2011-02-22 43 1 2 REPS 0 1 2011-02-22 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper) took the chair at 12 pm, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers. 867 Bills R4508 Cognate bill: 867 Bills R4507 867 Debate resumed from 10 February, on motion by Ms Gillard: That this bill be now read a second time. 867 12:01:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 0 Mr HOCKEY —To all my colleagues I say that the flooding which occurred along the eastern coast of Australia at the end of last year through to January this year, followed by the destructive Cyclone Yasi in early February and a trail of pain and suffering, including in the electorate of my colleague here, the electorate of Canning, in recent times, has had a severe impact on the lives of many fellow Australians. It is a reminder to us that we live in a diverse nation and we often feel the full effects of Mother Nature at her most angry. As communities are mourning the loss of the people who have died, many Australians have watched on in disbelief at the widespread devastation that has unleashed itself on us this summer. As time goes by, we are beginning to see affected communities rebuild their lives. The Commonwealth government is stepping in and helping with the repair and replacement of damaged infrastructure and with income support for households and businesses. This is appropriate and welcome. The coalition is not opposed in any way, shape or form to the rebuilding and repair of infrastructure. We want to see Australia get back on its feet as quickly as possible. In fact, we believe that the government must do whatever it takes and whatever is required to rebuild infrastructure, rebuild communities and rebuild families as quickly as possible. What the coalition does oppose, however, is how this government plans to fund the commitment. We also have great concerns about the capacity of this government to administer large sums of money. There are 10 reasons why the coalition is opposing this Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 to impose a flood levy on the Australian people. No. 1: the government and the Prime Minister have already called on Australians to donate money and volunteer time. It is unprecedented in Australia’s modern history for us to have a government that begs Australians to donate generously with their time, with their volunteer effort, and then, after they have done so in an extraordinary way, to go and hit those very same people with a new tax, a specific tax to do exactly what they just did, to help those people most in need at this time. It is unprecedented. In being unprecedented, this government has set a terrible agenda that is going to have an impact on generosity and philanthropy potentially for years to come. In the event of another horrible disaster—and, Lord forbid, but the truth is it will happen again—when the Prime Minister of the time comes out and asks Australians to donate, when the Prime Minister of the time comes out and says, ‘Please, travel from wherever you are to help to rebuild these communities,’ Australians, quite sadly, will think twice. They will think, ‘If it costs me $3,000 and I make sacrifices to help other people, what happens when they impose a levy?’ When I went down to help friends in Rochester, in Victoria, a town that was completely flooded, I did it because that is what mates do, as so many other Australians did. I am not saying anything other than that is what is appropriate. What I found hugely impressive when we were ripping the carpets out of a house on the Campaspe River that was totally flooded, when we were emptying the mud out of the pans and the plates in the kitchen, when, with total sadness, we were taking the drawers of the bedside table out and trying to wipe the mud off the family photos to try and save the photos, when we were emptying the fridges and freezers, there were people who were coming by the house to help who lived hundreds of kilometres away. In fact, I can say to you emphatically that there was a truckie who brought his tip truck from some kilometres away. The fuel cost a lot. He gave up the work that was still available in non-flood-affected areas. He just drove into Rochester to help those people most in need. He gave up days of work, drove outside all the houses and, when there was a pile of rubbish outside, tried to find a local farmer with a tractor who would be able to load up his tip truck so that he could take it to the tip. That volunteer effort cost those individuals a lot of money. They made sacrifices. I constantly think about that truckie, who now, I am absolutely sure, is going to be hit with a flood levy. After giving up days of work, after paying for a huge amount of diesel for his truck, he is now going to be hit with a new tax—a tax that, in our view, is immediately the wrong response to this issue. The second reason why we are opposing this is the magnitude of the tax. This is a big tax. In fact, it raises on a yearly average more than three times the annual amount of any levy introduced under the previous coalition government. It is far bigger than the Ansett levy, the gun buyback levy and so on, none of which actually amounted to more than $500 million a year. This levy is $1.8 billion in one year. Apart from the Medicare levy, which was introduced by Labor, never before have we had a levy on this scale in one year—and that in itself is a very significant issue. If you look at the levies that had to be introduced under the previous coalition government, it was because we were in deficit—as this government is now. But this government is in deficit because of its own work, while we were in deficit because of the great work of the Labor Party! They know how to create deficits. We had to try and get the budget back to surplus. But even then, when we did have the money—for example, for the East Timor intervention—the levy was never imposed. A levy has to be the last response, not the first response. That is why we believe the magnitude of the levy makes it a very difficult proposal to support. The third reason why we are opposing this flood levy is cost-of-living pressures. Australians are increasingly feeling the pain of the rising cost of living. If you want any evidence of that, you need look no further than the current debate in the New South Wales state election. Both the Labor Party and the coalition are making the point that the cost of living is the No. 1 issue for the people of New South Wales—and it is the No. 1 issue right across Australia. Why? The Australian Bureau of Statistics recently released information on the cost of living for various household types. This index, which is different from the CPI because it uses different formulas and takes housing costs into account, revealed that, for key groups, the cost of living is rising much more quickly than the official inflation rate. For families the cost of living increased by 4½ per cent over the year to December. That is nearly two full percentage points higher than the official CPI increase of 2.6 per cent. The largest rise was for financial and insurance services, which includes interest rates, with spending on this item alone rising by nearly 20 per cent during 2010. That is a very significant amount of money. The cost of living for age pensioners rose by 3.1 per cent during the course of last year. Age pensioners lead a day-to-day existence. They do not go out and buy new computers that are cheaper because the Australian dollar is so strong. They do not go out and buy flat-screen TVs all the time because the Australian dollar is so strong and the price has come down. They can only afford the basics of life. Thanks to taxes from this mob, alcohol and tobacco rose by 11 per cent—and you would remember the increase in tobacco tax, which had such an impact. For welfare recipients the increase in the cost of living last year was 4.5 per cent, well above the official inflation figure of 2.6 per cent. Again, this was driven by a big increase in spending on alcohol and tobacco, but also by a rise in spending on bank fees and charges and interest rates. If you do not have much money in your account, every time you take $50 out of the bank you are paying more. You cannot get any less out of an ATM these days; it is rare to get a $20 note out of an ATM. If you have $96 in your account you can only get $50 out of an ATM. That is very interesting—and, out of that, Australians are paying far more. Welfare recipients are paying 4.5 per cent more, which is well above the CPI. Australian families are struggling with rapid increases in the cost of living, rising interest rates—and they are going higher—and further upward pressure on inflation. As events unfolding in the Middle East start to push up oil prices, that too will flow through to everyday households. I say again that the cost of living is one of the reasons why we are opposing this bad legislation. The fourth key reason is consumer sentiment. This new tax further erodes household budgets and consumer sentiment at a time when the retail industry is already struggling. This point was reinforced by Russell Zimmerman, from the Australian Retailers Association, who commented: The flood levy is a tax, and any new tax results in less discretionary spend for consumers. Retailers, including those businesses who may have been affected by the floods, will be hit hard by this tax as consumers tighten their purse strings. The economy cannot afford this new tax. You can have all the consumer sentiment models you want, but you need look no further than the fact that the new Top Ryde shopping centre, which the Prime Minister so proudly opened during the election campaign, has just fallen over—a brand-new $700 million shopping centre in the middle of Sydney. No-one can remember when that last happened in the middle of Sydney. And then, of course, we see the outcome for Angus and Robertson, Borders and a range of other people that are involved in the tougher end of retail. Yes, a new tax does have an impact on consumer confidence. The fifth reason is that the coalition believe that this flood levy is poorly designed. Why? A household with two incomes of $80,000 per annum—a combined income of $160,000; it could be a couple of teachers—will pay a total of $300 under the levy. A single-income family on a salary of $120,000 a year will pay more. They will pay $450. So a school principal who earns $120,000 a year and has a partner who is a stay-at-home mum will now pay more in the levy than two working parents who have a combined income of $160,000. How is that fair? If you are a stay-at-home parent your household will pay more even though your household has a lesser income than the place next door. We have already heard in this House that people who choose to retire in the 2011-12 financial year and receive superannuation payouts with components that are classified as taxable income will be faced with an additional tax burden as a result of the introduction of this tax. We heard the story about the copper—it was raised by one of my colleagues in this place—who is going to have to pay around $6,500 for the flood tax levy. The Prime Minister says it is just the cost of a cup of coffee each week. Well, let me tell you that only in downtown Yarralumla would you pay that much for a cup of coffee. Or only if you were living in an ivory tower close to a sacrosanct place would you be saying that it is only the cost of a cup of coffee. For that copper it is $6,500 out of his retirement income, and I would suggest that he is not a high-income earner. Moving now to reason No. 6: why are we opposing this flood levy? It is because the government have admitted that further savings can be made. They can find them. So the flood levy was the first act and not the last act. That is the point. The first thing the government defaults to is to introduce a new tax. There was a problem with alcohol, so they introduced an alcopops tax. There was a problem with the sale of Australian cars, so they introduced a higher luxury car tax. There is a problem with people smoking, so they introduce higher tobacco taxes. There is a wane in the terms of trade benefits to Australia, so they slug the miners with a mining tax. We have got a problem with the climate, so they introduce a climate tax. And now Australia is hit with floods, so they introduce a flood tax. Go figure! Why is it Labor’s default to punish people by making them pay more? Then, come election time in New South Wales, Kristina Keneally goes around and says, ‘Yeah, electricity is too expensive, so we’re going to give you a rebate.’ Hang on, it is Labor that increased the prices and then they come in like Santa Claus and say that they are doing you a favour with a rebate to make it easier. How absurd. In the lead-up to the 2010 election we on the coalition side outlined $50 billion worth of spending cuts and revenue measures over the forward estimates period. That was a tough thing to do, but we did it because we actually have political ticker. We know how hard it is to run a strong economy. We announced a further $2 billion in spending cuts to show how the levy should be replaced. We have shown the way: $52 billion in cuts out of a total budget spend of $350 billion a year, or $1,400 billion over the forward estimates. They are hard yards, but they have to be done because that is what every Australian household is doing. And do you know what? People agree with us. Commentators agree with us—third parties who have not always agreed with us. They have been coming out of the woodwork to endorse our view that it is so imperative that the government not introduce this tax but in fact cut its own cloth. I refer to the Business Council of Australia, which said: Options to increase taxes, even temporarily, should only be considered after an exhaustive examination of potential savings on government spending. In an address to the National Press Club on 27 January the Prime Minister freely admitted that if further funds were needed to pay for the repair bill she would find those funds in the government’s spending. It has been confirmed by the Treasurer, who said that he will find further savings if necessary. So they do a little deal with the Greens and, whoops, there goes a few hundred million dollars. They do a little deal with someone else and, whoops, there goes another $100 million. And all of a sudden the $1.8 billion levy is only going to raise $1.4 billion. And, well, the Treasurer is going to find further savings. But, if it was good enough for them to identify savings on 27 January, why aren’t they identifying those savings now? The Treasurer says that he wants to wait till the May budget. It must be the same May budget that Julia Gillard is already speaking to Peter Costello about delivering! She’s tough on you, Swannie! You deserve better than her. So it is patently clear that a new tax to pay for the floods was the first resort and not the last resort. Reason No. 7: why are we opposing this levy? Simply because it is yet another Labor tax. The Rudd and Gillard governments have been on a tax binge since they came to government. We have had tobacco taxes, alcohol taxes, car taxes and this year we are going to have mining taxes—and how many different versions of that have we had? It is a bit like the Bible. There are so many different versions for each church. Within the Labor Party there are a thousand versions, but we know that in the original one they gave away $60 billion. Remember that? Were you part of that, Swannie? In order to stop a mining advertising campaign, they gave away $60 billion of revenue. That is the greatest sell-out I have heard of. The scale of it is fantastic. They went all the way. Moving to reason No. 8, there is one thing we know about Labor: they cannot be trusted to spend the money wisely. Why would you give this mob even more tax when they cannot spend wisely the money they have? Kerry Packer said that. Do you remember that famous House of Representatives inquiry into communications some years ago where a rather youthful looking Peter Costello asked some questions. They asked Kerry Packer about tax and he said: ‘Why would I give the government more tax than I should, given that the money I give them is not spent well as it stands?’ He is absolutely right. Of all the governments in Australia, you look at this mob and ask: why would you give them more money, following the computers in schools program, which had a $1.2 billion blow-out; or the ‘Building the Education Revolution’ school halls program? Now that the leadership of Libya is in a bit of trouble, where are you going to get all these revolutionary terms from? The ‘Building the Education Revolution’ school halls program. You’d better hope that Castro doesn’t die; otherwise you won’t have anywhere to get your vernacular! The revolution must live! And it lives in Julia Gillard’s world in relation to school halls. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —Che Guevara! DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —Che Guevara; that’s right! And who could forget the $2.5 billion on pink batts? What a fiasco that was. How can you trust them with money? There was the Green Loans program: $300 million wasted—a program finally cancelled with allegations of corruption. How can you trust Labor with money? Remember how they promised 36 GP superclinics in 2007-08? There are only eight currently in operation, and we do not even know if they have GPs in them. And this mob are now asking the Australian people for more money, whereas the money they have already been given they cannot spend properly. If the government had not wasted money on those school halls, on those pink batts, on the Green Loans program—had they not wasted money on a scale never seen before in Australia—the money would be in the budget to repair Queensland time and time again, without yet another levy being imposed on the Australian people. It is not just us who is saying this. Someone who has been critical of me, Henry Ergas, observed in the Australian: … additional taxation allows the government to call itself fiscally conservative without seriously reviewing the efficiency of existing spending programs. At the same time, by relaxing the government’s spending constraint, the levy reduces the pressure to ensure reconstruction resources are used wisely. So that is just eight points. Hang onto your seat, Swannie: there are two more to come. Point 9: Labor could have already paid this levy simply through the interest on its own debt. It will intrigue the Australian people to know the net interest bill on the Rudd-Gillard Labor government debt of $4.4 billion this financial year alone would have paid the flood levy two and a half times over. That is just the interest that this man has managed to accumulate in three short years. The interest payable this year would have paid this levy two and a half times over. It is outrageous. In the 2012-13 and 2013-14 financial years the net interest bill will be $5.9 billion. That amount could rebuild Queensland. Point 10—and this is perhaps the most significant of all: this government should lead by example. I would not take this government as an example on anything, other than the ability to waste money. But I believe the government should look within their own budget, as they have asked 4.66 million Australians to do—as 4.66 million Australians will have to do. As those Australians seek to try and reduce their household expenditure to save the money to pay for this flood levy, so too must this government have the ticker to start looking within their own ranks to find the money. But every time there is a bit of pushback, be it from the member for Melbourne, the member for Denison or anyone else, they fall over. They are men of straw; they fall over. In a little bit of wind, away she goes—flies out. And why? Because they do not have the ticker to stick with their decisions. That has been in the DNA of this mob for the last four years: no ticker. How intriguing it was to witness the hearings of the House Standing Committee on Economics inquiry into this flood levy. I remember being here for the introduction of A New Tax System. I think the Labor Party held six different inquiries in the Senate into the GST and into A New Tax System. They went for months and months, and they were crying about the fact that in this place they were not allowed to speak, they did not get the chance to have hearings and so on. Well, because of a screw-up by the Treasurer’s office— 00APG Smith, Anthony, MP Mr Anthony Smith —No! What? DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —I know: it is hard to believe! I could not believe it myself! But because of the screw-up by the Treasurer’s office, it was referred to a House of Representatives committee—the House of Representatives economics committee—and they gave it just one day. For a $1.8 billion levy they gave the committee a one-day hearing here in Canberra to hear evidence. And they had 45 minutes with the Treasury! 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo interjecting— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —The member for Moncrieff did an excellent job as the deputy chair of that committee, fighting against the forces of evil who were trying to close him down. He did a fantastic job in seeking to question— 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr Swan —He had Tony Abbott trying to close him down! DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —You’ll get your chance in a sec, old son. Ease up, china! My colleague tried to ask questions of Treasury, and of course they shut Treasury down. It would not be a surprise about closing Treasury down— 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr Swan interjecting— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —After the revelations of Treasury on banking overnight, mate, I can understand why you don’t want Treasury appearing before committees! I can understand that. They have just made a fool of you on banking. So it was a case of ‘No, no; we don’t want Treasury to get up and tell the truth at a committee—to tell Australians what the real deal is.’ But in evidence before the committee, Saul Eslake, who was a constant critic of Peter Costello as Treasurer, said that the introduction of the new flood tax was one of ‘political choices rather than economic imperatives’. He went on to say: My point is simply that the decision to choose to fund a third of the cost through a levy is a political choice rather than an economic one. Step 1: it is about politics. Warwick McKibbon, who was also a critic of us when we were in government from time to time—and in fact has criticised us recently—said in evidence before the committee: Most economists who study public finance would support the view that taxation is not the optimum way to finance the reconstruction of infrastructure after a natural disaster. The argument has a long tradition in economics. …       …            … I think that in the case of a disaster it is almost uniformly accepted by economists, in principle, that a tax is not the best way to fund it. When you have Warwick McKibbin, Saul Eslake, the Business Council of Australia, consumer sentiment, Australian households, the Australian people more generally and the coalition all saying that this flood tax is bad policy, I would say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker: at some point this mob has to learn that you cannot keep going back to the well, because one day there will not be any water left. If you want to keep the Australian economy strong, you have to create confidence. If at every point in the economic cycle the government comes along to introduce a new tax, and even when its proposal for a new tax has many forms, like the dreaded Hydra, and has many heads, like the old mining tax, with mining tax version 1 under Henry, version 2 under Kevin Rudd—you remember him, Swannie; you haven’t forgotten Kevin Rudd, have you? You haven’t forgotten him: white hair, a fellow Queenslander, used to be Prime Minister? 00APG Smith, Anthony, MP Mr Anthony Smith —Went to school together! DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —School together—Nambour high! An honourable member—They won’t get you to organise their class reunion! DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —That’s right; no class reunion at Nambour. That is it. You would need to have it in the convention centre with Swannie at one end and Ruddie at the other, because you would not want to have them in a room that is any smaller than Parliament House, would you? But I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker: the coalition will not support bad policy. The coalition will not support another slug on Australian households. The coalition will not support any attempt to increase the cost of prices for Australians or any attempt to increase the pain associated with an incompetent government, and that is why the coalition will not support yet another bad Labor tax. 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—Before calling the Treasurer, I remind the member for North Sydney of the provisions of standing order 64. 873 12:31:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 0 Mr SWAN —We have just had 30 long minutes from the shadow Treasurer demonstrating yet again how unqualified he is when it comes to economic policy and how out of touch the federal coalition are when it comes to the needs of rebuilding Queensland and other parts of this nation which have suffered from natural disasters over the past couple of months. What we got was 30 minutes of politics. We did not get 30 minutes about the people and what they need—yet another demonstration of how the coalition have been prepared to play politics with this issue rather than responding to the needs of the people of Queensland and putting the national interest ahead of their own immediate political self-interest. I can tell you that I was in Brisbane and in Queensland the whole time of these events. Before the floodwaters had risen to their peak in Brisbane, the Leader of the Opposition was in Queensland playing politics with this issue, playing politics with the lives of the people that were being devastated at that very time, when his thoughts should have been for the people themselves and what we needed to do as a nation to rebuild that state and help all of those people whose lives have been shattered. I could see the embarrassment on the faces of some Queensland backbench members here today as the shadow Treasurer yet again put politics first rather than the national interest and rather than the needs of Queenslanders, because the devastation of these natural disasters has been immense. They have touched every Australian. The loss of life is seared into our memory. We mourn for those who are lost, and our sympathies go with those who will now go through the terrible task of rebuilding their lives. We hear yet again today further evidence of natural disasters in New Zealand, and our thoughts go out to all of those people. We hope that there is good news as they go through those events in New Zealand. Mother Nature in this country has been particularly cruel this summer. It has tested our nation. It has tested us in flood, it has tested us in cyclone and, of course, it has tested us in fire, all in a relatively short period of time. I believe that our people and the nation have risen to the tests of these events. Part of rising to deal with these events is to show the political maturity to put in place the policies that are required not just to deal with these events on the ground but also to strengthen our economy for the long term. We have to do both. I think Australians understand the need for this. We have seen extraordinary acts of bravery. We have seen the extraordinary acts of people volunteering, travelling thousands of miles to communities to help their fellow citizens. We have seen strangers turning up in gumboots to the houses of people they have never met, and at times they have come a very long distance to do that. But coalition members in this House simply do not get that. The whole nation wants to pull together as we deal with this question, but what we get is the further politics of division from those opposite, putting politics ahead of the interests of all of those people in Queensland. Yes, there have been extraordinary acts of generosity. Something like $200 million has been raised on a voluntary basis to help people. The generosity here has been overwhelming. It has been an important part of our response. But we are dealing here with a natural disaster which is unprecedented in our history, and I am sure this is not clearly understood by those opposite. Something like three-quarters of Queensland was declared a disaster area. Put that into perspective. That is more than five times the size of the state of Victoria. So what we are dealing with here, in comparison to other events like Cyclone Tracy or the Black Saturday bushfires or the Newcastle earthquake, is something that is quite extraordinary. We cannot yet say what the full impact is but we do know it is significant. We know, for example, that it will take about half a percentage point off growth in 2010-11. That is about $6 billion stripped out of the real economy. That is no small beer. Queensland’s key economic sectors have been dealt a massive blow, and that does not take into account the critical public and community infrastructure that has been smashed to pieces. We have rail lines to reopen, ports to dredge, bridges to build—a huge amount of rebuilding of public infrastructure. That is why Treasury estimates that repairs to public infrastructure and disaster recovery payments for individuals will cost around $5.6 billion—and that is before the impact of Cyclone Yasi. That is why there has been such extraordinary generosity from Australians. That is why we have responded with emergency support payments. The fact is that we have to rebuild the critical economic infrastructure of such a large part of Australia. Under our national disaster relief arrangements the Commonwealth rightly picks up 75 per cent of the bill. This is the responsibility of the national government. We have to do this to back up all of the actions of volunteers, all of that community effort and all of the donations that are coming from the business community. We have to be there with our 75 per cent for this critical public infrastructure, because that is what makes the community work. The disaster does not stop at the front gate; it does not stop at the farm gate. What we have to deal with is the essential community infrastructure that makes these communities go around. That is why we have put forward our $5.6 billion package, through the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011, to rebuild the essential public infrastructure. In doing that we also have to be cognisant of where the economy is. We are now dealing with the very important challenges of mining boom mark 2. That is why we decided to fund two-thirds of the $5.6 billion from savings within the budget. More than $2½ billion will come from cuts to other programs, and about a billion dollars has been identified in other infrastructure projects that can be delayed. The opposition go on as if finding savings in a budget is really easy and as if they are somehow capable of just magically producing $5 billion or $10 billion. They claimed during the election campaign that they had found savings of $50 billion. Their $11 billion costings con job was exposed by the Treasury. They simply are not up to the task of finding savings and we found that out during the election campaign. The next thing we heard from them was, ‘We could fund all of this by stopping the NBN.’ Did you know that when they produced their savings the other day they did not do anything about the NBN? This is because there are no savings that will come from altering the NBN. When it comes to savings, this government has runs on the board. We understand that as we go through the budget process we will have to make further savings in addition to the savings that we have made in this package. We said that at the time, because we understand that we have to meet our fiscal targets. We do that not for political reasons but because the economy is growing strongly from the mining boom mark 2. As we go through the next couple of years there will be capacity constraints in our economy, so we have to make room to do the rebuilding on the one hand and to make sure that essential investment is going into areas that will increase the capacity to cope with the mining boom mark 2. So we are doing both and we will be finding further savings as we go forward. That is why we need a temporary levy and why we have moved for a temporary levy starting on 1 July this year. It is the responsible thing to do in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. I am just gobsmacked when I sit in this House and listen to all of the rhetoric from those opposite about how bad a levy is and about how the government always turns to taxing. When they were in government they were the highest taxing government in Australia’s history. On six occasions they found levies that they could support. In fact, they have never seen a levy that they did not support—up until a couple of weeks ago. They had the gun levy and the Timor levy—all of which were much bigger than this. So I am gobsmacked when I listen to them in this House claiming that somehow they can never support a levy even though they supported six levies in their 12 years of government. What is completely mind-boggling and what demonstrates just how ridiculous, bizarre and crazy the opposition have become is that in the last election they went around Australia campaigning for a $6 billion levy over two years. It was $3 billion per year to fund parental leave. Suddenly, they expect the public to believe that they do not like levies. They do not like this levy because they want to play politics with the reconstruction in Queensland and they think it is in their political interest to do that. But I have a message for them and they ought to hear this loud and clear, particularly all of the Queensland backbenchers over there: Queenslanders do understand the need for this levy. They absolutely support this levy. Australians understand the need for this levy and they support it. What they do not support is the way in which those opposite are trying to be populist about this measure. It is a modest levy. For a person on average full-time wages of $68,000 the levy amounts to $1.74 per week. This is less than a tenth of the tax cuts that they have received over the past three years. Let’s just put that into perspective: it is less than a bus ticket, less than a packet of Burger Rings, less than a weekend newspaper and less than a cup of coffee. E0H Laming, Andrew, MP Mr Laming —It is hardly worth having a levy, then. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —No, this is where you do not understand it and this is where you will be punished by the people in Queensland for playing politics with this: it is the sum of the parts that is important. All of these small amounts of money add up to a substantial amount of money that can rebuild our state. That is the case for this levy. Everybody is contributing. Everybody understands the size and magnitude of the task. If it was good enough to have a levy for Timor or for the gun buyback, why isn’t it good enough to have a levy to rebuild Queensland? They cannot answer that question and it exposes just how bizarre, out of touch and irresponsible each and every one of those members of the opposition is on this issue, particularly the members of the opposition from Queensland. We are coming at this from the perspective of responsible economic management. We are a government that have got the big economic decisions right. Did you hear the shadow Treasurer go on and on earlier about how we handled the global recession? We absolutely got it right. If those opposite had had their way Australia would have been in recession. Unemployment would be far higher now and we would be in a much weaker position to deal with these natural disasters had they been in government during the global financial crisis. I have just come from a meeting of G20 finance ministers. They understand how important the response of Australia was to growth in this country compared to what is going on in other developed economies. Go to the eurozone. Unemployment across the eurozone is 10 per cent. Unemployment in this country is five per cent. Part of the reason for that was the very quick response that we put in place to support small businesses, to support employment and to support confidence in our economy. The outcome has been a far stronger economy and one of the strongest developed economies in the Western world. But of course all of this is opposed by those opposite, because they do not know how to behave when there are big challenges or when there is a crisis. They did not know how to behave during the global financial crisis. They came in here and hacked away at the bank guarantee; they came in here and opposed the second stimulus package. They did all those things because they could not live up to their responsibilities. They cannot live up to their responsibilities because they do not know how to behave in a crisis. This was demonstrated yet again in their response to the floods in Queensland. They just decided to play politics from the very beginning. This government will deal with this in the way we must deal with it: we are going to deal with it in a responsible way. The responsible way is to put in place a levy which is modest but will fund, along with our savings, a package which will support the people of Queensland and the rest of the country. Paying as you go is the responsible thing to do. The irresponsible thing to do is what the opposition is doing. With each and every one of us pulling our own weight, we will be back to surplus in a couple of years, we will be setting our economy up for the future, we will be doing the right thing by the people of Queensland, we will be making our economy stronger and we will be helping out all those people who need a helping hand. That is why a modest levy is the responsible thing to do. Those opposite will be condemned by their electorates for not behaving in a responsible way, which is what their electorates expect of them. (Time expired) 877 12:47:00 Smith, Anthony, MP 00APG Casey LP 0 0 Mr ANTHONY SMITH —What we have just witnessed from the Treasurer is another pathetically base attack on the opposition. The Treasurer comes into this House, again, and repeats in robotic style, like some sort of battery-operated kids toy, an attack on the opposition, saying that we don’t support his levy and therefore we don’t support the reconstruction of flood affected areas. He mentioned Queensland a number of times—and rightly so. I would say to the Treasurer, as he scurries out the door: it wouldn’t hurt to mention Victoria and reconstruction in the one sentence one or two times. I think if I had to pay him for every time he had mentioned Victoria in the last four or five weeks I would be lucky to be out of pocket $5. The Leader of the Opposition and every member of this side of the House has made clear from day one that we support the reconstruction of flood affected areas. The issue is how it is paid for. We think it should be paid for out of the budget and we do not think there should be a levy. The Treasurer might adopt the approach that anyone that disagrees with him is somehow against the reconstruction, but I can tell you that most people see through that. They find it offensive. To repeat it over and over again, like some sort of human jackhammer, does him no service and does the government no service at all. The shadow Treasurer comprehensively outlined the opposition’s approach to this bill and the reasons for our opposition to it. They were compelling arguments—10 of them. I will not repeat each and every one of them, but what I will focus on, which the Treasurer refuses to go near, is how this government came to the levy. When you listen to the Treasurer and you listen to the Prime Minister, apart from repeating over and over again that anyone who opposes their $1.8 billion levy must therefore be opposed to reconstruction—apart from repeating that over and over again; the only difference between him and the battery-operated toy is that at least with the battery-operated toy the batteries run out—when you go to the heart of this matter and you look at how this $1.8 billion levy was conceived and how it has been defended by the government, it is obvious for all to see that when it comes to the Labor Party and this levy their first instinct was, as the shadow Treasurer said, to tax. With the Prime Minister’s announcement—I think it was the day after Australia Day—we were simultaneously told that the cost of reconstruction, whilst it could not be precise, would be, obviously, of a big magnitude. What the government had decided to do was to identify $3.8 billion worth of cuts and $1.8 billion worth of levy. Immediately on that day, when the question was asked, ‘What will happen if the reconstruction bill is greater than the sum of those two parts which you, Prime Minister, have outlined?’ the answer was, ‘More savings will be found,’ obviously indicating that more savings are there in a budget of around $350 billion. What the Treasurer would have you believe is that he could find $3.8 billion of savings and not one cent more. In his wrap-up to his speech just a few minutes ago he tried to imply that there was some magical economic formula to his two-thirds split of $3.8 billion and $1.8 billion. But, of course, the fact that a levy of $1.8 billion was decided, according to his two-thirds formula, evaporates immediately on the first question from journalists at the National Press Club about what will happen if the bill is more. What will happen if the bill is more, the Prime Minister said, is that more savings will be found. So the government’s first instinct was to construct a levy, to find some savings and, if the bill is more than the sum of those two parts, to find more savings. When you look at how the government came to this decision and how they have obfuscated since day one, how they have dodged and weaved, it is very obvious to the Australian public that the rigour of their approach was to decide on a levy, try to find a few spending cuts and then attack anyone who said that there might be a better way to fund the thing we all agree on in this House—that is, the reconstruction of flood affected areas in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. And as I said before, it would not hurt the Treasurer to mention Victoria every now and again. No-one in this House—major parties, minor party, Independents—disagree on the proposition that every dollar should be spent on the reconstruction. And for the Treasurer to take any criticism, any scrutiny of one of the means he is finding as opposition to that reconstruction is something that belittles him and those that sit with him. We had the announcement the day after Australia Day. We had the Treasurer on the 7.30 Report that very night. He was asked the same question that was obvious. He was asked by Tracy Bowden: … So you’re suggesting there could be further spending cuts if necessary, so why not make them now? I mean, is there, as the Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has said, some fat in the budget? Answer: WAYNE SWAN:— the Treasurer— Well, because it wouldn’t be wise. Again, no attempt to answer the question, no attempt to join the dots and provide some level of logic. But of course with that concession by the Prime Minister that if the bill comes in higher then there will be more spending cuts, we have now seen in the past week, with a deal with those on the crossbenches, that there will be, in the Prime Minister’s words, and reaffirmed yesterday by the Assistant Treasurer, ‘further spending cuts of another $150 million’. Now unlike the $3.8 billion, which was identified outright, this $150 million will be identified in the budget. We had all of this rigour upfront, supposedly, on the spending cuts right down to the last dollar—what the programs would be, what would be delayed—amounting to $3.8 billion. The Treasurer was here not more than 15 minutes ago talking about them, the one-third two-thirds formula, but last week we were told about another $150 million and that we will find out about that in the budget. At every step it has been obvious, as the shadow Treasurer said, that the first instinct of the Treasurer, the first instinct of the Prime Minister was to impose a $1.8 billion levy. Why $1.8 billion? What happens if the bill is more than the $5.6 billion? But then of course we had the spectacle in the last sitting week of the Treasurer in this House being asked the very reasonable question by the shadow Treasurer: how many people will pay the levy? This question could not be answered by the Treasurer. Again, bluff and bluster could not hide that fact. He stood at the dispatch box and told the shadow Treasurer to go and have a look on the website if he really wanted to know. The truth is the Treasurer himself could not have found it on his website. He had not looked; he did not know. Quite rightly, a great deal was made about this by commentators, who said it was somewhat strange that the Treasurer, who had supposedly been looking at all of the detail and had been working out the $1.8 billion levy, did not know how many people were going to pay this levy. Of course it is strange, and they were absolutely right, but it is interesting at another level, isn’t it? The Treasurer in his mind could be absolutely sure that the government will collect $1.8 billion—not $1.7 billion, not $1.9 billion; he is absolutely sure how much they will collect—and in this legislation we are debating, in the bills that are before us, in the explanatory memorandum that outlines the mechanics of how that money will be collected and the timing of the collection, the government are absolutely sure of precisely how much they will collect but they cannot be sure how many people will pay it. Now that is odd, isn’t it? That is absolutely odd. M3E Mitchell, Rob, MP Mr Mitchell —How many people paid the milk levy? You don’t know! 00APG Smith, Anthony, MP Mr ANTHONY SMITH —The member for McEwen tries to help the Treasurer. The point is the Treasurer had not worked out exactly who was paying it, but he knew $1.8 billion— M3E Mitchell, Rob, MP Mr Mitchell —How many paid the milk levy? The gun buyback levy? You don’t know! 00APG Smith, Anthony, MP Mr ANTHONY SMITH —Mr Deputy Speaker, no amount of bluff and bluster from the Treasurer, no amount of interjections can hide this fact from the government. The reconstruction of the flood affected areas should proceed and should proceed, as we have all said, quickly. It should proceed out of existing budget programs. Now for those opposite to argue they can easily identify $3.8 billion worth of savings but not a dollar more, that it is not wise to identify a dollar more, whoops, until we have to find another $150 million, which we cannot identify but we will by budget time—those opposite should look in their heart of hearts, and some of those opposite should look in their heads. Not all of them, I regret to say, but some of them know in their heads that this is a farcical argument. They know deep down, despite the Treasurer’s bluff we had in here about how he saved Australia from the global recession, the waste that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have presided over. They know that the levy that is being proposed, which will hurt the pay packets of Australians, equates to the waste just from the Orwellian Building the Education Revolution program. The Prime Minister, when she was education minister, wasted the equivalent of this levy on the Building the Education Revolution school programs, wasted the— M3E Mitchell, Rob, MP Mr Mitchell —You were there for every BER opening! 00APG Smith, Anthony, MP Mr ANTHONY SMITH —You know the waste is there. I concede that those opposite may consider $1.8 billion to be a rounding error; that is sort of the Labor way—just a rounding error. But that was just in the program alone, before mentioning the other programs the shadow Treasurer ran through in some detail: ceiling insulation and all the other waste on the solar programs. On 10 February here in this House the Leader of the Opposition outlined the opposition’s position very clearly. As he said, everyone wants to see the reconstruction happen, and they want to see it happen right. The difference between this side of the House and the other is that the government wants to see it funded through an unnecessary new tax, and members of this side of the House want to see it funded through affordable, achievable and sensible savings from unnecessary government expenditure. That is our strong view. Those opposite, from the Treasurer down— M3E Mitchell, Rob, MP Mr Mitchell interjecting— 00APG Smith, Anthony, MP Mr ANTHONY SMITH —I have to say that the Treasurer is incapable. They should debate the merits, not resort to pathetic, cheap attacks that, if no-one agrees with their levy, therefore they do not agree with the reconstruction. It belittles the Treasurer and it belittles this House, and what this government should do is find the savings that it knows are there in the budget. It has wasted money already, and the Australian public know it. They tell me and they tell every other member of this House. Those opposite hear it as well; they hear about the waste and mismanagement from the Australian public, and they should listen to their electorates and their constituents and stand up to the Treasurer. 880 13:01:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 0 Mr PERRETT —I rise to support the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and the related bill before the House. I would like particularly to commend the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, for her strong leadership—and also Deputy Prime Minister Swan—in the wake of these natural disasters which we have had: floods in Victoria, floods in Brisbane and South-East Queensland, and the cyclone in North Queensland. Queenslanders and Victorians will never forget this courageous rebuilding package. In these debates there is obviously a bit of lining up on either side of the chamber. It was interesting in the preceding speeches—and people should go to the videotape and have a look—to see the people behind the speakers. It is quite telling. I was sitting in my office getting my speech notes ready, and I looked at the people behind Joe Hockey, the member for North Sydney. It was amazing. There were three new members, all from Queensland: the member for Forde, the member for Herbert and the member for Ryan—my next door neighbour. The only border between us is, in fact, the Brisbane River—that very big river that flooded recently. I watched the member for North Sydney go through his 10 reasons and the like, but I also looked behind him. I am a bit of an expert when it comes to standing behind people doing talks. Ben Fordham called me the bonehead of the year last year for one of my performances in the election campaign, so I can speak with a bit of authority on this. That is still a drink you owe me, Ben Fordham! I looked at the new noddies—the backbenchers sitting behind the speaker. I thought, ‘They are new MPs; maybe they don’t know,’ so I thought I would give them a bit of a tip, and that is: when the speaker on your side is putting forward an idea—in this case, 10 ideas—it is a good idea to nod. It was as if these Queenslanders had an iron bar for a backbone: they were stock still, not moving at all. They did not want to show anyone that they supported what the member for North Sydney was saying. I thought, ‘Maybe they are new MPs, so let’s have a look at the member for Casey when he talks.’ He had the member for Bonner behind him and the member for Bowman right next to him—two other Queenslanders. But it was exactly the same thing: not a movement—not a single nod in his whole speech. Maybe it was because the 10 reasons from the member for North Sydney were a little bit like David Letterman’s 10 good reasons, but they were not funny—that was the only sad thing. Certainly, as Queenslanders we know how important this reconstruction is. I can just imagine when the Liberals had their strategy meeting about this legislation: the brains trust would have been there and the member for Wide Bay would have thrown his bid in as a Queenslander. They would have sat at Liberal Party headquarters and said, ‘What are we going to do?’ The first thing that the Leader of the Opposition would have said is, ‘Let’s call it a big new tax.’ That is his strategy for everything—it is either ‘no’ or ‘Let’s call it a big tax.’ That is his simple strategy. Then, of course, because there is a bit of competition going on over the other side at the moment, we would have the member for Goldstein saying: ‘We need to do more. Let’s give 10 reasons; one is not enough’—10 reasons why they would oppose the flood levy. Well, I have got 5,200 reasons why we should support the flood levy. That is how many properties in my electorate alone were affected by the floods. And if we go up the river, across the river or up to North Queensland, we would see many other properties that have been affected. People who have been in the area—not just swanned in, picked up a broom and scrubbed for half an hour—know how much the infrastructure has been impacted on. The reality is that I do not think the member for North Sydney understood that, whilst that will help up to the gate, the Queensland Premier’s flood relief money will go beyond the gate and help out other people. That is what people need to understand. I think some people have forgotten. It has only been a month or so, but people have forgotten that this was the biggest economic disaster ever. The legislation is not the temporary ‘incident’ reconstruction levy. It is not an incident; it is a flood—a massive flood, a massive disaster. It is not called the temporary ‘hiccup’ reconstruction levy. This had a massive impact on Queensland’s economy—and not just Queensland. It will flow everywhere. Queensland produces a lot of our fresh fruit and vegetables, as I am sure the Leader of the National Party would know. Queensland also has a lot of mining that has been impacted on. I met with the Coal Owners Association yesterday. They were going through some of the impacts that are going to flow throughout the economy. Of course, as every Queenslander knows, tourism has taken an absolute hammering. So I think the Liberals need to go back to their strategy meeting and work out a better way of approaching this. Let’s have a look. We need $5.6 billion to rebuild major infrastructure in Queensland and Victoria, and we will deliver this funding through $2.8 billion in budget savings—$1 billion in delaying a couple of infrastructure projects and $1.8 billion from the temporary levy. This is the sort of levy that strikes the right balance. No-one will be paying the levy if their income is under $50,000. I know it is not a lot of money for some people opposite, but it is still pitched reasonably. Sixty per cent of taxpayers will pay less than $1 a week and 70 per cent of taxpayers will pay less than $2 a week. Let’s be honest: if we look in our heart of hearts, people earning more than that can afford to pay just a little bit more. The good thing is that those people in the Ryan electorate, Moreton electorate, Oxley electorate, Blair electorate et cetera who were affected by the floods, who received a disaster relief payment, will be exempt. So they will not have to dip into their pockets to rebuild Queensland and Victoria. So we have two-thirds from savings, and one-third is coming from Australians who earn over $50,000. The opposition from those speaking on the other side of the chamber is nothing more than a political stunt. As I said, you can tell that by looking at the people behind the speaker. It is quite shameful, really, especially when they say they are almost ideologically opposed to levies being used in a time of emergency. During the Abbott and Hockey years, there were six proposed levies: a superannuation levy on high-income earners, levies on the milk and sugar industries and a levy to buy back guns after the Port Arthur incident—a levy which, I must say, took an incredible amount of courage from John Howard because of some of his National Party supporters. I know it took a lot of courage and I commend him particularly for that. There are three things I thank him for and that is one. There was also the levy to help meet the entitlements of Ansett staff, a levy to help rebuild East Timor and that great big mother of a levy—the one to fund the opposition leader’s pie in the sky parental leave scheme. So I think we understand that this levy is necessary after a great economic disaster. So what do you do? You are sensible and you ask people who can afford to to just dip into their pockets a little bit. It is interesting—I have actually been contacted by a few of my constituents who say: ‘We were affected by the floods but we want to pay the levy. It’s the right thing to do and it would help people.’ For example, Martin Finbow from Chelmer, one of the wealthier areas in my electorate, contacted me. He is exempt because he was affected by the flood but wants—insists—on being able to pay. He wants to be able to opt in to pay. There is another bloke from Coopers Plains who did not want his name mentioned. He earns less than $50,000 a year but also wanted to opt in to pay the levy. I am sure there will be others when they realise what it is going to do and how it is going to help Queensland. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition is listening to the polling at Liberal Party headquarters or something and putting that before the needs of Queensland. However, I would rather we listened to that strategy rather than turning to the opposition immigration spokesperson, Scott Morrison, to find out how he would respond to the disaster. I imagine his strategy would simply be to rename Cyclone Yasi—to change it to ‘Cyclone Yusuf’ and blame it on the Muslims. That would be his strategy. GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss —That is low. HVP Perrett, Graham, MP Mr PERRETT —That is not my idea; that is actually Andrew McGahan’s idea in his novel Underground from 2006. It is set in 2011 when Canberra has been taken over by a Liberal totalitarian government. IPZ Chester, Darren, MP Mr Chester —So much for the high moral ground! You are a grub. Withdraw that! HVP Perrett, Graham, MP Mr PERRETT —Excuse me— 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—The member for Moreton has the call. HVP Perrett, Graham, MP Mr PERRETT —Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and I will be guided by you on these things. If you think I have offended the opposition immigration spokesperson, Scott Morrison—it is a direct quote from a book called Underground—and if it would assist, I am happy to withdraw. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —It would assist the House if you would. HVP Perrett, Graham, MP Mr PERRETT —I will withdraw, but it would have been nice if he withdrew— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Those on my left will desist from interjecting. HVP Perrett, Graham, MP Mr PERRETT —As I said, in my electorate of Moreton I have had 5,200 properties impacted, and 1,000 of them are businesses. So there are more than just a thousand people. Some of these businesses, like the Rocklea markets, have 3,000 employees. The suburbs of Chelmer, Graceville, Sherwood, Corinda, Tennyson, Oxley, Yeronga, Rocklea, Fairfield, Moorooka, Coopers Plains, Yeerongpilly, Acacia Ridge and Archerfield were all hit hard, and these suburbs that were hit hard understand how urgent it is that we get this infrastructure levy through. I would just like to thank a couple of the heroes in my electorate who have done some incredible work. I will not be able to name them all, but some are Graham Hodgson, an Oxley electrician; Melinda McInturff at Yeronga State School respite centre; Patrice Cafferky from Yeronga, who organised some community meetings; Joy Vardy from Yeronga with the welcome home baskets; Moorooka Lions, including Robert Johnson, Damien Meeney and the Acacia Ridge and District Community Centre for some of the Rocklea responses; and the Oxley State School P&C. Trish and Patrice have been very active in getting the response together at the Oxley State School. There is the Campbell family as well. Graceville has been fantastic, particularly the state school P&C. Ian Hall, the principal, Wayne Penning and many others have done some great work in Graceville. Corinda’s Dunlop pool organised community meetings. There is also St David’s at Chelmer, with John Corner at St David’s parish drop-in centre. Karen Simons ran a respite centre at her home in Strong Avenue. Then there is George McLauchlan, my 96-year-old hero in Leybourne Street, Chelmer, and the Oxley community flood relief group. 