White Ribbon ambassadors. Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke is a patron of the campaign. He is certainly a good campaigner and he is joined by other male politicians stepping up to deliver clear and exemplary values of respect for the rights of women to live their lives freely and without fear of assault by men. I know the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition are both ambassadors, as are many other men on both sides of the House. I know the Speaker of the House supports White Ribbon Day and that the member for Lindsay, at the table, is an ambassador. I call on all those who lead in other contexts to take the opportunity to lead on this issue on Thursday. (Time expired) 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 pm, the debate is interrupted. 3542 22:30:00 House adjourned at 10.30 pm 3543 Notices The following notices were given: JK6 McClelland, Robert, MP Mr McClelland to present a Bill for an Act to make various amendments of the statute law of the Commonwealth, to repeal certain obsolete Acts, and for related purposes. 8W5 Gray, Gary, MP Mr Gray to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to elections and referendums, and for related purposes. 8W5 Gray, Gary, MP Mr Gray to move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Integrated fit‑out of new leased premises for the Australian Taxation Office in Albury, NSW. 8W5 Gray, Gary, MP Mr Gray to move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Facilities for the introduction into service of Land 121 vehicles at RAAF Base Amberley and Damascus Barracks, Meeandah, Queensland and at Gaza Ridge Barracks, Victoria. 8W5 Gray, Gary, MP Mr Gray to move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Integrated fit‑out of new leased premises for the Australian Taxation Office at 12‑26 Franklin Street, Adelaide, SA. 8W5 Gray, Gary, MP Mr Gray to move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Proposed development and construction of housing for the Department of Defence at Largs North (Bayriver), Port Adelaide, SA. 8W5 Gray, Gary, MP Mr Gray to move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: HMAS Penguin and Pittwater Annexe Redevelopment, Mosman and Clareville, NSW. 8W5 Gray, Gary, MP Mr Gray to move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, and by reason of the urgent nature of the works, it is expedient that the following work be carried out without having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Infrastructure and upgrade works at the Immigration Detention Centre at Northam, WA. HVO Neumann, Shayne, MP Mr Neumann to move: That this House: notes that in 2006, the Howard Government made sweeping changes to the Family Law Act 1975 in parenting matters, and that these changes: elevated the rights of parents above the need to protect children; and have been analysed and criticised in the following reports: ‘Family Courts violence review’ by Professor Richard Chisolm, former Justice of the Family Court; ‘Evaluation of the family law reforms’ by the Australian Institute of Family Studies; and ‘Improving responses to family violence in the family law system’ by the Family Law Council; acknowledges that on 11 November 2010, the Hon. Robert McClelland, Attorney‑General, released a draft bill Family Law Amendment (Family Violence) Bill 2010 (the Bill) for public consultation open to 14 January 2011, proposing amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 to provide better protection for children and families at risk of violence; supports the Federal Labor Government in taking steps to protect children from abuse, neglect and family violence; and urges the Federal Labor Government to proceed with the Bill to ensure that the best interest of the child is the paramount consideration in all court proceedings in relation to children. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott to present a Bill for an Act to establish a process for assisting victims of overseas terrorist acts. M3C Bandt, Adam, MP Mr Bandt to move: That this House: supports the principle of equal pay for equal work; notes that the: Social and Community Services (SACS) sector equal remuneration case is currently before Fair Work Australia; Heads of Agreement made between the Government and the Australian Services Union (ASU), signed by the Prime Minister when she was Minster for Workplace Relations, includes an acknowledgment of the potential budgetary impacts of the case and the agreement of the ASU to a gradual phase‑in of any wage increase that results; and anger, disappointment and concern in the SACS sector that the Government’s submission to Fair Work Australia shows the Government backtracking on its commitment to pay equity; and calls on the Government to re-commit to the principle of pay equity and acknowledge that given the SACS sector provides many essential services on behalf of the Government, the Government has the primary responsibility to fund any pay increases necessary to achieve pay equity in the sector. 00AN1 Cobb, John, MP Mr John Cobb to move: That this House: requires the responsible Minister to: commission the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), with the assistance of ABARE, to prepare an information database on the foreign ownership of agricultural land and agribusiness, which should: show the level of foreign ownership for Australia as a whole, by state and for key regions, and for particular agribusinesses; include an annual formal statistical release; and recommend what steps need to be taken to establish and maintain a public register of foreign ownership of agricultural land and agribusiness; task the Productivity Commission, on the receipt of the initial ABS data, to: review foreign ownership of agricultural land and agribusiness, with an evaluation of its contribution to the national interest in terms of economic development, food and water security, and agricultural sustainability; and recommend how the foreign investment policy on agricultural land and agribusiness should be modified, if necessary, to ensure the optimum outcomes for economic development and the national interest, including whether the Government needs to: lower the threshold for notification to the Foreign Investment Review Board for rural land and agribusiness acquisitions; introduce a national interest test for food security; and ensure that foreign entities do not establish monopoly or near monopoly positions in key sectors. commit to establishing a Joint Parliamentary Committee to consider the information provided by the ABS, ABARE and the, Productivity Commission, taking into account public concern in this area.