883 13:14:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —Natural disasters confront Australia and other countries from time to time. In every budget, governments put aside money so that they can undertake their core responsibilities to repair damage after a disaster and to make sure that our economy returns to normal as soon as possible. We have found now that this government actually reduced the amount put aside in the contingency reserve for disasters in its last budget. It has reduced the amount, in spite of the fact that it spent around half a billion dollars last year on recovery from natural disasters, in this year’s budget to just $80 million. Is it any surprise therefore that when the government is called upon to undertake one of its core responsibilities of government—namely, to repair damage after natural disasters—there is no money left in the tin? This government has been spending the taxpayers’ money, spending the birthright it inherited from the previous government, wasting money on infamous programs like Building the Education Revolution and the Home Insulation Program, wasting money that could have been put aside and could have been ready to fund the government’s core responsibilities in dealing with the cyclones and the flooding we have just experienced. That money has been wasted. Indeed, this government has wasted something like six or seven times the amount of money that it is collecting through this new tax in the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 through its various programs over recent times. If it had saved its money, if it had been prudent managers, it would not have needed a new tax like this to undertake these key responsibilities. We have had a significant flood. Senator Brown has told us that it is all the fault of the coalminers. Of course, I do not know who was to blame for the floods we had in the 1890s or in the 1950s. The coalminers were not around then, but Senator Brown—who is, after all, the partner in government with the Labor Party—says it is the coalminers that caused this flood. Not many years ago he was saying the coalminers caused the drought. So our coalminers are very versatile. Then, of course, he changes his tune to some extent and says that it is all about climate change; we are having more dramatic events now than we have had in the past. I do not even think the facts support that kind of a claim. The reality is we have had very significant flooding in parts of Australia in the past. Even though these floods were serious in my own area and in others, the reality is that there are not a lot of places where this was the biggest flooding on record. There were some notable cases, but in many other instances like Brisbane and Rockhampton there have been floods of equal magnitude in the past. So even to suggest that somehow or other climate change is resulting in us having more droughts or more floods is not really supported by the evidence. The reality is that this is something that governments need to plan for. We have had disasters in the past; we will have them in the future. Good governments put aside in the good times so that there is money there when the rainy day comes. Of course, this time the rainy day came in abundance. So we are going to have a new tax, coming at the same time Labor is proposing a new carbon tax, a supertax on mining, new taxes on alternative fuels, a new tax on LPG and, today even, new taxes on transport. This government is on a taxation binge. It is always looking for new ways to raise a tax and, wow, we have now had a disaster, a flood that has touched the heart of all Australians, so we will have a new tax especially for this flood and the disaster response. The government have told us they were going to raise $1.8 billion from this tax. The total federal budget is around $350 billion, so surely a good prudent government could find $1.8 billion to spend on this core responsibility of government without having to raise a new tax. It has $350 billion available and at its disposable every year. We need to ask some serious questions about how much this tax will actually raise. The government, when they announced it, said they are going to collect $1.8 billion, but the Treasurer, in question time, could not tell us how many people were going to pay it. How could they possibly know how much it was going to raise if they did not know how many people were going to pay it? After the announcement of the tax and after we were told it was going to raise $1.8 billion, several hundred thousand extra taxpayers were exempt from having to make the payment—the cyclone victims are now also excluded from making the payment—but there was no downward adjustment in the amount of money the government intends to collect. Was the figure rubbery in the first place or is it wrong today? In addition to that, to get the Independents to vote for this levy, the government had to give a 320-odd million dollar bribe to the Greens and a $50 million bribe to somebody else. The reality therefore is that the savings that the government had put in place are not there. So all of the numbers surrounding this tax, this new imposition on Australian people, are at best rubbery but almost certainly wrong. The government does not know how many people are going to pay this tax. Therefore, how can it possibly know how much it is going to collect? It is interesting—and I made some reference to this during the adjournment debate last night—that the government is making a $1,000 payment to people affected by the disaster. I estimate that on the eligibility criteria, which means that everybody that was without electricity for 48 hours and everybody that could not get in or out of their home, suburb or town for 24 hours qualifies, at least two million Australians qualify for this $1,000 payment. Many people were embarrassed that they were being offered $1,000 cash when in fact the flood had caused very little inconvenience to them. It had not cost them any extra money and they were still able to get to the shops but they were eligible for this $1,000 payment. So many people did not take it. I even heard the Treasurer say that he ‘hoped’ that people who were without electricity for 48 hours and that was their only problem would not claim this $1,000, but his guidelines said they were entitled to it. Many people did not bother to claim. However, when the government then said that everybody who gets the $1,000 will not have to pay the tax, why wouldn’t everyone make the claim that they are entitled to? Not only in their goodwill did they turn down $1,000 now they are inviting themselves to be levied a new tax. If the government were at all sincere, they would be grateful to the people who did not claim the $1,000 and not charge them this tax. What about the people who not only did not accept the $1,000 that they were entitled to but actually made donations to the appeal? Some of them gave very substantial donations to the appeal. They have given already and now the government is going to tax them. They have provided their own equipment and their own personal time. They did not take the welfare payments that the federal government offered them and their reward for that is higher taxes. Tax the people who did the right thing—what sort of logic has this government got? The reality is that there are thousands of Australians who did the right thing. They did not take the social security payments they were entitled to; they donated to the Premier’s fund—most of which has not yet been distributed. They did all of these things and now their reward for that is a new tax from a government that simply does not care. It is important that we deliver the kind of rebuilding that is necessary in these difficult times. We have to get business working, we have to provide services, we have to restore housing and we have to rebuild infrastructure. The coalition has a plan to do all of that without a new tax as governments have always done in the past. There was no special tax for Cyclone Tracy, no special tax for Cyclone Larry, no special tax for the 10-year drought—governments just got on with the job and did it. But of course this Labor government is not capable of managing its affairs and, in reality, nothing much is going to happen. We need to get on with the business of making the repairs. There are important things that need to be done. We certainly need to be continuing to upgrade our highways, but one of the government’s cuts has been to axe four projects on the Bruce Highway which would have mitigated flooding. In other words, when looking for cuts they are actually removing projects from the budget which would have helped us to endure this kind of situation in the future. Let me say also—and I think this is very important—in February and March 2010 there was some significant flooding in Queensland and New South Wales. It has taken 10 months for the government to give approval for the repair works to commence on that flood damage. Only now are councils getting the approval to undertake permanent repair work for damage done in the 2010 floods. Are we going to have to wait 10, 11 or 12 months for this government to approve repair works on this occasion? The record says the state and federal governments argued, one with the other, and these repair jobs were left undone. We need better performance from the government when it comes to repairs this time round. We need to deal with issues like confusion about insurance cover. The government assistance programs need to be reviewed and be consistent. The benefits provided during Cyclone Larry for welfare were much more generous. The benefits provided to small business are less generous in areas where flooding has occurred and there is no justification for that. Then we need to deal with those areas that have exceptional circumstances drought assistance whose assistance is to be terminated next month. No government that cares about people could possibly terminate assistance at a time like this. These people’s recovery has been stalled and halted by the flooding and those EC declarations need to be extended. There are other areas that have had exceptional circumstances, some for six, eight or 10 years. This is a cruel time to take away that level of assistance. The government must act in those areas and be generous with its recovery effort. It must be prompt, it must give approvals quickly so that people can get on with the job of doing the repairs and it must remember those people who have been suffering from drought and other problems over the last 10 years in determining the level of assistance to be provided in the future. All of this can be done without a tax. It does not need a new tax. Governments in the past have done their job and done it well without introducing special taxes and this government should do the same. 886 13:27:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 0 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —I strongly support Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and indeed believe that the flood levy is right, it is temporary, it is fair and it is full of precedents. I would like to return to the question of precedents to remind those opposite of their record in raising and imposing levies. I would like to quote the words of a very strong supporter of raising levies to tackle the management of national crises. He said: I am reluctant at any time to add to the financial burden on Australians, but this bill imposes a special one-year impost which I think most Australians will regard as necessary in the circumstances. …            …            … The Commonwealth judges it to be in the national interest to offer assistance on such a scale to … Queensland— notwithstanding that … disaster recovery— falls largely within their responsibilities. National leadership needs to be exercised so that the problem of the … damaged infrastructure— is confronted swiftly and adequately. He also said: Applying the levy on incomes above $50,000 will protect low- and many middle-income earners. The quotations above are the words from the former Prime Minister, John Howard, when introducing one or two of several levies raised by his government. I substituted the word ‘Queensland’ for ‘the states and territories’; the phrase ‘disaster recovery’ for ‘gun control’; and ‘damaged infrastructure’ for ‘proliferation of these guns’. The point I want to make is that the rationale, precedents and efficacy of raising a levy to tackle moments of crisis management is well established. Indeed I shall return to this point later. What is also evident from the above is that the present opposition have selective memories of their own recent history. Most of the leadership of the opposition, if I can be forgiven for using such a word so loosely, actually supported not one, two or three levies during their time in government; I counted nine levies. They did not vote no on at least nine occasions in the past yet now find it convenient to say no on this one occasion when much of our eastern and northern seaboard and hinterlands have been inundated with unprecedented rainfall and winds. They find it convenient to say no to what I regard as a disaster relief fund that is right, fair, affordable and temporary. This levy is designed to fund major infrastructure and reconstruction, most especially in Queensland. It is designed to accompany significant budget savings to fund such reconstruction. It is designed to accompany the comprehensive relief and support programs and funds provided by both the Commonwealth and the states to assist individuals, businesses and sector reconstruction. For example, it complements the National Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements, the Australian government disaster recovery payment, the disaster income recovery subsidy and the $11 million paid by the Commonwealth government to the Queensland Premier’s relief fund and, additionally, $1 million to the Red Cross Victorian flood appeals. It is designed to accompany the generous donations of so many Australians who have contributed and continue to give to the various relief fundraising enterprises. These bills are designed to raise $5.6 billion. They will impose a temporary flood recovery levy on taxpayers with taxable incomes of $50,001 or more for the 2011-12 financial year only. It is a temporary levy, bound by and set in legislation. The levy will be applied at the rate of 0.5 per cent of taxable income for those earning between $50,001 and $100,000. The levy will be applied at the rate of one per cent of taxable income for those earning $100,001 or more. The levy will not apply to low-income earners with a taxable income of $50,000 or less. There will be exemptions from the levy for people who received an Australian government disaster recovery payment for a natural disaster in 2010-11 and people who met the Australian disaster recovery payment criteria for a disaster in an NDRRA area in 2010-11, amongst others. The levy will impose a modest charge on taxpayers. About half of taxpayers will pay nothing. Over 60 per cent will pay less than $1 per week. About 70 per cent will pay less than $2 per week for one year. Over 85 per cent will pay less than $5 per week for one year. The damage that has been done is immense. I do not need to remind this House of the extent of that damage. Indeed, it is not just about the physical damage but about the suffering to individuals and to families and the pain that accompanies the loss of life in some instances and of properties and businesses in others. It has been an unmitigated disaster, felt not just by those who directly experienced it but by the nation. Precedent has it that when we manage national crises in this country we attempt to pay in part for that crisis management with levies. I would like to remind the House that I found nine levies either imposed or considered by the former government. There were nine levies considered—rightly, in many instances—to deal with what were regarded as national crises of one description or another. I will remind the House of them: the aircraft noise levy, the firearms buyback levy, the stevedoring levy, the dairy industry adjustment levy, the Ansett levy, the sugar industry levy, the chicken industry levy, the Timor levy and the superannuation surcharge levy. Each of those nine levies was raised for the particular management of some form of crisis, and many of them were raised at a time when the budget was in surplus, not when the budget was in deficit. So those opposite who use the argument about so-called economic management ought to return to their own history instead of the hand-wringing, unctuous response that we hear from them. This levy is right, it is temporary, it is fair and it is full of precedents, as those on the other side well and truly know. In my own electorate I have done some preliminary investigations of who might be affected by this levy. I do want to thank people in my electorate for their generous donations to the Queensland flood appeal, to the Victorian flood appeal as well and in the aftermath of the cyclone. My own electorate was not immune to the floods either. I was saddened that when the Leader of the Opposition was commenting on the floods in his address-in-reply speech he did not even mention Tasmania. He did not mention the extensive flooding in Tasmania—and you wonder why they do not hold a Tasmanian seat in the House of Representatives. I found that very sad indeed. The Prime Minister did mention Tasmania and has visited. So that is the interest that the Leader of the Opposition shows. In my own electorate, out of around 76,000 adults, 10,000 will pay the levy. The actual number of taxpayers is estimated to be about 46,000 out of the 76,000. Of the 10,000 who will pay the levy, only 2,000 will pay more than $5 a week or $250 in total. I remind those opposite—because the Leader of the Opposition did not mention it; indeed, he probably did not even know it from his own senators from Tasmania—that extensive flooding occurred in my electorate. In the Burnie area $2 million to $3 million is required to cover immediate clean-up activities as well as major infrastructure repairs. In the Central Coast region the initial estimate is in excess of $4 million for the clean-up and recovery. To conclude, so that others may speak on this important levy: it is right, it is temporary, it is fair, and I remind those opposite that it is full of precedents. Thank you. 888 13:37:00 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 0 Mr MORRISON —I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011. It is eerie debating this legislation when we see what is happening over in Christchurch today. Having lived in Wellington, New Zealand, for a few years I know what you go through living in a city like that and always being aware of the possibility of this type of incident. My heart goes out to those in Christchurch today; they are suffering. We think of our Kiwi brothers and sisters and I am sure we will be there to do everything we can for them in the true Anzac spirit. Similarly, the coalition joins with the government in saying that we need to rebuild not just in Queensland but wherever we have had flood, tempest and fire. These things have not damaged our character and they have not lessened our resolve. As with all of these things we come into this place and say, ‘Let’s rebuild.’ There should be no suggestion that people on that side of the House or this side of the House have any disagreement about the issue of rebuilding and standing shoulder to shoulder with our fellow Australians around this country as we undergo that task. The difference of view that occurs here is about how we fund that and how we go about that. It raises some very important questions for this parliament and for the government in how it seeks to go about governing this country. The coalition is making some very important points here in taking the decision to say, ‘Spend the money to rebuild but do not put a levy on Australians to do it.’ Why not? Because it is not necessary to do so. This levy has been referred to by those on the other side as the ‘mateship tax’. I know that this government is quite keen to nationalise all sorts of things, including telecommunications, but there is one thing it cannot nationalise, and that is mateship. You cannot nationalise something that is endemic to, and within the spirit of, all Australians, no matter where they have come from; you cannot appropriate that for a national tax. I think this is ordinary, because Australians are a generous people. Australians have responded time and again to these crises. And we have seen far too many of these crises. We have seen far too many floods, far too many fires, far too many cyclones and tempests, and they have always brought out the best from Australians in their response. And that is not just when those tempests and things have been in this nation. Who will ever forget the generous response of Australians to the tsunami that swept across nations all around the Indian Ocean? That was an extraordinarily generous response from Australians. That is the normal response of Australians. As my colleague and good friend the member for North Sydney, the shadow Treasurer, said, when the government seeks to appropriate the sentiment of mateship with these types of initiatives and have it legislated in a tax, that goes beyond what Australians think is a good thing. I think it is not a fair dinkum thing for a government to take that sentiment and tell Australians, ‘You know, next time something like this happens, just be aware that you’ll probably get taxed on it as well.’ We have heard this from charities and others all around the country. They are saying, ‘We all want to help but we are little worried that, with what the government has done, in the future, when we really need people to put their hands in their pockets and turn up and provide support through the community and voluntary organisations which are the heart of this country, they will say, “I don’t know if I can afford to do it, because maybe the government is going to hit me with a tax’’’. I do not think the government has thought this through in terms of the impact on the philanthropic nature of people in this country. That is why it is important that, when things like this happen, the government has to look inwards at its own spending, its own programs and its own capacity to fund these types of initiatives and make the decisions that are necessary to do it. The Prime Minister herself said this is what she was going to do. Those were her own words. But then she decided not to and to go the soft option and put a levy on her fellow Australians for something she was not prepared to do—get her own spending under control. There is an important principle here. We do not think the inherent principle of mateship in the Australian people should be nationalised and appropriated by this government and called a mateship tax. That is not what it should be about. Secondly, throughout the course of this debate I have heard those opposite talk about the levies that have been introduced before, and I heard the shadow Treasurer remind them that this one measure alone is worth three times the annual amount raised in previous levies, with the exception of the Medicare levy. I think that puts it into some perspective. But here is another thing to put it into perspective: when I talk to people out in the community they tell me that this government has not earned the right to put this sort of call on the Australian people. Why? Because they have not controlled their own spending. Because they have not done the hard things in their own administration of taxpayers’ money to give them the right to impose a levy and to give them the credibility that former Prime Minister John Howard and former Treasurer Peter Costello had. The Australian people knew that the former coalition government was doing everything it could to deliver surplus after surplus after surplus, to spend taxpayers’ money wisely and to ensure that they did all the hard things that have to be done before taking a decision such as this. The Australian people have no confidence in this government when it comes to these matters—absolutely none. This is a government that has set new records for deficits. This is a government that is taking us back to the road of high levels of debt. This is a government that is going down the low road of tax, whether it is a flood levy, a carbon tax or a mining tax. Whether it is any of these things, this is a government that would rather tax more than spend less. That is a fundamental question confronting governments all around the world. In the United States they are confronting this issue in their parliamentary equivalent as we speak here today. They have to make decisions about their budget. Let us hope they make good decisions, because the decisions that are taken in the United States congress and Senate, and by their President, will have implications all around the globe in terms of their fiscal position. But let us not go down that road that they have been down. Let us make sure that we stand in this place and say, ‘This government cannot go to the Australian people and ask for a levy until they have done all they can to restrain their own spending.’ Much has been spent in the last few years. Much of it has been spent, according to the government, in the name of jobs and all number of other things. But the Australian people just do not buy it, because they have seen the waste, the mismanagement, the rorts and the consequences of this government’s failed programs and failed expenditure. They are saying, ‘Why can’t this government get its act together on spending rather than tax us?’ That is fundamentally what this debate is about. The government is saying, ‘We are coming back for more and we want it now.’ The coalition is saying, ‘You need to get your house in order. You need to make decisions about your own expenditure and you need not to lean heavily on the Australian people when it comes to taxation.’ We have a government with serial deficits and serial debt and with policies failing from one end of the portfolio spectrum to the other. This is no less so in my portfolio, where this government has asked for $290 million extra this year alone. That $290 million, combined with the $1.5 billion they are likely to overspend in the next three years if spending stays at the same level, would pay for the full cost of this levy. But they do not change their policies and they do not change their spending. They do not make any of the hard decisions necessary to avoid the consequence of yet another tax on the Australian people. They go back out there and seek to wash away their failed administration in the name of mateship and a mateship tax. This is a government—under Labor at a state and federal level—that has taken the art of spin to levels unimaginable in this country. Soon, the voters of New South Wales will deliver their verdict on this. I can only say that what I am seeing of this federal government is the New South Wales state government on fast forward. What I have seen in New South Wales over 16 years I have seen almost all of here in just the short period of time this government has been in office. So we stand here and say, ‘Stop the taxes, get your spending under control and get your house in order and then the Australian people might take you seriously.’ 891 13:48:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing and Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Transport 1 0 Ms KING —I rise in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011. I do so as a member of an electorate that was significantly affected by floods, not just once but for the third time now. I do so following the member for Cook. I understand that, in opposition, you need to have something to say about issues and that you need to try to make your mark on things. I think it is unfortunate that the issue the opposition has chosen to make their mark on is this particular one. I think that the politicisation of the reconstruction and the flood levy has been extremely unfortunate and I think it is extremely unfortunate for those communities that I represent that have been affected. When I spoke in this House recently on the condolence motion for those so tragically lost in the Queensland floods, I concluded with some lines about the obligation we all have to respond in these circumstances. I said that as a government and as a nation we need to stand together for the people so tragically impacted, to rebuild their communities. But most of all we need to rebuild their hearts. While these bills we are debating today are about delivering practical assistance to replace the bricks and mortar, the tar and the cement, they are about much more than that. They are in fact about rebuilding the hearts of those people who need our support right now. I cannot recall a time on our continent when we have been so wracked consistently over a period of several months with a string of major natural calamities. In the past there have been massive natural disasters: fires like the Black Saturday tragedy and those around Perth just a couple of weeks ago and the serious floods in many parts of the country. There have also been severe cyclone events in our past history, such as Tracy, which tore Darwin apart so many years ago. But I cannot recall a period where such widespread flooding across several states coincided with cyclones lashing at our northern coastline while at the same time other Australians were battling severe heat and bushfires. The combined effect of these has been to put extraordinary pressure on our infrastructure and resources and, by extension, our national economy. We are particularly confronted on this occasion by widespread flood damage, and that is why the government has moved decisively to introduce this one-off levy to help. Before I address the wider national issues arising from these flood events, it is important to begin at the local level, for it is here where the impact of these events has been so personally felt. In and around my own electorate there are communities that have been hit by flooding three times since September last year. No sooner had people finished the clean-up from the September floods and moved back into their homes than they were hit again in January. Then, as we were resuming parliament in February and beginning to act to fund the recovery from the disasters of the summer, they were hit with a further dose of flash flooding. Towns in my electorate like Creswick and Clunes in the Hepburn Shire have suffered enormously. In Ballarat itself the suburbs of Miners Rest, Delacombe and Alfredton, to name a few, felt the effects of flooding. And the neighbouring towns of Skipton and Beaufort were seriously impacted. Numerous houses and businesses were inundated, along with community facilities, including football clubs, senior citizens centres, a community swimming pool, bowling clubs, caravan parks, community halls and playgrounds. Roads and other infrastructure have also suffered severely. The shoulders of some sealed roads are dangerous now, and the fast-flowing, high volume of water has swept gravel from many of the unsealed surfaces. There is a great deal of scouring damage on sealed main roads in and around culverts and bridges, and in many locations it is a serious mess with roads continuing to be closed. In the best of times, and despite the fact that this federal government has increased local road funding, the local councils in these impacted regions, operating on very small rate bases, struggle to find the funds they need to maintain local roads, bridges and other infrastructure, let alone to try and deal with disasters. When they are confronted with large-scale damage, of the kind they have encountered from the series of floods throughout this summer, they are placed in an almost hopeless situation. The cost of road damage alone in my own area is significant, not to mention the community infrastructure cost. That is why it is fundamental that these flood affected communities and people on low incomes will not be asked to pay. The temporary flood reconstruction levy we are proposing through these bills is a one-off recognition of the enormous scale of this disaster. The announcement of the levy recognises the remarkable groundswell of community support for the rebuilding effort. This extraordinary series of disasters across wide areas of the nation required an extraordinary response, and that is exactly what you are seeing from the government with these bills. The damage that has been caused is, frankly, unprecedented, and the task of rebuilding is significant. The recent floods may well end up being the most costly disaster in Australia’s history. Treasury’s early estimate is that the floods will take half a percentage point off growth in 2010-11. The rebuilding task will add to GDP over time, but that does not dilute the impact felt by many Australian businesses today. There is an obvious impact, for instance, on our farmers and on our agricultural production. The tourism industry, a critical element of the local economy where I live—and obviously fundamental to Queensland—is already struggling under the high dollar, and the flooding only exacerbates the challenges that are confronting this sector. These floods, as we have heard mentioned often in this place, brought about the absolute best in Australians, again exposing our great generosity. Australians’ donations to the flood appeal have reached some $180 million to help individuals. But what we are talking about in terms of what is needed for reconstruction is 30 times that, some $5.6 billion—needed to rebuild roads, bridges and ports, and to get the economy up and running again in those local communities. That is what the flood levy is helping to do. Under this package 60 per cent of taxpayers will pay less than $1 a week. We are asking someone on $80,000 to sacrifice $2.88 a week. We have made big cuts to the budget, but the levy is needed to rebuild flood affected regions. These bills impose a temporary flood levy on Australian residents and foreign residents, individual taxpayers, with taxable incomes of $50,001 or more in the 2011-12 income year alone. The levy will be applied at the rate of 0.5 per cent of taxable income between $50,000 and $100,000 in the 2011-12 income year. The levy will be applied at the rate of one per cent of taxable income of $100,000 or more in the 2011-12 income year. The levy will not apply to low-income earners with a taxable income below $50,000 in the 2011-12 income year. The bills will make provisions for exemptions from the levy for people who were affected by the natural disaster. The legislative instruments that accompany these bills will ensure those individual taxpayers who have been affected by a natural disaster in 2010-11 will be exempt from the flood levy. It is important to re-emphasise that the levy will impose only a modest charge on taxpayers. About 50 per cent of taxpayers will pay absolutely nothing, about 60 per cent will pay less than $1 a week, about 70 per cent will pay less than $2 a week and over 85 per cent will pay less than $5 a week. The reconstruction task is going to take a lot of time and a lot of dollars, so the levy alone cannot and will not cover it. The government is making $2 in savings for every $1 of the levy. There are spending cuts of $2.8 billion and savings through the delaying of infrastructure projects of $1 billion, which meets two-thirds of the cost of rebuilding. The remainder is met through the one-off levy. Paying for the reconstruction as we go is absolutely the right thing to do. While the impact of the floods has been devastating, they have not altered the long-term fundamentals of our economy or the long-term challenges that we face as a country. The task of rebuilding after the floods will mean added demands on our capacity, skills and resources now. This will impact on everybody. Those businesses, councils and individuals in the communities affected in my electorate do not need the added burden of greater economic strain as a result of the floods. That is why we have made room in the budget, through spending cuts and the temporary levy, to fund the rebuild. And it is why we have made room for the reconstruction work by deferring some infrastructure projects temporarily rather than crowding out private sector projects. Applying fiscal restraint now means we can rebuild the flood devastated parts of this country without further compounding pressures in our growing economy. These bills will provide the government with funding to assist in rebuilding or repairing essential infrastructure that has been damaged as a result of flooding. Infrastructure will need to be rebuilt or repaired in urban, regional and rural areas across this country. I know Australians will understand the need for this levy, and they are willing to contribute—unlike those opposite, unfortunately. They will want to ensure that their fellow Australians who have suffered so much in this summer of natural disasters can rebuild their lives as quickly as possible. They will also want to ensure that this strong economy, the envy of much of the rest of the world, which this government has managed to sustain through one of the most critical financial downturns, will continue to move forward. They will also want to ensure that the initial, spontaneous response of Australians to this unprecedented flooding is consolidated to ensure every prospect of a sound recovery. They will recall the lines of volunteers registering to go out and assist people, whom they have never met before, to clean up their houses. They will note the high level of financial support already provided through the appeals launched in response to the flooding. They will remember the outstanding work, during the flooding, of our great national and local organisations like the SES, the CFA, Red Cross, St John’s Ambulance, the Salvation Army, Victoria Police, service clubs, local councils and the ADF and of the many kind-hearted locals who just got stuck in and helped. They will also note that the opposition has attempted to frustrate the initiative at every possible turn, in the face of the obvious need, and they will not forget that either. They will know that this community support was destined to continue and, as a matter of necessity, will have to continue long after the floods had subsided. They will know that the challenge now is not as it was in the immediate aftermath of the flooding. The challenge now is, as I have stated before, providing the financial capacity to rebuild our communities while maintaining a strong national economy. It is a shame and an indictment of the opposition that they will not do the same. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. 894 Governor-General's Speech 894 894 14:00:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I have ascertained that Her Excellency the Governor-General will be pleased to receive the address-in-reply at Government House at 5.30 pm on 2 March 2011. The sitting will be suspended at 5 pm that day. I shall be glad if the mover and seconder, together with other honourable members, will accompany me to present the address. 894 Condolences 894 894 14:00:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House of the death yesterday, 21 February, of Richard Emanuel (Dick) Klugman, a member of this House for the division of Prospect from 1969 to 1990. As a mark of respect to the memory of Dr Klugman, I invite honourable members to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I thank the House. 894 Miscellaneous 894 14:01:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Ms GILLARD —On indulgence, as members of the House would know, I was in New Zealand last week. I describe New Zealanders as family to Australians. Today our family are suffering a very devastating blow, with an earthquake of a magnitude of 6.3 on the Richter scale hitting Christchurch and its surrounding districts. I am sure many Australians, like me, have watched the images on TV today. They have been truly shocking images: people wandering around with blood literally streaming across their heads and faces; buildings that have been reduced to rubble; the very historic cathedral in Christchurch severely damaged; cars under rubble and not being sure whether or not someone is in the car; buildings reduced to rubble and not being sure how many people are in the buildings; and parents desperately trying to get across town in order to work out what has happened to their children who are in kindergarten, child care or school. There are some very distressing images on our TV screens today. As you would expect with a disaster of this magnitude, information is sketchy at this stage, but the New Zealand Fire Service has reported multiple fatalities. We do not know what that means in real numbers yet, but ‘multiple fatalities’ are the words that are being used by the New Zealand Fire Service. We also know that the New Zealand Defence Force has been called in. There are reports that Christchurch has run out of ambulances, with police cars being used to ferry the injured to makeshift medical centres. Water, electricity and phone services have been severely disrupted, and yet, from the images we have seen on our TV screens, in the midst of all this we are seeing some remarkable acts of heroism. I think we can say that today in Christchurch the Anzac spirit is on display. Very shortly before coming into the parliament I had the opportunity to speak to Prime Minister John Key. He had just left an emergency cabinet meeting and was making his way to the airport in an endeavour to fly to Christchurch. I said very simply to him that anything we have got that they need we will get to them. They have already requested a search and rescue team, and that is literally on its way as this parliament meets. We do not know what the needs will be. We certainly understand that needs are likely to be time critical because there is likely to be a lot of searching to do under the rubble. Prime Minister Key said to me that when he is in the position to make a further assessment he will let me know, but if we have a capability that our family in New Zealand needs then we will certainly get it across to them. I have conveyed to him the best wishes of the Australian people as he goes to join the people of New Zealand in Christchurch who are in shock. Many are in tears and many are looking very dazed when you see them on the TV screens. Of course, our mind also turns to the circumstances of Australians in Christchurch. A million Australians visit New Zealand each year, so, inevitably, there will be Australians in Christchurch. We do not have accurate numbers as to how many. I can advise that the Australian women’s cricket team, which has been training in Christchurch, are all reported to be safe, and we are thankful for that. But there will be a lot of Australians who are concerned about the circumstances of their relatives and friends who are in New Zealand and in Christchurch. We have got no reports at this stage of Australian fatalities. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade hotline for anxious loved ones is: 1300 555135. I have just been advised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that we have three consular staff on the ground to assist Australians in Christchurch who are caught up in this event. I am sure I speak for every member of the House of Representatives and, indeed, every Australian when I say that we wish the people of New Zealand well at this time. They are in an urgent and very difficult situation. We wish them all the speed in the world with the rescue efforts and we hope that they are able to make as many people safe as possible as soon as possible. 895 14:06:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr ABBOTT —On indulgence, I rise to support the remarks of the Prime Minister. Yes, details are sketchy, but clearly New Zealand has suffered a devastating earthquake and there are many, many serious casualties. The bonds of love stretch tight and close across the Tasman. Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of New Zealand at this time and I am sure the coalition entirely echoes the statement of the Prime Minister that Australia stands ready to do whatever it practically can to help. 895 Ministerial Arrangements 895 14:07:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Ms GILLARD —I table for the information of the House a revised ministry list reflecting changes to the ministry made on 21 February. The changes reflect the appointment of Senator the Hon. Kate Lundy as Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. I seek leave to have the document incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows— THIRD GILLARD MINISTRY 21 February 2011 Title Minister Other Chamber Prime Minister The Hon Julia Gillard MP Senator the Hon Chris Evans Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government The Hon Simon Crean MP Senator the Hon Nick Sherry Minister for the Arts The Hon Simon Crean MP Senator the Hon Mark Arbib Minister for Social Inclusion The Hon Tanya Plibersek MP Senator the Hon Mark Arbib Minister for Privacy and Freedom of Information The Hon Brendan O’Connor MP Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig Minister for Sport Senator the Hon Mark Arbib The Hon Kate Ellis MP Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity The Hon Gary Gray AO MP Senator the Hon Penny Wong Cabinet Secretary The Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister Senator the Hon Kate Lundy Treasurer (Deputy Prime Minister) The Hon Wayne Swan MP Senator the Hon Penny Wong Assistant Treasurer The Hon Bill Shorten MP Senator the Hon Nick Sherry Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation The Hon Bill Shorten MP Senator the Hon Nick Sherry Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer The Hon David Bradbury MP Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations (Leader of the Government in the Senate) Senator the Hon Chris Evans The Hon Simon Crean MP (Jobs and Workplace Relations) The Hon Peter Garrett AM MP (Tertiary Education and Skills) Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth The Hon Peter Garrett AM MP Senator the Hon Chris Evans Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare The Hon Kate Ellis MP Senator the Hon Chris Evans Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development Senator the Hon Mark Arbib The Hon Jenny Macklin MP Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations Senator the Hon Jacinta Collins Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy The Hon Anthony Albanese MP Minister for Foreign Affairs The Hon Kevin Rudd MP Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy Minister for Trade The Hon Dr Craig Emerson MP Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy Parliamentary Secretary for Trade The Hon Justine Elliot MP Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs The Hon Richard Marles MP Minister for Defence (Deputy Leader of the House) The Hon Stephen Smith MP Senator the Hon Chris Evans Minister for Veterans’ Affairs The Hon Warren Snowdon MP Senator the Hon Chris Evans Minister for Defence Science and Personnel The Hon Warren Snowdon MP Senator the Hon Chris Evans Minister for Defence Materiel The Hon Jason Clare MP Senator the Hon Chris Evans Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Senator the Hon David Feeney Minister for Immigration and Citizenship The Hon Chris Bowen MP Senator the Hon Kim Carr Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Senator the Hon Kate Lundy Minister for Infrastructure and Transport (Leader of the House) The Hon Anthony Albanese MP Senator the Hon Kim Carr Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Transport The Hon Catherine King MP Minister for Health and Ageing The Hon Nicola Roxon MP Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig Minister for Indigenous Health The Hon Warren Snowdon MP Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig Minister for Mental Health and Ageing The Hon Mark Butler MP Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing The Hon Catherine King MP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs The Hon Jenny Macklin MP Senator the Hon Mark Arbib Minister for the Status of Women The Hon Kate Ellis MP Senator the Hon Penny Wong Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness Senator the Hon Mark Arbib The Hon Jenny Macklin MP Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers Senator the Hon Jan McLucas Parliamentary Secretary for Community Services The Hon Julie Collins MP Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities The Hon Tony Burke MP Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water Senator the Hon Don Farrell Minister for Finance and Deregulation Senator the Hon Penny Wong The Hon Wayne Swan MP Special Minister of State The Hon Gary Gray AO MP Senator the Hon Penny Wong Minister Assisting on Deregulation and Public Sector Superannuation Senator the Hon Nick Sherry Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Senator the Hon Kim Carr The Hon Peter Garrett AM MP Minister for Small Business Senator the Hon Nick Sherry The Hon Bill Shorten MP Attorney-General (Vice President of the Executive Council) The Hon Robert McClelland MP Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig Minister Assisting the Attorney-General on Queensland Floods Recovery Senator the Hon. Joe Ludwig Minister for Home Affairs The Hon Brendan O’Connor MP Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig Minister for Justice The Hon Brendan O’Connor MP Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig The Hon Tony Burke MP Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry The Hon Dr Mike Kelly AM MP Minister for Resources and Energy The Hon Martin Ferguson AM MP Senator the Hon Nick Sherry Minister for Tourism The Hon Martin Ferguson AM MP Senator the Hon Nick Sherry Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism Senator the Hon Nick Sherry Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency The Hon Greg Combet AM MP Senator the Hon Penny Wong Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency The Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP Minister for Human Services The Hon Tanya Plibersek MP Senator the Hon Mark Arbib   Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there is a Department of Veterans’ Affairs in the Defence portfolio and a Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government in the Prime Minister’s portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a minister in all cases. 898 14:07:00 Questions Without Notice 898 14:07:00 898 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr ABBOTT —My question is to the Prime Minister, who last night rightly described the Australian War Memorial as ‘our pre-eminent temple of honour’. Given that War Memorial funding has fallen from $38 million to $30 million a year since 2007, will she now accept the coalition’s request for an immediate $5 million a year funding boost? 898 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —It was a great honour and privilege to be with the Governor-General and the Leader of the Opposition at the War Memorial yesterday evening to open the Hall of Valour. I said the words that the Leader of the Opposition has repeated during that occasion and I also echoed the words of wartime Prime Minister John Curtin that the War Memorial is the ‘sanctuary of Australia’s traditions’. I can advise the House that the government provided the Australian War Memorial with more than $38 million this financial year, which is comparable to previous financial years. I can also say to the Leader of the Opposition and the House: I have been concerned about resourcing for the War Memorial and that is why I directed the review of its financial position, which has been undertaken by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, working with the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. That review, undertaken by my direction, is well advanced and I will be receiving it soon. Having received that review, when I am in a position to I will make further statements about resourcing for the War Memorial. But I would point to the fact that there are a number of claims that have been made publicly which simply are not right. The Leader of the Opposition’s question was premised on a false claim. Let me convey the facts to the House, if people are interested in the facts. The facts are: the government will provide the Australian War Memorial with more than $38 million— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —We’re interested in the money, not your cheap talk. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I am reluctant to interrupt, but, when a member asserts that talk is cheap, I just hope that they will not talk as much by way of interjection. The member for Sturt should desist from his continual interjections. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I presume every member of the House is interested in the facts: the government will provide the Australian War Memorial with more than $38 million this financial year. There have been claims made that 20 per cent of the memorial staff are seeking other employment. That is wrong. The current ongoing staff turnover rate is 3.02 per cent, and that is tracking below the previous five-year average of 3.73 per cent. Claims have been made that the memorial staff are taking a pay cut. These claims are wrong. Staff have received yearly pay increases under enterprise agreements and other wage increase mechanisms and most recently received a three per cent pay increase on 1 July 2010. This flows from their enterprise agreement. There have been claims made that staff are being paid from the wrong budget. These claims are wrong. Memorial council policy, endorsed by the ANAO, the auditor, is only to fund staff costs from capital funds when costs are associated with enhancing or replacing an asset or extending its life, so funds are being taken from the right source. I understand that members of the House of Representatives and Australians generally would be concerned to see appropriate resourcing for the War Memorial, as am I. They would be keen to make sure any claims made publicly are accurate. I have provided the accurate information to the House. 899 899 14:12:00 Ferguson, Laurie, MP 8T4 Werriwa ALP 1 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the evolving situation in Libya and the wider Middle East? 899 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the honourable member for his question, a question of real concern to Australians. I am sure that this whole chamber would join me in condemning clearly and unequivocally the violence that we have seen in Libya. What we have seen is a state take up the weapons of war against its own people. The results—and we have seen them for ourselves on our TV screens—have been bloody and they have been shocking. The international community has spoken with one voice, having seen what has happened in Libya, and that one voice has said that there must be no more violence. We absolutely condemn the threat by Colonel Gaddafi’s son to plunge Libya into a state of civil war and we call on the Libyan authorities to listen to their people. There have been weeks of uncertainty and turmoil in the Arab world and during those weeks of uncertainty and turmoil, as they continue, the government’s top priority has been the safety of Australians. I can advise the House, as I have stated publicly and as is now available through all of the usual channels, that our travel advisory for Libya says simply and succinctly: do not travel to Libya. We are concerned about the circumstances of Australians in Libya. I can advise the House that we have some 105 Australians registered as in Libya at the present time. We are advising them to leave the country if it is safe for them to do so. Of course, in giving this advice we recognise that they would be worried about their safety, we recognise that their families would be worried about their safety and we recognise that organising travel would not be easy. Consequently, our embassy in Cairo, which is accredited to Libya, and our consul general in Tripoli are making contingency plans for emergency evacuation options. An emergency task force meeting was held this morning to coordinate our response. I would like to take this opportunity in the parliament to thank the government of the United Kingdom, which has made an offer to us to help with emergency evacuations should that be necessary. Across all these days of difficulty in various countries, and now particularly in Libya, we have been very clear about the position of the Australian government and what we believe in. We support the rights of citizens to peacefully protest and we do not believe that those peaceful protests should be met by violence. We also understand the aspirations of people for freedom, for democracy, for the kinds of things that we take for granted. These are aspirations that cannot be suppressed. They cannot be denied. They keep coming through. We have seen that on the streets of Libya as we saw it on the streets of Egypt. I want to ensure in these circumstances not only that the voice of Australia is heard but also that we do everything we can to keep Australians in Libya safe, and that is what we are doing at the moment. 900 900 14:16:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 Mr HOCKEY —My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his statement on 12 December last year where he said that his banking package would ensure ‘that interest rates are lower over time’. And I refer to Treasury documents released yesterday under FOI which warn that the government’s plan to ban mortgage exit fees would ‘lead to a range of unintended consequences’, including ‘increasing interest rates’. Why is the Treasurer persisting with a plan that Treasury have advised will lead to higher interest rates for Australians? 900 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I absolutely welcome that question from the shadow Treasurer about the need in this country to have a more competitive banking system. It is obvious that the opposition does not think we should have a more competitive banking system. The shadow Treasurer can wave any paper he likes—whether it is a national newspaper or an FOI—but the behaviour of the banks tells us that exit fees are a huge barrier to competition. That is why we need the package of reforms that were outlined by the government at the end of last year. Everybody on this side of the House understands how important it is to have a much more competitive banking system, how important it is to empower consumers, how important it is to boost the smaller lenders and how important it is to ensure that there is a flow of funds to the banking system through initiatives like covered bonds. But, of course, the shadow Treasurer is the only one in this House that thinks unfair exit fees are fair and that they should stay. He thinks exit fees of $7,000 are fair. That is his position. He thinks they are fair. We are committed to their abolition. As a consequence of that commitment at the end of last year, we have seen banks move to either abolish their exit fees or to bring more competition into the system. When at the end of last year some of those banks put up their rates over and above the Reserve Bank decision, they were effectively saying, ‘We’re not afraid of the consumer; they won’t move because we’ve got them locked in with really big and unfair exit fees.’ That is the position that is supported by the opposition. They are not for customers; they are for the big banks. That is where the shadow Treasurer is. There are only two things that are stopping consumers walking down the road and getting a better deal when it comes to their mortgages—unfair exit fees and the shadow Treasurer. We are going to get rid of the first. We are going to get rid of unfair exit fees and, of course, Mr Robb might give us a hand to do the second. What a rabble we have got over there. How can they actually ask these questions with a straight face? The finance spokesman wants the job of the shadow Treasurer, the shadow Treasurer wants the job of the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition wants to be leader of One Nation. 901 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 Mr HOCKEY —Mr Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer guarantee that interest rates will not rise with the abolition of exit fees? 901 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —There is one thing that the shadow Treasurer does all of the time, in all of the hot air from the shadow Treasurer: he goes around and he misquotes and he misrepresents everything that is said. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Treasurer will answer the question. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —What we said at the end of last year was that getting rid of unfair exit fees— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Come on; show some ticker. Yes or no? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! M3E Mitchell, Rob, MP Mr Mitchell interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for McEwen is warned! He is a bit unlucky, but he is warned. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The Treasurer was asked a very straightforward, one-line question. If he does not know the answer he should sit down. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat. He had a relevant point of order and then, like he is often prone to do, he added something which does not help. At the time the member for Sturt rose I had an expectation that the Treasurer was getting to the question. The Treasurer will directly answer the question. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —I am delighted to answer the question very directly, Mr Speaker—absolutely delighted. The abolition of unfair exit fees will bring more competition to the mortgage market. What that will mean— Opposition members—Yes or no? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat and we will continue when the House sits in silence. I remind members that the changes to the standing orders for this parliament did not change the nature of the way in which a question is answered. If people believe that there is only a one-word answer required, that still has not been dealt with by the changes to the standing orders. The Treasurer has the call. He will be directly relevant to the question. 901 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —Greater competition will bring greater value for money and a better deal. Those opposite are happy to have these unfair exit fees, as high as $7,000, locking customers in forever. When customers get very unhappy with the behaviour of their bank, they cannot move. We are for greater competition and better value for mortgage holders. The shadow Treasurer has not got the ticker to stand up to the banks. 901 901 14:23:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 Mr NEUMANN —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the progress of the government’s efforts to fund the reconstruction effort in Queensland and the other states affected by the recent natural disasters? 901 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for his question. As members of the parliament know, the member for Blair’s electorate and the communities that he represents were very badly hit by the floodwaters in Queensland. Having visited there myself, I know that it will be a long way back but one that the member will be very much involved in, just as he was very involved in dealing with the emergency situation when floodwaters hit. After such a range of natural disasters hitting our nation over summer, it falls to us to make the decisions in the national interest to rebuild Queensland and rebuild affected communities around the nation. This requires us to make available the money to get the job done. That is why the government have outlined our $5.6 billion package to rebuild communities in Queensland and around the nation. It is the right package. In addition to that package, we are making available assistance to those communities that have been hit by the devastating cyclone that hit Queensland. I visited some of those cyclone affected communities with the member for Kennedy. We have brought the right package to the parliament. It is the right package because it means we pay as we go. We are not exercising the soft option of simply borrowing and not meeting this obligation. With a strong economy we can afford to pay as we go. It is the right package too because we have cut back in areas of the government budget. So, for every $3 spent through this package on recovery and reconstruction, $2 will come from government savings. It is a package that has been calibrated to make the right economic judgments. It is also a package that includes a temporary levy which is fair in its construction. This nation has used levies in the past to meet exceptional needs. This levy is the right levy to meet these exceptional needs. I understand that families always find it tough to make ends meet. But let us remind ourselves that 60 per cent of Australian taxpayers will pay less than $1 a week under this levy. Almost 40 per cent of the funds will come from those earning over $300,000 a year, and that is appropriate. In contrast, people who earn less than $50,000 a year will not be asked to make any contribution at all through the levy. This is the right package, the right way of financing in a strong economy where we can pay as we go. This week the House of Representatives will make its decision on this flood levy. I use this opportunity to say to the Leader of the Opposition: it is time to put the politics aside and to act in the national interest. It is time to put the politics aside and to support the levy so that we have in place the funding we need in order to rebuild Queensland and rebuild around the nation. The Leader of the Opposition would now honestly have to say to Australians: his alternative funding package is in a shambles and does not even enjoy the support of his own frontbench. In these circumstances, it is time to put the politics aside and to support the government’s legislation. We have a plan to rebuild the nation and to rebuild Queensland. We want to get on with the job, we want to get on with the plan, and consequently the Leader of the Opposition should support the government in those endeavours. 902 902 14:27:00 Robb, Andrew, MP FU4 Goldstein LP 0 Mr ROBB —Mr Speaker— Government members interjecting— FU4 Robb, Andrew, MP Mr ROBB —Calm down, come on. Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Goldstein will ignore the interjections. The interjectors will sit there quietly. FU4 Robb, Andrew, MP Mr ROBB —Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Treasurer. Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Goldstein will sit down and we will reset the clock for the third time. It would help if the whole House did not display when they come into this chamber the type of white-line fever that they do on the sporting field and believe that everything is going against them. They will sit there quietly. The member for Goldstein has the call. If members have advice for the chair, they can stand by way of a point of order. FU4 Robb, Andrew, MP Mr ROBB —My question is to the Treasurer. Treasury documents reveal that banning mortgage exit fees would not only increase interest rates, as you did not deny; it could also disproportionately impact first home buyers through higher establishment fees and ongoing fees. Why is the Treasurer proceeding with a plan that Treasury suggests will make life harder for first home buyers? 903 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I reject the assertions of the shadow minister for finance. It makes sense that getting rid of unfair exit fees makes our banking system more competitive. I understand that some of the very profitable banks do not like the idea of getting rid of unfair mortgage exit fees, and I understand that one or two other banks that are not big banks are not supporting it either. But the government’s view is very clear and very principled: they are not fair and, therefore, they should be abolished. They should be abolished in the interest of greater competition. It is asserted by some that their abolition may mean that customers will pay more in other fees, but we have dealt with this in our consumer law and we have already put in place very clear provisions that unconscionable conduct when it comes to fees from banks will be scrutinised very closely by the regulator. It will not be tolerated if a bank seeks to move the fee from an unfair exit fee to somewhere else in the system, and that will be scrutinised very closely. Let us be clear what this is all about. This is all about the fact that those opposite do not have a positive view for Australia’s future. They say no to everything. They say no to health reform. They say no to a flood levy. They could never support stimulus to save this economy from recession. And now, yet again, they are playing opportunistic politics—but they are absolutely on the wrong side. Everybody over there now is putting up their hand and saying they think it is a good thing that there can be unfair exit fees as high as $7,000 locking customers into their loans and their banks when they are unhappy. The government will not tolerate that. That is why we are bringing this legislation forward. Every member of this House will have a very clear say on this legislation, and we will see where they stand. Do they stand for customers or do they stand for the banks? 903 903 14:31:00 Bandt, Adam, MP M3C Melbourne AG 0 Mr BANDT —My question is to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. As the minister is aware, cattle have been reintroduced into Victoria’s heritage listed Alpine National Park by the state government under the guise of a scientific trial. The cattle are already causing significant damage to nationally listed endangered species and ecological communities, and 125 scientists from the field have called for putting an end to the trial given its complete lack of scientific justification. Given how long the cattle have now been there, and given that the Victorian government is avoiding its responsibilities under federal environmental law, can the minister confirm to the House that he will stop the action within one month of today? 903 Burke, Tony, MP DYW Watson ALP Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities 1 Mr BURKE —I thank the member for Melbourne for raising the issue, which is of concern not only to people in Victoria but also to anyone who values our national park system across Australia. There are three different points of relevance to my portfolio. The first two are statutory obligations under the EPBC Act. The Victorian government did not notify my department prior to the introduction of cattle to the Alpine National Park. We are seeking information from the Victorian department as to the reasons they decided not to make that notification. Whether they should have or not is something I cannot judge until I receive the departmental advice. If it is found that they should have referred it, that in and of itself does not mean that they have broken federal environmental law in having the cattle there. There will then be a stage of further advice where I will have to consider whether or not federal environmental law has been broken. On each of those two issues I have to deal with the contents of the act and the contents of the act alone, and I cannot judge any of that until I receive my departmental advice. A separate aspect, though, is the role that I have as federal environment minister, simply as an advocate for the environment in Australia, in deciding whether or not federal law has been breached. I say in the strongest possible terms to the Victorian government that, whether they have breached federal law or not, we are talking about a national park, not a farm. We are talking about a national park that is there for the preservation of native species. Opposition members interjecting— DYW Burke, Tony, MP Mr BURKE —It may come as a shock to some of the National Party members interjecting across there that cattle are not native Australian animals. I know that is a shock for the National Party. When I had the agriculture portfolio, I would happily defend the rights of farmers when they were culling kangaroos on their properties because a farm is not a home for a kangaroo, and it was quite appropriate for farmers to be culling the kangaroos on their properties. But, in the same way, a national park is not a place to find a home for cattle. IPZ Chester, Darren, MP Mr Chester interjecting— DYW Burke, Tony, MP Mr BURKE —The Victorian government should see sense on this. It is a very simple, straightforward issue as to whether our national park estate is going to be preserved for the environment. I accept that on the other side of the chamber there are very different views on the treatment of the environment to those that we have on this side of the chamber. But at the very least they should accept that national parks, if nothing else, are special. IPZ Chester, Darren, MP Mr Chester interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Gippsland is warned. DYW Burke, Tony, MP Mr BURKE —If they do not even want to say that national parks are really special, they should at least be seen as being special enough that they are not appropriate sites for grazing. One of the interjections that came across earlier referred to the heritage concepts of grazing in the Alpine National Park. Make no mistake: we are not talking about a situation where you had drovers on horseback taking the cattle up the slopes. The cattle were dropped off in a truck—the cattle were sent there and unloaded from the back of a truck. What is going on there is a treatment of a national park which every Australian other than a handful of people on that side of the chamber knows is the wrong way to treat a national park. If we can learn nothing else from this episode, whether or not we end up in a situation of the Victorian government having breached federal environmental law, every Australian knows at least this: when you get a change of government away from Labor in this country you get a worse environmental outcome. 904 904 14:36:00 Livermore, Kirsten, MP 83A Capricornia ALP 1 Ms LIVERMORE —My question is to the Treasurer. Will he update the House on the impact of the recent natural disasters, on the government’s plan to finance the rebuilding of Queensland following the floods and on any risks to that plan? 904 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the member for Capricornia for that very important question, because the impact of both the floods and Cyclone Yasi in Queensland—as well as elsewhere in Australia, flowing through to Victoria—has been absolutely immense. What we are dealing with here in economic terms is the largest natural disaster in Australia’s history. Of course, we are learning more about its impact, particularly in Far North Queensland and North Queensland, all of the time. I have had the opportunity to go there in recent weeks, and it has been quite dramatic. So we have a very big repair and rebuilding job on our hands. As a nation what we have to do is approach that in a mature way; we have to approach it in a responsible way. The government announced our $5.6 billion package, two-thirds funded by savings and one-third by a modest levy, to do precisely that. And that was before we saw the impact of Cyclone Yasi. So we have a very big rebuild on our hands. In those circumstances, a modest, temporary levy is the reasonable thing to do. A modest, temporary levy for someone on $68,000 a year is $1.74 per week—$1.74. It is not a large amount of money for people to chip in so we can get together a larger amount of money to rebuild our nation—Queensland in particular but also elsewhere in the country. It is also important that we do it in this way because we have a big economic challenge on our hands, particularly to prepare for the impacts of mining boom mark 2. That is very important as well. In the middle of all of this, have we seen a responsible approach from the opposition? Of course we have not. Just like they said no to all of the initiatives that were required during the global recession, they have said no. Just as they said no to tackling climate change, they are saying no to rebuilding Queensland. In a national crisis, no is not an answer—but that is all we get from those opposite. It is extraordinary and particularly galling that they can come into this House and pretend that they have never supported levies before. On six occasions they have been in this House, when previously in government, supporting a levy. Up until now, there has never been a levy they did not support. So why is it that they can support a gun levy and they can support a Timor levy but they cannot support a levy to rebuild Queensland and other parts of Australia after the biggest natural disaster in our history? What is even more breathtaking and just demonstrates how out of touch they are, how bizarre they are and, indeed, how crazy they are is that they can argue that we cannot have a levy only months after going around Australia campaigning for a $6 billion levy—the centrepiece of all of their initiatives for the last campaign, $3 billion a year—to fund parental leave. A levy was good enough to fund parental leave in their campaign, but it is not good enough to rebuild Queensland, not good enough to rebuild Australia. This shows that this opposition leader is all opposition and no leadership and that the opposition will play politics at every opportunity. They will not work together as we should, given these natural disasters, to rebuild our country. I say they should put politics aside and help us and the country rebuild Queensland and the rest of Australia. 905 905 14:40:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 Mr PYNE —My question is to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer stand by his effusive remarks last week about the leadership of the Australian Workers Union? Does he agree with former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s comments today about factional leaders and their role within the Labor Party, ‘We the ALP are at our best when they are at their least’? Will the Treasurer rebuke the AWU for describing one of his frontbench colleagues as ‘a dishonourable rat’? Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. The question is out of order. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I put it to you that I asked about remarks the Treasurer himself made last week, he is accountable for his remarks and therefore we are entitled to question him about them. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —And I am entitled to be consistent that, when they are outside a person’s ministerial responsibilities, whether they have been said or not, I will rule the questions out of order. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, further to the point of order: I put it to you that as the Deputy Prime Minister the Treasurer has wider responsibility than just being Treasurer of the country. As Deputy Prime Minister— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt will resume his place. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —he is also deputy leader of— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt will resume his place. He will remember that my ruling on that occasion was on the Prime Minister of the time and I am being consistent. At that time, the House indicated to me that they might have had a different view. A very learned member of the crossbenches took me to task on that occasion, and I paid attention to his assertions. But I believe that, if we were to look at the reasons for question time, they are certainly not on the basis of delving into the internal proceedings of political party matters. 4T4 Melham, Daryl, MP Mr Melham —Ask him for his footy tips! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Banks! 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: further to your ruling, it has been the habit of former Speakers to ask the minister if they would like to answer the question, so perhaps you would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he would care to answer the question. 906 906 14:42:00 Husic, Ed, MP 91219 Chifley ALP 1 Mr HUSIC —My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. How have the government’s statements on multiculturalism been received in the community; and why has it been important to show leadership in this important area of public policy? 906 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS McMahon ALP Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 1 Mr BOWEN —As the House is aware, the government have announced our new multicultural strategy. Multiculturalism has strengthened our economy and enriched our society—and it does not detract from our national identity; it adds to it. This government’s new policy has been very warmly welcomed in many parts of the community. The Australian Race Discrimination Commissioner, for example, said: It is a policy that commits to fairness, equality and inclusion for all people in Australia. Former Liberal leaders Malcolm Fraser and John Hewson have endorsed the policy in a welcome sign of bipartisanship. I was very pleased to see the Victorian Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship enter into the discussion. He said: … it is heartening to see the Federal Government is dedicated to a country where all people are treated equally regardless of their cultural or religious background. I think he put it well: ‘treated equally’ regardless of your religious or political background. Being treated equally means not having your religion attacked by Australia’s political leaders. Being treated equally means not having prejudice against your religion used to garner political points. Being treated equally means being treated with respect by all politicians in Australia. Another 24 hours have passed, and the Leader of the Opposition has still not condemned the statements from his own shadow parliamentary secretary. It is reported that in the party room today the Leader of the Opposition said Senator Bernardi had gone ‘a little too far’. Senator Bernardi’s comments not only warrant a condemnation from the Leader of the Opposition—they demand one. The Leader of the Opposition has launched a crackdown on leaks, but he has refused to condemn public comments from Senator Bernardi. He is tough on leakers and soft on intolerance. The Leader of the Opposition needs to show more leadership on this issue. Malcolm Fraser would have sacked Cory Bernardi. John Hewson would have sacked Cory Bernardi. I suspect even Robert Menzies would have sacked Cory Bernardi. The people of Australia need more leadership and more judgment from their alternative Prime Minister. It is not good enough to say, ‘The Liberal Party is a broad church.’ No church is broad enough for religious intolerance. 907 907 14:46:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 Mr HUNT —My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. I refer the minister to revelations that up to $113 million of potential solar credits have been invalidated because they have been installed by improperly accredited installers, have been poorly installed or have had failure of the panels involved. Will the minister institute an independent investigation, and what will the minister do to address this government’s chronic incompetence and failure to deliver basic government services? 907 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency 1 Mr COMBET —I thank the member for Flinders for his question, because it provides the opportunity to correct the record in relation to this particular issue. In fact, since the renewable energy target was in initiated in 2001 by the Howard government, over 100 million renewable energy certificates have been created. As the regulator indicated at Senate estimates this week, since 2001 3½ million renewable energy certificates have not been validated by the regulator. I am advised that some of the reasons for this were errors in the lodgement of RECs in the system. Others have been from the failure to submit the necessary documentation, but the regulator has also indicated in advice that none have been dealt with in this manner due to safety issues emerging. I am advised that the renewable energy certificates subject to this issue are often resubmitted with the proper documentation and are then validated. The Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator checks each batch of RECs to ensure that the legislative requirements are complied with, and the regulator has also been given new enforcement powers by this government through amendments to the legislation in June to maintain a robust compliance system. I am advised that there is nothing new in the level of RECs which are failing the audit process that warrants a special review of this scheme. In this respect, almost a million of the renewable energy certificates that have been invalidated were done so in 2003, during the term of the Howard government, without any specific review of what had happened. The legislation is already subject to biannual reviews, the first of which is due in 2012. What we are seeing here, yet again, is an effort by the opposition to misrepresent facts, to create a scare campaign—and they do not do their detailed policy work. 907 907 14:48:00 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 1 Ms BURKE —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House of the importance of primary care and proper funding of our health system? 907 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for Chisholm for her question. I know she is deeply concerned about health services in her electorate. She covers two very important hospitals, Box Hill and Monash, and I have had cause to visit those hospitals with her as well as to talk to her about health care in her community generally. What the member for Chisholm could say to the House of Representatives is that, over the years that she has represented her electorate in this parliament, the health care for her community was suffering under the Howard government and suffering during the days that the Leader of the Opposition was Minister for Health and Ageing. Those hospitals, just like hospitals around Australia, were showing the strains that were coming from the percentage of funding coming from the federal government going down and down and down. Indeed, in the days that the Leader of the Opposition was minister for health, the Commonwealth share of public funding fell from 45 per cent to 35 per cent. The Howard government and the Leader of the Opposition were warned four times by the AMA about the chronic underfunding of the system. Then, to add insult to injury, $1 billion was taken out of the public hospital system. This created a pressure for our public hospitals— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat. The member for Sturt will withdraw! 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —I do withdraw, Mr Speaker, but I would ask you— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The member for Sturt knows that there are other avenues of this place that can be used, but to use an unparliamentary expression is not the way to go about it. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the House might withdraw that. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —I withdraw, Mr Speaker. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister has the call. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I can understand the sensitivity, but there is not enough white-out on the planet to correct the records about the Leader of the Opposition’s time as minister for health. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will get to the question. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —The list of failures goes on. It was not just about funding. There was also the shortage of doctors, nurses and specialists. The Leader of the Opposition and the then Howard government were warned seven times on the shortage of doctors, nine times on the shortage of nurses and three times on the shortage of specialists. What did the Leader of the Opposition do in the face of all of this information? On 16 March 2010 what he finally said was: … we were about to start tackling the public hospital system when we lost office. This is after five years as Minister for Health and Ageing. He is a man in a hurry—five years and he had finally woken up to the fact that his own conduct had caused a crisis in health. This government is acting to fix the crisis caused by the Leader of the Opposition and that is what our reform agenda is about. Our reform agenda for hospitals is clear and we also have a reform agenda for primary care, because we understand that if you truly want to take pressure off our public hospital system, if you truly want to offer Australians the best possible health care, we need to strengthen primary care, need to strengthen the system that most Australians use, need to strengthen the system that keeps Australians well and out of hospital. That is why today the Minister for Health and Ageing and I have announced that applications are open for the creation of the first 15 Medicare locals, a new system to strengthen primary care. That is why I have determined that there will be more Medicare locals and they will be made available more quickly, that access to after-hours care will be brought forward by two years and be available to people sooner. This is on top of the telephone line to assist people when they have health problems after hours. These are appropriate investments to make a difference for the community. We are still waiting for the answer from the Leader of the Opposition—will he try and block all of this too when it comes to the parliament in legislation? Time for playing politics should be over; let us get on with improving the health care of Australians and delivering our plan. 909 909 14:54:00 Laming, Andrew, MP E0H Bowman LP 0 Mr LAMING —My question is for the Minister for Health and Ageing. Isn’t it the case that hundreds of graduate nurses have been turned away from public hospitals over the last two months because of the government’s Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency’s failure to register them on time? What are you going to do to address this chronic incompetence and failure to deliver even the most basic of services? 909 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms ROXON —I thank the member for Bowman for his question because it gives me an opportunity not only to set the record straight on a number of issues but also to remind the House that the most— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister has the call. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —to remind the House of the severe shortage in the nursing profession across the country that was caused by the failure of the Leader of the Opposition to invest in nursing places. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the minister was asked a question about her government’s policies and the involvement that she had in the graduate nurses being turned away under their registration scheme. It is not an opportunity for her to talk about the previous government. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The minister will directly answer the question. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —I was simply trying to give a little bit of historical context. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister will direct her response to the question. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —The reality is that when we were elected to government one of the first decisions made by our government was to increase the number of training places for nurses, so an extra 1,000 nurses are graduating every single year. That has, of course, led to over 3,500 more nurses being in the system than otherwise would have been. The member for Bowman also referred to the new National Regulatory Registration and Accreditation Scheme introduced by our government which replaces 85 different professional and state and territory boards across the country with one. This is a great reform which is streamlining the system. It is making sure that the very committed nurses, doctors and others who want to work in the Northern Territory where there are no health professionals to help fill a gap or who want to move from Tasmania to Queensland can do so. Of course this was an enormous task, with hundreds of thousands of health professionals moving from individual registration systems for 85 different professions and states and territories into one. If the member had been interested he probably would have seen a statement issued last Thursday by all state and territory health ministers and me as the Commonwealth Minister for Health and Ageing. Having dealt with a range of issues, we invited AHPRA to come to the Health Ministers’ Conference. All health ministers across the country are responsible for this system. It is not a Commonwealth system; it is a national system, and we together have taken steps to ensure that some of the teething problems—which were significant in some states but not in others—have been dealt with. What the member might be interested to know— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister is responding to the question. The minister has the call. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —I will pause for a moment because I think this particular statistic might be sobering for those opposite. At the time that this system came in there was some coverage of there being thousands of medical practitioners—I use that as an example—unable to be registered. It was a very large figure: 7,700. Actually, what has been determined is that, because of attrition, retirement and other factors, only 500 of those doctors were seeking to be re-registered. The fact is we never ever knew any of those statistics previously because 85 different state and territory bodies in each and every different— E0H Laming, Andrew, MP Mr Laming —I rise on a point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker. With one minute to go, I am sick of hearing how hard the job is. I want to know what she will do. That was the question I asked. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Bowman will resume his seat. The minister is responding to the question. Since the point of order that the Manager of Opposition Business raised, she has not been entering into argument. She has been outlining what the member for Bowman would acknowledge is a complex matter which does have some questions and she has illustrated this by referring to other medical professionals. I see that still being directly relevant given the circumstances of the matter that is a part of the question. A point of order is not an opportunity for debate, and my concern was that the member for Bowman was entering into debate. The minister has call. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not need to just tell the member for Bowman what it is that we will do; I can tell the member for Bowman what it is that we have done. On Thursday at the meeting of health ministers, for an item that I took that needed the approval of every state and territory health minister and got that approval, we have agreed across jurisdictions to provide some additional resources—not additional money but some additional people—to make sure that phone calls are being answered even more quickly during this transition time; to make sure that some additional IT expertise is being provided at this transition time; to make sure that there is good follow-up and call-back, whether it is a nurse, a doctor or an allied health professional who needs extra information; and to make sure that more of that can be done online. Those opposite never took the initiative to make sure that people could move between jurisdictions, and we are allowing that. 910 910 15:00:00 Byrne, Anthony, MP 008K0 Holt ALP 1 Mr BYRNE —My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How will Australians benefit from the introduction of Medicare locals and increased investment in primary healthcare services? 910 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms ROXON —I thank the member for Holt for this question, because he has been very interested in our investments in primary care in particular. Of course, as the Prime Minister has announced, new guidelines have been released today for the establishment of Medicare locals and an application process that I know, on this side of House, many local organisations will be interested in. But this is just another step along the way of the reform that we have been committed to since we were elected to government. We are investing more than $2 billion into primary care, into our GP superclinics, into training more GPs, into employing more practice nurses and into building and upgrading more clinics. I suspect the member for Holt is particularly pleased to ask this question because he, amongst other members in this House, has already seen these results being delivered locally in his electorate. We announced $64.5 million of investments to upgrade existing GP clinics. Two hundred and forty grants across the country have been let, and these are grants of up to $500,000 to allow for the expansion of GP services, new training rooms or new equipment. For example, in the Cranbourne News the member for Holt is shown shaking hands with the GP Dr Alan Lim from First Health Medical Centre, which received $500,000. I have not seen or heard the member for Tangney talk about a report in the Canning Times, ‘Windfall for health care’. I know that the member for Corio was pleased to see ‘Doctor boost for Drysdale’, an announcement in his electorate. The member for Mallee would no doubt be pleased that the GP clinic in his electorate that has put in a funding proposal for half a million dollars has also been in negotiations. In Fremantle, there is the announcement ‘Federal windfall to boost health services’; I know the member for Fremantle would be very happy about that. The member for Blair, one of the members who have an operational GP superclinic providing services—in Ipswich—will also be pleased that in his electorate there are funds to boost other medical services. Of course, there is the member for Kingston. The list goes on. The point is that, at the same time as we are investing in additional services for GP practices across the country, we are investing in rural health services and we are investing in Indigenous health services. Today we have taken the next step: investing in primary care to ensure that it can be properly coordinated so that the services of GPs and other health professionals can be wrapped around the needs of a patient rather than the patient being expected to run around for the needs of the health system. This is something which will deliver fundamental change and provide better services throughout the community. I am very proud to have visited a GP practice here in Canberra. I know that the member for Canberra was pleased that we visited one of the very good health services here in Canberra and talked to Dr Annie Lim about her hopes and vision for being able to get more help. The words she said to the Prime Minister and me were very simple. She said: ‘As a GP I can do a lot, but I can’t do everything on my own. I have a great hope that this will make it easier to provide better services to my patients.’ I can tell Dr Lim, as well as every other doctor and nurse across the country who wants to work in primary care, that we are determined to invest more in getting early services online, better after-hours services, more GPs and all of the things that the Leader of Opposition said during the election that he would cut funding for. We are investing, we are delivering and the community is already starting to see it. 911 911 15:04:00 Griggs, Natasha, MP 220370 Solomon CLP 0 Mrs GRIGGS —My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Almost 3½ years ago, the minister promised a 24-hour-a-day GP service at the Palmerston GP Super Clinic. Is the minister aware that the clinic closes at 6 pm every Monday to Friday and is closed on weekends, with patients given the option of ringing the national call centre? What will the minister do to address this government’s chronic incompetence and failure to deliver even the most basic service? 911 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms ROXON —I have to say I have heard everything now. The member for Solomon knows full well that the GP superclinic, which I visited on Friday last week to officially open it, is not only operating with four GPs, with registrars and with nurses but is also co-located with the after-hours service which is funded by the Northern Territory government and, in fact, has been for more than two years; it is a 24-hour service. The Leader of the Opposition— Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister has the call. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —The Leader of the Opposition might care to listen to this answer, because it is very embarrassing for his own backbencher. When I was there on Friday, I took the opportunity to pursue the issue that the member has been raising. What I thought would be a really good thing to do was to see where I would arrive at the superclinic if it were at a point in time after the superclinic had closed its doors, what the referral system would be and what I could say— 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order, the member for Dickson! The minister has the call. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —It is a very embarrassing question for the member, because— 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr Emerson interjecting— 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —So would you be. You’re not a rat; you’re a good free marketeer. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Dickson and the Minister for Trade are warned. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —The member for Solomon would know that there is a sign at the door which makes absolutely clear that the after-hours service is currently provided by the co-located community health service. I walked the distance that it takes—124 steps, and I am not a tall person—and it is not a very difficult way to get to that after-hours service. 220370 Griggs, Natasha, MP Mrs Griggs —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister knows that she is misleading. The clinic is not open; it is not even in the same building. There are people that go and they cannot— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —There is no point of order, and again I remind members that rising on a point of order is not an opportunity to enter into debate. There are many other avenues available for people to have debate: question time is not one of them. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —The reason those opposite are so sensitive about this is because thousands of residents in Palmerston have for more than two years been provided with services that otherwise they would have to travel across all of Darwin to get to the Royal Darwin Hospital for. This is because no after-hours services were provided in Palmerston. Those opposite might do a bit of homework and pull out the announcements which made clear that the Northern Territory government was funding the after-hours service, that the GP superclinic would be built and that ultimately they would be co-located. The negotiations are currently underway between the Northern Territory government and the provider of the superclinic. TK6 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP Dr Southcott —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —No, the minister has the call. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —If any other member in this House would like to take more time than the member for Solomon has taken— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I can ignore when I want to ignore, and I am ignoring. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —they would find out that this service has provided over 20,000 valuable services to residents of Palmerston, and was enthusiastically welcomed when it was officially opened on Friday. Charles Darwin University and the Flinders Medical School are training health professionals of the future right where Palmerston residents are getting services throughout the day and after hours. The member for Solomon should be ashamed that as their representative she is not prepared to stand up and say that this is a service that is providing benefits to her residents in Darwin. TK6 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP Dr Southcott —Mr Speaker— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister will resume her seat. The member for Sturt will resume his seat and the member for Boothby will resume his seat. BV5 Adams, Dick, MP Mr Adams —Sit down, you mongrel! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Lyons is warned. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the reason you have ignored the member for Boothby is because you can only take one point of order on relevance during a question then that is fair enough—you can only take one point of order on relevance. But there are many different kinds of points of order that a member can make in this House; and under standing order 86, how will you know unless he says what the point of order is? Under standing order 86 (a), a member may raise a point of order with the Speaker at any time— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. 219646 McCormack, Michael, MP Mr McCormack —All we want is a fair go like the country kids want a fair go! You didn’t give them a fair go yesterday. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Riverina is warned, and it is only on the basis of his continual interjections—I am unclear on what he said. Both the member for Boothby and the member for Sturt might read Practice. This occupant of the chair would not be the first person who has not offered somebody the call on the basis that they are seeking a point of order. The member for Menzies has been at the end of that with the present Speaker, so it is not the first time that I have not done it. We understand these things; but I simply say that, in toto, the picking and choosing of standing orders that are important is miraculous. When people can ignore the fact that nobody except those who have the call are to make a statement or an interjection, I find it incredible that then they want to find my cooperation on all occasions. Let us get the facts straight: the member for Solomon’s point of order was not a point of order. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —And the answer was not an answer. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —No—on that I am happy to have the debate. But can I simply say that I hope that people who have concerns about the conduct of question time would actually go to the Procedure Committee and put to them suggestions about the way that question time could be made better. Ad nauseam, I have suggested that the same standing order should apply to answers as applies to the questions. It would have been a much better solution than ‘directly relevant’. It would have meant that question time is not about the debate; you can have the debate on other occasions. I am happy to entertain discussions about that, but I am also of a mind that the amount of banter that goes on—I agree, from both sides of the chamber—could well be reduced, and question time could revert—if it has ever been—to an occasion when it has been about the discussion and debate on the matters of ideas rather than personalities. I would agree that the amount of debate that is in the answers is a big part of the problem that any occupant of the chair confronts. Something which I have been consistent on is that I cannot fathom why the House does not contemplate applying the same rules to the answers as it does to the questions. TK6 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP Dr Southcott —Mr Speaker— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —No, the member for Boothby: the dogs have barked, the caravan has moved on. If he wishes to discuss any matters with me he can come around, but— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —All right, but with a warning. I am giving the member for Boothby the opportunity to raise a point of order. If what he is about to do is not a point of order I will deal with him. The member for Boothby. TK6 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP Dr Southcott —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table a document. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —On what basis are you seeking leave to table a document? TK6 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP Dr Southcott —The minister during her answer made an invitation to the opposition to substantiate their claims. The document is a media release which promises a 24-hour-a-day GP service at the Palmerston GP superclinic. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Boothby will leave the services of the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a). The member for Boothby then left the chamber. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, with great respect to the chair, you asked the member for Boothby on what basis he was seeking leave to table a document. He is entitled to seek leave to table a document at the end of an answer— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —No. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —and then you used the answer he gave you to ask him to withdraw from the chamber. I would ask you to reconsider your decision to ask him to withdraw from the chamber. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —No, I will not reconsider. The member for Boothby was not the person that asked the question. He had no role in the proceedings before the chamber. If you remember rightly, he rose and I ignored him during the answer to the question. You suggested to me that he might be raising relevance or any other matter, but it was not a point of order. I invite you in your defence of the member for Boothby to actually put to me how the member for Boothby under standing orders had the opportunity to rise. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —I am happy to do so. Two things I will say to you. Firstly, my understanding is that any member can seek leave to table a document at any time with permission from the chamber. Secondly, I have on many occasions seen a member ask a question and the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition, at the end of that answer, seek leave to table a document. And on none of those occasions were they informed that they had no right to do so because they did not ask the question. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Read the standing orders about the way in which ministers and members of the executive are treated. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Kim Beazley did it on numerous occasions, and Simon Crean. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The point was that the member for Boothby has indicated now that the point of order that he was going to raise in the middle—I repeat, in the middle—of the discussion was the tabling of a document. The member for Melbourne Ports has the call. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I raise a point order. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Melbourne Ports will resume his seat. The member for Sturt, as the Manager of Opposition Business, because he gets to defend. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I understand that and I appreciate your giving me the call. I would simply make the point to you that because of your admonition to the member for Boothby he did not proceed with his point of order during the answer of the minister, but at the end of the answer, when all those matters were concluded, he was entitled to seek leave to table a document. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Again, if you read precedent, of course leaders of parties are given added—added. The member for Melbourne Ports has the call. 915 915 15:19:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 Mr DANBY —My question is to the Minister for Defence. Will the minister advise the House of the proposed response to the independent inquiry into alleged incidents of unacceptable behaviour involving members of the crew of HMAS Success between March and May 2009? 915 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP Minister for Defence 1 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —I thank the member for his question. HMAS Success is a supply ship used for the supply of fuel, ammunition, food and stores to naval units at sea. In March 2009 Success left Sydney for a deployment to South-East Asia and China, including the Philippines, China, Hong Kong and Singapore. Between March and May 2009, incidents of unacceptable behaviour were brought to the attention of Command. Allegations included: inappropriate conduct towards women, including predatory sexual behaviour; workforce bullying and intimidation; tribal culture on board the ship; drunken and disreputable behaviour while ashore; a breakdown in discipline; and serious failures of command. These incidents were the subject of an internal Defence inquiry, a Senate estimates examination and a Senate inquiry. In March 2010 the Chief of the Defence Force, Angus Houston, commissioned Roger Gyles QC to conduct an independent inquiry into these matters. Last month I received Mr Gyles’s report. The report is not a good read. The report makes very sorry and confronting reading about the failure of personal conduct, about the failure of discipline, about the failure of authority and about the inappropriate culture aboard the Success. Mr Gyles also concluded that the decision to land senior sailors after allegations were made against them was flawed in various respects and was not the result of proper processes. A second report by Mr Gyles will deal with these general Defence processes. At the end of my answer I propose to table an edited or redacted version of Mr Gyles’s report. The redactions are made on legal advice to prevent the identification of individuals who may be the subject of disciplinary or other procedures. I have provided a copy of the full report in confidence to Senator Mark Bishop, the Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee; the deputy chair of that committee, Senator Trood; the Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade References Committee, Senator Kroger; and Senator Johnston, the shadow minister for defence. This satisfies the undertakings made by my predecessor, Senator Faulkner, to keep the Senate fully informed of these matters. In holding a commission of inquiry, it was intended to fully expose the facts and matters Defence and Navy were dealing with. In my view, the report clearly does this. The Chief of the Defence Force and the Chief of Navy have accepted the findings, recommendations and conclusions of the report in full. The Chief of the Defence Force and the Chief of Navy are taking action on all of Mr Gyles’s recommendations. An action plan has been developed to address the issues identified in the report and Defence’s response will be based on the key themes of leadership, culture, alcohol misuse and behaviour while ashore. This plan will be implemented alongside the program already being implemented by the Chief of Navy: the New Generation Navy program. Regrettably, the report outlines unacceptable behaviour that falls beneath community standards, unacceptable behaviour and conduct that falls beneath the standards of a modern navy and that falls beneath the standards of the Australian Defence Force. Such behaviour will not be tolerated by the Chief of the Defence Force, will not be tolerated by the Chief of Navy and will certainly not be tolerated by the men and women in the Australian community. I table a report by Roger Gyles QC, HMAS Success Commission of Inquiry—Allegations of unacceptable behaviour and the management thereof—part one: the Asian deployment and immediate aftermath. 916 916 15:24:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS 0 Mr TRUSS —My question is to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth in his capacity representing the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations in this place. Why has the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations not even prepared application forms for the Rural Tertiary Hardship Fund, which was supposed to begin in January 2011? What will the minister do to address this government’s chronic incompetence and failure to deliver even the most basic programs? 916 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth 1 Mr GARRETT —I thank the honourable member for his question. He would be well aware that work is underway to ensure that it will be delivered to all those people who require that information prior to their training. We will continue to deliver the necessary reforms in that area, as we have in others. I go on to point out to members opposite— Opposition members interjecting— HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr GARRETT —that, whatever area of delivery it relates to, either skills or training or the provision of trade training centres, which you wanted to cut nearly $1 billion out of— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister will refer his remarks through the chair. HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr GARRETT —we will consistently show the capacity to deliver for people who need training in this country. 916 916 15:26:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 Ms SAFFIN —My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Will the minister please update the House on the implementation of Australia’s first paid parental leave scheme? 916 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms MACKLIN —I thank the member for Page for her question and for her commitment to paid parental leave in Australia. On 1 January this year, paid parental leave was introduced into Australia for the first time. For the first time after decades of waiting, Australia finally caught up with the rest of the developed world and this Labor government delivered paid parental leave. Paid parental leave is now giving Australia’s babies the best start that they need in life, giving their parents the sort of financial security that they deserve and making sure that parents can stay at home with their newborn babies in those very important early months of life. Over 22,000 expectant and new parents have already put in their application forms and we now have 2,200 parents— GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss interjecting— PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms MACKLIN —It is typical of the opposition, who have opposed paid parental leave for so long and it was left up to this Labor government to deliver. We have now got 2,200 parents who are being paid paid parental leave. On New Year’s Day, the Prime Minister and I visited a mother who had just given birth that morning. She was so pleased that she had paid parental leave because, as she said to the Prime Minister and me, it meant that she would not have to work for up to a year. She knew the full value of paid parental leave to her and her family. It is not just mothers and fathers who are pleased with paid parental leave; it is also business. Business is very pleased with the benefits that are coming to them from paid parental leave being delivered by this government. We have 2,500 employers already signed up to provide government funded parental leave pay to their long-term employees and more than half of those employers have opted to provide payments earlier than the 1 July start date for this part of the payment arrangements. We have got small business opting into this arrangement at the same rate as bigger businesses. We have got employers already making the payments. I want to make this very clear to everyone in this House: employers are already making payments to their long-term employees and they are telling us how easy and straightforward it is. We have small businesses ringing up the Centrelink business hotline saying that they have had no problems with the scheme. Of course, we know that those opposite just want to continue with their normal wrecking ways. We see the opposition trying to bring legislation in that would wreck the smooth introduction of this part of the scheme. But we know that parents are not fooled by the political games that those opposite are playing. Mums and dads and employers know that paid parental leave is good for families and is good for business, and it is the Labor government that has delivered it. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 917 Miscellaneous 917 15:30:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Ms GILLARD —Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I would like take this opportunity to update the House on events relating to the earthquake in New Zealand. Let me inform the House on some matters that have happened during question time. I can confirm that Emergency Management in Australia is coordinating the deployment of a New South Wales search and rescue team of 40 personnel to Christchurch. That team is being transported by the Australian Defence Force. They are using a C130 aircraft. The team will land at Christchurch if that is possible, but if it is not possible to land there it will land at Glenham, where there is a New Zealand air force base. The team will have search, rescue, medical, engineering and support capabilities. Queensland and South Australia have also offered support. Emergency Management in Australia is sending two liaison officers to New Zealand to ensure the Australian government is in a position to provide whatever is necessary to New Zealand as quickly as possible. Emergency Management in Australia is remaining in frequent contact with the New Zealand Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management. Also in the time that we have been here, further reports of damage have come in, including some troubling reports about major damage to some tourist infrastructure, including a youth hostel and a hotel. In these circumstances, with large numbers of Australians being regular visitors to New Zealand and, consequently, Australians in Christchurch being affected by this catastrophe, I once again refer people who are concerned about the circumstances of family members or friends to contact the DFAT 24-hour consular emergency centre on 1300 555135. I would also like to advise the House that Air New Zealand are offering free flights for government to use for emergency personnel, and I thank them for this gesture at such a difficult time. I anticipate that more information is going to come to hand this afternoon and into tonight. In these circumstances the Attorney-General will continue to keep people updated on emergency management coordination and disaster assistance, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs will continue to keep people updated on consular activities and contact with Australians in the area. Of course, I will continue to be in contact with Prime Minister Key. We all acknowledge that this is a major catastrophe for New Zealand. Our thoughts go out to everybody who is now involved in this and everybody who may need to confront the news that they have lost a loved one in these circumstances. 918 15:33:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr ABBOTT —On indulgence: the news from New Zealand gets grimmer and grimmer. It is appropriate that Australia does all that we humanly can to help our friends, our family and our loved ones across the Tasman. I am obviously very supportive of the measure that the Prime Minister has just announced. 918 Questions to the Speaker 918 918 15:33:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 Mr PYNE —I refer you to the ‘Agreement for a better parliament—parliamentary reform’ that I signed with the Leader of the House and the Independents on 6 September 2010, and the section which says, with respect to matters of public importance: A proportionate share of Matters of Public Importance be allocated to all non-Government Members. I refer you to your decision to, in fact, award the MPI today to the member for Chifley, who is a government member. I simply ask you: will the agreement for a better parliament not be honoured? 918 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I am the custodian of the standing orders and practice and I carried out my responsibilities according to the standing orders and practice. This may be seen as me being a bit hoity: I was not a signatory to the agreement. Some people think that, when I say that, I am spitting the dummy, but the point is that I was not. 918 Miscellaneous 918 918 15:35:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 0 Mr HOCKEY —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for North Sydney from moving the following motion forthwith: That this House notes with deep concern the release of 25 secret Treasury documents contradicting the Treasurer about the impact of its proposed banking package including: claiming on 12 December 2010 that the package would “build up competition in our banking system” when the secret Treasury advice demonstrates that the absolute opposite is true; claiming on 12 December 2010 that the banking package would “ensure that interest rates are lower over time” when in the secret Treasury advice again the absolute opposite is true; for failing to heed the warnings of the Treasury that “there are a lots of risks and sensitivities associated with banning exit fees” including higher interest rates, higher bank fees and less transparency in banking; for failing to heed the warnings of the Treasury that the Treasurer’s banking package “could disproportionately impact first home buyers”; and for failing to heed the warnings of smaller financial services providers such as Aussie Home Loans, Bank of Queensland and Suncorp Metway that the banking package may reduce banking competition and lead to higher overall costs for consumers. Everything this Treasurer touches turns to mud. No wonder he scurries away. He has no ticker to defend government policy. What he does is set up his so-called mates. He set up his so-called mate from Nambour with a mining tax that was a dud. He set up his so-called mate from Nambour with a war on inflation that never occurred. He set up his mate from Nambour with a program of spending that was, on an international scale, lauded as probably the biggest package in the world. He is now setting up his mate from— 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Lalor. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —That is right: his mate from Lalor. I am choosing my words carefully and I apologise for embellishing the term ‘mate’. He is using his office to set up the member for Lalor with a mining tax, a carbon tax, a flood levy and now a banking package that his own Treasury says is flawed. Late last night, 25 documents in relation to banking were released by the Commonwealth Treasury. It followed a freedom of information request from the ABC. Of course, as Treasury does these days, in what seems to be a relatively new practice, whenever a media organisation requests documents through FOI, in order to kill off media interest the Treasury then releases the information publicly at the same time. Mr Nick Loan, manager of the bank competition unit, in relation to the government’s own banking package, says: In short, there are lots of risks and sensitivities associated with banning exit fees … He goes on in numerous ways to outline exactly why the government’s own banking package may increase interest rates. You remember the front page of the Australian: ‘Banking overhaul will bring down rates: Swan’. I happen to know that the Treasurer was not very happy about that. This will come as a rude shock. I understand there was an extensive complaint from the Treasurer about the treatment by the Australian of that issue. But, because I am a thorough guy, I went back to 12 December, the day before the story, and checked what the Treasurer actually said: … this package is all about helping the customers, helping households, and helping business so that we can build up competition in our banking system which will ensure that interest rates are lower over time. That was the Treasurer of Australia who said that. I want you to listen to this, Swanny—don’t let me off the hook here. He said that interest rates would be lower and competition would be greater. Let’s go to what the Treasury advice says: The banks’ costs of early termination are likely to be recouped by a combination of higher up-front fees and interest rates … This is the Treasury advice specifically on the initiatives that he talked about. So you have the Treasurer out there saying interest rates will come down because of these changes and you have the Treasury saying, ‘No, interest rates are going up.’ The advice says: Were existing customers to seek a new provider following an out of cycle rate rise, they would still, at least initially, face the same barriers to switching … The official from Treasury goes on to say: … mortgage providers will need to find alternative ways of covering their costs, which could lead to a range of unintended consequences from the Government’s action that could outweigh the benefit of the ban. These include: (1) increasing interest rates, (2) increasing other fees, (3) reducing the transparency of bank fees and (4) a disproportionate impact on first home buyers. He goes on to say that the decision of the government may adversely affect smaller institutions such as credit unions and building societies: … more than the major banks, and therefore reduce the ability of credit unions and building societies to effectively compete. These are damning words. This is an advice to the Treasurer dated 13 October 2010. In doing this, the Treasury itself has belled the cat. The Treasury itself has pointed out that this Treasurer is a fraud. He makes promises he cannot deliver. He makes commitments to the Australian people that he knows cannot be delivered. In fact, he received advice not just from Treasury; he received the advice from Aussie Home Loans, from Mark Bouris, from the Bank of Queensland, from Suncorp Metway and from Westpac. Do you know what? If this Treasurer were half smart—and God forbid that we should have a Labor Treasurer that is half smart, but if he were half smart—I would say to the Treasurer: why is it that on the first trading day after he announced his banking package the prices of the major banks’ stocks went up? It is because he established and laid out a package that benefited the major banks and, at the end of the day, it actually hurts the people most vulnerable. It hurts bank customers because their fees are going to go up. It hurts the borrowers because their interest rates are going to go up. It hurts competition, because the small banking players have said, ‘This package will hurt competition.’ This is a damning indictment of an incompetent Treasurer. This is a damning indictment of a man who is not fit to be the Treasurer. Not only is he not up to the job and not only does he make mistake after mistake. How many versions of the mining tax are we going to have? We had the Ken Henry version, we had the Wayne Swan version and we had the Julia Gillard version. Now we are going to have the Green’s version and then we will have the mining companies’ version. Sooner or later, someone will say, ‘Mate, do you get anything right?’ No wonder Julia Gillard rang up Peter Costello and said, ‘Can you deliver the budget next May?’ just as she rang up John Fahey and said, ‘We need you to oversee Wayne Swan, the Treasurer, in Queensland.’ I bet old Swanny—I bet the Treasurer—did not even know that John Fahey was going to be appointed. Can you imagine the conversation? ‘Ah, Wayne, I tried to call you that day.’ Yeah, right. That is why John Fahey is being called in to oversee the Queensland flood reconstruction. A whole lot of issues have come out of these 25 documents. Not only on 13 October did Mr Loan—ironically named—point out the flaws; he did it on 6 October, when he said: Banks are likely to move to recover the legitimate costs associated with establishing a mortgage— and could ‘penalise consumers’ who do not want to switch. There is document after document and all the proof you need about a Treasurer that is incompetent; about a Treasurer that is a follower and not a leader; and about a Treasurer that is pushing up interest rates, pushing up the cost of banking and reducing competition—and, at the end of the day, proving to Australia and sundry that this is a man not up to the job of Treasurer. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? 920 15:45:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP 0 0 Mr BILLSON —I certainly second the motion. It is seconded because this is a compelling matter of concern to not only consumers right across Australia but also the small business community. When you hear the term ‘Treasurer Swan’, no-one thinks of competition; they think of corrosion—corrosion of confidence, corrosion of our financial standing, corrosion of the opportunities for our country to go forward and corrosion of the concept of competence in government. That is what people think of: Treasurer Wayne Swan equals corrosion. We see that corrosion captured in the advice he receives. Not only do we have policy based evidence—that is where the Treasurer rushes out and makes a declaration on the front page of the paper and then they reach back and ask Treasury, ‘Is there some way you can justify these utterances from the Treasurer?’—but we also have these documents released under FOI which make it absolutely clear that there is no way of justifying the statements of the Treasurer. There is no substance to his claim that the actions he is taking on banking competition will have any positive impacts whatsoever. If you do not believe the coalition, the banking sector or consumers and small business, who are suffering under this government, believe the Treasury document. The Treasury document lists a litany of errors and misjudgments and says to the Treasurer, ‘Mate, do you really think this is a good idea?’ There are pages and pages saying: ‘I know you have made the statement but stop digging. You are corroding the confidence in the economy and you are making statements that add nothing to competition in the banking sector.’ The shadow Treasurer has outlined page after page of the impact of the Treasurer’s headline statement, ‘Let’s bank mortgage exit fees’. Treasury makes the point that if you do that it is going to put upward pressure on interest rates, because there are costs in exiting a mortgage. If you are not going to pick up the costs from those exiting their mortgage you will have to pick them up somewhere else, and you will effectively see everybody else with that bank having to cover for the costs of one of the customers deciding to exit their mortgage. So people who might be happy with their mortgage—or maybe in this current climate are less unhappy than others—who choose to stay put will actually carry the cost of those who are planning to move. As to the other recommendation in here about this being something that needs to be reconsidered, the point is: where are those funding changes going to come from? Imagine a banking cost balloon. The point in this Treasury document is that if you artificially squeeze one part of the balloon it will blow out somewhere else. It makes the point that there will be upward pressure on other fees and that there will also be a problem with establishment fees and the ongoing costs of operating those lending instruments. When you read further you find that it actually says that the Treasurer could argue that these fees are unconscionable under existing law, but then it says, ‘But they might not be’. You actually need to make the case. You actually need to show how the fees being charged are completely out of whack with the cost to the bank. It actually says in here that there is an option—a cunning plan that only our corrosion-enforcing and -inflicting Treasurer could come up with. The option is that, under the definition of what is an ‘unconscionable fee’ under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act, you do not actually test whether it is unconscionable; you just say it is—declare it to be unconscionable even where there has been no effort to actually prove that point. The document goes on further and actually talks about the coalition’s banking competition plan. Remember that price-signalling bill and the price-signalling gap in the competition law that has been raised with this government over and over again. In this FOI document there is evidence of reports being given to the Deputy Prime Minister at the time about the fact that they had been urged to take action on this. But would the government take action on it? No. the government had to wait until Joe Hockey, on behalf of the coalition, announced our banking competition plan. It had to wait until we introduced the anticompetitive price-signalling bill. The FOI document actually says to the Treasurer, ‘If you’re going to venture down the path of anticompetitive price signalling, actually make competition better.’ What the government have come up with is to say, ‘We’ve got this price-signalling power,’ but they are not even going to test whether it is anticompetitive. They just want to look like they are doing something. And if there is information out there that is pro competitive, pro consumers, you can still get cleaned up under the government’s bill but you do not get cleaned up under the coalition’s bill. When you read through these pages and pages you see that the document outlines time and time again the error of the government’s ways and the risk for the banking sector and their customers. Small business is doing it tough. This is the Harvey Norman of government policy—no interest in the impact on small business for four years. That is why we should be debating this issue. (Time expired) 922 15:50:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Leader of the House 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —This is a distraction in order to delay the matter of public importance that has been selected by you, Mr Speaker, to be debated before this House—that is, the matter of public importance moved by the member for Chifley in the following terms: The urgent need for leadership to re-affirm our commitment to a non-discriminatory immigration policy for Australia’s future. This is desperation from the Leader of the Opposition. It is very interesting that he could not actually pick any of his factional mates to do this; he had to pick the shadow Treasurer and the member for Dunkley to do this—two people who have, I think, a very proud record on issues relating to migration and who are prepared to stand up within their party against the extremists who would press buttons in order to seek political advantage. Today, on the doors, the member for Gippsland said: You’d have to suggest that what the polls are saying to us is we have to get our act together. That is a clear message to us in the coalition. We’ve had a bad couple of weeks. There’s no point gilding the lily on that point. Indeed, they have had a shocker of a couple of weeks! The backbencher, the member for Gippsland, went on to say: There’s a message there to the traitors in the ranks. There’s people in our ranks who think they can climb over the corpses of their colleagues to get themselves further ahead in their political careers … They had a crisis in the party room this morning. They had a crisis over the member for Cook’s private member’s motion that came before the parliament last night. He moved a motion to cap the number of visas given to asylum seekers who arrive by boat. He was taken on in the party room this morning by Judi Moylan, who broke ranks to challenge the member for Cook’s motion and called for an end to the historical rhetoric over the issue of refugees. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the motion to suspend standing orders is very clear and specific. There are five points to it. None of them would allow the Leader of the House to traverse the subjects that he is now traversing. I would ask you to bring him back to the suspension— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The mover and seconder went beyond the suspension of standing orders and I allowed that. The Leader of the House knows he must relate his comments to the suspension, and I thought that that was what he was doing. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Absolutely, Mr Speaker. The Manager of Opposition Business was instructed by the Leader of the Opposition to move that point of order because he will do anything to distract from this debate. The reason why we should not suspend standing orders is that we should hear from the member for Chifley, because he knows firsthand what the grubs opposite are prepared to do when it comes to migration. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the House will withdraw. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —I withdraw. Sit down. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The minister withdrew. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —They will do anything to stop debate, because the member for Chifley, when he was the candidate for Greenway, saw firsthand what the Liberal Party was prepared to do. We have seen a lot. For those in the cheap seats, here is a recap of the last couple of weeks. We saw the Leader of the Opposition kick things off by emailing people to ask them to donate to the Liberal Party instead of helping to rebuild Queensland. As he was sending out that email, he found another one from One Nation, and that is when he decided he should cut the Indonesian schools program as was recommended by One Nation. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I am well aware of the tolerance given to debates on matters of public importance and other kinds of motions, but he is not speaking to any of the points in this suspension at all. What he is doing is slagging off the opposition— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Leader of the House is well aware of the requirement to relate his comments to why or why not the standing and sessional orders should be suspended. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —I certainly am, and that is why we should get on with the motion moved by the member for Chifley. That is why you have moved this suspension: to avoid this debate. We know that the member for Cook has embarrassed many people of decency in the coalition. We know also, as a result of the comments by the member for Cook when he said on 15 February, ‘If relatives of those who were involved wanted to go to Christmas Island, like any other Australian who wanted to attend a funeral service in another part of the country, they would have made their own arrangements to be there,’ the Leader of the Opposition backed it up— SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You have twice upheld the point of order of the Manager of Opposition Business. Again the minister at the dispatch box is flouting your ruling. I would ask you to ask him to return to the question of the suspension. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the House is going to the reasons why or why not the standing and sessional orders should be suspended. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —The Leader of the Opposition, in response to the member for Cook’s comments, said this: That’s a fair point and I guess I am curious as to why that couldn’t have happened and I’m also curious as to why rellies are being flown around the country. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the fact that the standing orders regarding suspensions were changed in a previous parliament does not mean that the Leader of the House can speak on any subject he wants. It does not allow him to say whatever he wants. We will shortly go to the MPI. Are you ruling, Mr Speaker, that he can speak on any subject he wishes? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have indicated to the Leader of the House that he must relate his comments to why or why not sessional and standing orders should be suspended. I am listening carefully to him. This is a tactic that has been used in the past. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —The fact is: the reason we should not suspend standing orders is that we should get on with the MPI debate. They will do anything to avoid this debate, because we know that the Leader of the Opposition’s own parliamentary secretary went out there last week on radio— Mr PYNE (Sturt —Manager of Opposition Business) 15:59:00 —I move: That the member be no longer heard. Question put. 16:03:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins) 69 Abbott, A.J. Alexander, J. Andrews, K. Andrews, K.J. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. 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. 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. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. * Simpkins, L. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Stone, S.N. Tehan, D. Truss, W.E. Tudge, A. Turnbull, M. Van Manen, B. Vasta, R. Washer, M.J. Wyatt, K. 73 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. 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. Plibersek, T. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Rowland, M. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. 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. 3 Keenan, M. Ellis, K. Schultz, A. Rudd, K.M. Briggs, J.E. Sidebottom, S. * denotes teller Question negatived. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for the debate has expired. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Hockey’s) be agreed to. 16:09:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins) 71 Abbott, A.J. Alexander, J. Andrews, K. Andrews, K.J. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Broadbent, R. Buchholz, S. Chester, D. Christensen, G. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Coulton, M. * Crook, T. 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. 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. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. * Simpkins, L. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Stone, S.N. Tehan, D. Truss, W.E. Tudge, A. Turnbull, M. Van Manen, B. Vasta, R. Washer, M.J. Windsor, A.H.C. Wyatt, K. 71 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. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. 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. Plibersek, T. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Rowland, M. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Smith, S.F. Smyth, L. Snowdon, W.E. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, A. Zappia, A. 3 Keenan, M. Ellis, K. Schultz, A. Rudd, K.M. Briggs, J.E. Sidebottom, S. * denotes teller The requirements of standing order 47(c)(ii) for an absolute majority having not been satisfied, the motion was not carried. 926 Matters of Public Importance 926 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received letters from the honourable member for Chifley and the honourable member for North Sydney proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46(d) I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Chifley, namely: The urgent need for leadership to re-affirm our commitment to a non-discriminatory immigration policy for Australia’s future. 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— 926 16:12:00 Husic, Ed, MP 91219 Chifley ALP 1 0 Mr HUSIC —I have often said that if you want to see some of the proudest Australians you should go to a citizenship ceremony. On those days, when families are brought together, seeing others take the pledge to their new nation, you see some of the happiest faces in this country. I have to admit my own heart bursts with pride watching the smiles and looks that are exchanged and the arms around other people’s shoulders, and every moment the bond between the new citizen and their new home deepens. It is among the moments that I live for as a member of parliament, and I share in that joy as people feel the uplifting power of a second chance, sensing a brighter future ahead. Our new citizens feel that they can grow in a nation free of persecution, one where democracy, freedom of thought and freedom of religion are core values held dear by the nation and expected to be cherished, nourished and protected by citizens. So many of us have shared that experience in electorates across one of the greatest nations on the planet. It is a powerful experience where we are inspired by the outward demonstration of unity and commitment to the common good. However, a commitment to a united and common good cannot be found upon divided ground. Those before us in this place have had the wisdom to recognise this. Over the course of a quarter of a century, they worked together to peel away a policy we rightly shun today—the White Australia policy. The policy had its birth in the Immigration Restriction Act 1901, but in 1949 Minister Holt of the Menzies government took the step of releasing the grip of this policy by allowing non-European refugees from World War II to remain in Australia, followed up by a decision in 1957 to allow certain non-Europeans with 15 years residence to become citizens. The Menzies government, to their credit, ditched the ‘dictation test’, which had applicants undertake tests in languages they had no hope of learning or knowing, such as Latin. In 1966, Minister Opperman announced applications would be received from non-Europeans but, significantly, in 1973 the Whitlam government introduced a specifically non-racially based immigration policy. It has been a cornerstone of policy for 38 years. It was unchallenged—until last week, when three distinct events combined to create a firm image in the minds of many that levering off religion for political advantage is something not being pursued by a fringe group but being considered by elements of a major party in this country. The first event was the revelation that a Liberal senator would table a petition, signed by all of three people, calling on the government to prevent immigration to this country of people who are of Islamic faith. Then there was the revelation that the opposition shadow cabinet had put before it as a discussion point the issue of Muslim immigration. The interpretation of shadow cabinet colleagues, as passed on to the media, was that the member for Cook sought to capitalise on this issue. Finally, the Leader of the Opposition’s own shadow parliamentary secretary, Cory Bernardi, went on radio and declared: Islam itself is the problem. As if to comfort those aligned with this statement, he went on to say: It’s not Muslims. Islam is a totalitarian political and religious ideology. There is a tangled logic there that only the brave or idle would seek to unravel. I ask the Leader of the Opposition, who seeks high office which comes with the responsibility to protect and advance the unity of a nation he seeks to lead, how the comments of his own shadow parliamentary secretary reflect upon him. He is yours. You chose and keep him for that position. When he speaks from that position, it is as if he makes those comments within earshot of you. How do you think this does not impact on you? When pressed on radio, Senator Bernardi said he has not been prevented by the Leader of the Opposition from expressing these views: Well no, he— Tony Abbott— certainly hasn’t. I’ve been in contact with Tony, I’m his parliamentary secretary. Importantly, all these events occurred in the space of a week and, unlike events in 1996, we are not prepared as a government to let these matters hang in the air, smothering relations between us within this country and affecting our relations with those outside our country. This matter of public importance is necessary to immediately deal with this matter. The Leader of the Opposition has had the opportunity to demonstrate his commitment to a non-discriminatory policy and bring to a head this subterranean contest within his side, where these comments are deliberately floated in the public domain for political advantage—and to the shock and dismay of those within the Liberal Party. I have sought for some time to put a spotlight on these extreme elements of the Liberal Party that have sought to divide on the basis of religion. Their continued fascination with this form of political campaigning, stretching over elections held in 2004, 2007 and 2010, is a blight on a party of liberalism. Why is the senior leadership of the party unable to deal decisively with this extremism? What inferences are to be drawn by this? It is clear that there are those within the party that seek no association with this sentiment, yet the extremists continue to crowd out common sense and decency within the coalition. The events of the last week have been truly staggering, because the advocacy of discriminatory immigration policy seeks to tear at the combined efforts of our respective parties over 60 years. Worse still, the events of the last week suggest to me that elements of those opposite are perpetuating a fraud, leading on those who seek to tread a path that is truly beneath them and suggesting somehow that the opposition wish to potentially translate this position into official policy. For political gain, elements of the opposition harbour support from dark ambitions, nurturing hope in the minds of the extreme that their divisive wishes might just become policy. What desperation drives people—people who put themselves forward as able to meet the responsibility of leading the nation—to this point? For us, the imperative is to demonstrate to those who take comfort in this backward policy that this is a false comfort that will eventually work against their interests and our country’s interests. It will sap our ability to express ourselves as a country united that values diversity of opinion, thought, expression and faith. As I stand here today, I think of the mums, dads, students, small business people, professionals, community workers and sportspeople—those drawn from the Islamic faith who are trying to do their best to contribute to the betterment of our nation. How are those people supposed to feel when they ponder on how they were admitted to share the richness of life here but that others of their faith have been locked out? I still hear from refugees who have escaped war-torn nations and of their expressions of guilt and shame that they survived and prospered while others less fortunate suffered or perished. And we would then, by operation of a discriminatory policy, seek to place on our citizens the weight of that guilt—to enslave them to that shame? Once we put up that barrier, how are those who live here supposed to feel? We would give comfort to those people who seek to prey on fear and anger, setting us back from where we want to be. What does this do to the strength of the nation’s unity and purpose, when we enslave our own to the burden of this shame? We have as a nation learned from our mistakes, yet we have a party where elements therein are ready to walk headlong into another mistake. How is this leadership? How does this advance our nation? And how does it help us internationally? Let me take the House, in broad terms, to the value of our exports to the following countries in 2009-10: Indonesia, $4 billion; Malaysia, $3 billion; United Arab Emirates, $2 billion; Saudi Arabia, $1.5 billion; Pakistan, $600 million; Bangladesh, $400 million; Turkey, $300 million; Jordan and Iran, respectively, $150 million; and Lebanon, $25 million. Just out of those countries, during that time, we earned a shade over $12 billion in export dollars. They are nations with over 50 per cent of people who consider themselves Muslim. Do not forget the other $18 billion we earned from countries with sizeable Muslim populations within our very region: India, the Philippines and the Russian Federation. If we were to regress to a discriminatory immigration policy, would we effectively say to those countries, ‘We’ll take your dollars but not your people’? It is absurd. Do we believe that people in these countries would not react? Do we think that governments in some of those nations would be mute while their local citizens ask why their governments tolerate a policy of discrimination by our government? Remember that through the seventies and eighties we placed massive international pressure on countries that abided and supported discrimination. Given this proud history, what then would this do to our ability to advocate on the world stage the need for countries and other corners of the globe to embrace liberal democracy, tolerance and fairness? We would be hamstrung, utterly and completely crippled in our ability to get others to do something which we are simply unable to do ourselves. I do not ignore the fact that there has always been concern about the ability of migrants to settle within our land. Wave after wave of migrants has encountered this. Without doubt, there are always the misguided that walk amongst us on the fringe as they peer disdainfully at us distancing themselves from the common decency and respect that hold us together as a vibrant, progressive community. But we must acknowledge we have settled seven million people in this great country of ours since World War II and, as reflected on by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship in a powerful speech he gave last week to the Sydney Institute, we have succeeded where others have failed because of the genius of our multiculturalism. He put this down to three key principles: respect for traditional Australian values, our citizenship centred multiculturalism and, finally and importantly, political bipartisanship, which I reflected on earlier. In particular, I draw the House’s attention to the quote that stood out in my mind: If Australia was to be free and equal then it will be multicultural. But if it is to be multicultural, Australia must remain free and equal. Our immigration policy and our approach to multiculturalism are intrinsically linked and they are underpinned by how we see ourselves as a nation celebrating values of respect, acceptance and liberty. On Australia Day I had the pleasure of participating in a citizenship ceremony held at Blacktown City Council’s Bowman Hall. The special guest for the day was Todd Greenberg, who was there in his capacity as an Australia Day ambassador. He is the CEO of the Bulldogs NRL club—and I suppose we cannot all be perfect. He related to the audience the story of he and his wife inquiring of their son, who had only recently started school, about his new friends at that school. His son mentioned one boy in particular. ‘Where is he from?’ asked his parents. ‘I don’t know,’ was the reply. ‘Has he got brothers and sisters?’ ‘I don’t know.’ ‘Where do they live? Where are they from?’ The response: ‘Dad, I don’t know; he’s just my friend. He’s my age, speaks like me, he’s my friend’—all the questions of a regular parent along with the dismissive, sometimes irritated, responses of their child. When Todd and his wife finally got to meet their son’s friend at a school function they discovered he was of Chinese background and it reminded Todd of how children do not put barriers in the way of their friendship with others; they just get on with things. I remember in Minister Bowen’s speech to the Sydney Institute where he recounted growing up in Western Sydney and going to school at St Johns Park. As he said: When I was at school, I didn’t sit around with my mates from Vietnam, Iraq, Bosnia and Croatia and talk about the genius of Australian multiculturalism. We had much more pressing teenage matters to occupy us. Rather than philosophising about multiculturalism, we lived it. Again, the clear sight of the young at work. Back in January, the US was shocked by an event that would resonate with many here. We did not necessarily pay too much attention to this event, understandably so, because our friends and neighbours in Queensland were battling some of the worst events that nature could throw at them. Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was holding in effect a mobile office, called ‘Congress On Your Corner’, outside a local shopping centre when a gunman opened fire. Six people lost their lives, including nine-year-old schoolgirl Christina Taylor Green, who was born on 11 September 2001. The incident triggered nationwide discussion about the incitement of hate and violence creeping into national political dialogue. Republicans had homed in on Congresswoman Giffords during the previous mid-term elections by controversially and graphically marking her position with a gun-sight target. About a week later, President Obama spoke to a stunned and grieving nation. It was an incredibly moving speech in which it was as if, through his words, he took the hands of the grieving and led them to somewhere better. With indulgence, I quote from that speech because so much of it translates neatly to our own experience: We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another is entirely up to us. I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us. That’s what I believe, in part because that’s what a child like Christina Taylor Green believed. Imagine: here was a young girl who was just becoming aware of our democracy; just beginning to understand the obligations of citizenship; just starting to glimpse the fact that some day she too might play a part in shaping her nation’s future. She had been elected to her student council; she saw public service as something exciting, something hopeful. She was off to meet her congresswoman, someone she was sure was good and important and might be a role model. She saw all this through the eyes of a child, undimmed by the cynicism or vitriol that we adults all too often just take for granted. This is the most moving part in my mind: I want us to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as she imagined it. All of us—we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children’s expectations. Our nation’s children would not expect us to throw up stark barriers to divide us from others. Are we without the ability or strength to summon up what is required to lead this country and meet the expectations of the youngest among us? I think not. 930 16:28:00 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP 0 0 Mr RUDDOCK —Members on this side of the House stood to support the matter of public importance discussion proposed by the member for Chifley, and did so in good faith, because members on this side of the House are strongly committed to a non-discriminatory immigration policy for Australia. I regret that this matter of public importance has been proposed—and I do not question the bona fides of the honourable member for Chifley, who may have been encouraged to bring the matter forward—but I listened to the three arguments that he raised as to why this matter was important at this time. The first was because there was a petition tabled by a Liberal senator in the Senate that spoke about levels of Islamic immigration. He did not say in relation to that petition that that was also tabled in this chamber by the member for Newcastle, Jill Hall; the member for Banks, Daryl Melham; the Chief Government Whip, the member for Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon; the then member for Charlton, Kelly Hoare; the member for Capricornia, Kirsten Livermore; the member for Parramatta, Julie Owens; I might say the member for New England, Mr Windsor; and also Senator John Faulkner. If the inference is to be drawn that this matter should be raised because that petition had been tabled by a Liberal, what does it say of the others? He spoke about comments at the opposition shadow cabinet. 4T4 Melham, Daryl, MP Mr Melham —I didn’t raise it in shadow cabinet or anywhere else. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Order! The member for Banks does not have the call. 0J4 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr RUDDOCK —Let me just say: I was at the shadow cabinet meeting, and what I have seen reported—because I do not talk about these meetings—does not reflect what I heard. If the member for Banks were desirous of ascertaining what he thought were the views on these matters of the member for Cook, he might well reflect on some of the speeches that the member for Cook has given, particularly one after he participated in the Kokoda pilgrimage with the member for Blaxland, Jason Clare. I table the speech that the member for Cook made to the Sydney Institute on 6 October simply to put that on record. The only other point he had to make was that a parliamentary secretary had made a statement and had later recanted from those views as expressed by him. I do not believe that this is a substantial case for debating this matter at this time other than to distract from the internal divisions of the Labor Party. But I will not use the speech of the government leader in suggesting that distraction is all that is being sought. I want to take some time to spell out where the opposition does stand on these issues and to put down once and for all that our position is absolutely non-discriminatory in relation to race. Honourable members interjecting— 0J4 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr RUDDOCK —And religion, and culture, and country of origin. But that does not mean you should not be prepared to discuss issues of composition. Certainly one might well be concerned about the lack of emphasis from time to time on the importance of skilled migration to adequately assist Australia, or about the way in which fraud can impact on allowing some elements of the program to grow at the expense of more bona fide migration, or in focusing on refugees, particularly those who come through the front door rather than the window. I am always surprised about the extent to which members opposite walk away from their history—because from time to time it is appropriate to reflect upon your history—and always pay attention to the leadership on these issues from this side of the House. I listened to the Prime Minister speaking about multiculturalism, and she paid tribute to Prime Minister Menzies, who supported postwar migration. She paid tribute to Prime Minister Menzies for creating the Colombo Plan; to Prime Minister Holt for ending the White Australia policy; and to Malcolm Fraser for admitting Vietnamese boat people to this country and creating SBS. I did not recall the comments of a former Prime Minister who spoke of ‘Asian Balts’, or another Prime Minister who was opposed to Vietnamese boat arrivals—although not Prime Minister at that time. We could go back and discuss those issues in that way, but I think it is unnecessary, I think it is divisive and I do not think it reflects well on us. When I listen to these debates, I reflect on the matter as one who presided for 7½ years over an immigration policy which was totally and absolutely non-discriminatory in terms of race. I was one who was responsible for a report endorsed by John Howard, A new agenda for multicultural Australia in December 1999, in which John Howard—who is often maligned as not supporting multicultural Australia—spoke of Australia occupying ‘a unique intersection of culture, geography, history and economic circumstance’, being ‘blessed with immense natural resources, living in a continent of great physical beauty’ and having ‘an educated and skilled workforce, democratic institutions, social harmony and a lifestyle that is the envy of the world’. He said: Australia’s cultural diversity is one of our most important attributes as we face the challenges of a rapidly changing world.                          …                   …                   … We are an open and tolerant society that promotes the celebration of diversity within the context of a unifying commitment to Australia. Our diversity is a source of competitive advantage, cultural enrichment and social stability. These were the comments of John Howard. It is important, because sometimes I think there is a reflection on cultural diversity as being the only element of multicultural policies and programs. I think it is important to understand that our cultural diversity, which is something of which we are all very proud, does have to be supported; it has to be supported by reflecting on each of its values. That report, A new agenda for multicultural Australia, said: For multicultural Australia to continue to flourish … multicultural policies and programs should be built on the foundation of our democratic system, using the following principles: civic duty, which obliges all Australians to support those basic structures and principles of Australian society which guarantee us our freedom and equality and enable diversity in our society to flourish; cultural respect, which, subject to the law, gives all Australians the right to express their own culture and beliefs and obliges them to accept the right of others to do the same; social equity, which entitles all Australians to equality of treatment and opportunity so that they are able to contribute to the social, political and economic life of Australia, free from discrimination, including on the grounds of race, culture, religion, language, location, gender or place of birth … I hope I have mentioned them all! productive diversity, which maximises for all Australians the significant cultural, social and economic dividends arising from the diversity of our population. That was the approach to Australian multiculturalism of the former government. Provided people are prepared to accept that this is the handshake—that it is a two-way street and that those who come from other cultures and who want to be respected offer the same respect to others—it seems to me that we can move forward sensibly. I have always been disappointed when I find that when multicultural policies and programs are being talked about some only emphasise the elements that they want emphasised, and not the whole of the agenda. I think it is very important to keep that in mind. It has been suggested that the new Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has broken new ground. It seems strange to me, because I thought the member for Werriwa was, in fact, the last Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs. I thought he was—he might disagree if he was not—but the title was stripped away by the present Prime Minister at the last election. I do not know why that happened; I did not hear an explanation. But now it needs to be brought back with great fanfare; presumably to make a statement. It is very interesting; I come from New South Wales, and the issues about which we are speaking loom larger in New South Wales than I suspect they do elsewhere. Much more of the migration outcome settles in and around Sydney, and most of our seats have something like 30 per percent or so of our population overseas born—some of the colleagues opposite have even greater. We live with it every day, but it was in New South Wales that Premier Carr stripped away the title from what I think was called the Ethnic Affairs Commission and re-established it as the Community Relations Commission. I do not know what he was saying when he did that, and I have not heard from anybody else what he may have been saying as he made that decision. You might forgive me; I think this debate is too important to politicise. I was prepared to participate in it because I wanted to take the opportunity to reaffirm, as positively as I could, that the approach of the coalition is to conduct immigration policies that are absolutely non-discriminatory in terms of those characteristics about which I have spoken. I have had to put my political career on the line to affirm it in the past; I would not want to have to do it again. Let there be no doubt; our position in relation to these matters is absolutely non-discriminatory. We were not trying to politicise it in any way, shape or form whatsoever. But the nuances of debate can sometimes reflect on many, and I think I have demonstrated how sometimes even those on your own side can be caught up in that way. Let me just say, as I did in relation to these matters: our position is absolutely non-discriminatory. There were people who tabled petitions to whom I see the Clerk of the Senate suggesting have an obligation to table—including members on both sides of the House. I do not draw any inference from their tabling of those, and nor would I in relation to my good friend Senator Gary Humphries. I have heard comments about my colleague, the member for Cook. I do not talk about what happens in our shadow cabinet, but from time to time I hear things that are said. I have not heard anything in the nature of what I have seen reported. That is what I say, and I usually have a pretty good recollection of these matters. 83X Gibbons, Steve, MP Mr Gibbons —Give Cory a go! 0J4 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr RUDDOCK —Cory Bernardi has walked away from comments of his own, and he ought to be allowed to do that. They were the only three pieces of evidence upon which this matter of public importance was raised. While I respect the honourable member, I do not think he should have been used in the way in which he was. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table the address to the Sydney Institute on 6 October by the honourable member for Cook. Leave granted. 933 16:43:00 Brodtmann, Gai, MP 30540 Canberra ALP 1 0 Ms BRODTMANN —I am very proud to be able to stand here today in support of the member for Chifley’s matter of public importance on the need for a non-discriminatory immigration policy. Given recent comments by some in this parliament, the symbolism of the member for Chifley moving this motion will not be lost on this House—nor, indeed, do I suspect that it will be lost on the public. Let me therefore say at the outset that I am proud to stand in this chamber with the member for Chifley. I know him to be a strong and effective advocate for all people in his electorate, regardless of their background, their religion or their race. I am proud to serve with the member for Chifley as, indeed, I am to serve with all members of this chamber—each of us with our unique backgrounds. I thank the member for Berowra for his comments, but I think it would be really nice if his leader actually reiterated and underscored his views. I believe these unique backgrounds contribute to and enhance our decision making in this chamber. Diversity helps in every way. That is why it is good to have people from different backgrounds and of different sexes on boards: it gets rid of group think, which is absolutely lethal for innovation and creativity and a nation’s future. And the diversity of cultures in Australia contributes to and enhances our nation. So it is not just on boards, it is not just in the chamber; diversity contributes to and enhances our nation. Apart from our Indigenous brothers and sisters, everyone in this chamber and in this country has an ancestor from somewhere else. We are all migrants. In my own case, my father’s family came out from China in the 1850s to work in the gold rush. Members of my family on my father’s side also came from Germany in the 1850s, when there was a huge diaspora of Germans coming to Australia. My mother’s family came out from Ireland and Scotland in the late 1800s. What is interesting about that melting pot of family history is that during the First World War a number of my relatives had to be interned but, also, one of my relatives was Albert Jacka. He fought for Australia in the First World War and won the first VC for Australia, fighting in Turkey, and in another part of the world I had relatives in Germany who were out getting photos with Kaiser Bill. So that is an interesting example of the diversity of Australia but also of how quickly people who come here and decide to make a life here will sign up to our values, call themselves Australian and be willing to defend the nation. In this light I would like to congratulate the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship for last week’s release of The People of Australia: Australia’s multicultural policy. It reaffirms the government’s view that multiculturalism is not just desirable but essential to this country; that multiculturalism is strong because it gets people to sign up to our values, our rule of law, our democratic principles, our rights and responsibilities and also the equality of sexes, races and religions. I was asked yesterday by a journalist if we should have a debate about multiculturalism in this country. I believe we should have a debate and, in the process, celebrate the fact that our multiculturalism has been a great success and is a great example of national cohesion. We are the envy of the world. You only need to look at what is happening in Europe, and we have seen the comments from Angela Merkel and David Cameron about what is happening there. I believe what has happened there is that communities, rather than integrating and working together, have been ghettoised. You get examples in East London and in Paris of what is happening there, where it has created social disorder, whereas here we have had cohesion ever since the original settling of this country. And that is because most Australians are tolerant, and they have been tolerant for many years, if not 150 years. The working class of this country has also tended to be at the vanguard of this tolerance and this melting pot, and my own family attests to that. You get families these days throughout Sydney and throughout Australia where all sorts of races and religions marry and work together in a cohesive pattern. It is not just because of the tolerance of Australians; it is also because leadership has been shown on this issue over many years and by Liberal and Labor governments. We have heard about the contribution of Menzies and the contribution of Fraser and we all know about the contribution of Labor governments over that time. For the debate on multiculturalism to be useful, leadership is required to ensure discussions are constructive, productive and acknowledge the significant contribution made by all Australians, no matter what our backgrounds. The debate needs to be one that acknowledges diversity and the benefits of diversity. And I am not just talking here about food and the fact that you can go to 10 different restaurants over the course of two weeks and have interesting meals. I am talking here about diversity of skills, diversity of culture, diversity of language, diversity of trade with other parts of the world. However, if members of the opposition had their way the debate would focus on the most base of propositions. We have had the comment from Senator Bernardi that Islam is the problem. Further to this, the alleged comments in shadow cabinet by the member for Cook deliberately play to Islamophobia. What is worse is that the Leader of the Opposition has refused to discipline his members. In a way, he has been boxed into a corner, and the only response is to play the race card. It is the lowest form; it is incredibly base. What can we draw from this refusal? Either that he is not in control of his party, or that the cuts he was suggesting to foreign aid were suggested by One Nation, or that he or his office had advance warning of Mr Morrison’s comments about the funerals, or that he or his office had sanctioned Senator Bernardi’s regular attacks on Islam. I am glad that some in the opposition have the moral strength to stand against this and I particularly congratulate Senator Moylan. 00APG Smith, Anthony, MP Mr Anthony Smith —She’s a member of this House. 30540 Brodtmann, Gai, MP Ms BRODTMANN —While I am a strong supporter of this discussion brought forward by the member for Chifley, I am extremely sad, disappointed and even somewhat ashamed that it is necessary for us to reaffirm our commitment to a non-discriminatory immigration policy. I am disappointed because I thought that, at least in the parliament of Australia, the White Australia policy was dead. I had thought that this parliament was of the view that it was immoral. However, it would appear I was wrong. Sadly, I am a member of a parliament where some think it is not just tolerable but desirable to deliberately play on certain fears in the community as a political tactic. That is an outrage. Last year the Prime Minister acknowledged those fears, which is the responsible thing for a leader and member of this parliament to do. However, it is one thing to acknowledge these fears and attempt to ease them; it is another, entirely different thing to fan these fears and use them for political gain. The fact that such a thing is not just openly canvassed but actively endorsed by senior members of a major political party is truly abhorrent. It is the basest of politics. It is not befitting a member of parliament. We are privileged to be in this chamber and it is our role not simply to represent those in our electorate but also to show leadership. We must be a unifying force in our communities and for our nation. We come to this place in Canberra to do this task and to lead our country to a brighter and better future—a future in which all Australians regardless of background, origin, race or religion are considered of equal worth as people. It is not our role to take the fears of our communities and then use them to gain political advantage. It is not our role, and it is beneath us as parliamentarians, to take the fears of our communities and then use them to drive a wedge between Australians. I call upon those in this House to show the leadership appropriate to their positions, to reaffirm their commitment to a multicultural Australia, to reaffirm the fact that diversity is important to this country and to reaffirm a non-discriminatory immigration policy. I call most importantly on the Leader of the Opposition to repudiate the views of some in his party. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to stop showing even tacit support for the wedge politics of race and immigration. It is beneath this parliament; it is beneath this nation. We are all better than this and I call upon this chamber to support this matter of public importance of the member for Chifley. 935 16:53:00 Gambaro, Teresa, MP 9K6 Brisbane LP 0 0 Ms GAMBARO —The coalition has always supported a non-discriminatory immigration policy, so I am very proud to be standing here today to support the matter of public importance from the member for Chifley. I also acknowledge the previous speaker, the member for Canberra, and her diverse cultural background. She and the member for Chifley have truly lived the multicultural dream, as have I. My parents and, firstly, my grandfather came to this country in 1939, and many years later so did my family. I have lived, one could say, two cultures. While my parents are Italian and I was brought up in the full Italian way, I speak Italian but I call myself Australian. That is what makes multiculturalism so great in this country. While we all celebrate diversity, we also work towards unity. The matter of public importance here today is just being used as a wedge. It is being used to highlight the very worst in society. We are all Australians. We live under one language, we live under one law and we have one national identity. But, unfortunately, the member for Chifley and, yesterday, the Prime Minister’s rhetoric do not quite add up. Quite conveniently yesterday, the Prime Minister brought up the issue of multiculturalism, which is something that we support on this side of the House and always have. I am very privileged today to be speaking after a former minister for immigration, the member for Berowra, who spoke so eloquently before me. I must say that in all of my dealings with him the compassion that he provided to the immigration program was outstanding. There were many times when I went to him for ministerial intervention where he granted immigration status. I am also proud to be serving with the shadow minister for immigration and citizenship, the member for Cook, whom I find to be a man of great integrity. We have had many discussions since I was appointed to the portfolio. In all of those discussions he has supported multiculturalism, he has supported me in every way and he has supported programs that provide the great settlement services that new immigrants and those under the humanitarian program so richly deserve. So the comments that have been made about him today are absolutely unfounded and false. I have found him to be a man of great courage. Today we are here talking on this matter of public importance at a time when the Labor Party, under the leadership of Julia Gillard, continues to struggle with an immigration policy that cannot stop boats making their perilous journey and that holds more than 1,020 children in detention. How compassionate is that? The government is short on humanitarian credentials. So what does the Prime Minister do? She starts to ignite the multicultural wars, and that is what we are seeing here today. If the Prime Minister really cared about multiculturalism, she would have included it in her ministry. As the member earlier mentioned, she would have put it in her ministry straight after the election, not six months after the election and especially since the recommendation to the government by its own Multicultural Advisory Council was made some time ago in April. I have been travelling around the countryside and I know why the Prime Minister has suddenly put multiculturalism on the agenda. It is because all of those out in the ethnic communities are very angry with this government. They are angry at their inaction. They are angry at their ability to make a statement in this area and have been sending motions of no support to the government in their policies on multiculturalism. If the Prime Minister really cared about multiculturalism, she would have travelled to parts of Australia where there is a high density of Australians that come from migrant families or who are migrants themselves and talked to them. But, instead, we saw her take the member for Lindsay, David Bradbury, out to Darwin so that they could do a little bit of illegal boat spotting on a Customs naval patrol. How cynical was that exercise to Australians who were watching it before the election? But I guess that was the ‘old Julia’ and now we have the ‘new Julia’, who supports immigration and supports multiculturalism—just like the ‘old Julia’ did not support a carbon tax and the ‘new Julia’ supports a carbon tax. The government today, in the MPI, calls for the urgent need for leadership in a non-discriminatory immigration policy for Australia’s future. But this is a very far cry from what happened on 9 April 2010. On that day the then Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans, suspended all immigration from Sri Lanka and from Afghanistan. Labor’s attack on the decision to freeze the processing of Afghan and Sri Lankan asylum seekers shocked many at the time. Mirko Bagaric, an associate professor from Deakin University, said: This is probably the most repugnant refugee policy of any Western country that is a party to the international refugee convention. I know of no precedent of anything approaching a Western democracy doing anything as brutal to refugees as this. No Western democracy has done what those in the government have done. As far as I am concerned, there has never been a more racially discriminatory immigration policy in Australia’s history since the repeal of the White Australia policy. The Labor Party have been very happy to use immigration to their political advantage, but now they are heralding a new era of multiculturalism. What a disgrace! Since Labor have won office, they have made a mess of migration, they have made a mess of multiculturalism and they have made a mess of border protection. There is so much history here. The former immigration minister spoke of the history of the Labor Party. We have a proud history in the area of immigration. He quoted Whitlam earlier. I will not give you the full quote, but in the book, China, Communism and Coca-Cola, Clyde Cameron, Whitlam’s minister for immigration, said on 21 April 1975, around the fall of Saigon: Don Willesee— the foreign affairs minister— came to see me with a request that I accompany him to Whitlam’s office. He wanted to get a ruling on the admissibility of certain categories of refugees … Whitlam stuck out his jaw and, grinding his teeth, turned to Willesee and thundered, “I’m not having hundreds of— I cannot repeat the word for parliament, but it starts with F— Vietnamese Balts coming into this country with their political and religious hatreds against us” … I could have hugged him for putting my own view so well … [Willesee] made a … plea for Vietnamese who had been employed by the Australian embassy, claiming that we had a moral obligation to take them into our arms. Whitlam rejected this plea out of hand. Of course, we saw the boatloads of Vietnamese refugees that were accepted by the Fraser government and we have seen the wonderful contribution that the Vietnamese community has made to this wonderful country of ours. So the Labor Party has really got form with its past history. Under Prime Ministers Fraser and Howard, Australia saw a well-ordered but also a very generous immigration policy. There was no public angst about immigration of ethnic groups. When people from different ethnic groups came to Australia, they were encouraged to settle—not to forget their origins but to realise that they were now Australians and that we had common and fundamental rights enshrined. I know that diversity of cultures is desirable. I know firsthand how they contribute to the Australian identity. But we also need to focus on what holds us together as a society. We need to focus on what is good about multiculturalism. The government’s policy on immigration shows that the Labor Party does not care about people stuck in overseas detention camps. I have just come back from the Thai-Burma border and, I must say, the harsh and unjust treatment of people in refugee camps and the ability of this government to accept more of them really needs to be looked at. We really need to accept many more offshore applications. The government shows that it really does not care about people living in tent cities in the Sudan, in Ethiopia and at the Thai-Burma border who are fleeing economic, religious and social persecution. The Labor Party does not care about refugees on the border of Iraq; it does not care about those in Bhutan or the Congo who have fled for their lives from oppressive regimes and seek resettlement right now through the full and legal processes of the UNHCR. To the Labor government it does not matter because the refugees are not part of the 9,000 or so illegal maritime arrivals in Australia since it watered down its policy in 2008. Out of sight, out of mind. I have seen firsthand the people who live in refugee camps on the edges of these regions, fleeing prosecution. Not only do I question the government’s commitment to a fair and equitable immigration policy but I also question the commitment of the government to support a culturally cohesive Australian society. On only 10 February, it cut $6.8 million to multicultural funding in 2010-11. It appears that Labor had hoped that these funds would go unnoticed. How can we stand here and listen to the government say that it supports multicultural policy when only 10 days ago it cut such a large amount from the program? (Time expired) 938 17:03:00 Jones, Stephen, MP A9B Throsby ALP 1 0 Mr STEPHEN JONES —I am very pleased to stand and speak in relation to the matter of public importance that has been brought to this House by my good friend of 12 years, the member for Chifley. I say I have known the member for Chifley for around 12 years. It was probably three years into that relationship before I discovered that the member for Chifley is Muslim. That goes to show that those who say that you can know everything about a person if you know what their religion is are wrong. There has been a tragedy in New Zealand today: the earthquake in Christchurch. Our response shows that we in Australia share a common bond with those in our region. It is the common bond of humanity. Our response to it—not just the response of people in this place but the response of all Australians—is to instinctively say: how can we help? It is not new. In January 2005 we saw the same response when the area of Banda Aceh in Indonesia was hit by the terrible tsunami. We did not ask ourselves: what is the colour or creed of these people? All Australians rose to the tragedy and said: how can we help? It is what we stand for as a nation. It is deeply embedded in our values. This matter of public importance asks us to reconsider those values and asks us to show leadership in relation to them. Leadership calls for clarity. It calls us to stand up here and in our communities and say quite clearly what we stand for. On this side of the House we have absolutely no shame in saying that we believe in a non-discriminatory immigration policy. We believe in an Australia that is confident in itself, its lifestyle and its culture—so confident that we are able to embrace and learn from others who share our values whilst retaining their identity, some of their culture and their nationality that they brought with them from the countries of their origin. It does not mean that we tolerate anything in the name of culture and religion. That is what our view of multiculturalism is all about. We believe in these things because they spring from basic Labor values and, I believe, the basic Australian values of fairness, dignity and equality. We believe in these things because we believe that with diversity comes innovation, progress and vibrancy, and that is good not only for our community but also for our economy. It makes this an interesting place. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine Sydney without its Chinatown or Melbourne without its Lygon Street, its Italian quarter. It is difficult to imagine the tremendous growth and prosperity of the last 15 years without our reliance on a migration program which not only brought skilled workers but increased our population at a time when our fertility rate was declining. We believe in these things because it is good for our community and good for our economy—it makes Australia a better place. The third reason that we believe in these things is that we believe that religious proscription is a very slippery slope indeed. Today it might be Islam that we single out as a religion that causes us problems or offence or makes us somewhat uncomfortable. I acknowledge that there are those in the community who hold that view. Today it might be Islam, but tomorrow it might be another group within our community. I remind members in this place that within the living memory of our parents it was possible to pick up a newspaper in this country and see job advertisements with the addition at the bottom ‘Catholics need not apply’. Religious proscription is a very, very slippery slope. It is something we have been able to overcome in our lifetime; it is a very ugly thing that we do not want to revisit. This debate is as important to all of us in this place as it may be hurtful or offensive, because I think it touches on a very thin edge of the wedge of politics, of fear, of discrimination and of hate. It is a debate which must be met and I am very pleased to see members from both sides of the House stand in this place and state quite clearly that these are not attitudes or values that we want to see emanate from this place or be a part of Australian political life. I must say that I believe the members opposite when they get up and say on behalf of their constituencies and themselves that they do not subscribe to a race based immigration policy and that they thoroughly embrace the values of multiculturalism. But I think it does great violence to suggest that the contribution of the member for Chifley was perhaps a stunt or that it was thinly based on the mere tabling of a petition. It diminishes the motivation that brought this matter of public importance to this place. If you listened carefully to the contribution of the member for Chifley, it was a very, very personal contribution based on his experience as a member representing a region with very diverse cultural backgrounds and his experience growing up as a son of Muslims in Australia. It was not the mere tabling of a petition; it came on the back of a pattern of behaviour. Materials that were distributed many years ago during the election in the seat of Greenway and during the next election in the seat of Lindsay in Sydney are things that cannot be lightly dismissed. It was not the mere tabling of a petition or even, indeed, the mere making of a speech—and I will come to that. It is a pattern of behaviour which on the one hand says, ‘We formally stand for something,’ but on the other hand gives the nod to prejudice that may exist within our community. I stand here and say that that is unacceptable. This MPI talks of leadership, and that is not just about reflecting concerns within the community but about dealing with them. It means showing and leading by example—acting in a way which would make the hundreds of schoolchildren who daily come to this place when this parliament is in session look upon the debates and considerations of this great parliament and be proud of us. It means setting an example to those kids as they go back to their communities and their schools. The test is not whether we reflect community opinion but how we deal with it. How do we respond to those emails—based on terribly wrong facts and probably deliberately terribly wrong facts—that each and every one of us received in our inboxes over the last months? Do we reject them, take issue with them and argue with them or do we give comfort to the prejudice that lies behind them? That is the test of leadership. That is the question that members opposite must ask themselves: how have they and their colleagues responded to those emails? Have they adopted them as policy or have they rejected them outright? The events of the last couple of weeks are not without precedent. It is unfortunate that we have seen a pattern of behaviour in this area. Before I get to this point I want to address quite squarely a point made by the member for Berowra. If he is saying that political parties in this country and in this area have not always had a happy history in relation to this issue, I wholeheartedly agree with him. The history of my own party on this is a part of the public record and is well known. The point is that we have wholeheartedly rejected that history and that we seek to make a new history and a new beginning and ensure that we do not give comfort to those who harbour those prejudices within their hearts. That is the point—not that we have made mistakes in the past but that we are willing to recant and say that it is not part of our future. The comments that have been made over the last week are not without precedent. In my view, the challenge for the Liberal Party is whether it is going to be the party of Menzies, Holt and Fraser—governments with records that we applaud—or the party of Hanson, Bernardi and Morrison. (Time expired) 940 17:13:00 Wyatt, Ken, MP M3A Hasluck LP 0 0 Mr WYATT —I rise to speak on this issue. Strong leadership is absolutely critical in the way we look at all Australians as being equal regardless of their status, their race or creed or their socioeconomic status. I would not have joined the Liberal Party if I had thought that it was narrow in its thinking. We live in an incredible country, a country that has accepted so many people from so many lands and has accepted the cultural mores, the practices and the foods that we thoroughly enjoy. But there are also times when none all of us cannot cast a stone on the fact that we have not been discriminatory in some form or another within our behaviour or our comments. Over the lifetime that all of us have there are periods when we do digress from the principles of antidiscriminatory behaviour. I had the privilege of sitting for 10 years on the WA Equal Opportunity Tribunal. I thought I would have seen a diverse range of cases presented over that time because I sat on some landmark decisions. The ones that I saw continually were cases of discrimination based on gender, discrimination based on pregnancy, discrimination of race based on Aboriginality. I did not see any other. I did not see religion as a factor in that. Maybe that speaks volumes for the way in which we sometimes narrow our comments. When I grew up in the sixties and seventies, the kids I hung out with were also people we called ‘new Australians’. To me, the games we played, the times we shared, the music we shared and the stories we told were part of Australian growth, part of Australian history, and the direction we were setting as a new country. People came here for a range of reasons. It was to create new opportunities in a land where they saw fairness, where they hoped that they could establish strong family ties that would lead to a perpetuity of life within this country and where they hoped they could contribute to the building of a nation—a nation that has become great over the years. It somewhat disappoints me that we are having discussions in this manner, because as leaders within this House we should by our practice, by our doings and by the things that we put in place be demonstrating that we embrace all people. I believe that democracy in this country enables any cultural grouping from anywhere around this world to be part of a society which gives generously. In my seat of Hasluck there is the suburb of Gosnells. When I go to citizenship ceremonies there I see the immense pride of new Australians from different cultural groups, and I have said to them: ‘Retain what is yours culturally. Retain what is yours on the basis of the country you come from. But remember that you are part of a family within Australia, in Australian society, in which you have the freedom to practise those things that are important and dear to you and to practise the faith that you have but at the same time acknowledge that you live within a society where there are expectations of people whom we welcome into the broader Australian family of Australian society.’ I see the incredible pride that they have in taking the step to become citizens of this country, because they believe in what is the fundamental ethos. But they also acknowledge to me that they experience at times comments that are hurtful and spiteful. The reality of our society is that we do have people who make comments that are inappropriate. Sometimes comments are made in the adversity of pressure and people apologise later. I have great respect for people who take the courage to stand up and say they were wrong and apologise. I think that is an absolute quality that we sometimes lose sight of. Each of those new Australians will contribute not only to the workforce but also to the society in which they will live and move in their time. I expect them to also encourage others to come with them—their families in family reunion processes. My understanding of the history of all Australian government is that at different points in time we have recognised that there is a need to look at the history of the past and reshape it and to contribute to the debate on the rights of fellow Australians and those who want to become Australians, those who want to be part of a society that is rich in many facets of its culture, its norms and its behaviours. I constantly receive reminders of who I am. During the election campaign I had an interesting experience—which my son found distasteful. We were standing in a place called Alfred’s Kitchen in Guildford in WA. At Alfred’s Kitchen, there is a log fire that burns and you can get hamburgers and you stand with others and you converse. The thing that surprised me was that a group of guys wearing Eureka Stockade T-shirts deliberately went out of their way to come past me and the comment they made was, ‘Look, it’s Uncle Tom Wyatt.’ My son said, ‘What does that mean?’ and I said, ‘Don’t worry about it.’ When he went home and he had a look at what it meant, he was appalled. What he said to me was not about my circumstance. He said, ‘Why do we have to make comments that detract from the quality of another human being? Why is it that we set aside and distinguish difference so markedly that it is a factor that comes into play that creates prejudices?’ Sometimes our debates help that. Certainly in my dealings with Tony Abbott, the leader of this party, he has in no way ever indicated to me nor shown me a single bone that is discriminatory. We have differences of opinion, and I think all of us enjoy the freedom of that within our democracy. I think that is tremendous. A thing that we need to distinguish is that the term ‘One Nation’ applied to a particular party. To continue its use is to diminish the impact of what we are all trying to achieve in this House, because it reinforces the notion of somebody who had some very strong views that were divisive—but which were, in a sense, her take on Australian society and life at the time. I think that we owe it to all of the constituents that all of us represent to ensure that the whole ethos of fairness, inclusiveness and the right of every Australian to every facet of what we offer within this society through this parliament is accorded them. I think we also need to acknowledge that there are mistakes made by individuals. Some people, when you talk to them later, say, ‘I wish to hell I hadn’t said that.’ The foot-in-the-mouth disease is a problem. I would hope that we do not talk about a multicultural society, as such, as the emphasis of what we are doing but about a society which encompasses all Australians, all people—regardless of our cultural heritage—because this is a country that has so much to offer the world in the model of citizenry that it displays and demonstrates regularly. I think that we have an opportunity to do that, and when people transgress let us remind them of what this House has done in the past in terms of discrimination—of words that are said that are unjust. We do not need to have the political debates in the way that we sometimes do, but we should admonish those who do transgress, because I do believe that we have come a long way since the days of the White Australia policy and that every member of this House wants that to prevail, regardless of our political persuasions. We will have our differences of opinion on issues, but let us not denigrate the legislation of this House, or that of states and territories, which address the issues of a fair go and being antidiscriminatory. We need to walk as one Australian society, welcoming of all people for the values and skills that they bring, because to me that is what we are about. 10000 Sidebottom, Sid (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Sidebottom)—The discussion has now concluded. Thank you to all those who participated. 942 Committees 942 942 942 17:23:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 0 Ms SAFFIN —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the first report for 2011 of the committee relating to the referrals made in October and November 2010. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. HVY Saffin, Janelle, MP Ms SAFFIN —by leave—This report deals with two public works with a total estimated cost of $43.7 million. In both cases, the committee has recommended that the House of Representatives agree to the works proceeding. Both works in this report are fit-outs in leased premises. The first is the proposed fit-out of new leased premises for the Attorney-General’s Department at 4 National Circuit in Barton, ACT. The second is the proposed fit-out of leased premises for divisions of the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research at Buildings 2 and 3, Riverside Corporate Park in North Ryde, New South Wales. I will turn first to the fit-out for the Attorney-General’s Department. This work would provide the department with considerable office space across the road from its current national office in Barton, allowing the consolidation of numerous disparate premises across the ACT. The committee was particularly interested in how the Attorney-General’s Department could ensure good value for money, given that there was not an open-market process to identify possible sites. The department informed the committee that it had sufficient market information to ensure that it does not pay a premium as a result of the non-competitive selection and negotiation process, and it gave evidence to the committee in this regard. The department also assured the committee that adequate staff facilities will be available for staff who move from other locations to Barton. The Attorney-General’s Department provided the committee with further information showing that there would be improved access to child care as a result of the broader development at 4 National Circuit. I will now speak to the second work in the report: the fit-out for divisions of the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. This fit-out will provide new office and laboratory space for the Australian Astronomical Observatory—formerly the Anglo-Australian Observatory—the National Measurement Institute and Enterprise Connect. AAO and NMI are impressive research organisations, and the committee inspected some of their existing laboratories, met staff and observed active research. The committee is particularly concerned about the existing facilities for these organisations. Many of the laboratories are unsuitable for the research being undertaken therein. Conditions are cramped and amenities are old and shabby and plainly looked unsuitable for the important work that is being done there. The committee found that there is an urgent need for new accommodation. The committee sought the department’s assurances about managing the risk of bushfires in the North Ryde area. The department has confirmed that the building and fit-out will be appropriate to the site’s particular risk, with requisite regulations being complied with. The committee has underlined the critical importance of giving clear and unambiguous information to staff regarding safety during a bushfire. Finally, the committee is aware that there is no spare childcare capacity in the new location. However, the department is confident that most employees will be able to retain existing arrangements given the proximity of old and new premises. The committee has asked the department to continue to provide as much assistance as possible to staff who need to change their childcare arrangements. I would like to thank members of my committee and the secretariat for the good work that was done to get these reports prepared and the inquiries completed in good time. I commend the report to the House. 943 Business 943 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (Batman —Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism) 17:28:00 —I move: That order of the day No. 2, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. 943 Bills R4472 943 Debate resumed from 21 February, on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson: That this bill be now read a second time. Question put. 17:33:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Mr S Sidebottom) 68 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. 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. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Georganas, S. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. 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. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Rowland, M. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Smith, A.D.H. Smith, S.F. Smyth, L. Snowdon, W.E. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Zappia, A. 6 Bandt, A. Crook, T. Griggs, N. Oakeshott, R.J.M. * Wilkie, A. Windsor, A.H.C. * 2 Ellis, K. Keenan, M. Rudd, K.M. Schultz, A. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 944 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (Batman —Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism) 17:40:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 944 Bills R4508 Cognate bill: 944 Bills R4507 944 Debate resumed. 944 17:42:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 1 0 Mr RIPOLL —It is a privilege to have the opportunity to speak on these two very important bills, the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011, which are about rebuilding the national economy, rebuilding Queensland, rebuilding people’s lives and putting some semblance of normality back into what has been an extraordinary summer, not just in Queensland but right across the whole country. Putting in place a flood levy is of critical importance not only to this parliament—and also that we all support it—but to the nation as a whole. It will enable the government to get on with the job of rebuilding not just in Queensland, where we have been devastated by flood and cyclone, but right across the country, giving us more capacity to rebuild in other areas and support communities and people in rebuilding their lives. This levy is small. It is very small. A $1.8 billion levy, in terms of the magnitude of a Commonwealth budget, is tiny, and it is something that is well supported and understood in the community—although there have been some who have tried to bring about some misconceptions about what this levy actually represents. But it is well understood and it is well supported. It is certainly supported by the Australian Council of Social Service, by the Salvation Army and by AgForce in Queensland. Brent Finlay, the president of AgForce Queensland, said: … given the enormity of what’s happened, with this natural disaster, anything that can help to get rural and regional Queensland, back up and running, we would support. Unfortunately, there is one group of people, the coalition—and it is unfortunate, and I will be as kind as I can be—who object to this bill in real terms. If they had any good reasons I would accept it and I would understand, but there is no good reason—none whatsoever. We are talking about a small levy, but it will make an enormous difference. The 2011 floods have particularly affected Queensland but have affected other states as well. Anyone in the electorates that have been affected will understand just how bad and how profound the damage has been. It is one of Australia’s biggest natural disasters, and many say it is in fact Australia’s biggest natural disaster in economic terms. The Queensland government estimates that up to 500,000 square kilometres was affected by floodwaters, and in my electorate alone there have been thousands of homes and businesses completely inundated by water. Many will not be able to recover either their personal belongings, their homes, their way of life or the way things were. There are businesses that cannot possibly recover from where they were prior to the floods. Even businesses in areas that were not directly affected by flood are finding it difficult as well. There is a massive task for all of us in this place to assist in any way we can. In broad terms, that is what every member of this House has done. I know that from what I have seen in Queensland from all members. Estimates of the costs of rebuilding in Queensland are enormous, particularly to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has an agreement with the states to cover 75 per cent of the rebuilding cost, which is estimated to be around $5.6 billion, a massive cost. The levy is part of that package. It is designed to meet those costs and help rebuild Australia. For every dollar that we will raise by the levy, $2 will be found in cost savings. We will not do this solely on the back of taxpayers. We will work hard in this place to make the cuts and make the savings so that the taxpayer understands that when they make a contribution, so will we in this place in terms of value for money. We are going to make sure that the projects and the rebuilding effort are done effectively and cost-efficiently and are properly managed and monitored. It is the right way to do it. It is the right thing for any government of any persuasion to do this, and I dare say that, if the roles were reversed and the coalition were in government, they would be putting the same levy forward, perhaps even a greater sized levy. Of course they would. Not only would they do that, but there would be one stark difference. On this side of the House, we would support it. We would put aside whatever other views we had in the national interest, and I say that with absolute sincerity. It is something I believe in and something I would support. It is something I know my colleagues would support. It is something I know that the Prime Minister, if the roles were reversed, would also support, because we genuinely believe that this is what we ought to be doing as a nation. Australians—right across the whole country, not just those affected in Queensland—have been amazingly generous. We have seen an outpouring of not only courage and goodwill but also generosity. People continue to be generous, including by supporting this levy. Where people have not donated money, they have donated household goods and clothing, not to mention, in some cases, cars, their time, their labour—the list goes on almost endlessly. We will rebuild the roads, the rail lines, the ports, the bridges, the other public facilities—the community infrastructure that is so important—the clubs, the sporting facilities, the things that lift a community and that provide the moral support when people need it the most, particularly now. The levy that this bill introduces will be a one-off, one-year-only, progressive levy to taxable income in the 2011-12 financial year. It is absolute and specific. It will not continue into the future. It is modest. Individuals with incomes of less than $50,000 will not pay anything. Individuals with a taxable income of between $50,000 and $100,000 will pay only 0.5 per cent—half of one per cent—as part of their taxable income. Obviously, it is progressive upwards from thereon. There will be exemptions, of course. Those who have received a grant or a payment from government because they were affected will not have to pay the levy. In those terms, it is non-discriminatory in the way that it is applied. It is to be applied so as to be fair as possible across the community. Anyone who has been declared as in a disaster zone will not have to pay the levy either. For example, a person earning $60,000 will only pay 96c, less than $1, per week. We are talking about a tin of beans. How could we come into this place and argue over a tin of beans per week when so many people have suffered and we need that contribution to be able to do all of the things that need to be done in the coming financial year? A person earning $80,000 or more per year will pay $2.88 per week: about the price of one cup of coffee a week per year. As I said when I spoke earlier in this place about the floods, they are a human story. They are about the great courage that all Australians demonstrate, and it makes me truly proud—having just listened to some great contributions from both sides of the House on multiculturalism and what it means to be an Australian—that we continue that great spirit of goodwill right across the board in saying, ‘We can step up, particularly when we talk about something so small.’ My electorate has suffered like yours has, Madam Deputy Speaker D’Ath, and as many others have in Queensland. There was something that I and many others in my community felt it was important to do about five weeks in. For me, that was on Sunday just passed, and it was to hold, as many others have done, a ‘thank you’ barbecue and a concert. It got a bit larger than we had anticipated, and it became a full-blown event and concert with one objective in mind, and that was to thank all the people who helped, to thank the flood victims for what they have done and to get people back together and make sure they understood that, while the cleaners have gone home, while the mud has been washed off the streets, while the big trucks have picked up all the rubbish and while they are sitting, looking at their empty houses which are stripped of walls, ceilings and being liveable, we have not forgotten. There are still people there and they will continue to help them to rebuild. I want to take this opportunity, in support of the levy, to say a big thank you to a number of people who I think have just been great to volunteer their time. I particularly thank Carol Lloyd, who gave of her time and performed at the concert; the Leaping Lizards; Matt Hollywood; The Volcanics; Denise Drysdale and Ernie Sigley; Nicole Blair; Cash Backman; and the Australian Army Band, a fabulous band which played with Normie Rowe and were just wonderful. The Australian Army Band also played with Rhonda Burchmore, a wonderful performer. I also thank Danny McMaster and friends; Normie Rowe, as I said before; Tony Worsley and the Crawdads; The Wolverines; and so many wonderful partners who we had putting on this free concert. It was really nice to see these great Australians give of their time. There are so many people to thank that I cannot thank them all in the short time I have. I did want to say a special thanks to John Preston and Mal from JPSE Entertainment, to the Goodna RSL, to the Ipswich City Council, to the state government and to Anna Bligh, the Premier of Queensland, who came along on what was a very, very hot day. It was 37 degrees in the shade and about 100 per cent humidity, but people came out and they really enjoyed what was on offer. I also thank all of those fantastic people who donated so many goods, products and things for the day. What that demonstrated to me was that people who had already given so much and already done so much could give even more. That is the great strength of this place, and this parliament should support the tax levy for what it is for: to help rebuild this country. 946 17:52:00 Van Manen, Bert, MP 188315 Forde LP 0 0 Mr VAN MANEN —To the member for Oxley and to the other members of this House that have been severely affected by the floods, we are very mindful of those events and we want to see those areas rebuilt. Fortunately, my electorate was not greatly affected at all in the recent floods but, as a consequence, we saw the overwhelming generosity of the residents in their donations—whether it was as clothing, linen, toiletries or donations to the various flood appeals. Those that could not afford to make a monetary donation dug deep into their possessions to give what they could to their fellow country men and women. As with the rest of the country, and in particular those affected by the flooding, residents want to see the reconstruction happening as soon as possible. The people of Australia in the flood, fire and cyclone affected areas need to know that they have our support in reconstruction. However, the reconstruction must not come at a higher cost than that which those in the flood ravaged communities have already suffered. Through the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 the Prime Minister has proposed a new tax to fund this reconstruction, but this is not what the Australian people need or want. This levy will make things harder not only for those that have already donated but also for those who were hit by the floods. It is unfair to put a new tax and a heavier burden on those already suffering. The people of Australia are concerned about the cost of living pressures that will come with that. The people of Australia know what it is to cut their expenses and live on a tight budget to make ends meet and, therefore, the government must learn to do the same. If you receive an unexpected bill, you work it into your budget, no matter how difficult; you cannot force someone to pay that bill for you. The flood tax compounded by the proposed mining and carbon taxes will cause many people, including those in areas that have been affected by the floods, the fires and the cyclone, to struggle further and push up their costs of living. The Prime Minister has called this a mateship tax, but mates help each other out; they do not impose an additional tax. I believe the people of Australia have already shown, and are continuing to show, mateship and the true Australian spirit with the generosity they have already shown through this ordeal. If you force these kind-hearted, hardworking people to pay a new tax, they will not willingly continue to donate and they will resent continuing to help out. Is this the type of community that we want to build, one where residents out of obligation and law rather than out of the goodness of their hearts have to help support these people who have suffered at these times? Let us take a moment to reflect upon the time and energy that were donated to help neighbours and complete strangers to clean up their houses and businesses. You cannot put a price on this community spirit. This flood tax has the potential to seriously impact people’s desire to act in this manner in the future, and this is despite the fact that the tax will go not to help individual families or businesses but to repair damaged or destroyed infrastructure for which they have already paid a variety of taxes. We should be rewarding the people of Australia for their willingness to give, not penalising them by forcefully extracting a new tax out of them. I draw to the House’s attention a couple of stories about those in my electorate who donated goods and time when they could not afford to make a monetary donation. An elderly gentleman, a pensioner, who was going through the pain of losing his wife could not afford to donate funds but packed up his wife’s clothes and brought them in hoping to help fellow Australians with his generosity. He knew that through his pain he could bring happiness to someone else’s life. There was also a young family struggling to make ends meet, collecting toys and children’s clothing from their possessions to donate. When they brought the goods in, the children were so proud that they could help, as was the mother for being able to do what she could. These are just two of many similar stories. Although these people could not afford to donate money to the flood relief, they gave what they could from their hearts. This is the Australian spirit at its finest. It is true mateship. It would be a shame to see this ruined by this proposed tax. On 10 February, the Treasurer stated that the levy: … is the right thing to do by Queensland and it is the right thing to do by Australia. How did he come to that conclusion? The levy is merely 0.5 per cent of the government’s annual budget. The government has wasted billions on ill-fated, poorly managed and poorly-thought-out green programs to deal with imaginary global warming that said floods such as these would not happen because it was only going to get drier. How wrong that has been proven. This government’s record is replete with examples of waste and mismanagement of the taxes Australians have already paid. It is this waste and mismanagement which are far in excess of the $1.8 billion being sought to be raised by this flood tax that people are railing against. Now, in a cynical attempt by this government to get this flood tax through the parliament, it has agreed to hand back 24 per cent of the levy to placate the Greens and Independents. It begs the question: why is this levy necessary at all? I repeat the words spoken by the Prime Minister: … if more money was needed: The money will come from cuts somewhere else. If the money can be found elsewhere, why impose a new tax on Australians? There is plenty of opportunity to cut the budget, reprioritise and defer spending. The government should impose a tax as a last resort, not as a first. It is not the job of the people of Australia to pay for the government’s mismanagement of funds. This new tax will not contribute at all to restarting the economy and it is going to take from one area of people’s spending and redirect it towards reconstruction. It is just shuffling the deckchairs. The coalition has articulated a clear and alternative strategy that negates the need for this new tax. The Prime Minister stated that 2011 must be a year for the government to move forward and make decisions, but it also needs to be a year for the government to discover how to live within their means, not a year of imposing new taxes on the hardworking people of this country. The government can start with finding additional savings in the budget and not imposing this new flood tax on the Australian community. 948 18:00:00 Lyons, Geoff, MP M38 Bass ALP 1 0 Mr LYONS —I rise on this occasion to add my remarks on the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011. As floods ravaged Queensland, the nation looked on in horror. We were all searching our hearts for a way to help. Many individuals and businesses donated money. Others, closer to the event, volunteered their time with mop, broom or backhoe to help clean up the mess. As a government, we have much to do to assist in rebuilding Queensland. Prime Minister Gillard has confirmed that we will meet our commitment to the last cent. We must support our fellow Australians as we rebuild our nation from this unprecedented disaster—a disaster which requires unprecedented action and absolute commitment by this parliament. The Labor government has acted quickly to look at how we are going to fund the rebuilding of Queensland. Rebuilding infrastructure is costly, and we need to make sure we get value for money. I was pleased to hear Prime Minister Gillard outline the mechanisms put in place to ensure that we do. The reconstruction task is going to take a lot of time and a lot of dollars. Initial estimates put the cost at close to $5.6 billion. We will meet the cost through $2 worth of saving for every dollar of this levy. This is responsible economic management. The costs are being met by spending cuts of $2.8 billion and by delaying infrastructure projects of $1 billion, which will meet two-thirds of the cost. The remainder is met through the one-off levy of $1.8 billion. I stress that the one-off levy will apply for the 2011-12 income year only and will apply to all taxpayers with a taxable income of $50,001 or higher. It will mean $1.74 per week for a taxpayer on average full-time adult earnings of $68,125 per annum. The flood levy is progressive. As you would be aware, the levy will be paid at a rate of ½ per cent for taxable income between $50,001 and $100,000. A rate of one per cent will apply to taxable income of $100,001 or more. The feedback I have had in my electorate of Bass on this issue is that we should do whatever we have to to support our fellow Australians. Those affected directly by the floods will not have to pay this levy. As Prime Minister Gillard said in the second reading speech on this bill: This is not just a routine piece of legislation, not just a package of measures to restore bridges and roads, but an expression of goodwill between Australians. In my local community, far removed from the floods, many were concerned for families and friends who lived in Queensland. We watched on television the frightening footage of cars being washed down roads, community facilities being destroyed, farmers losing crops and families losing their homes. I am proud to say in this House today that my local community, the electorate of Bass, banded together very quickly to do our bit to raise money—people like Danny Gibson, full of enthusiasm, organising a fundraiser which raised $50,000. Local businesses demonstrated their support—businesses such as the Tailrace Centre, Coyote Entertainment, the Examiner newspaper, ABC Tasmania, Southern Cross Television, LAFM radio, J Boag and Son, Tamar Ridge Estates and Theatre North. Another local star I want to point out is Wendy Summers, the Westpac Launceston branch manager. With her team, including Brooke Johnson and Tony Manson, she cooked up a storm, barbecuing sausages outside the Westpac branch in Launceston to raise money for the floods. I was most impressed to hear that Westpac matched the money raised dollar for dollar. I was happy to don an apron to help out at this event. Next Friday evening there will be a football match organised by the Rocherlea Football Club to raise funds for the ongoing effort in support of disaster relief. I take this opportunity to invite everyone who has the chance to attend this fundraiser, commencing at 6 pm at the Rocherlea Football Ground. There are examples like this all over the country. Each dollar raised is an expression of shared concern—a true expression of mateship. Do you think people would donate money to build roads? No. But will Australians donate to help people get back into their homes? Yes. The legislative instruments to accompany the bills will ensure that those individual taxpayers who have been affected by a natural disaster in 2010-11 will be exempt from the flood levy. I also point out that the levy will impose only a modest charge on taxpayers. For most Australians it is less than the cost of a takeaway cup of coffee. To the critics of this levy I say: this is not the first levy to be introduced by a government. It may not be the last, because sometimes unexpected events occur when money is needed quickly for the greater good. Levies that come to mind are the firearms buyback levy, the stevedoring levy, the Ansett levy, the sugar industry levy, the dairy industry levy and the aircraft noise levy—and do not forget the chicken levy. My view is that none of these levies introduced by those opposite were as important as the repair of infrastructure required as a result of these natural disasters. As Anna Bligh, the Queensland Premier, said of this levy: … as a nation we have come together in the past to help out the milk industry, the sugar industry, the workers of Ansett and to buy back guns after the Port Arthur tragedy. I think the people of Queensland are at least as important as all of those other levies in the past. Paying for the reconstruction as we go is the right thing to do. As we have heard our Prime Minister say, ‘The impacts of the floods have been devastating, but they haven’t altered the long-term fundamentals of our economy or the long-term challenges we face.’ We still have an economy that is testing the limits of our capacity, we still face the challenges of meeting our skill needs across the economy and we still need to attend to our infrastructure constraints over time. The task of rebuilding after the floods will mean added demands on our capacity, skills and resources. That is why we have made room in the budget through spending cuts and a temporary levy to fund the rebuild. We are a government that is solving problems now as well as preparing for the future. That is why we have made room for the reconstruction work by deferring some infrastructure projects temporarily. The Gillard Labor government are preparing for Australia’s future. We will not starve Australia of infrastructure like those opposite. We are about creating jobs and advancing our nation, not taxing through the nose and delivering huge budget surpluses at the expense of building much-needed infrastructure. The Labor government are trying to make up for 11 years of infrastructure neglect. Those opposite were a high-taxing government, boasting about huge budget surpluses, but they did not have the foresight or desire to invest in Australia through infrastructure. That is why we needed plans like the BER projects and the National Broadband Network. We need to invest in our schools because our children are our nation’s future. Those opposite also need to come to grips with the fact that we need the NBN; it is an investment, not a cost. Tony Abbott said last year that the NBN would be the ‘first to go’ if the coalition was returned to office. We cannot sit back and be left in the ashes of technology by other nations; we should be at the forefront. Those opposite are a risk to our nation. Senator Conroy understands the importance of the NBN: The NBN is crucial economic infrastructure. Without it, Australian companies will not be able compete with the likes of Japan, Korea or Singapore. Many of those sitting opposite today were key players in the highest-taxing government in Australia’s history: the Howard coalition government. They were the highest-taxing government in our history. They held government when the world was experiencing high economic growth. Yet despite this flourishing global economy, they actually achieved very little. But that does not stop them from espousing their beliefs that they were good economic managers. They overtaxed, spent little on infrastructure and introduced so many levies, but they still will not support the rebuild of Australia. Many of those opposite have been very strong critics of this levy. I am concerned for the morals of those opposite who were actively trying to raise party funds to oppose this levy whilst Australians were donating their hard earned dollars to the victims in the floods. The Liberals were hooked on tax. They were happy to tax Australian working families so they could have big budget surpluses. They wasted the opportunity of a robust world economy and failed to provide Australia with the infrastructure needed for our nation’s future. In 2006 they actually cancelled insurance on Commonwealth public assets to achieve a budget surplus. The flood levy will go towards a multibillion-dollar package to rebuild bridges, roads, rail lines and schools that have been damaged as the result of natural disasters. I urge this parliament to support this levy. We need to rebuild Australia and we need to rebuild the vital infrastructure to support our fellow Australians. Lastly, I take this opportunity to say to the people of Queensland that the Australian Labor government will not let them down. I support this bill. 951 18:11:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 0 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and the related bill, because the Gillard government’s flood levy goes to the heart of Labor’s economic mismanagement. Labor treasurers all seem to work from the same manual. Chapter 1 calls for a new tax every time the public starts to get concerned about the budget. The only difference between this and other Labor taxes is that the Prime Minister will try to sell this one as a mateship tax. Australians are always willing to help out a mate in trouble, but we help because it is the right thing to do, not because a politician has made mateship mandatory. Queensland must be rebuilt; eastern Australia must be rebuilt. The Commonwealth has a role to play in this very important reconstruction task. However, the Gillard government’s decision to partly fund the reconstruction through a new tax is the action of a lazy and irresponsible government. Australians pay tax with the expectation that the government will carefully manage the national budget, just as millions of Australians right around the country carefully manage their household budgets. When unexpected expenses pop up for Australian families, they have to re-evaluate their budgets and cut down on unnecessary expenses until things are back on track. It is no different at a national level. The natural disasters in Queensland and on the east coast of Australia have certainly put pressure on the federal budget. But instead of cutting back on expenses, the first option for this government—the first part out of the Labor management book—was to introduce a new tax. Even before the Prime Minister had released any details of savings measures, and before Cyclone Yasi had hit in North Queensland, the Prime Minister was already out talking about a new levy. The Leader of the Opposition even offered to work with the government in a bipartisan way to find the spending cuts necessary to rebuild Queensland and eastern Australia without the need for a new tax. What happened to this offer? It was rejected by this government. The government has announced some savings measures; however, many of the programs cut by the government were already well known as inefficient and wasteful. In many respects, the government was using the opportunity to get rid of some deadwood policies. So they were hardly tough decisions. And in the past few days we have seen that the government has even reversed some of these cuts in order to secure support from the Greens and the independents. The Australian public is entitled to ask what other deals the government has done in order to secure the future of this new tax. By contrast, the coalition have made tough calls. We have outlined more than $2 billion in savings over the forward estimates which would eliminate the need for this new tax. We have made the difficult decisions. Some of our proposed cuts have been unpopular, but we have demonstrated that we can make hard decisions, unlike this government. If the government was serious about finding savings to pay for rebuilding Queensland, the first place it would look would be the National Broadband Network—a $50 billion white elephant that we cannot afford; a program that could be delivered more efficiently and effectively at a lower cost without the huge levels of waste that are going to be paid for by the Australian taxpayer. Queenslanders who are driving on washed-out roads, across damaged bridges and through devastated towns are more concerned about getting those problems addressed first before we look at increasing the speed that we can download videos. They want things fixed. On the other hand, the government is searching for a political fix. It is interesting to note that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics heard that introducing a new tax to pay for disaster reconstruction is the least preferred policy response. Professor Warwick McKibbin told the committee: I think that in the case of a disaster it is almost uniformly accepted by economists, in principle, that a tax is not the best way to fund it. I will repeat that: ‘a tax is not the best way to fund it’. HVZ Thomson, Craig, MP Mr Craig Thomson —So is your position to increase debt? 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr HARTSUYKER —It is also reasonable to point out that the government would not need to introduce this new tax if it had not wasted so much money, and let us just chronicle those for a moment. We would not need this flood levy if we had not wasted all that money on pink batts. I don’t hear you speaking now. What about all the waste on pink batts? HVZ Thomson, Craig, MP Mr Craig Thomson interjecting— 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr HARTSUYKER —We would not need to impose this levy if you had not wasted all that money on the BER. What about the BER? We would not have had to impose this levy if you had not paid double the cost for building school buildings. 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms Plibersek interjecting— 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr HARTSUYKER —We certainly do not oppose investing in schools, but we certainly oppose paying twice the cost to build school buildings. We certainly oppose paying $5,000 a square metre for some slap-up demountables. They saw you coming! The contractors saw you coming and you paid through the nose. Demountable sheds at the price of palaces—that is what we got from this government. That is why we are having to pay this flood levy. 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms Plibersek —Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I ask the member, if he is going to make claims about school buildings in his own electorate, whether he would name those schools and mention whether he has reported them to the BER task force. 10000 ’Ath, Yvette (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs D’Ath)—That is not a point of order. I ask the member for Cowper to resume. 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr HARTSUYKER —I will just say that I have reported those to the BER task force. 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms Plibersek —Which are they? 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr HARTSUYKER —Stuarts Point is one. Scotts Head is another. Massive overexpenditure: nearly a million dollars for a shed. Willawarrin is another. Corindi is another. I will speak to the good member after, and I will continue my contribution to this debate. We have always had to face the prospect of natural disasters. Dorothea Mackellar wrote of ‘droughts and flooding rains’—but she left one out. It is droughts and flooding rains and higher taxes under Labor to pay for it. Governments have to be prepared to pay for such contingencies, and the best way to deal with natural disasters is not with a flood levy; it is to run a surplus. That is what is missing from the mindset of this government: running a surplus. Since coming to power this government has not delivered a surplus, and has very little prospect of delivering a surplus. It certainly scores a B-minus for economic management. I would also like to reflect on the way that my electorate was treated when it was hit by a declared natural disaster in March 2009. Did my electorate get assistance for the floods of 31 March 2009? No, it did not. Despite it being a natural disaster, your government turned its back on the people of Coffs Harbour in their hour of need. You did not provide them with a Centrelink emergency disaster recovery payment, which is being provided just about everywhere across the country. They were denied that assistance by a government that is out of touch. Now you are going to expect those same people who were denied a Centrelink emergency disaster recovery payment to pay the flood levy. It is absolutely outrageous that you denied assistance to one cohort of people who suffered from a catastrophic flood, a more than one-in-100 year event, but now you are quite happy to whack them with a flood levy. I have to tell you that is not going down well on the streets of Coffs Harbour. They have no problem with paying a flood levy to help people, but in their hour of need they were denied the sort of assistance that has been offered to others. They got 400 millimetres of rain in some areas, and apparently it was not a big enough disaster. Hundreds of houses were inundated, but it was not a big enough disaster. Hundreds of businesses were inundated, but no Centrelink disaster recovery payments were made. One of the real concerns of Australian people about this flood levy is the issue of how wisely the money would be spent. This government has form on waste and mismanagement, and we have chronicled just a few. We have talked about the BER and about the pink batts program. Let’s not even venture towards the Green Loans program—another little chestnut. People are rightly sceptical about this government’s ability to deliver programs effectively and efficiently. And what did the government do to try and restore some credibility? They called in a Liberal, John Fahey. So devoid of economic credibility were they that they did not call in Penny Wong to ensure that the program was properly managed; they had to call in John Fahey to try and resurrect some element of credibility because the Australian people believe that a dollar given to this government is a dollar wasted. So I have to say it is of great concern to the Australian people that their hard-earned taxpayers’ dollars are being poured down the drain by a wasteful government that cannot live within its means; a wasteful government that cannot make the tough decisions to rebuild Australia as required without imposing a new levy, a new tax. The Australian people deserve better. Australians do not mind helping a mate. They certainly do not like to be taxed unnecessarily. They certainly do not like to be taxed by an ineffective government that cannot manage money and has to try and depend on a former Liberal finance minister to restore some of their economic credibility. 953 18:22:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 0 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011. I want to start with some of the myths that the member for Cowper tried to perpetuate here, as did the member for North Sydney earlier. This is in relation to who is or was the highest taxing government that we have had in Australia’s history. It is not this government at all. If you look at the years, it is not one year of the Howard government, not two years of the Howard government, not three years of the Howard government and not even four years of the Howard government. Five years of the Howard government have been the highest taxing years of any government in Australia. So the big-taxing government of the last 20 years and since Federation was the former Howard government. Those on the other side have form in taxation. While they were taxing Australians at record levels, what did they do in infrastructure? Absolutely nothing. They had 19 broadband plans but, you know what, did not quite get around to delivering any of them. They sat on their hands during the first round of one of the biggest resources booms we have had. What did they do with that money? They squandered that money as well. There were no reforms and there was no investment in skills. Instead, we repeatedly had the Governor of the Reserve Bank talking about capacity constraints that were going to cause problems for the Australian economy if they did not redirect some of this tax money—money from the highest taxing government ever in Australia’s history for five successive years—into productive capacity for the Australian economy. Those on the other side have a hide to come to this place and lecture us about taxation when they have the record for not one but five years in a row as the highest taxing government ever. Did they ever make any of the hard decisions in savings? No, of course they did not. They rode on the back of the resources boom. They let it ride through. They did not do any of the hard work. They never made savings. They had a budget that, if it was not for that boom, was unsustainable. It was this government that had to start to make the hard economic decisions. You only have to look at their economic team during the last election. The opposition had an $11 billion hole and refused to give their costings in for independent assessment, instead going off and doing it privately with an accounting firm that said they were not looking at the costs and relating them to what was being promised. So they were trying to avoid scrutiny, and this is the economic team that says they can do a better job in Australia. Then when we have Queensland facing one of its greatest challenges ever, with 75 per cent of the state being declared a disaster zone and being inundated with floods, when we have all Australians coming together to try and rebuild Queensland and northern Victoria and make sure we can get those states back together again, what do they do? They do not change their form from any other piece of legislation. For them it is business as usual, ‘Let’s just oppose everything; let’s not be constructive; we are going to oppose the lot.’ It might be helping Queenslanders rebuild. ‘We do not care. We oppose things. That is our mantra. We oppose everything.’ We have seen they have taken that approach here again and it is the Queensland people—if the opposition got their way—who would be missing out. It is the Queensland people who would not be getting the much needed resources. I should remind any Queensland MP on the other side: vote against this at your peril because the people of Queensland in your electorates will be watching what you do. The member for Moncrieff, the deputy chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, was running a poll on his website to see what constituents in his electorate thought. You know what? Seventy per cent of them supported the levy. You beware out there, Queensland opposition MPs, because you are going to be judged in the way in which you vote on this levy—and so you should be for abandoning the people of Queensland and trying to pay cheap politics in relation to this levy. You should hang your heads in shame. There are a couple of other things that I want to raise about what the member for North Sydney said. He made some comments about the inquiry that was conducted by the House economics committee. He made a statement that this was rushed through in undue haste, that we had a week to do it and that this was a terrible thing because there was not the ability to hear from people properly. Well, the member for North Sydney should know that it was the deputy chair that moved the motion to set the program for one week with one hearing day. It was the member for Moncrieff who moved that motion, not the Labor Party members, and it was supported unanimously by the committee. The opposition members of the House economics committee voted for that timetable and they knew what was there. There was also an alleged complaint that they did not have long enough to question Treasury officials. Well, they had two MPs question Treasury officials and so did the government. They had equal time. They only had three people there so two out of three got to ask all the questions they wanted of Treasury. I am not sure whether the member for North Sydney is having a go at the member for Moncrieff and the member for Wright for not asking the questions that he wanted asked, but his criticism is totally unfounded. They had the time and they had two members who were unrestricted in the questions that they wanted to ask of Treasury officials. Every member of the opposition who says that they oppose this levy suggests we should have been able to pay for it because we should have been in surplus. Every one of them forgets that we went through the global financial crisis and that this government’s performance in the global financial crisis is held up around the world as being the model approach to the global financial crisis. And did it put us into deficit? Yes, it did. But that is what a surplus is for. When you face one of the worst economic crises since the Great Depression, then of course you use your economic reserves to make sure that people have jobs and that they continue to be productive in the community. For the member for Cowper and his fellow members of the opposition to totally ignore this clearly shows that they are not connected in any way with their communities and do not care about jobs, and they should be condemned for it. One of the arguments put up—and the member for North Sydney put this up—is that an unintended consequence of this levy will be that people will not donate in future to disaster funds, that Australians will suddenly become hard-hearted and say, ‘We are not going to donate because a levy might come.’ You are misjudging the Australian people. They are generous and always have been generous, and whether it is events in this country or events like the international tsunami Australians always dig deep and always make sure they look after those who are suffering. You have totally misjudged them on that. Locally, we held a fundraiser at Westfield a week after the levy had been announced. Guess what—we raised over $1,000 an hour from people who knew that they were going to be paying the levy. Your argument simply does not stack up. I pay tribute to the Wyongah Girl Guides, who were there to help out; the firefighters from Berkeley Vale, who went with tins round the shopping centre; and the Toowoon Bay surf lifesavers, who helped and raised money. I also thank Westfield, who assisted with the fundraiser and made their shopping centre available to us. I thank Chipmunks childcare centre, who put up a jumping castle that kids could use for a gold coin donation. People knew their kids were having a good time, but they knew they were also contributing to the raising of money for the flood victims. I also thank the Mariners, the great Central Coast A-League soccer team, who later this year will go on to victory when they make the grand final and win the A-League! They contributed and supported the fundraiser as well. We were also lucky enough to have Australia’s first MasterChef, Julie Goodwin, cooking sausages and raising money for flood victims as well. So I place on record my personal thanks to all of those people who clearly showed the opposition’s arguments to be wrong. We raised over $1,000 an hour on that day for flood victims—a week after the levy had been announced. It shows that Australians are prepared to pay and do their bit through the levy but are also prepared to dig into their own pockets separately for fundraising. Finally, to put this into perspective, 70 per cent of the people in my electorate will not pay a cent of the flood levy. The next 20 per cent—so that takes us up to 90 per cent of people in my electorate—will pay less than $3 a week. We are talking about very small amounts that Australians are being asked to contribute. Australia-wide, fewer than 50 per cent of Australian taxpayers will be asked to contribute to the levy. When we had the gun buyback levy, one of seven levies that those on the other side put in place, 80 per cent of taxpayers were asked and forced to pay it. The only levy that these people opposite oppose is the one that is helping Queenslanders rebuild Queensland, and it is because it is in the DNA of the Leader of the Opposition. It does not matter what the issue is, he will oppose it. These bills are very important bills. They should be passed, and those on the other side should hang their heads in shame for opposing them. I commend the bills to the House. 956 18:34:00 Coulton, Mark, MP HWN Parkes NATS 0 0 Mr COULTON —I rise tonight to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011. Before he leaves, I would like to comment on the predictable speech of the member for Dobell. The Australian people, if they could go back to the days of the management of the Howard government, would gladly do so. I have been terribly concerned about the nature of this debate. The coalition oppose this legislation not because we do not want to help the people of flood affected areas or because we are not compassionate people. Our opposition to this bill is the result of an assessment of the management capabilities of the Gillard government. Rather than the rhetoric and diatribe from the member for Dobell and others, what I would like to hear is the plan for this money. How is it going to be managed? How is it going to be directed to the communities and the people that need it the most? Looking at history—looking at the last four years of the Rudd and Gillard governments—the concern for me is whether this money is going to be used correctly. Is it going to be directed through the state government, where 50 per cent will be wasted? Of the government money that is allocated to roads in Queensland, nearly 50 per cent is used on administration and 50 per cent goes on roads. Are the people of Australia going to be levied a tax that will swell the bureaucracy of the Queensland government or will it go directly to the roads and communities that need it most? The concern I have is that the issues I have had to deal with over the last few years have been about the mismanagement of funds and the inability of the Gillard-Rudd government to manage programs. In my electorate, a disadvantaged Aboriginal community had their employment program terminated by the government and, in return, they were given a $650,000 cubbyhouse sized tuck shop. That is why the people of my electorate are very concerned about giving the government a mandate to tax them higher to fund the flood reconstruction. The real issue here is this: how is this money going to be managed? Listening to the member for Dobell speak, it seems like this is a magic pudding levy where most people will not be paying it. So how is $1.8 billion going to be raised if most people are not going to be paying it? There is another thing about the mismanagement of the people who are obtaining levy exceptions. One of the exceptions is that if you had received the $1,000 emergency payment from Centrelink then you would be excluded from paying the levy. Therefore, if you did not receive that payment then you would pay the levy. As I stand here tonight my electorate is still in flood. The communities of Lightning Ridge, Angledool, Goodooga and Brewarrina are suffering flooding, as they have been for the last six weeks. I have families that have come from Angledool and are paying for accommodation in Lightning Ridge. They were evacuated by helicopter to Lightning Ridge so their children can attend school, but can they obtain the Centrelink payment? Are they eligible for the $1,000 payment? It is my understanding that something like $600 million has gone towards that emergency payment and that people who merely lived in a postcode that had their electricity off for a certain number of hours obtained that payment. Yet the people who are getting flooded now and who are severely disadvantage, the people in the Aboriginal community of Goodooga who are having their supplies flown in by helicopter, are not eligible for this relief payment. So does that mean they are going to pay this levy? Are the flood affected people in my communities who are receiving no help from the government at the moment, are they going to be taxed to pay for reconstruction elsewhere? That is what I am talking about—that is, the mismanagement of this government. I have been trying to get this rectified for some time. Just because it is not on the news every night, the flood that we all saw, that devastation we saw in Toowoomba, it does not mean that that water is not passing through my electorate now. Three weeks ago I flew with the SES from the town of Lightning Ridge into Queensland and up to Dirranbandi to inspect what was happening with the floodwater. We have an inland sea. I witnessed unharvested wheat crops sitting in water. Worse still, I saw harvested wheat crops where the grain was stored in a bulk bunker under canvas sitting in water. One year’s income totally destroyed, but is there any assistance coming to the people of that area? No. And that is why we need to have a hard look at this. I want to know why the Prime Minister, when the rain was still falling, announced a need for a levy without first finding out some costings, without first prioritising where that expenditure would go, without first outlining a method of payment that was going to affect the victims of floods without getting eaten up by bureaucracy. Also in my electorate, we have lost hundreds of millions of dollars through direct flooding and excessive rainfall from the middle of November until today. My electorate, in different parts at different times, has been severely disadvantaged. I was in contact with the agriculture minister, Senator Ludwig, and his office daily for days and days and days trying to get his attention. One of my constituents rang the senator’s office. This constituent was from the town of Trangie who had just lost their crop and the senator said: ‘Why are you ringing me? I’m the minister for agriculture. What have I got to do with flooding?’ But credit where credit is due, the parliamentary secretary for agriculture, Dr Kelly, in January did come to my electorate. He spent two days there and he saw for himself the devastation of the crops and the damage to infrastructure, the hundreds of kilometres of road that have been virtually destroyed by a combination of wet weather and the need to move grain during a very wet harvest period. My hope is that Dr Kelly is getting some form of support from the cabinet to organise some sort of relief for the farmers and the communities in my electorate. The community of Dubbo, which was pretty well split in half for 10 days and where businesses were inundated, has not been able to get the payment. So while the government members are trying to portray the coalition as heartless in this, that is not the issue. No-one more than I believes that the victims of flood need a fair go, but what they expect of the government is to manage the economy so that when times like this happen there are funds there to meet their commitments. This will not be the last or the only natural disaster we are going to have. Indeed, there was flooding in Queensland in the early part of 2010, and despite the fact that disaster payments were authorised, they are only coming through now—some of them have not even got them! It has taken 16 months to get that relief through. That is the concern. We need to see a plan, we need to see a guideline, we need to see some financial responsibility from the government to take control of the economy. Do the right thing by the Australian economy so that they are in a position to help the Australian people when they are needed. By opposing this bill, the coalition is saying to the government: ‘Stop. Consider the waste and mismanagement that you have inflicted on the Australian people and the damage you have done to the Australian economy over the last four years and put in a package that will benefit the people in the flood affected areas, but will not slug the Australian taxpayer.’ The Prime Minister was far too quick to announce a levy without giving any justification or rationale behind it. 958 18:44:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 1 0 Mr GEORGANAS —I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011. I also wish to put forward statements made by some of my constituents, and observations made more generally, pertaining not only to the bills we are debating here today but also to the spirit behind much of what has been said, seen and heard over the last several weeks. I also want to make some comments about some of the speeches which I have been listening to over the past few hours and some of the statements made by members on the opposition benches. They continuously raised one particular point: the perceived waste that has taken place over the last few years under the Labor government. They raised this point over and over again. They opposed Labor’s infrastructure injection into the economy. They opposed every measure that we took to inoculate ourselves from the global financial crisis. They opposed every single measure. Looking back at that period when the world’s greatest and harshest economic disaster occurred, had we listened to the opposition then, we would be in a very different position today. All it takes to know that is to talk to economists from around the world. Economists on the left, economists on the right and economists in the middle all say one thing, and that is that we did it correctly, we did it right and we are the envy of every economy around the world. Had we listened to the opposition back then, had we taken their views on board and accepted what they were saying, we would find ourselves in a very different position today. Another 300,000 people would be unemployed and we would have seen misery, destruction and unemployment in many, many families across the country. I raise this because we are debating something very important that is affecting the lives of people in Queensland and Victoria who suffered from the floods and cyclones through the summer. Again we are seeing the opposition say that we should not under any circumstances have this levy for reconstruction and for assistance to people who have suffered so much in the last few months. And they did suffer. As I did not speak on the condolence motion of early February, can I convey my sympathy and condolences to those who lost loved ones and property and faced the destruction of the floods and cyclones. There is no greater loss than to lose a loved one. I would also like to mark my appreciation for the care that was exercised by so many in making as many people as possible as safe as possible. This applies not only to the floods in both Queensland and Victoria but also to Tropical Cyclone Yasi and the Western Australian bushfires. As many are thanking their lucky stars to have come through one of these ordeals, attention inevitably turns to the other impacts of these natural disasters—the loss of homes, the loss of possessions, the loss of income and the loss of wealth. And, of course, there is the loss of so much around us that we tend to take for granted—the impassable roads, the bridges that have been destroyed, the unusable schools, the unsafe bridges, the loss of electricity and the loss of our usual supplies of fresh or refrigerated food and even safe drinking water. Disaster areas can be reduced to something similar to Third World conditions. One MP recently spoke of the loss of available cash, the suspension of the ability to conduct simple commercial transactions to acquire what one needs—that is, if one has the cash or credit reserves, and many would not—and people’s potential to simply go back to work and earn the funds they require for their daily existence, let alone re-establishing their lives, which in many cases will be severely impaired. And it is the funds required to rebuild and re-establish these amenities, facilities and capacities that we are principally focused on today. People affected by these natural disasters have been helped to an extent by Centrelink payments, and I congratulate the government for making available this assistance and the staff to administer it. The Premier’s Fund, to which so many people have given and continue to give, and other charitable organisations will directly help people affected by these disasters. The Brisbane City Council, I understand, has required works worth some half a billion dollars, and they will largely be funding their own work. The state of Queensland and the Commonwealth will be outlaying several billions of dollars to repair, reconstruct or replace much of what has been damaged. As I have already said, and as all members know, this means roads, bridges, electricity supplies, public buildings and social infrastructure—the things that we need just to go about our everyday lives going to school, attending work, catching public transport et cetera. The government announced that it will fund some $5½ billion of works. This may, I take it, increase, with further damage being done subsequent to the original announcement. Two-thirds of this amount will be redirected from other budget line items. There are critics of what items have had funds redirected. I note that some constituents have been hoping to trade in their oldish car under a new government scheme, and I hope that they have not been too badly inconvenienced by this announced change in policy. But I also note that funds from within the greater climate change package of initiatives have been redirected. In response to any criticism of this fact, may I reiterate that Australia’s continuing increase in greenhouse gas emissions is public knowledge and our current trajectory will see us emitting some 20 per cent more greenhouse gas in 2020 than we are permitted to do under international agreements. We will be 20 per cent over target—a volume of pollution equivalent to that produced in generating three-quarters of Australia’s total household energy use. In response to critics of the reallocation of climate change funds to their use in the rebuild after these natural disasters I say, ‘Support the ultimate passage of the government’s bill for an eventual, negotiated price signal to the electricity generation sector and the Australian economy more broadly.’ I say to each of them: ‘Negotiate by all means, but do not be a purist who is prepared to see all attempts thwarted for the lack of an absolutist idea of perfection. In this political and economic and environmental battle, do not prefer defeat to a compromised victory.’ On the subject of cutbacks, I would like all to appreciate how readily the opposition undermine the objectives of its very own National Water Initiative and the restoration to health of the river systems which comprise the Murray-Darling Basin. Funds made available for saving the river system from total collapse are finite. They were under the previous government and they are under the current government. There is no recurrent funding for the works or purchases which are required to restore the health of these rivers which give us life and prosperity. So when the opposition targets cutbacks of $600 million dollars within a finite budget for environmental water and announces they will drain these moneys for use elsewhere, they can only be saying one of two things. They are saying either, ‘We’ll take money now and put it back in in years to come’—new money that has not been budgeted for—or ‘We’ll decrease the total amount of money that was to be spent saving our river system.’ There is no deferral without recurrent funding. Once the money is gone, it is gone. The opposition desperately wants us to believe it will slash tens of billions from the budget, including the liquidation of the Commonwealth’s own investments and revenue-generating enterprises. Can anyone believe that they will somehow find over half a billion dollars to fund the buy-back which they describe as theft? I do not think so. The opposition wants to bleed the River Murray and the basin again—bleed the water out of it, and bleed funds from its restoration and its very survival as a living river system. I make this point because nobody should have any doubt that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues are misrepresenting their current proposal as a deferral of funding and misrepresenting their intentions for the future. The opposition are entirely consistent and honest in indicating that they want to bleed the River Murray dry. They all say, ‘To hell with it’ whether there is acid in there or not, or, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition—I will not say the word—‘S*** happens.’ All South Australians know that the reform of the Murray-Darling Basin is one of the most important policy challenges facing our nation. We have already seen what a dying river system looks like. We cannot allow it to be drained to death. As a nation we can afford to err on the side of decency—and it is decent that we are proposing this levy. We can provide help, even if it is a little more than required, and we can give someone support irrespective of where they are from. We can share people’s pain and ease their burden, however slightly, without fear for ourselves. To me, this is what is decent in our community and our society: the connection that brings us together. I commend the bills to this House. 961 18:55:00 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 0 Dr STONE —I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011. Someone not familiar with this government or this country could be wondering why the coalition is opposing the idea of a temporary levy to raise $1 billion or so to help pay for the worst floods on record. They could be a little bit amazed, but we in the opposition and our fellows across the nation in the communities that are flood affected know better about the outcomes of hollow sayings like, ‘Just a temporary short-term levy with a bit more cash thrown in and the job will be right.’ We know that this government is incapable of functioning in a way that is efficient and effective and delivers best value for money at the end of a program. We know that this government does not understand the needs of rural and regional Australia, where the flood devastation has been most costly. I only need to point to the previous speaker, who rabbited on about the Murray-Darling Basin water buy-back scheme in a way that made me shudder. He clearly had no idea of what it really means to go into a drought stressed community—now a flood stressed community—and say to a farmer, ‘Look, you still own some water; why don’t you sell it to the government to relieve some debt,’ and then turn around and call that farmer a willing seller. The person who sells that water has simply sold their capacity to produce in the future on their farm. So they have sold their livelihood and their children’s heritage. We know that this government has a great deal of difficulty understanding exactly what is needed to help this nation recover from these dreadful floods. That is no more amply illustrated than by the fact that, on the day the Prime Minister read out her carefully prepared speech about the fact that a levy would be put in place, she did not even mention that, as she spoke, Victoria was up to its neck in water. Again today, the Treasurer failed to mention that Victoria is a place that needs a great deal of rebuilding. In fact, very close to my electorate—just next door in Mallee—we have places like Benjeroop and Murrabit, where the water will probably still be lying across farm properties for another 12 months. Those places have water through their houses and across their farms that cannot drain away due to the geography of the area and due to broken levees and broken channel systems. Yet we still cannot get this government to pay attention to the actual cost of washed away infrastructure, lost livestock and devastated lives. The trouble is that it is not just a matter of how much money is needed to help rebuild, particularly for little shires that do not have the rate base to rebuild their bridges; it is a case, also, of rebuilding a sense of the future—a sense of hope for communities. These communities have been so badly affected, firstly by the worst drought on record, then by some of the worst locust plagues on record and now by the worst floods on record. You need to have some faith in the government of the day if you are to borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars to try, once again, to put in one last crop to try and build a future. I am afraid the farmers in my area are saying: ‘This government does not care’. It does not understand—or perhaps it does not want to know about—issues of food security or even serious environmental degradation. If you have water lying for another 12 months in places like Benjeroop or Murrabit, right against the Murray River, that will add to a major future problem with saline water tables. Problems that we had dealt with could be reactivated by floodwaters lying across the landscape for perhaps 12 months. Of course, that could be sorted by some expenditure right now going to patch up smashed irrigation infrastructure, but it seems there is no hope for these farmers. Why is my electorate so despairing of this government’s good intentions? Why is it cynical about a so-called ‘temporary’ levy when they are not even mentioned in the dispatches as needy of some of that cash? One of the problems is exceptional circumstances payments, which have really been keeping my communities alive for the last six years, during the worst drought on record. Exceptional circumstances payments give an interest rate subsidy on borrowings and also a household support income equivalent to Newstart allowance. It is not a great deal of money, but that exceptional circumstances program has helped put food on the tables of thousands of families across the electorate of Murray. Those families had hoped that, with the breaking of the drought and the small window of good season before the locusts and floods came, they would not have to depend any more on those payments to keep them together and put food on the table. But we have now had this incredible, devastating flood. We have lost at least $2.2 billion in livestock and fences across the third of the electorate of Murray that saw floodwaters rush through properties—some for the fourth time in the last three months. I ask again: why are they so cynical about this government? Because the exceptional circumstances payments are due to cease in about four weeks. I have been begging Minister Ludwig and Minister Burke to announce quickly that they will extend that support to those families. After all, how else are they to live? I have been told by a neighbouring member of parliament that Minister Crean said quite boldly to him that they have no intention of continuing exceptional circumstances payments because, after all, they were for drought in particular and this was a flood. How is this government going to address the issues of food security, the environmental degradation, the loss of jobs and the loss of the food manufacturing sector in my part of the world, where we have 23 food factories? We have lost, for example, most of our tomatoes grown for manufacturing. It has been an enormous temptation for our food manufacturers to import tomatoes instead of buying the tomatoes grown locally. With the value of the dollar right now and the enormous losses through the flood, it is cheaper to bring in imported junk paste from other countries. Tomato growers have applied for some of the low-interest loans that are on offer from Rural Finance in Victoria, which is federally funded but whose policy direction involves state government. Most of these tomato growers had multimillion dollar turnovers and used world’s best practice. They have been told: ‘Sorry, your flood inundation, the loss of your entire crop’—which has happened in many cases, with millions of dollars lost per enterprise—‘doesn’t really fit into the criteria for flood support.’ Because a lot of these farmers rent their land each year—tomatoes are so hungry you only grow a crop in the same place for a couple of years in a row—they are not being regarded as real farmers. Secondly, because the water that came over their properties was stormwater, not floodwater—or, in some cases, floodwater, not stormwater—they are being told they simply do not fit the criteria or fit into the definition of who the government can help. This is nonsense when you have communities on their knees who need to get back into business as soon as possible, before our local food manufacturers—all of them multinationals—become permanently hooked on imported ingredients at the expense of local production. If we are serious about food security, we have to be serious about farm futures. There is no evidence in the flood response from this government—who cannot even get the locations of the flood devastation right—that their billion dollar or so levy will be spent in the right place, in the right way, in a timely manner and for the best value for money. I am afraid we have, through bitter experience, too much evidence of them getting it wrong. I do not really need to remind people of pink batts, cash for clunkers or the $900 stimulus, which was paid to people in New Zealand and paid to the deceased, or put through the pokies or used to buy another flat-screen TV. Then there was the GP superclinics funding, which basically puts local GPs out of business. MySchool, GroceryWatch and Fuelwatch together cost billions of dollars and were just a waste of cyberspace. We know this government cannot do it, and that is why we are saying: why don’t you take a bilateral approach? Talk to your coalition colleagues in this parliament and we will help you understand where this investment needs to go. We will in fact tell you where you can find savings, in programs which are useless—for example, the Murray-Darling Basin water buyback. The previous speaker, as I said, did not understand a word he was saying about that. My irrigators have sold any water they have been able to to keep going through the last seven years of drought. To put yet another government funded tender out, as I understand is about to happen, is obscene. These are not willing sellers; these are cash-strapped, desperate farmers who have very little left to sell. Their herds, their crops and their fodder have been washed away. Their fences are no longer standing. They lose hope of any future every time they listen to this government. You are coming at them with another tender to buy what water is left on their licences. Shame on you. Forget that nonsense and instead put that cash into flood victim support and infrastructure restoration—that would finally be a decent response from this government. 963 19:07:00 Leigh, Andrew, MP BU8 Fraser ALP 1 0 Dr LEIGH —I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011. The recent floods and cyclone had a devastating impact on Queensland and Victoria, with major infrastructure now needing to be rebuilt. In order to fund this rebuilding effort Labor has proposed a $5.6 billion package. Two dollars out of three of this package will be funded by savings measures from the budget while the remainder will be funded by a one-off levy in 2011-12. The levy, as previous speakers have noted, will be progressive, so that flood victims and taxpayers earning less than $50,000 will pay nothing. For most of those who do pay the levy, the cost will be less than a cup of coffee a week. At the same time we need to recognise that the economic environment is strong. The latest labour force figures show that 62 per cent of the adult population has a job. By contrast the US employment rate has fallen five percentage points translating into millions of lost jobs in that country. Last November when I asked the Reserve Bank governor, Glenn Stevens, about the Australian economy, he replied: I sit around the table with my counterparts from 40 to 50 countries a number of times a year, and I have not yet found one whom I would want to swap places with. Yet despite the powerful performance of the Australian economy and the fact that our public debt share is less than one-tenth the average for most developed economies, the Liberal Party seems unable to acknowledge that the fiscal stimulus worked. Perhaps that is because the Liberal Party opposed the second fiscal stimulus package. The modern Liberal Party has become the party of no. As though that was not enough, the Liberal Party have now decided to oppose a progressive flood levy. Yet again the Liberal Party are the party of no. While we in the ALP are introducing a modest levy to help rebuild Queensland, Liberals are appalled that we could even consider such an idea. Levies, they tell us, are an unconscionable imposition on the Australian people, except for the ones the Liberals introduced when they were in government. Let’s go through those levies. There was the superannuation surcharge levy, the gun buyback levy, the stevedoring levy, the milk levy, the sugar levy and the Ansett airline levy—and those levies were imposed by the Howard government against a backdrop of strong budget revenues. The Liberal Party’s opposition to a levy lacks any semblance of principle. Although he was part of a government that enacted six levies, the Leader of the Opposition has opted to oppose the flood levy, dragging out his tired-old ‘big new tax’ line. The Leader of the Liberal Party has argued that circumstances are inappropriate to impose a levy. This despite the fact that, during the election campaign, the Liberal Party itself proposed a company tax levy. Not only would that levy have been effectively imposed on all taxpayers—since company taxes end up being paid by consumers and workers—but it would have been permanent not temporary. In the election campaign it was ‘yes’ to levies but today the Liberals are the party of ‘no’. What is the Liberal solution to funding the rebuilding of Queensland? It turns out they would rather see us cut spending on unnecessary frivolities—like schools for poor Indonesian children. That is right, those Indonesian kids without education have had it too good for too long. But the Liberals are not hypocrites—they have Aussie kids in their sights as well. They want to cut spending on financial literacy programs for our young people. This of course is from a party whose budget costings were short by a cool $11 billion. Apparently, the Liberals want a nation of young people who understand costings as badly as the Liberal Party front bench. Who knows, maybe it is a party recruitment tool! Even if the Liberals do not manage to cut spending on financial literacy lessons, Aussie kids will not have new places to learn them anyway because the Liberals want to cut spending on building Australian schoolrooms as well. We have no assistance for poor people overseas and uneducated Aussie children. That is the Liberal plan for rebuilding Queensland—stirring stuff! When we turn to more independent commentators we can find substantial support for this flood levy. CommSec’s Craig James said: this is the right levy for the times—modest in size, temporary, progressive and applying to those on higher incomes … …            …            … The fact that the Government is cutting spending and applying a new levy on Australian consumers may reduce the need or urgency for the Reserve Bank to lift interest rates over the year. The ANZ said this policy change is relatively minor when placed in context of the broader Australian economy. The Government estimates the flood levy will raise $1.8bn, which is equivalent to just 0.12% of nominal GDP. Christopher Joye, Managing Director of Rismark said: … if you want the real proof in the pudding of the government’s case, consider this—interest rate futures markets have rallied hard today in response to the package, materially reducing the probability of future rate hikes on the basis that the measures are anti-inflationary. Let’s move from the levy to what will be done with it. From an economic point of view, what could have a larger pay-off than rebuilding public infrastructure after a flood? From a social point of view, what could be more important than helping communities get back on their feet quickly? From a moral point of view, don’t we have a duty to help our brothers and sisters in Queensland? The Liberal Party’s stance comes direct from the playbook of the US Republicans, the original party of no. Unlike Democratic senators, who under President Bush opted to negotiate on his top priorities of tax cuts and schools reform, Republicans sought to block President Obama on health care, which was of course his signature campaign issue. As former Bush speechwriter David Frum described it: No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. The strategy was pure politics, but even Frum had his misgivings: Politically, I get the ‘let’s trip up the other side, make them fail’ strategy … He told the New York Times: But what’s more important, to win extra seats or to shape the most important piece of social legislation since the 1960s? The result of the Republican strategy, of course, is well known. Far from winning all the marbles, the US Republicans got none. The biggest threat to mainstream Republicans today is the Tea Party, who lost their marbles long ago. Although the Australian Liberal Party may be less right wing than their US counterparts, there are times when the two parties seem to be working from the same playbook. When they were led by the member for Wentworth, the opposition voted against a fiscal stimulus package that saved around 200,000 jobs. The member for Warringah came to the leadership with one promise: he would say no to any sensible policy to tackle climate change. Since the member for Warringah’s ascendancy to the leadership, the blocking game has accelerated. Alongside climate change, the opposition have voted against means testing the private health insurance rebate and have announced that they will oppose the minerals resource rent tax. At every opportunity they criticise the Building the Education Revolution program. This is the ‘party of no’ in action. Another clue that US Republicans have some close followers Down Under is the fact that the Liberal Party has often sought to cast its position as delay rather than obstruction. In the midst of the US healthcare debate, a key Republican strategy memo argued that the best way to defeat President Obama’s healthcare bill was by putting on the brakes. US Republicans were urged to use the message: ‘Slow down, Mr. President’. If you cannot be the party of no, be the party of later. In Australia, the Liberal Party has accused the government of moving too quickly on fiscal stimulus, health reform, and an emissions trading scheme. In the short term this may be a cunning political strategy. But delaying would have been absurd in the case of fiscal stimulus, since the very point of that package was timely action. And because the cost of climate change abatement rises over time, the Liberal Party’s decision to block an emissions trading scheme has merely raised the future price tag for businesses and households. Indeed, it is not even clear whether obstruction serves parties’ long-term political interests. A policy of ‘just say no’ may temporarily fire up the base, but the current chaos in the US Republican Party shows where it leads. Politicians who play obstruction for its own sake merely fuel the rise of radical fringe movements. The more often the Leader of the Opposition reaches for the glib one-liner instead of a sound policy choice, the less likely the Australian people are to believe that he has the skills and temperament to govern the country. And the more the Liberal Party becomes the party of no, the more they will have to deal with the rise of reactionary movements to their right. 966 19:17:00 Robb, Andrew, MP FU4 Goldstein LP 0 0 Mr ROBB —I rise to speak to the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 relating to the government’s proposed flood levy or flood tax. The coalition of course fully backs strong Commonwealth support for the flood reconstruction effort. Every cent committed by the Commonwealth government, the Gillard government, is backed by the coalition. I should not really need to have to say that, but the fact is that the underlying theme politically, in Queensland at least, that the Labor Party is running is that failure to support the levy means failure to spend that amount of money. It is not said explicitly but that political dishonesty is running throughout Queensland fuelled by the Labor Party. It is totally opportunistic—again, a political opportunity being sought by the Labor Party. The fact of the matter is that support can be offered for the full amount of the money to be spent on reconstruction without the imposition of this levy, this flood tax. It is the reason we are having a debate. The whole debate centres on the means by which the money to be spent on the reconstruction is to be raised. We are opposing this levy. It is just another new tax, and the last thing that Australian families need at this time is another new tax. It is just another tax. It is poor policy. Many commentators and experts have slammed the proposal, not so much for the cost, because they are not sure of it—not sure who will pay, not sure how the money will be spent, not sure how it will be run—but most importantly because it is not necessary. That is why it is poor policy. Inevitably it is going to be poorly managed. In fact the government expects it to be poorly managed. So unsure is the government that it has had to appoint a de facto finance minister, a former Liberal finance minister, to manage it because the existing finance minister—in the minds of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, presumably—is not up to the job. Why else would you appoint a de facto finance minister to oversee the spending of these billions and billions of dollars? It just shows that the government is very aware of its incompetence when it comes to managing public moneys. This levy has come to symbolise the incompetence and the waste of this government. When it was first announced, I thought it would be seen as another symbol of a new tax, and it is. But I think the reason so many millions of Australians have got their noses so out of joint over this proposal is that they are offended by the fact that this government has wasted so many billions of dollars in the space of just three years—millions and millions of taxpayers’ dollars just wasted—and yet at the first sign of some expense which is unanticipated, instead of looking to live within their means, instead of looking to cut or defer expenditure, their first instinct is to go back to the well, to go back to those people who provided the billions of dollars in the first place, that they have wasted. People are offended that the government’s first instinct would be to do this. It seems quite ironic to me that at the moment we have two concurrent debates going on: one in this chamber and one in the Main Committee. I will leave this chamber, having debated a new tax which will raise close to $2 billion, and head up to the Main Committee to debate two appropriation bills, which represent over $2 billion of moneys not anticipated in the budget. If this government had just stuck with the budget it brought down eight months ago, there would not be a need for this levy. In fact, there are all sorts of ways to avoid this levy, but this levy was an instinctive response. It is in Labor’s DNA. This is a big-taxing, big-spending and big-borrowing government. They have still not made a hard political decision in over three years of office. They will opportunistically grab any chance to introduce a tax. We will see many more in the rest of this year. You watch the budget. We will have the LPG levy, the mining tax and the carbon tax. We will be awash with more new taxes before the year is out. This levy is simply not necessary. It sets another bad policy precedent. When the Prime Minister was asked at the Press Club how the government would fund any increase in reconstruction costs beyond the anticipated $5.6 billion, she replied, ‘The money will come from cuts somewhere else.’ Just with that simple response the Prime Minister has confirmed that the levy is not necessary. In other words, if the cost is not $5.6 billion and is, say, $10.6 billion, the Prime Minister said they would find it from savings elsewhere, from cuts somewhere else. That is two or three times the amount of the levy. The Prime Minister making that public commitment to an unlimited amount of overspend without going to another levy and without increasing the levy confirms that there is no need for a levy in the first place. That was from her own mouth! The cuts should have been the first option. If they were, we would not be here debating these bills. The reaction of the public to the waste is starting to convey the public’s enduring attitude to this government. This government is starting to be seen as a government that cannot competently manage public funds, cannot run the shop and cannot do the basic things. We only have to look to Labor’s mismanagement with the surpluses, the squandering of the $30 billion of surplus, and the wasted billions on the pink batts scheme and all the personal consequences that have gone with that. It is far from over. People are still waiting in line for inspections. The pink batts or whatever has been put in the roofs—in many cases you would not know—needs to be attended to. The fear of fire is still hanging over certain people. Labor wasted $6 billion to $8 billion on the school halls program. It insisted on the second round of the stimulus program—the $900 cheques that still stick in the craw of so many Australians. Of course they accepted them, but so many thought: ‘This is madness. This is ridiculous. We have just had nearly a three per cent reduction in interest rates.’ Many people were seeing themselves through the financial crisis, but still the $900 cheques went out. We are still borrowing $100 million a day, so every 17 days this government is borrowing the value of the levy, and it will do so for the next 18 months at least. People find this incomprehensible. How could they in their own family circumstances live by borrowing money for years on end in those sorts of proportions? We will be paying $45 billion in interest alone over the next four years. This all stems from there being no strategic fiscal strategy. We know the budget is full of holes. We know it is a house of cards. It is built on the most optimistic of forecasts. Instead of showing discipline, this government again outsources responsibility to the taxpayers. They have a debt heading towards $90 billion and have spending which exceeds their income this year by about $40 billion—it is the second-biggest deficit in history; it is outclassed only by last year’s deficit of over $50 billion—yet they look to put the pressure again on families. The government always expect somebody else to pay for their mismanagement. This in many ways underscores the philosophical difference between the government and the coalition. We believe in living within your means. We believe in prudent economic management. We expect the community to take responsibility for their own financial circumstances, and they do. The community expects the government to in turn live within its means whereas the Gillard government believes in taxing, spending and borrowing. This is a pattern that has occurred again and again under Labor governments. The cynical nature of this government was shown by its preparedness to engage the Greens and the Independents in the funding of the flood reconstruction but not the coalition. We were the ones offering to sit down to identify savings in good faith. We were the ones who offered savings and took hard political decisions and will take the criticism of political opportunism over the next three years, as they seek to use the savings we identified in a political way to undermine our reputation and to create fear amongst people, when the fact of the matter is: if the government had taken tough decisions over the last three years then we would not be debating this tax today. Again, you see a situation. It followed the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, proudly spruiking a misleading line that the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, had been mouthing for months. Earlier this month the Prime Minister said: I want to reinforce this point. We have already made as a government more than $80 billion of savings since 2007. The only problem with that quite impressive proposition is that it is not true. It is nowhere near true. It is not even half true. The fact of the matter is that, when the Prime Minister and the Treasurer talk about savings, they include tax increases, dividends and levies, not just cuts in government spending. So you have a Treasurer whose extraordinary lack of substance is exposed so much by the Finance department, who fingered this discrepancy. Of the $80 billion, $41 billion consists of taxes, dividends and levies. Even the mining tax is part of the $41 billion and it has not even been concluded yet. In the months ahead the government will classify the planned flood levy as a saving. What an absurd proposition, what a disingenuous proposition and what a stupid proposition it is: the levy we are debating today is a saving. That is the sort of economic tomfoolery that the population is experiencing. There is general resentment within the community towards the levy because of waste and mismanagement. The first instinct of this government is to raise a tax rather than live within its means. Families are facing enormous cost-of-living pressures. Food prices, energy prices, petrol prices and water prices—they are all essentials and the costs are going through the roof, yet we have the government introducing a flood tax. The tax is not needed. Millions of Australian families are living within their means. The Gillard government needs to take a leaf out of the book of those families and live within its means. (Time expired) 968 19:32:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Goldstein. He talked about political opportunism. We have just seen the master manipulator of political opportunism leave the chamber: the man who misrepresents practically every piece of legislation or topic he speaks about; the man in this House coveting the shadow Treasurer’s position. He sees himself as the shadow Treasurer. Who knows—maybe the Leader of the Opposition needs to watch his back, too, because he is probably coveting that position as well. I would have to say that his contribution to this debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 was less than impressive. It was actually unimpressive. He talked at great length about taxes. My understanding is that the opposition went to the last election with a proposal to put a new tax on everything. He talked about the symbols of waste and mismanagement. Wasn’t it the Howard government that imposed six levies in the time that it was in power? He talked about going upstairs to talk about an appropriation because of mismanagement. That is a prime example of how the member for Goldstein distorts facts. Every member in this House and any person who watches the way parliament operates knows that there is always a mid-year appropriation debated in the House. It is not debated in the House because of mismanagement; it is debated in the House because that is the way this parliament operates. So any member who comes in here and tries to put forward a different argument is distorting the facts, misrepresenting the way the parliament operates and trying to distort operations and legislation. It is pure political opportunism. The member for Goldstein talked about there being no strategic fiscal strategy. I am yet to hear the member for Goldstein put forward any positive fiscal strategy. All I have ever heard the member for Goldstein do is attack and undermine the government and, I might say, people on his own side. ‘People are offended by the legislation,’ he said. I will share with this parliament the kinds of responses that I have been getting in my electorate. I have received some emails from people opposing the levy, but I have been overwhelmed by the compassion of the people who have contacted my office. They have been really moved by seeing their fellow Australians affected so adversely by the floods in Queensland. People in my electorate understand how important it is to rebuild the infrastructure in Queensland—not just for Queensland but for the whole of Australia. It is an issue of national importance. The opposition probably represents the person who emailed me and said: ‘Those people in Queensland chose to live in Queensland. We shouldn’t have to pay anything. We shouldn’t have to contribute to the reconstruction of Queensland or contribute in any way to helping them get their lives back together.’ The opposition does not stand for the person who stopped me in the street just the other week and said: ‘I think that the levy is probably one of the best pieces of government legislation that I have seen introduced. I really approve of it. The government is acting in the interests of the people of Queensland and the people of Australia.’ We have heard the distortions and the misinformation that have been put forward not only by the member for Goldstein but also by many, many members of the opposition. But we all know that the recent floods may well end up being the most costly disaster in Australia’s history. The reconstruction task is going to be absolutely enormous and it is going to take a lot of money to bring Queensland back to its former glory. It is going to take a lot of investment and a lot of effort by a lot of people. I want to return to something else that the member for Goldstein said. He referred to the fact that Mr John Fahey, the former Minister for Finance and Administration, has been appointed to oversee the project and said that that in some way showed a failure of the government. To me, what it shows is that the government understands that the role of government is to put in place policy and legislation that will lead to a really positive outcome. It is not the role of government to manage the day-to-day reconstruction of Queensland. The appointment of Mr Fahey is a positive. The government will be delivering $2.8 billion in budget savings. To listen to speakers on the other side of the House you would not recognise that this was happening. There will be $1 billion created by delaying some infrastructure projects and $1.8 billion raised through the temporary levy. There will be no levy charged where the taxpayer’s income is below $50,000 per year. If you are earning $55,000 a year you will be paying a levy of 48c per week—not very much. If you are earning $75,000 you will be paying $2.40—I am not even up to a cup of coffee. If you are earning $80,000 it will be $2.88—still not a cup of coffee. When you get to $90,000 and $100,000, you are up around the coffee mark. I think it is really important to place on the record that it is not a big impost. There have been enormous government savings and cuts. This levy will be the final part of the plan that will deliver the rebuilding of Queensland. It is also important to put on the record that 75 per cent of the levy will be used for reconstruction of infrastructure. A number of appeals have been conducted throughout Australia. I thank the people in the Shortland electorate who have already donated to an appeal that I ran through my office, and we will be undertaking another appeal in the coming weeks. The owner of Sesames on the Lake at Belmont has a dinner function on 9 March to raise funds for flood victims. Many, many activities have taken place throughout the Shortland electorate. People throughout Australia want to get behind the people of Queensland and help them put their lives back together. The money raised through those appeals will be used for the reconstruction of people’s personal circumstances. Australian people are very generous. Australians know that in times of need governments must introduce extraordinary measures. As I mentioned earlier, there were six levies introduced under the Howard government and there was none of the political opportunism that has taken place in relation to this levy. The people of Australia understand that this is a small impost on them and that the money is going to a very good cause. It is going towards the rebuilding of Queensland. It is going towards helping Queensland have a functional economy again and regain the infrastructure that it needs. When Queensland’s infrastructure is renewed, it will be of great benefit to the whole of Australia. Not only Queensland but Australia as a whole has been impacted by the floods. My heart goes out to the people of Queensland, who have had to suffer the most terrible, terrible event. I pass on the feelings, the thoughts and the good wishes of all the people of the Shortland electorate. 970 19:43:00 Cobb, John, MP 00AN1 Calare NATS 0 0 Mr JOHN COBB —Any debate involving the recent tumultuous events in most of eastern Australia, whether you are talking about floods, cyclones or whatever it might be—and obviously tonight’s debate is about the tax contained in the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and the related bill—is impossible without reflecting on what an event it has been. It is certainly not something I have seen before and I certainly hope I do not see it again, and you cannot debate it without reflecting for a time on the awful effect it has had on people’s homes and lives and on production. I am a farmer and I have always represented people in agriculture—that is my current portfolio responsibility. Agriculture has probably been the most deeply affected area in the cyclones, flooding and rain. The huge amounts of rain, particularly in New South Wales, had as much effect in a lot of cases as the floods, except, thankfully, without the infrastructure damage. This has been an enormous event in a productivity sense and an enormous event for people—for everybody. So, obviously, it is correct that the Commonwealth government has a role and a duty to get involved to help sort it all out. Most of Australia’s states have been affected, but obviously those three on the east coast have been the most affected. My electorate of Calare has been very affected, not so much by flood—although it has had that—but simply by the sheer volume of rain and the disaster it has caused as far as production. The clean-up and rebuilding process is underway, but the onset of the great big new flood tax has caused a stir right across the country, which is not terribly surprising. While the coalition join the government in offering our full support to the communities affected, we know that there is plenty of scope in the Commonwealth budget to cut, reprioritise and defer spending in order to find the $1.8 billion the Gillard government plans to raise through this tax. Having lived in the Murray-Darling Basin my whole life and as somebody who has been a farmer, and still is, and sees water as a very productive commodity and not just as something humans live with and wash with, there is an area that is obvious to me—the buybacks in the Murray-Darling Basin. Looking at the Murray-Darling Basin as it is now, I do not think it is going to do anybody any harm to either stop or defer the buybacks in the Murray-Darling Basin. This is a government that will not delay spending $600 million buying water for environmental sites in floods while asking the taxpayer to cough up their hard-earned dollars for flood damage. The irony is extraordinary. While the government continues with incompetence, ordinary Australians throughout the country are rolling up their sleeves, donating their time, resources and money generously and helping to rebuild after the floods. I will take some time to reflect on my own part of Australia, or the part of Australia that I personally represent. In Calare we have seen individuals rallying together to make donations to the rebuilding efforts despite experiencing their own personal hardships, and I am very proud of them. Last Saturday night in Lithgow at a Lions Club function we were reflecting on what the people have done. As I said, Calare has had huge losses in terms of infrastructure—community infrastructure, roads et cetera—and has experienced probably even bigger losses in the agriculture sector, whether that be in horticulture, serial cropping or whatever, simply because of too much rain. The cherry crop virtually got wiped out because of rain—not because of flooding. People in the various towns of Calare got together and raised a heck of a lot of money and put in a heck of a lot of effort. But they did not raise that money for themselves, even though they had experienced huge losses and family debt; they raised that money primarily for Queensland, where most of the disaster and the human costs had been so high. I think that is pretty good. The Parkes Rotary Club donated the profits from the canteen takings from the Australian harness race meeting to Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales flood relief. Parkes Harvey Norman held sausage sizzles and generated more than $700 and the store raised over $3,500 in donations during one weekend. But volunteers and donors will be taxed for the flood levy. Parkes Woolworths hosted a market day in the Parkes Metro Plaza and raised almost $2,000. I think they have raised nearly $7,000 since December. Parkes resident Irene Wennerbom and her family opened their home one week to raise money for the Queensland flood victims, hosting a garage sale which sold donated goods from the Parkes community. Parkes East School students dressed in maroon for a day and raised $200 to go towards assisting Queensland public schools affected by the floods. The Parkes East School families, in fact all Parkes volunteers and donors, will, by and large, be taxed for the flood levy despite having made that rather wonderful effort. The Forbes Sports and Recreation Club and the Forbes Golfers Association combined to stage a benefit evening for the Queensland flood victims. There are a lot of stories from Forbes, but I will not go through them all. Forbes volunteers and donors will be taxed for the flood levy. The Orange Rotary Club coin collection will be donated to rotary clubs throughout Queensland to allow them to decide how that collection can best be used. All proceeds from the Taste Orange Slow Summer Festival ‘Bark in the Park’ event were donated to the Queensland flood relief. A young group headed by Nicky, Hughie and Dave organised a tent at the Orange races and raised over $3,500 for the Queensland flood appeal. Orange Rotary Club members and all volunteers and donors will be taxed for the flood levy. In Bathurst, the Bathurst whitegoods Queensland flood appeal collection sent a B-double with over $100,000 worth of whitegoods to Toowoomba last weekend. The Bathurst Regional Council is set to donate $10,000 to the Queensland flood appeal. The Bathurst by the Glass event at Mount Panorama Estate raised a total of $500 to donate to the Queensland flood appeal. Bathurst cricket team the Reece Renegades donated the majority of their first- and second-place prize money to the Queensland flood victims appeal, with other teams expected to follow suit. The Reece Renegades and all Bathurst volunteers and donors will be taxed for the flood levy. In Lithgow, where I was last weekend, Valley Drive Car Wash donated $345 from a Saturday car wash and staff donated a day’s wages towards the Queensland flood appeal. Portland RSL sports and recreation club held a fundraiser for flood victims, raising $500. Lithgow Workmen’s Club, a very community based club, as most are, held a Mexican night and donated the money from the sale of the first 165 tickets to the Queensland floods. Lithgow Valley Community Cinema held a special Australia Day screening with all proceeds donated to the flood appeal. The Lithgow Flashdragons and the Lithgow Motorcycle Club charity dragon boat regatta at Lake Wallace took place on the weekend, with about $3,000 in donations going to the Queensland flood appeal. The Lithgow Flashdragons and Lithgow Motorcycle Club members and all Lithgow and Portland volunteers and donors now find that they will be taxed for the flood levy. In Oberon, a lovely town whose economy is based on timber, agriculture and tourism, the Rotary Club of Oberon organised the collection and distribution of fodder to flood affected farmers in Queensland and Victoria. The Rotary Club of Oberon also raised funds at the Highlands Steam and Vintage Fair. The Oberon rotary club volunteers and donors will be taxed for the flood levy. In Blayney, a group of young Sydney children on holidays and their friends from Neville hosted a ‘Bug fun park’ exhibition at the Neville historical museum and donated over $500 to the Queensland floods. Blayney volunteers and donors will be taxed for the flood levy. In Cabonne—the local government area where Lisa and I live—the Cabonne Council donated $2,000. Some very good friends of mine, Les and Cheryl Birdsall from the Telegraph Hotel, spent their own money on kids’ rides and slippery dips and so on to have an Australia Day fundraiser on a Sunday about a month ago which raised $10,000. They did not take one cent back to pay for the work they had done; all the money that was raised went to flood relief. Les and Cheryl Birdsall from the Telegraph Hotel and all Cabonne resident volunteers and donors will be taxed for the flood levy. This is just a snapshot of the wonderful work the people of my electorate have been doing in the wake of what has happened in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. I take this opportunity to extend my sincere thanks, not just on my behalf but also on behalf of the parliament and the people who will receive the proceeds of their generosity, to all who have lent a helping hand. The people of Calare, along with a lot of people around Australia, have gone out of their way to donate generously, and all the government has done is turn around and tax for the privilege of having done it the people who have given the most, organised the most and spent the most to raise this money. The flood is a cop-out for a Labor government that has shown over and over again that it cannot manage government money and certainly cannot manage other people’s money. This government is sending the wrong message to the Australian people: ‘In future, don’t donate when Australians are in trouble because we will tax you after you do.’ I think that is about the worst message a government can send. It is just an example of the fact that this government cannot make managerial decisions and cannot prioritise. I still remember the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Campbell Newman, saying within days that the Brisbane City Council would not raise the rate for ratepayers in Brisbane but instead would prioritise and work within its means. That is the one thing that this government has never learned to do, and you would think by now that it would have done. My office has had numerous calls from constituents opposing the flood levy. The general feeling is that it is unfair and unwarranted. Most of these calls have not been from people who will have to pay the levy but from pensioners—people who will not have to pay it. People who would not otherwise have applied for the $1,000 for victims of flooding are in fact applying for the money because they have found that they will be taxed to fund the levy. This levy is un-Australian and unwarranted. (Time expired) 973 19:58:00 Mitchell, Rob, MP M3E McEwen ALP 1 0 Mr MITCHELL —I speak in support of the government’s Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011. As members in this place know, we recently stopped to remember and reflect on the Black Saturday bushfires which so tragically devastated my electorate on 7 February 2009. That was a day on which bushfires ravaged communities. It was a fire of a ferocity that we had never seen or experienced before. It claimed on that day 173 lives and destroyed thousands of homes and businesses, schools, buildings, sport centres and communities. Two years on, we are still facing the process of rebuilding and recovering, with signs of the disaster still present both in the trees that will never grow again and in the many homes that will not be rebuilt on the same foundations. Emotions are still raw, but people are battling on in the true Australian spirit. All levels of government have learnt many lessons from that tragic day, not only about bushfire preparedness but also, importantly, about the process of rebuilding and recovering communities devastated by Mother Nature’s fury. One of the biggest lessons we should have learnt is that we need to support communities—to stand with them to rebuild vital infrastructure, get services back in place and ensure a sense of normality returns as quickly as possible. The most common message that my community has been telling me is that we need to get to normality—or the ‘new normal’ as it is called—as soon as possible, because it is paramount. But it seems that those opposite have not listened. It is quite clear that without the infrastructure in place you cannot support a community to recover quickly and effectively. That is why this levy is important. Without open, safe roads and bridges, communities remain disconnected. Without local schools being rebuilt, normality and routine are taken away from our children. Without health centres being rebuilt, communities will not recover physically and emotionally. Without information hubs and community centres, people remain uninformed and disengaged. There is a vital need to stimulate the economies of flood affected regions through government infrastructure projects. It is about getting people back into jobs, getting them working again, getting them spending and getting their economies back on the move. The key to success of any recovery process is the involvement of locals at every step of the way in identification and planning for their future. Survivors in communities do not want a handout; they want us to chip in and give a mate a hand. The Gillard government is reaching out to the people of Queensland, and we will be with them until they can stand again on their own. The flooding in Queensland and other states has been unprecedented, spreading across the state. It is the size of France and Germany combined, or the size of New South Wales. Coal, gas and mining companies have been drastically affected, which is resulting in millions of dollars of lost production and a great loss to Australia’s wealth. Similarly, Australia’s agriculture sector has been severely hit again, with crops destroyed. This means that food prices will rise and farmers will struggle to make ends meet. This will affect every Australian no matter where they live. The communities in my electorate rallied behind our northern neighbours, with the people of Kinglake raising over $60,000 and the people of Marysville raising over $22,000. And they continue to raise funds and help their fellow Australians. In a local monthly publication in Kinglake, the Mountain Monthly, I came across a letter to the editor which I want to share with members of this place. It reads: Dear Editor, Hello to all in the suburbs and surrounds of Kinglake. My name is Rebecca. I have just come across a news article that your town of Kinglake has raised money and donated it to us up here in Queensland for the current flood crisis. Speaking for all Queensland residents, I would love you to please extend our thanks to the people in this town for their amazing support and generosity to the people here that have been affected by the floods. I sat here with a tear rolling down my face, reading the news about what the people of Kinglake have done for us, even when they are still rebuilding from their own disaster. They have opened their hearts to others in such an amazing way. Please extend the thanks that we, as Queenslanders, feel for these people. As you have stated, the generosity of the Queenslanders will never be forgotten. That goes the same for each and every one of you there. Thanks again. I cannot say that enough. Rebecca, Queensland. Although there are many communities better off than mine, they are still supporting those in need. For that I praise them and thank them. Helen Kenney, who is the captain of the St Andrews CFA and is on the St Andrews Bushfire Recovery Committee, said it is crucial that a flood levy is introduced because infrastructure needs to be rebuilt. I agree wholeheartedly with her. That is from someone who lived through the Black Saturday disaster, so she knows exactly what she is talking about. No matter where I travel across the bushfire affected areas, those who are continuing the journey of rebuilding and reconstruction have been unanimous in their support for this levy. Most of these people will not qualify to pay the levy, but they know firsthand the need for public infrastructure to be replaced and for their communities to get back on their feet as soon as possible. The flood recovery levy will ensure that we can rebuild, repair and recover vital infrastructure that has been damaged as a result of the flooding. To assist in rebuilding Queensland, we will need to invest about $5.6 billion into the regions affected, due to the scale of the destruction and devastation. Two-thirds of this will be delivered through spending cuts and the remaining one-third is to be delivered through a very modest 12-month levy. The government has also made $2.8 billion in budget savings which will also be redirected towards the rebuilding effort. Infrastructure projects worth $1 billion will be deferred, freeing up funds and skilled workers at a time when we have a skilled labour shortage around the country—a legacy of the former government. The flood recovery levy will be applied at the rate of 0.5 per cent on taxable income between $50,001 and $100,000 in the 2011-12 income year, and a levy of one per cent will be applied on taxable income over $100,000. The recovery levy will not apply to low-income earners with a taxable income of $50,000 or less, nor will anyone directly affected by the floods have to pay the levy. With the indulgence of the House, I want to show what most people in my electorate will be giving up per week: one small tin of Coles tuna. That is what we are asking people to give up—just a small token to help people get back on their feet and get their lives back to normality. Levies are a common occurrence from the Commonwealth. We are all aware that the previous Liberal government, which Mr Abbott was part of, were the champions with their flood of levies. Prime Minister John Howard imposed six levies in 12 years. We understood it was in the interests of the nation; we supported them. We put politics aside and, for the good of our nation and its people, we stood with the government on many of these levies. As recently as last year, the Leader of the Opposition tried to impose a levy to pay for his election promises. If a levy was good enough for Tony Abbott to pay for his election promises just months ago, how is it not good enough now to help support Australians to get back on their feet? SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting— M3E Mitchell, Rob, MP Mr MITCHELL —I will run through the list of levies, but we will put it in opposition language; we will call it a ‘tax’ that you guys put in place, introduced by the Howard government. We know that you seem to have forgotten the language. When we do it, it is a tax; when you do it, you call it a levy. SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —We haven’t forgotten the language at all— 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—The member for Mackellar will be warned in a minute. M3E Mitchell, Rob, MP Mr MITCHELL —You had a sugar package levy for all sugar sold in Australia. You had an air passenger ticket levy at $10 a ticket. There was the dairy industry adjustment package on market milk sales at 11c per litre. That is what you put in place for every single household. And you still cannot say how much it raised or how many people bought it. There was the stevedoring levy on the loading and unloading of containers and vehicles in Australia at $12 per container and $6 per vehicle, which affected every single Australian, no matter where they lived. SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Mackellar is warned! M3E Mitchell, Rob, MP Mr MITCHELL —I know you are embarrassed about this. SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —I’m not embarrassed at all. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —You will be embarrassed when I throw you out in a minute. M3E Mitchell, Rob, MP Mr MITCHELL —There was the Medicare levy and the gun buyback scheme, with increases to the Medicare levy that you put in place. There was the aircraft noise levy for jet aircraft landings at certain airports. That was $155, adjusted for inflation and imposed on the operator of the aircraft. That is the opposition’s flood of levies.  Our flood recovery levy is modest when you reflect on what previous, coalition governments have done over the years. It is modest, but the difference it will make to the lives of so many is immeasurable. Contrast our plan to the half-constructed, rushed, short-sighted plan of the opposition—a headline rather than a real plan—which consists of deferrals and will leave our budget with a $1 billion hole in the next financial year. But who is surprised? During the federal election, the opposition put forward promises that were uncosted and would have left us with an $11 billion black hole. It seems that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer have yet to learn anything about economics, after unveiling their $2 billion in spending cuts and deferrals. The cuts to programs in this ‘plan’ were part of the $50 billion budget cutbacks the opposition took to the election. More than half of the spending cuts proposed by the opposition are deferrals. Mr Abbott’s plan is a big risk, particularly to our national security and our national growth. The lack of compassion and the lack of common sense and decency shown by the Leader of the Opposition have come at a time of devastation. We all know Mr Abbott will do and say anything to become Prime Minister of this country, but why would you do it during a time of national disaster, when people have lost lives, homes, friends and family? Instead of supporting those in Queensland, the Leader of the Opposition’s first thought was to try and persuade the Independent members to make him Prime Minister, telling the Sunday Age that the Independents should ‘start to reconsider their decision’ to support Labor. This was while most of Queensland was under water. As Cyclone Yasi bore down on Queensland, Tony Abbott’s signature appeared on an email that asked for donations—not for support for the victims, not even for the Liberal Party, but purely to campaign against the government’s flood recovery levy. It was a request for donations directly to the Liberal Party, rather than for those who need our full support and attention. I am astonished and shocked that a levy supporting Australians, the people those opposite claim to represent, is being used as political ammunition by the opposition. The Prime Minister recently referred to Mr Abbott as having a tin heart, and I am starting to think that it is a prerequisite for Liberal Party preselection. A levy no different to the ones established by previous governments is being opposed for nothing more than political gain. But at what cost? The only people the opposition want to benefit are themselves, not the many Australians that truly need our support. You could say they are Liberals first and Australians second. My advice to those opposite is: drop the politics. As leaders of communities and elected representatives we should be standing together, uniting to rebuild together. Let us put the politics aside and work together for the sake of not just the people of Queensland but all the people affected across our nation. Let us do them proud, as they do us proud every day when they are out there working and rebuilding. When one Australian falls, we all fall. But what is unique about the people of this country is that we help each other get back up again. This is why I give my full support to the flood levy, because like many other Australians I feel it is my duty to give to the communities that need help and need it now. We are with you, Queensland. My community is with you, all Australians are with you and this government is with you all the way. 977 20:10:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 0 0 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —I rise this evening to voice my opposition to the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 proposed by this government. Before I go to the substance of the bills, I wanted to say a couple of things about the devastating earthquake in Christchurch. I watched the evening news, and it was absolutely horrifying to see what is happening there. There are already 65 deaths and perhaps up to a couple of hundred people still missing and unaccounted for. It is devastating to know that our Anzac cousins across the Tasman have suffered yet another disastrous earthquake in that beautiful city of Christchurch. I want to extend my sympathies to the families, relatives and friends of those who have lost their lives. We can only hope that the teams there are able to move quickly to identify others who can be saved. I also mention Christchurch because Queensland are sending our urban search and rescue team over to New Zealand with some paramedics. It is important that we do that. The Prime Minister made some comments after question time, supported by the Leader of the Opposition, and I would like to associate myself with the comments made by both of them. It is important that as a nation we make sure we support our Anzac cousins. I know that in my own electorate we have many New Zealanders who work in the area, particularly in the oil and gas industry. Only a couple of weekends ago, when I was catching the flight from home to return to Canberra for the sittings, two-thirds of the plane, a 50-seater DASH8, would have been New Zealanders. I asked them where they were going and they said, ‘We’re going back to New Zealand.’ They were operating two and three weeks on, and one and two weeks back home. I only hope that, if some of those people live in Christchurch—I did not ask whether they did—they are safe. I know that we are all thinking of our cousins and friends across the Tasman at this dreadful time. The nation’s farming families and rural communities—and I say ‘rural communities’ because it is not just the farmers but also the communities that depend so much on the income that farmers derive—have just fought through a 10-year drought. More recently, some of the worst flooding in decades has hit south-west Queensland. The last thing that our food producers and our rural communities need is another tax, in the form of this proposed flood levy. Australian farms and their closely related sectors in Australia generate something like $155 billion of food each year, which underpins something like 12 per cent of the nation’s gross domestic product. In Queensland alone—and I go to Queensland because well over two-thirds of the land mass of Queensland was affected by the floods—they contribute something like $3.4 billion in cattle production, in beef; $1.015 billion in grain; $968 million in sugar, for cane and for crushing; $952 million in vegetables; and $86.9 million in wool and lamb production. That is a total of $6.422 billion of food production, without going into the wine, stone fruit and other products that the farm sector produces in Queensland—a staggering $6.422 billion a year contributed to the Queensland economy. Farmers are struggling to keep their staff employed as they pull up fences, repair dams and repair the infrastructure on their properties. We are short of skills out in my part of the world—that is why the New Zealanders who I met on a plane a couple of weeks ago are over working in the oil and gas industry—and the farmers are struggling to keep their staff on their farms as they rebuild and get back on their feet. The last thing they need is to be slugged with another tax. I will give you an example in the dairy industry. There were dairy farmers out there during these devastating floods walking cows through water which was quite often up to their udders to get them into a safe place and the milking areas. If they were not able to get them in there and milk them twice a day, the cows would lose their lactation and it would be 12 months before they could produce again. The milk that the cows could produce was then thrown away because the farmers could not get it out of the dairy farms as the roads were closed; they were flooded. They were not paid for that loss by some of the insurance companies, as they are saying it was not insured. That gives you an example of the hardship and struggle they have been through to try and save their animals and keep their production going amongst the worst of nature that has been thrown at them. Yet, they too will be paying this levy. It seems that the only way Labor knows how to solve a problem is to introduce a new tax or, as the government is calling it, a levy. Well, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck—in this case, it is a tax. This Labor government follows on from the previous Labor government, led by the now Minister for Foreign Affairs in that everything should be fixed with a new tax. I remember, just three years ago, there was the problem with alcohol abuse where young people were binge drinking. So what did they do? They brought in a new tax, the alcopops tax. That was to fix binge drinking. Then, people were smoking too much, so there was an increase in tobacco taxes. Car sales were down, so what was the response from the Labor government? It was to increase the luxury tax on motor vehicles. Some of those vehicles that have been impacted on are vehicles that are used by veterinarians and doctors in my electorate, not because they are a luxury item; it is just that they come above a threshold where the tax cuts in. These are four-wheel drives, Toyotas in most cases. They are an essential item when you are on some of the Western Queensland roads that I drive on regularly, and these are people like veterinarians, doctors and nurses who have them out of necessity, not for luxury. But who pays the increased tax on those? It is those people as well as those who may have been buying them in a city in a perhaps a genuine case of what we might class as having a luxury car. It is just another example of Labor, when there is a problem with their budget and their mismanagement of their economy, looking around to see where they can introduce a new tax. It is about time that this government took some tough decisions, rather than just always taking the easy way out and buying votes from the Independents and the crossbenchers here. There is no doubt in the world that they are going to be bought off, one way or another, to get this levy through. We have already seen some of the announcements and I do not want to repeat them here tonight, but I have been around here long enough to know that when someone is being offered something, it is an inducement to vote for the government—in this case, for this new tax. As to the question of the exemptions that Labor has imposed on the levy, the levy has the potential to hurt the very same people it is supposed to help. Labor has stipulated that people earning under $50,000 or those who have claimed the Australian government disaster relief recovery payment—and I was very supportive of that recovery payment; I worked with the Prime Minister’s office on that to ensure that it was targeted and it would meet a very genuine need in my electorate—will be exempted. What about the people who have been affected by these floods who chose not to claim that payment? They will pay this tax. What about the farmers and small business owners who have lost income as a result of the floods but did not have destruction of some of their property, such as small businesses in the town of Dalby and one that I know of in Surat that was hit in March last year but received not $1 of assistance from the federal government? They employ 20 people in a town of 700. If they cannot keep those employees there and they have to wind that business back, you know what will happen to that town of fewer than 700 people. Those workers will leave town and it will be the start of the end of that town. Yet they will be paying this tax. The Prime Minister promised that she would ensure that the levy would not be paid by those affected by the floods, but it seems that people who have been affected by the floods in a secondary way will. There are certainly businesses out there—and I am sure that members on the other side of the House could recognise that—who have not had government assistance, but they too will be paying this tax. Then there are those people who have already donated to the flood relief effort, either through volunteering or monetary contributions. We have had contributions from both sides of the House on the wonderful philanthropy that has come from people all around Australia. My concern, as it is for many on this side of the House, is that if this tax goes through, next time we have a natural disaster, why would they want to give as generously as they have as a result of this natural disaster across Australia? They will say: ‘Well, I’ll hang off because there’s going to be a levy; there’s going to be a new tax. I’ll pay it that way and give up my philanthropy and my volunteering that I have done in the past.’ When it comes to spending money wisely, whether it is the Labor government down here or the Labor government in Queensland, they just do not know how to manage an economy. They do not know how to manage money. Have a look at the Bligh Labor government in Queensland. They have been through the biggest mining resource boom that we have had in this country, and all they have been able to do is rack up debt on debt on debt. In fact, the state of Queensland has lost its AAA credit rating. I am ashamed to say that I am a Queenslander. Even New South Wales still has a AAA credit rating. But the great state of Queensland, with the mining boom and the resources behind it and the royalties that have flowed from that, under the leadership of Premier Bligh has been put into such a debt situation that its credit rating has been downgraded to AA. I think it is the first time in history—certainly in the last 30 or 40 years—that Queensland has been put in that position. That is what we find when we look at the record of Labor governments. There are always new taxes. They cannot manage the economy and they cannot manage programs. When the government tried to sell free insulation programs, including the pink batts program, in a hot summer in western Queensland when the temperatures soar above 46 degrees Celsius they could not even sell that program to the people out there and manage it properly. Labor governments cannot manage budgets. They cannot manage money. This is a case of going back to the people with another new tax and it is reckless spending. If they would only listen to this side of the House and the suggestions from the shadow Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition and others on our front bench, there are savings that could be made. If in a budget with $350 billion of revenue you cannot find another 0.5 or 0.6 per cent of savings or deferral of expenditure in the next 12 months, really you should not be occupying the government benches. There are families out there who believed they had insurance cover on their property. Many have lost their homes, but because it is considered flood insurance rather than stormwater cover they will not receive an insurance payout. I have many of them in my home town of Roma where they are running a class action against the insurance companies. Those people will be paying the flood levy. They have had to rebuild their homes out of their own resources. Some charities have been very supportive of them and local businesses have helped a lot of our older people and senior citizens and have helped to re-establish the town, but they will be paying this tax as well. They have not received insurance payouts—and I condemn those insurance companies for the way they have treated people under these circumstances—and they will also be paying this new tax. There is a better way. The government should listen to the suggestions from this side of the House on deferring expenditure and postponing non-priority expenditure. I am opposed to this new tax. It is yet another example of a government that cannot manage money. Whenever it runs into a budget problem it goes back to the people and introduces a new tax. I am opposed to this levy. 980 20:25:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Fowler ALP 1 0 Mr HAYES —I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and cognate bill. During late December last year and the early part of this year, significant flooding occurred in many parts of Queensland and unfortunately was followed fast at its heels by Cyclone Yasi. Like most people and probably everyone in this place, in our electorates we watched in horror as towns were engulfed by water and three-quarters of Queensland was declared a disaster zone. This covers areas three times the land mass of Victoria. It is extraordinary that the roads, rail systems and power systems have to traverse that sort of land mass and it was completely devastated. I do not mind admitting I watched TV coverage of the floods in horror and disbelief. My heart went out to all those families, particularly those that lost loved ones, those whose loved ones were missing for a significant time and those Queenslanders that stood and watched their houses, their dreams and everything floating down a swollen river. I admit an intense feeling of sadness filled my home, my office and my community. I would say that goes for every member of this place if we want to be honest with one another. Thinking of those images now upsets me to the same extent as when I recall seeing the 9-11 attack. It occurred, we could not stop it, but we could feel it was real and quite palpable. I had the feeling at that stage, on seeing the enormity of the damage, that we as a Commonwealth now had an obligation to look after our people in need. It ought to be said that the people of Queensland were courageous and stoic. They came together as an extended family and lent emotional and physical support to one another. Over that whole period differences were set aside and the people were united in a common interest to help the recovery efforts in Queensland. Heroes emerged from all quarters, people willingly putting their lives on the line to bring other people to safety. I recall vividly seeing that SES worker floating down a swollen creek to rescue a person who, unfortunately, had been washed down there. These were extraordinary acts of bravery. We all owe a debt of gratitude to the men and women of the police, to the emergency services, to the volunteers, to the military, to all those that decided to put the community first, to get involved, to do something to save property and to rescue life and limb—not simply those directly affected by the floods. I know members on all sides have referred to heroes such as Jordan Rice, the 13-year-old who told his rescuers, ‘Take my brother first.’ Unfortunately, Jordan Rice did not survive. Those were four extremely courageous words. I think those words will live for a long time with all of us who have made condolence speeches on the Queensland floods. The Queensland floods are being seen as the country’s worst natural disaster. Thirty-five people have lost their lives since late November, and we have had a level of physical damage to infrastructure unprecedented in our country’s history. It is certainly a very cruel blow that has been rendered by Mother Nature—a blow which has affected the Queensland community. But, as I said, all of our communities are our communities, because we are all Australian. What has occurred—it is absolute fact—is that this has meant billions of dollars are necessary to rebuild the damaged roads, bridges, railways and essential infrastructure. Money is definitely needed to get our communities back on their feet. For that reason, I support the flood levy, because I know that a third of the $5.6 billion necessary to rebuild flood affected Australia will be provided through this modest one-year levy; the remainder will be met through a range of budgetary cuts. Clearly Australians have shown absolute generosity in their support for Queenslanders during the course of this devastation. The levels of donations and fundraising that have occurred have been extraordinary. But the fact remains, as I said, that billions of dollars are still necessary to fix up the infrastructure, such as roads, bridges et cetera. That is why this flood levy is crucial for the recovery of our nation. Bear in mind that people with incomes below $50,000 and those who are flood victims themselves will not be affected by the levy, which means 60 per cent of taxpayers will pay less than a dollar a week, with people earning $80,000 paying only $2.88 per week. By the standards of those opposite, they would have to say that these are modest figures. This will provide for only one year. It is not just a matter of politically assuring people of how the money is going to be spent. I think it is beyond doubt—it has not been questioned here, at least—that every cent that is raised through this levy will go directly to flood affected regions across Australia to help repair critical infrastructure. It is important to note that already there has been a significant amount of money donated from all areas and all walks of life to assist people in Queensland in particular. A number of community groups, particularly in my electorate, started fundraising in, I think, the first week of January; it might have been the last week of December, but certainly I attended a number of functions in the first week of January. Various groups were involved, including the Chinese, the Vietnamese, the Cambodians and the Croatians—those are just the groups whose events I have actually attended. At the events that I have personally attended, I can say that over $500,000 has been raised through community groups in my electorate alone. I am sure that has been replicated by many other groups in my community whose events I have not attended, and no doubt that sort of activity has occurred right across this nation. It has shown great goodwill. In electorates such as mine—which according to the ABS is the most multicultural electorate in the whole country—it shows the extent of what people who would ordinarily be regarded as new Australians have done to look after and protect their fellow Australians. I think that is something that should not be missed, particularly when we talk about the people from Vietnam. They have been here only since the fall of Saigon, which was 35 years ago, yet they were one of the first groups who started to organise significant fundraising to assist the people of flood affected Queensland. Although these contributions from various community groups are certainly very commendable and have made a significant contribution, that is only one part of the issue. Most of the money that they and other community groups have raised will go a fair way to helping individuals to manage their day-to-day costs and to providing immediate relief with some of the essential things, such as food and clothing. The proposed levy, on the other hand, is critical for raising funds to rebuild the infrastructure, to assist entire communities to get back on their feet and to assist the productivity basis of Queensland to start moving. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, I am very familiar with your electorate of Maranoa, having had a son work up in Blackwater. I know how devastated the surrounds were up there. But these things do not fix themselves. If we are serious about ensuring the economic footing of one of our country’s largest mining states and bringing it back to full export capability—which we all benefit from—we have a role as a Commonwealth to do that. This levy will help the flood affected communities to rebuild. It will certainly bring back a sense of normality. It will help ease the constant pain of these Australians, which they have undeservedly had to suffer. Regrettably, it gets to a situation like this. While the floods are on, we can all sympathise and be affected by what we see on the television about these matters, but inevitably and regrettably we eventually get back to real politics. I do not think, and I cannot recall, any member from a particular party going up there and making statements like, ‘Queenslanders are in this; they are on their own.’ I think that the view was that we are here as a Commonwealth and we are here to help. But as the argument matured there did seem to be some political gain in who gets to pay. No doubt, there is a level of motivation from the other side that it is good to actually try to force the government to make very unpopular cuts to budget—to take things out of communities and welfare payments, and to sharpen the guidelines leading into another election. HWT Robert, Stuart, MP Mr Robert —Hear, hear! ECV Hayes, Chris, MP Mr HAYES —The member for Fadden confirms that. It is not a matter of just looking at what we have to do as a community; they want to slice away at issues such as welfare and commitments that we make to communities. I know that my electorate has a high proportion of welfare recipients, and whilst it is the most multicultural electorate in the country it is also an area of great challenge in levels of income. It certainly has a high proportion of new arrivals, who are trying to make their way in the world and trying to do what is necessary to integrate into our community. Is it going to be one of these areas where we should make cuts? Regrettably, politics does get into it. It was far better when we sat back, looked at the extent of the damage and all put our hands on our hearts and said that we would have to do whatever was necessary to make Queensland right. Apart from assisting members of our Commonwealth, what we do in Queensland is certainly significantly important to us all because of its income generation for this country through mining and tourism. It is just something that we should do; but they come here now and have the audacity to start talking about what cuts we should make. I know that the member for Fadden was not in the parliament—he was a loyal member of our military—in the days of the Howard government, when it decided to put six levies on. I did not have a rifle, and I had to pay a levy for the gun buyback—but I thought that was for a good purpose. If you look at Labor’s record on the imposition of temporary levies you will find that we were very supportive, whether they were for the gun buyback, East Timor or a range of other areas; but when it comes to something as crucial as rebuilding Queensland, the push back now is simply to try to put budgetary pressure on the government. This is something they are embarrassed about; they want to blow the budget out and simply get to a stage of forcing the government to borrow in order to rebuild Queensland. (Time expired) 983 20:44:00 Alexander, John, MP M3M Bennelong LP 0 0 Mr ALEXANDER —Every Australian has been moved by the scenes of devastation to property and families in distress, and the tragic loss of life. At the very same time we celebrate those heroes found amongst us under nature’s fire, on a different battlefield to where our heroes have previously been found under enemy fire, but made of the same stuff that sees these men and women—fearless in the face of overwhelming odds—putting their mates or a younger brother who was frightened first. We honour those great people who possess the national traits we admire most. So often it is the average Australian who becomes a hero in these exceptional circumstances. The Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and the cognate bill we are discussing today seek to force the average Australian—the possible hero—to fork out to assist this government to repair the critical and heart-rending damage caused by the devastating floods. Nobody disputes that these are vital repairs and that those impacted deserve our utmost sympathy and support. The question that arises from this, and which should dominate the thoughts of policymakers in this place is: did these people have to endure such suffering, or could we have implemented measures to mitigate against this? We live in a country that will be impacted by floods, fire, cyclone and drought. We always have, although not always occurring at the same time. This truly was a terrible summer, yet not entirely unexpected. It is apparent that this is the nature of nature in the sunburnt country. Good government would use the events of this summer as a trigger to commence long-term planning to prevent damage, and then implement those plans. The people of Queensland need permanent mitigation measures, not taxes spread out during the night because of the threat of flooding rains. This bill is a symbol of economic mismanagement by the Rudd and Gillard governments. With the outrage of waste still echoing around the nation from the pink batts program, school halls and the $900 flat screen TV subsidy, and with a budget of $350 billion, the government cannot find 0.5 per cent of that to help people in this time of national need without slugging our constituents with a brand new tax. The government has the ability, but not the inclination, to make prudent cost savings to cover the vital rebuilding. But such decisions must be born out of a provision for Australia’s long-term prosperity and development, not out of short-term electoral gain. The coalition believe that the government can pay for the repairs without fleecing the Australian public. We are willing to provide costings on how this can be achieved. However, this is a reactive government, not a proactive government. This is a spectator government. This government has watched nature take us down with a left hook and then whack us again while we are down on the canvas. Now this government tells us that we are all heroes and mates and that we must get up and go, bandaged and bruised, back into nature’s boxing ring. This government has shown no interest in mitigating injury to us. It has not detailed any plan to arm us with visionary infrastructure development, whether it be dams, levees, roads, rail or other infrastructure needs—development which will mitigate future damage to life, property and our economy. This government’s only salvo is the imposition of l-e-v-y levys, rather than adopting the mindset of an l-e-v-e-e proactive vision to protect and encourage Australia’s development. Where are this government’s clear-headed plans for the development of regional growth centres in Australia which will take the pressure off our overburdened major cities? Where are the regional transport hubs that could provide the economic drivers for these cities? Where are the visionary networks that can rise like a phoenix from the ashes of this tragedy to intersect road, rail and air freight to serve our country’s commerce and trade needs—not this year’s needs, but the needs of future generations? We know that nature will soon enough unleash her fury upon us again. Where are the master plans in anticipation of this? In total, this government has cut $450 million from regional infrastructure programs, including a 50 per cent cut in the Building Better Regional Cities Program, and cut $350 million from the Priority Regional Infrastructure Fund. Yes, that is correct—it is called the Priority Regional Infrastructure Fund. There must be a better way. We could choose to establish this new tax and use that money to rebuild it as it was before, and then get comfortable and wait for it all to happen again. The definition of insanity is to repeat the same behaviour time and again but expect a different result. The alternative is to be proactive, to make long-term plans, to assess the ways in which nature can affect us and to build mitigation measures into the new construction in order to limit the impact of future events. In response to the 1974 floods the Bjelke-Petersen government implemented a flood buyback scheme with shared funding from federal, state and local governments. The Queensland government also commissioned the Wivenhoe Dam as a future mitigation measure. A second initiative, the Wolfdene dam, was proposed by the local council at a later stage but rejected by Premier Wayne Goss, back when the member for Griffith was his chief of staff. It is commonly accepted that had the Wivenhoe been at its recommended 30 per cent capacity, the flood damage would have been markedly reduced. Without the flood mitigating effect of Wivenhoe, even taking into consideration the alleged mismanagement of the dam, last month’s flood might have been as much as three metres higher, causing significantly more devastation. Good governments should act—not just say or do what is necessary to maintain office for the day but act responsibly in the country’s best interest, for now and into the future. This is not a new philosophy, and the local knowledge of the need for construction of mitigation measures is nothing new. In fact, I have a copy of a letter here from the Brisbane Lord Mayor to the federal MP for Griffith requesting support to implement the recommendations of the Lord Mayor’s Taskforce on Suburban Flooding ‘to solve or mitigate the many flooding problems experienced in Brisbane’. This letter is dated 7 October 2005 and was sent to all MPs in the region. No responses were received from the member for Griffith, the member for Brisbane or the member for Oxley, whose electorate office was devastated in the most recent floods. Several years later the same member for Griffith was the Labor Prime Minister. Under his stewardship, none of these recommendations were implemented to protect the constituents in his home electorate and no further funding was given for this flood mitigation initiative. In desperation, Brisbane City Council needed to act unilaterally to implement their own self-funded flood buyback scheme. The need for mitigation measures was also referenced in great detail in the recent 24-month report developed by the Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction and Recovery Authority, which showed a clear recognition of the need to invest in mitigation measures to ensure history does not repeat with the same level of devastation to human life. We need real action towards nation building in the form of a strategic program of flood mitigation that will protect life and property when nature shows its power once more. This does not happen overnight. As a nation we need to make a concerted effort to prioritise and to set funds aside. The construction of dams not only serves to protect life and property but also provides life-giving water during times of drought—another cyclical reality of the Australian climate. To respond to this devastation with the implementation of a new nationwide tax, instead of an infrastructure plan, is the epitome of government negligence. The savings to afford this plan are available and would be double or triple in size if it were not for this government’s waste and economic mismanagement. We are at a crossroad. Do we repeat the behaviour of the past and embrace the definition of insanity, or do we learn from the harsh lessons and become, in peacetime, the heroes that those who elect us would choose to have? The great tragedy of humanity is that it often takes a war to find a hero. The heroes in this place need to act, to take real action to commit to the necessary infrastructure and to build greater value in our towns and cities through appropriate flood protection. If this is done, then the most heroic act of our youngest hero would not have been in vain. 985 20:51:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 1 0 Ms GRIERSON —I too rise to speak in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and offer my support for them. As a nation, we have truly witnessed this summer some of the harshest realities of the Australian climate. Sadly, that other great south land, New Zealand, our neighbour and friend, is experiencing a disaster and calamity which will take all efforts for them to recover from. I express here my sympathy and support, my best wishes to the people of New Zealand and my best wishes to their parliament. May they conduct themselves in an exemplary way that shows people do need to pull together. As families in Queensland recovered from unprecedented flooding, thousands of families in Far North Queensland nervously awaited in evacuation centres as Cyclone Yasi devastated their homes and workplaces, while in Perth families fled their homes threatened by bushfires. Meanwhile, flooding in Victoria served to mark the two-year anniversary of the devastating bushfires there in the worst way possible. Here in the parliament we have heard from members and colleagues on both sides of the House of the human and economic cost to their communities. They were very sad speeches. In times of profound loss such as these, all members do play a very important role in giving voice to and helping to overcome the suffering and grief in their communities. I pay my respects to all members who have served in this role so admirably and wish them continuing courage and compassion as they support their affected communities. Indeed, in Newcastle we know very well the human cost of environmental disasters. It is not until you go through it that you really understand the impact. People who are vulnerable or infirm, whether through mental illness, age or chronic illness, will suffer much more acutely. Among older people the incidence of strokes and heart attacks will increase. The incidence of mental illness hospitalisation will increase. There will be financial pressure on families trying to struggle with insurance companies and building firms while they are holding down jobs. They will have relationship problems and it will go on for a long time. It is a time when we need to be together. We do not need pettiness. We do not need people to be small and paltry. Unfortunately, the debate on this levy should not be happening. We should all be speaking with one voice—anything it takes to help those people rebuild their lives. It is a pity to have to say those things, but it is very true and very important. Again this summer, we have also seen, as many members have spoken of, ordinary people doing extraordinary things—and thank goodness. It is at these times when you see the best and worst of people and in Australia, hopefully, it is always the best. But we were reminded by the Prime Minister so eloquently of what it does mean to be Australian—that we are a nation that has suffered adversity and that has a special quality of resilience and even a stubbornness to never give in. That is what has made us tough, generous and resilient and we hope it will continue. We want those people to be tough, even though they are going to face a very hard time. It is a hard time and it is that spirit and commitment of goodwill that underpins the package of reconstruction measures set out in this legislation. Initial estimates by the Treasury indicate that the floods will cut half a percentage point from GDP growth in 2010-11. The floods will continue to have a particularly acute impact on our farmers, tourism operators, small businesses, the mining sector and also the supply chains that support all those businesses and enterprises. It is estimated that 15 million tonnes of coal production equating to several billion dollars was lost in addition to around a billion dollars lost in the agricultural sector, $300 million in the tourism industry alone, and half a billion dollars in the manufacturing, retail and transport industries combined. The introduction of this one-off levy now will go a long way to rebuilding the damaged infrastructure of Queensland. It is staggering to think of 75 per cent of a state so large covered in water and damaged by that water. To restore the commerce and confidence in the agricultural, mining and tourism industries will take a significant investment. To reduce the cost of fruit and vegetable produce nationwide in the long term will be one of the benefits. In the face of these circumstances, the federal government has no choice but to act and to act decisively. Let us not quibble; let us do something. These natural disasters will have a significant impact on the federal budget to the tune of $5.6 billion. That was the figure before Cyclone Yasi, so we are going to see a huge task undertaken. It is not just an economic issue. It is about sustaining communities and doing what is right for those who are experiencing this misfortune. That is why the levy is supported by the Australian Council of Social Service, by the Salvation Army, by AgForce, by the Australian Industry Group, and that is why it is supported too by the President of the National Welfare Rights Network, Maree O’Halloran, who said, ‘Political opposition to the flood levy is wrong-headed and hard-hearted.’ It sure is. In my electorate, we have a very busy electorate office. People love to tell me what they are thinking, whether it be by email, by phone or by dropping into our main street office. I have had fewer than 10 people complain to me about the levy. That is pretty impressive, but that is Newcastle. They know tough, they know struggle and they also know you have got to share something around when you have something and someone needs it. It is very easy to give it away. I am very proud of them. But the levy is deliberately designed not to impact unfairly on struggling low-income earners or victims of the flood. Because this is a progressive levy, as it should be, every Australian earning less than $50,000 per annum is exempt. As a result, it is true that over 60 per cent of taxpayers will pay less than $1 per week and over 85 per cent of taxpayers will pay less than $5 a week. That is small change. It is small change that will equate to real change in the lives of hundreds of thousands of Queenslanders living and working in those flood affected areas. Introducing this levy is not just the right thing to do but also the fiscally responsible thing to do. As the Prime Minister has made crystal clear, every cent raised will be spent on reconstruction only. For every dollar raised by the levy, the federal Labor government has identified at least $2 of budget savings to help fund reconstruction. Increased fiscal austerity and the reprioritisation of existing spending programs have necessitated some tough choices. Given the magnitude of the Queensland flood disaster, we do not resile from that. The federal Labor government has to make those choices and we have made them. Six Queensland road projects will be delayed and three projects in New South Wales and Victoria will be delayed and reduced with a total saving of approximately $1 billion. It is rather amazing to hear members on the other side saying: ‘What about rebuilding regional Australia? Where is the infrastructure money?’ After 12 years of neglect, the OECD report of 2010 still points to the significant deficit in Australia’s infrastructure. We have spent so much, but we have so much more to do. The other side should think about that. Let’s get on with the building of Australia—a nation we want to be proud of. I must be frank in acknowledging that some of these decisions affect my electorate—for example, the $100 million for the northern Sydney freight line upgrade to separate rail and passenger. As the local member, I will track that project very closely. It has been deferred. I understand that. I support the broader national priorities at stake. Queensland’s infrastructure needs are now greater, but it would be irresponsible for the federal government to unnecessarily add to aggregate demand at a time when the economy is in full steam and potential skill shortages and resource shortages loom large. We just have to even it out. We have to catch up where we need to catch up most, and that is in our flood affected areas. I acknowledge that the funding cuts for carbon and green initiatives have affected some residents in my electorate. After all, we have the largest coal export port in the world and we have a key role to play in Australia’s inevitable transition to a low-carbon economy. But I know, and my electorate knows, that the federal Labor government’s determination to place a price on carbon will have a far more wide-ranging and positive impact on climate change and our economic future than any of those programs ever could. I implore all members of the House to support this bill and to do so without delay, but, sadly, that is not happening. Rather than supporting efforts to help Queensland and other flood affected states to get back on their feet, the opposition leader, Tony Abbott, has elected to play politics. How paltry; how small. We hear the same mantra: waste, tax. Three per cent of all BER projects had difficulties, and you call that waste? Catch-up infrastructure—you have the hide to call it waste. A mining tax—come to my region and see the impact of mining. See it growing from 100 million tonnes exported to, potentially, 300 million tonnes in the next few years. That has to be managed. Those people have to help pay for that. We cannot all put on extra levies, as those opposite would say, for those sorts of initiatives. We have to plan for our future. We have to make the best of good economic times. ‘A big tax on everything’—what rubbish. It is just fiscally irresponsible to inflate these things incorrectly and lead the Australian public to not having confidence in the economy. It is not going to work. The Australian public know better. I sometimes wonder what happened to fairness and honesty on the other side. More recently, the Leader of the Opposition advocated a permanent levy on business to fund his ill-fated parental leave scheme. Electors are entitled to ask: if it is good enough for one, why isn’t it good enough for the people of Queensland? Why isn’t it good enough to plug the hole in their lives, in their economy and in the national economy? The simple answer is that the mantra is all the opposition leader knows. It is wearing very thin with people who can think bigger and understand that this is a time of great need. Disasters are real; they impact for decades. When floodwater struck Newcastle in 2007—people will remember the coal ship washed up on Nobbys Beach—the then Labor opposition leader, Kevin Rudd, visited our city. He put political pointscoring aside, as he should have. He did all that he could to support the people of Newcastle and the government’s efforts to support the people of Newcastle. We have never quibbled over the payments for other cyclone damage in Queensland or for any other disasters, and the opposition should not quibble now. The people of Queensland deserve much better. They are getting it from all Australians. They deserve it from Mr Abbott as well. I hope he changes his position soon. 988 21:04:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —Before I make some comments on the flood levy, with the concurrence of the government I wish to acknowledge some new student leaders within schools in Fadden. I believe it is quite important, especially at a time when we are debating large national issues, that the Commonwealth recognises the roles and responsibilities of young leaders as they seek to represent our nation and, in the future, make some of the big decisions that we debate here. These leaders in Fadden have been selected by their schools for their potential to make a positive and lasting contribution to their school and to the wider community. These young leaders play an important role. Their actions have the potential to influence their peers and that influence should not be understated within the school community. I encourage these new leaders to recognise the need for true leadership and to view the opportunity they have been given as a stepping stone to a greater and broader role in our community. Great leadership is at the heart of all achievement, all advancement and the betterment of society. Nothing will ever replace great leadership and nothing can fill the void that the absence of leadership creates. I urge these students, as Australia’s young and emerging leaders, to strive to achieve their very best in their current roles. Through their influence they will carry the responsibility. Winston Churchill once said to his old school in 1941: Never give in—never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. I say to these young student leaders in northern Gold Coast schools: do not give in; give it your all; you can do it. Above all, I say to these young leaders: remember well that you can only truly lead by serving those you represent. This rule is universal and without exception. I regularly visit the schools of leaders whose names I am able to table today. I welcome members of the school leadership group. I am universally impressed by the young people of these schools. The calibre of the young people of this nation and, indeed, the northern Gold Coast is of an extraordinarily high level. I am proud of each of them. I am pleased to seek leave to table the names of Fadden school leaders today, knowing they have an important task ahead of them. I look forward to watching their leadership journey with interest. Leave granted. HWT Robert, Stuart, MP Mr ROBERT —I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer for granting leave. I now move on to lend some comments to the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and the related bill. I am a Queenslander and a proud Queenslander at that. We were all touched by these events, especially since my electorate is only some tens of kilometres from where much of the devastation occurred. I was recently speaking in the House about the role our military played, especially on that fateful night of Tuesday, 11 January. Black Hawks 201 and 220 and two Sea King helicopters conducted the most amazing rescues, rescuing some 300 people, with Black Hawk 201 rescuing 146 people. Up to 1,900 Defence Force personnel, fighting men and women, came to the aid of our communities over the entire period of the Queensland floods and more assisted further south, in Victoria. There is no question that we as a parliament seek to help, serve and mend the people of Queensland. We seek to do all we can. The federal government has announced that $5.6 billion will be required as it matches the states’ 25 per cent of funding with 75 per cent of funding to assist the recovery. There is no quibble from the opposition as to the quantum of funds—no quibble at all. We wish to see the money spent quickly, wisely and with great accountability to go to those most in need. We are thankful for the likes of Major General Mick Slater, DSC, who was put in command of the recovery task force. He is a man of great honour, great courage and great capability. He is a wise choice as leader. There is no dispute from the coalition as to the need for funds, the need for leadership and the need for speed in the operation ahead. There is only one point with which we beg to differ: how the funds are to be raised. The coalition has indicated its support for the reconstruction and repair efforts. We have further offered to have the Leader of the Opposition work in a bipartisan manner with the Prime Minister to find necessary cost savings. The government has rejected the offer, as is its wont. We have also released $2.065 billion of potential savings in our own forward estimates as an alternative to $1.8 billion being raised by the flood levy. We have sought to be responsible and to show alternatives. We do this based on the premise that we do not believe another levy or tax is warranted. We believe the Commonwealth government should rise to the occasion and realise its responsibilities to assist the states when they have encountered natural disaster, but we believe that this is best done through proper, sound fiscal management. I can draw a simple analogy: if my washing machine suddenly blows up, the tyres on my car go bald or something goes wrong in my house, I do not go around and tax the neighbours to fix it; I use savings—I use spare capacity in my household budget to do it. I always say to the young school leavers and those at school in the electorate of Fadden that a budget of a nation runs not dissimilarly to that of a home. We live within our means. There is a time and a place to borrow money for assets that will achieve and significantly increase worth and for that to be paid off quickly. There is a limited time for significant asset borrowing—but it is limited. There is no time for reckless spending. There is no time for continual and sustained budget deficits. There is a time for repaying debt quickly and living within your means. For, if you are within your means, you have the capacity to address issues. Here we have a need for $1.8 billion that the federal government is taxing Australians to raise. What happened to a contingency in the budget to deal with such circumstances? What happened to a budget surplus and money in the bank to deal with these issues? What happened to having a capacity to deal with these issues? I do not begrudge the quantum of the expenditure, but I do take issue with the government that it is not doing enough hard yards to cut its expenditure to deal with the critical needs of the nation at large. The economic consensus, I believe, is quite clear. When considering this bill, the Standing Committee on Economics heard from the likes of Mr Eslake and Professor McKibbin, who were clear in their view that the government’s new tax was the least preferred policy response. Professor McKibbin, member of the board of the Reserve Bank, said: I think that in the case of a disaster it is almost uniformly accepted by economists, in principle, that a tax is not the best way to fund it. He further said: I am sure that there are Queenslanders out there who had no insurance, who incurred significant damage and did not receive any assistance from the government. They will now be hit with the levy. The levy is payable in the 2011-12 financial year—$1.795 billion across the forward estimates. The point, though, is that in question time the Treasurer was unable to say exactly how many people would be paying the levy. I find it difficult to know how he can come to the quantum of $1.795 billion when he does not know the number of people who will be paying for it. If the question is asked, ‘How should the government fund this?’, the average Australian is quite clear. The government has recklessly spent billions and billions of dollars. Right now it is borrowing $100 million a day. Eighteen days of government borrowing would cover the levy; 2½ weeks—that is all it would take. You can look at the wasteful spending, including $2½ billion on pink batts, with 150 houses burnt and four people tragically killed. You can look at the school halls programs, with estimates that up to half of the money was wasted. If you looked at the work that Brad Orgill did in reviewing that program and at the difference in what private schools and public schools got by way of funding per square metre, you would see that the difference was $2.7 billion. The tragic thing about the school halls program of waste is that the Labor Party, which stands there and says, ‘We are here for public education,’ allowed the state Labor governments and bureaucracies to gouge those schools to the point where it is beyond doubt, according to the government’s own task force, that state schools got a much lesser deal than private schools. Those the Labor government sought to serve they indeed screwed over a barrel. It is truly one of the great tragedies and travesties of public policy. A minimum of $2.7 billion was wasted. If we look at the National Broadband Network, something like $50 billion of public funds is about to be spent, some of which, with half a billion dollars in the budget for the NBN presently, could be used for the levy. Yet, in the United States, President Obama has announced spending of $7 billion on a 4G network with a wireless solution. Vietnam is moving to an advanced 4G network, but, even though take-up of broadband technology in this country is seven to one in favour of wireless over fixed, we are still pursuing the solution that was hatched in a plane between Senator Conroy and the former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, because the $4.7 billion solution had folded and Labor quickly needed a patch-up job. We need look no further than the budget blow-out in the immigration department. On 10 February 2011 the government introduced a bill to provide an extra $290 million for operational costs associated with the management of offshore asylum seekers. The new spending represents a budget blow-out of more than 60 per cent on the $470 million already budgeted for in the current year. In 2010-11 the government will now spend $760 million on people arriving illegally in Australia. This compares with the less than $100 million in annual expenditure when the Howard government left office in 2007. The total budget blow-out since Labor rolled back the strong border protection regime in August 2008—and this is a statement of fact—is more than $1.4 billion and counting. If you are an Afghani in a camp on the border of Kazakhstan you have a one in 10 chance of your application to come to Australia being received and processed. If you come by boat you have a 97 per cent chance. That is a statement of fact. So we have a $1.4 billion budget blow-out because this government rolled back the border protection policies. If the spending continues at the level announced on 10 February 2011 over the forward estimates for the next three years, that will mean an additional $1.9 billion in expenditure—enough to cover the flood levy. I could go on and on and speak about the disastrous Green Loans program and the Solar Flagships program, blown out by over a billion dollars—and the list of waste and mismanagement continues ad nauseam. Rather than address the issue of waste and mismanagement, this government has taken the easy route. It has taken the route of a tax. That is what is most disappointing here. The coalition have no issue with funding the quantum. The issue we have tonight as we debate this bill is that we do not believe that Australians should be taxed because a government cannot control its budget. 991 21:16:00 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 1 0 Ms OWENS —I rise to support the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011. There have been many speakers on this bill, with many more to come tonight, and many of the speakers have spoken of the devastation, the grief and the heartache of people who lost not only their possessions but also in some cases people they loved. I will not be focusing particularly on that tonight; I would rather leave the time in this debate for people who represent electorates where those losses were experienced. I represent the electorate of Parramatta. We are probably one of the few areas in the country that did not experience some of the extreme weather events or inundation that so much of the rest of the country experienced. What we have to focus on now is the recovery, and I would urge those on the other side to focus very much on that. The Australian government is looking at an amount of $5.6 billion to pay for our share of the recovery. There are of course also contributions from the state governments and the local councils on top of that. There are the personal rebuilds—much of which will be paid for by insurance but much will not. There are businesses that are rebuilding. There are also community organisations that will make great contributions of time and energy in assisting people who suffer from some of those non-tangible tolls that such a tragedy takes on the spirit of victims and the emotional wellbeing of those who experience these kinds of tragedies. Many, many people in the community are contributing in many ways to help rebuild. We saw the armies of volunteers who turned up in the days following the flood and we all know that many, many people are still contributing their time. I have been to a number of fundraisers in my electorate. A couple of weeks ago I attended a dinner for the Queensland flood relief held by the Pakistan Association of Australia. This Saturday I will attend one by the Burmese Medical Association Australia. At the Nan Tien Temple, where I went to celebrate Lunar New Year, they too were raising funds. In fact at the moment it is very rare that I go to an event in my community where they are not raising funds. The Sri Lankan community held a walking event at Lake Parramatta to raise funds for the flood victims. There are also of course other ways that people will contribute in supporting local businesses to a greater extent—for example, going to North Queensland instead of Bali for our next holiday and even small things like buying fruit that is less than perfect in support of our farmers. As well as the costs themselves, there are losses in revenue that are not included in these figures. There are losses from mining, from tourism, from agriculture, from many small businesses that were out of action for periods of time and from workers on casual wages who lost work hours. There are many, many ways that people have lost revenue as a result of this catastrophe. What we are in here arguing about today is how to fund just the federal government’s component—the $5.6 billion—of the rebuild. Essentially, there are three ways to fund that: cuts to expenditure, debt or some sort of levy. To assume that we can experience tragedy and loss on this scale without some sort of cost is absurd. There is a cost when tragedies like this happen, and it is our duty here in this place to find a way to cover that federal government cost. We have as a government chosen what I think is quite a balanced approach. There is $3.8 billion of that $5.6 billion being found in cuts or deferrals of expenditure and $1.8 billion is being found by the levy. The opposition’s approach is to fund the entire amount by cuts to expenditure. Rather than looking for $3.8 billion in cuts to expenditure, they are looking for $5.6 billion, and I point out that they found it quite difficult to agree among themselves on how that additional $1.8 billion might be found. The opposition make an interesting argument that cuts to expenditure are always a good thing. They have argued ad nauseam, for example, for cuts to the Building the Education Revolution program. In my electorate of Parramatta, shortly before the election last year, and even as the Building the Education Revolution program was winding down, there were 1,800 construction workers working on Building the Education Revolution projects. We got that figure by phoning the construction companies that were handling the projects. The figure was probably slightly higher in my community, because we have some very large construction companies based in Parramatta that were employing off-site staff. Those branches of the construction industry that were not involved in Building the Education Revolution at the time were already on four-day weeks and heading down to three-day weeks, so it is extremely unlikely that, if Building the Education Revolution had been scrapped—if the opposition had had that power—1,800 workers would have been absorbed by what was still a very stagnant construction market. There were another 300 workers on public housing projects and about 500 apprentices. If you add those up, you get three per cent of my workforce. Three per cent of the workforce in Parramatta just six months ago was still working on Building the Education Revolution and social housing stimulus projects and for the local council. If that three per cent of workers were taken off those projects and put on unemployment benefits, unemployment in Parramatta would have risen to around 10 per cent. That is before you take into account that those workers would not have been spending their wages in local businesses. So I am sure we would have seen that 10 per cent rise even further. I sat down and worked out once what it might have cost us in unemployment benefits not to spend the $120 million that we spent on Building the Education Revolution. I worked out that on unemployment benefits alone we would have spent about half of that $120 million. So, while we spent $120 million on building school halls, we would have had to spend at least half that on unemployment benefits over that two-year period. Also, of course, the workers would not have been paying tax, they would not have been spending and we would have seen a flowthrough. Sometimes, cutting expenditure is not necessarily a good thing, and I would say the same thing about the proposal of the opposition to cut funding to Indonesian schools. The funding of Indonesian schools was a project started by the Howard government. I was lucky enough to be on a few delegations in the region last year, and a number of governments talked to me about how extraordinary that Indonesian schools program is. Cutting the money from it might give a better snapshot, but sometimes value is not in the snapshot. If you do not fix your leaky roof or decide not to go to university, your bottom line might look a bit better for the snapshot on that day, but over time you will not get the benefit of that investment. Cutting an investment does not necessarily make you better off, but I am yet to see evidence that the opposition understand that. They seem to be quite fixated on the snapshot, but most of us who actually live in the world know that most things of value unfold over time. Decisions to invest or not invest today impact positively or negatively in the future. Some people in my community and in my electorate want to talk about longer term solutions at this point. There are debates going on in the community now at both government and personal levels about insurance—about the effectiveness of insurance et cetera. There are people talking now about whether or not we need to have longer term funds to deal with natural disasters. They are all extremely valuable discussions that we need to have at some point. There are also people already looking for someone to blame, but our job at this point is to rebuild. There are those who want to step over the recovery and start focusing on what might have been done better or how we might prevent our being in this situation again in the future, but that is a luxury that only those of us who are not personally affected have. People who have been personally affected by this appalling summer that we have just lived through need to focus on one thing at the moment—that is, the recovery. Every day that we do not start building is a day on which those losses continue to grow. The physical damage might be done, but the loss of income, the loss of revenue and the loss of capacity in communities continue to grow for every day that we do not focus on the recovery. So again I urge everybody out there who has a view on what we should do in the long term or what we might have done differently to put it aside for a little while—I put mine aside in what I call my ‘ideas file’, which I can pull out at any moment—and to focus on the job of getting some of these communities up and running. Let us focus on those other issues later on. I also want to deal specifically with one issue that comes from my community. Contrary to the opposition’s focus on cutting spending, a small number of people who believe that we should increase the debt to cover the rebuilding have contacted my office. A number of other people have also expressed this view, including one economist that addressed the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics into the flood levy bills. In fact, a number of witnesses suggested that we should increase the debt. At the moment, Australia has a very small public debt relative to other countries in the world. Most people do not know that we have actually had very small public debt relative to other countries in the world for about the last 30 years. We had 120 per cent of GDP debt in World War II. Most countries in the world had massive debt at the end of World War II, and most of them proceeded to pay it off over the next 20 to 30 years. A lot of the countries in the world stopped paying their debt off when they got to about 20 per cent; Australia did not. Our debt kept getting smaller so that by the time we hit 1970 we had one of the smallest debts to GDP nations in the world. Our debt level went up and down; I think it averaged around five per cent. There was a period in the 1980s when there was a bit of a global crisis and governments again started going into debt. But in the late 1980s, when that crisis started to soften, the government of the day paid back six per cent of GDP in debt in just three years. So we have had this habit over the last 30 years of going into debt when we need to and then proceeding to pay it back. Australia has been, I think, among the eight countries in the OECD with the lowest debt for the last 30 years. It is one of the things that makes us strong, and it is one of the reasons that we as a nation are able to respond to crises like we faced with the global financial crisis a couple of years ago. It is very important, but it is also important for a government to stick to a fiscal strategy when it commits to one. It is incredibly important that we do that. Commitment in strategy is an important signal that we send out. Our commitment is incredibly important as well. Personally I am getting a little bit risk averse. We have been in government for 3½ years and we have had the global financial crisis, the bushfires in Victoria and then the floods, and then there were more floods, and then there were more floods. I was trying to camp around Australia at the time. I was heading up to Carnarvon Gorge, just inland from Rockhampton. We had been completely out of circulation in the national park. Actually, I am running out of time so I will not tell that story. Essentially this levy, as a combination of levy and cutting of expenditure, is a very valid and balanced approach. I commend the bills to the House. 995 21:31:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011. People in my electorate are like the majority of Australians in that they believe in helping out a mate who has struck hard times, or families and communities as we have seen in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. I want to personally express my condolences to the families and communities who are mourning those who died in the recent floods. There has been and still is almost immeasurable goodwill and support being offered by people from the south-west of WA. We all understand that the people of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria need support to rebuild their infrastructure, their local economies and the communities that were so devastated by the floods of last month and by Cyclone Yasi. We also want to support those in states like Victoria who have suffered over and again with floods, those in our own Gascoyne and Carnarvon areas who suffered flooding in December and January and those in the electorate of Canning who lost homes and property in recent bushfires. We understand and readily accept that some of our taxpayer dollars should go towards this massive rebuilding process right across our nation. It is entirely appropriate that Commonwealth funds are spent on rebuilding lives and communities. However, I disagree with this government on where those funds are derived from. We are almost punch-drunk with the list of taxes that this Labor government is either inflicting or proposing to inflict on the people of Australia. And if we are not punch-drunk with the government’s new taxes to date, by the time the government has introduced its carbon energy tax, its mining tax and the flood tax, taxpayers will well and truly be tax-punch-drunk. If we had a fiscally responsible government, this tax would not be necessary. My family runs a small business, like millions of other Australians. We have a dairy and beef farm, and like everybody else in business we have to allow for and manage the many contingencies—those unexpected things that happen in the running of our business. It is something that is faced by small businesses constantly. For instance, last year was the driest year I can remember since I was married and started farming, and we received only half our average annual rainfall. As a result, the water levels in our water storage dams in the hills were extremely low. There was very little run-off into these dams and, as a result, we were effectively receiving only 34 per cent of our annual irrigation allocation to water our pastures over the summer months that we are now going through. This is a major issue on an irrigation farm. What did we do? We dealt with it and it has cost our business to do so. We had to increase the frequency of our fertiliser applications, which was more cost, manage our pastures extremely efficiently and, when additional water was released by the state government, choose to buy additional allocation to use in our irrigation program. Other farmers—small business people just like us—had to make a range of decisions that best managed the problem in their own individual circumstances. Some, like us, bought additional water, some bought more grain or dairy rations to feed their cows, and others cut back production to match the feed they had available. All of them, however, took some action to deal with an unforeseen circumstance that was impacting on their business. The decision to buy more water cost individual businesses anything from five per cent and upwards of their annual gross milk income to simply produce the same amount of milk as they did the year before. These businesses had to absorb at least that five per cent or more cost to generate the same revenue. Whether it was paid for as extra grain or forgone in reduced production, the cost to farmers was similar. How does this parliament think we achieved this? How does the parliament think a million other small businesses across Australia absorb costs like this that go hand in hand with managing a business? According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there are about two million businesses in Australia, of which more than half are classed as sole traders. They do not employ other people, and there are plenty of Australian farmers in this group. Of the other ‘employing’ businesses, some 70 per cent have between one and four employees, and 90 per cent have less than 20. These business owners—the backbone of the Australian economy—cannot just put up their prices every time something unexpected happens. If you are a dairy farmer you are an absolute price taker. That is how it is. And if you are in Western Australia, you are at extremely serious risk at the moment of even lower milk returns because you are caught in the middle of the current market share war between Coles and Woolworths. So how does the government think business owners manage contingencies? We do it by reworking our budget. We have to cut our spending and reprioritise what we are going to do. That is what is expected of a couple of million Australian small businesses. They do it on a regular basis. There are always contingencies. How does this compare with the Australian Labor Party, which is currently in the business of running the Australian government? When a contingency arose—the storms, the floods, the fires—this Labor government announced a $5.6 billion package. That is just 1.5 per cent of the budget available to the government—and certainly not the five per cent, at least, faced by irrigation farmers—and the government cannot manage it. They will not make the tough decisions that businesses across Australia have to make all the time to manage their business. Instead, they are taking the easy way out. They are imposing another tax to cover their weakness. On behalf of the couple of million small businesses like mine that regularly have to absorb contingency costs of five per cent at least when things get tough, I want to express to this parliament the anger and disgust felt in the community towards a government that is incapable of simply doing what good governments are expected to do: to make tough decisions when the situation calls for it, as this one does. I understand why the government might not understand this message. I do not know how many of the members opposite, particularly on the front bench, have personal experience of running a business, be it large or small, and I am not sure how many have actually filled out a BAS or another GST type statement. You have to make tough decisions when you are in that position. But when you are in government it is your job to manage these types of contingencies. That is why we have a government. The Australian community expect this government to do what they themselves as small business people have to do. The tax proposed is clear evidence that this government is a ‘tax first’ government. Their first, knee-jerk reaction is a tax. There was an editorial in the West Australian that expressed what I believe to be a genuine community view, and that is: Many reasonably believe that the Government, which takes a healthy slice of our incomes in taxes, needs to find a way of paying for reconstruction without taking more. That, after all, is what governments are elected to do, manage taxpayers’ funds prudently and make sure they can meet national contingencies. I will repeat that: That, after all, is what governments are elected to do— and what this government was elected to do— manage taxpayers’ funds prudently and make sure they can meet national contingencies. Unfortunately, there are words in this paragraph that are anathema to this government, and they are clearly the words ‘manage taxpayers’ funds prudently’. Unfortunately for Australians, particularly for those generous Australians who have already donated to the flood and cyclone relief efforts, this government has not, can not and will not manage taxpayers’ funds prudently. This is just further evidence of that. As a community volunteer for a lot of my life, one of the things that most disturbs me about this knee-jerk-reaction tax is the effect it may have on the future generosity that Australians are well known and well respected for. In my electorate, people collected clothing and goods and sent them off to Queensland. On a personal level, they donated extremely generously, as people right around this nation did. There have been many phone calls to my office. One of the many complaints was from a small business man in my electorate, who rang to tell me that the moment the government announced the tax he cancelled his $1,000 donation to the flood appeal. He was so angry that the government took for granted his donation and his goodwill. He even asked me why he should donate to other charities, like the Salvation Army, if this was what was going to happen in this nation. This is a story that I have heard over and over, and as a community volunteer I am seriously concerned about it. I say to this government: Australians are generous, community minded people, but you should not take their generosity for granted or abuse their natural kindness and community spirit. Do not put this at risk. Do not make people question their very natural generosity and their community spirit. What really annoys people the most is that they are well aware of this government’s wasted billions in the BER, computers in schools, home insulation and countless green programs. The list is growing. The most damning thing of all is that people know that the government’s interest bill alone this financial year would have paid the levy at least twice over. What a wasteful, dreadful government. For people in my electorate facing cost-of-living pressures, this is almost unbearable—a government addicted to wasting taxpayers’ funds but at the same time increasing taxes on a regular basis. The Australian community should not have to keep paying more and more taxes simply because this Labor government cannot properly manage the business of government. Thank you. 997 21:42:00 Jones, Stephen, MP A9B Throsby ALP 1 0 Mr STEPHEN JONES —I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and cognate bill. We are joined in this debate because of the staggering dimensions of the floods in Queensland, the floods affecting northern New South Wales, the floods affecting north-west Victoria, and Cyclone Yasi, events that occurred between November and January-early February this year. Combined they quite possibly represent our most extensive natural disaster. The way that we respond to a disaster defines us as individuals, but it also defines us as a nation. It also defines us here as a parliament: it defines our humanity, our capacity to manage the recovery and our capacity as leaders. It is appropriate to start my contribution to this debate by expressing my condolences to the families and friends of the 35 people who lost their lives in the flooding that occurred of the Lockyer Creek and the Bremer and Brisbane rivers between 10 and 12 January; the unfortunate loss of one life in Cyclone Yasi; and the terrible destruction of properties and communities in northern Victoria. I can only imagine the trauma experienced by the people in each of these regions and everyone else who faced the full force of this unprecedented natural disaster. Like everyone in this place, I was deeply moved by the stories of courage and endurance and also by the remarkable community spirit that many Australians showed in the aftermath of the floods and the cyclone by joining in the clean-up effort and generously donating money to the Premier’s flood appeal. Many thousands of dollars, goods and materials were donated by people from my electorate of Throsby, and I pay tribute to the generosity and the volunteering spirit of those people who donated their time, effort and money to the recovery effort. In this place, many fine, heartrending speeches were given by members on both sides of the House, and I pay tribute to the members who, through great difficulty, have attempted to represent the feelings, the emotions and the people of their region in this place. The damage that has been caused by the recent flooding is unprecedented, and the task of rebuilding is indeed significant. While the damage to roads alone is yet to be precisely determined, local governments estimate that some 90,000 kilometres of roads have been damaged and will need to be repaired or rebuilt. This figure does not include federal highways, state roads or railways. These recent floods and the cyclone may well end up being the most costly disasters in Australia’s history. The Queensland Treasury told the recent inquiry that they estimate that economic growth in that state alone for 2010-11 will drop by 2.5 per cent to 1.25 per cent. Our own Treasury’s estimate is that the floods will take up half a per cent of growth from our 2010-11 estimates. The reconstruction task is going to take a lot of time and a lot of money. Initial estimates put the cost to the Commonwealth budget at somewhere close to $5.6 billion and, as the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have told members in this place, the risks are on the upside. Our challenge is how we rebuild Queensland, Northern Victoria and New South Wales at the same time as ensuring the rest of the economy continues to recover from the global financial crisis, the worst crisis to grip our country in over 100 years and one that many parts of the world have yet to recover from. It is also to ensure how we rebuild these regions at the same time as we manage an economy which we are sometimes told is running at two speeds but which I believe is probably more accurately described as running at three or even four speeds—that is to say, the economic growth and the capacity constraints that we are feeling in some areas of our country are not evenly spread. We have some capacity constraints on the economy; that is true. In the mining states, including flood affected Queensland, there is an unprecedented level of capital investment in mining and related infrastructure. This draws down on the limited pool of skilled labour that is available and capital equipment that is drawn to the task. Some areas of the economy, however, are still sluggish. Over the Christmas period we were reminded of that by the below average returns in the retail sector, and in some states housing itself has not yet recovered either. We also need to manage the rebuilding effort at the same time as we keep our faith as a government with our commitment to manage the budget back into surplus by 2012-13, consistent with our election commitments. So we have three options. We can go into further debt, we can find all of the $5.8 billion or more from within the budget or we can find some savings from the budget and others by legislating for a modest and temporary levy. The bill, which would give force to the third of these options, the one the government has chosen, was referred to the Economics Committee, who heard evidence from two independent economists and also received evidence from others. Both gave evidence to suggest that the government should foot the bill by increasing debt. This is not an option preferred by either the government or the opposition. We do not agree with the proposition, and the reason is simple—that is, the debt is in effect a deferred tax. The money will have to be repaid at some point in time, and that money comes from tax revenue. Faced, quite simply, with the choice between paying the money now or paying the money later, we have opted for a very targeted, temporary levy which will enable us to pay the money now and, as the Prime Minister has said, pay as we go. The position of the coalition on this matter is at best confused and at worst plainly dishonest. They cannot have an in-principle objection to a levy because in government the coalition had no hesitation in raising a levy to support a whole range of measures. In all, there were six levies raised by the coalition on measures such as gun buybacks, the support of Ansett employees, the superannuation surcharge levy, the stevedoring levy, the sugar levy, the dairy industry restructuring levy—and others were proposed. The Leader of the Opposition is on the record as supporting all of these six levies, and what is remarkable about the coalition position on most of these levies is that they were imposed at a time when the economy was growing and the budget was in surplus. So the logic and the lesson we are supposed to draw from the coalition on this matter is that you tax us more when you have more, and you oppose the imposition of a modest, short-term levy when the budget is in deficit and we are recovering from the worst crisis to hit our economy in over 100 years—a perverse logic, which is disputed by most economists and, I suspect, even disputed by many on the opposition benches. We have heard a number of times in this debate allegations raised about the level of taxation under the Gillard Labor government. I looked at this because it seems to have gained some currency amongst those on the benches opposite. The sad news for them is that taxation has actually dropped under the Labor government. In fact, if you look at the tax to GDP ratio, you will see it was highest under the Liberal government. It peaked at around 25.5 per cent of GDP in 2006-07 and dropped to 22.7 per cent of GDP in 2009-10. So when the member for Forrest is talking to those small businesses that she spoke of so passionately earlier she might care to remind them that it is this government that is committed to reducing the burden of taxation on small businesses. In fact, we went to the election with a proposal to cut the tax on small business, not to increase it, as was the proposal of the coalition. As a percentage of GDP, taxes are decreasing under this government. We have also been treated to the wisdom of the members for Goldstein, Warringah and North Sydney claiming that flood reparations could be paid for out of cuts to the budget. Interestingly, this was a proposition rejected by all of the economists who appeared before the committee. They said that this is contrary to all orthodox economic thinking and that the government were on their own when it came to this proposition. It also sits very ill with the track record of the opposition. This is a coalition which had an $11 billion blow-out in its pre-election funding. This is a coalition which over the last week has operated like a bunch of fiscal vandals when it comes to the current budget. It has moved legislation in the upper house which would have the effect of punching a $400 million hole in the budget with absolutely no regard for the financial impact that that would have on the budget. We do not take economic lessons from the coalition because, quite frankly, they are at best confused, at worst incompetent. If we were to have listened to the prescriptions of those opposite they would have had us running unemployment levels in excess of 10 per cent as we moved through the global financial crisis. They would have had us cut spending when every economist around the country and around the world was saying we needed to inject fiscal stimulus into the economy. They would have had us do nothing about the $46 billion deficit in infrastructure—and it is this $46 billion deficit in this country’s infrastructure which is the greatest problem we have in dealing with future inflationary pressures. If those opposite want to start pointing a finger at the inflationary pressures that are building up in the economy and the risks to future infrastructure rises, they should point a finger nowhere else than at the previous government’s frontbench that bequeathed Australians a $46 billion infrastructure deficit with the resultant skills deficit and bottlenecks which are increasing inflationary pressures and making it that much harder to deal with the crisis to rebuild Queensland in the wake of these floods. It has been said that the government should find the money from savings. All I can say is that the opposition have zero credibility on this issue. They went to the last election proposing an increase in taxation, a new levy of their own to fund the opposition leader’s thought bubble on paid maternity leave. They were the only party going into the last election proposing to increase taxes on businesses when we were proposing to decrease taxes. They had an $11 billion blow-out in their funding proposals for their budget. They have a poor track record when it comes to dealing with unemployment and infrastructure. So we will have no truck with the economic lessons of those opposite. We, in contradistinction, have a proposal to impose a very modest tax on those who have a taxable income of over $50,000 a year. It will result in a small contribution equivalent to around the cost of a cup of coffee per week for one year. It is a small contribution which is in line with the underlying values of the Australian community—that when one of our states is in trouble we should all pitch in to help. I commend the bill to the House. 1000 21:58:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 0 Ms LEY —I think it is important that we talk about what this debate is about and what it is not about. The Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 are about the government’s decision to impose a $1.8 billion tax on a portion of the country’s taxpayers to raise a third of what the government has articulated to be the $5.6 billion total cost of the flood reconstruction in Queensland and Victoria. On that note, it took the Prime Minister a while to bring Victoria in; in her first remarks at the Press Club, I do not believe she mentioned Victoria once. But it is to rebuild Queensland and Victoria following the devastating floods. Those with taxable incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 will pay a 0.5 per cent levy and those earning over $100,000 will pay a one per cent levy temporarily for 12 months. This debate is not about the need to rebuild Queensland and Victoria. It is not about the level of sympathy or empathy that members of parliament supposedly do or do not have for those who have been affected. We all grieve for those who have lost loved ones, livelihoods, homes and businesses. We all care deeply when we hear those personal and heartbreaking stories. It is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst for members opposite to suggest that opposing the levy is opposing the reconstruction and the recovery. In managing or mismanaging this economy, this Labor government, like other Labor governments both state and federal, reaches for three things which are quick, easy and designed to manage a short-term fix to solve the problem of the 24-hour news cycle and present a happy face to the Australian people. The three tools are: tax, spend and interfere. The spending we certainly saw during the global financial crisis. The previous speaker said that we in the opposition did not support stimulus, and that is not correct. We supported the first stimulus package: a modest, careful approach and then stopping, listening and seeing where the world economy was going. We certainly did not support the ‘jump in boots and all’ excessive and reckless spending that followed. But we as a nation saw that excessive spending, and we are still seeing it. The irony is that, well after the Reserve Bank and monetary authorities had declared that the crisis was over in Australia, at least half of the stimulus spending remained unspent. So we cannot even let the government off the hook by saying they did what they thought was best and it turned out that maybe we did not need that much, because at the point where it was obvious that that level of stimulus and spending was not required the government could have said, ‘Stop; we’ll reprioritise and we’ll take the spending away.’ But that would have been unpopular and politically difficult and it would have required some courage, and that was not evident. So it is ‘tax, spend and interfere’. The taxing we are seeing now. We will always see higher taxes under Labor governments. We are seeing this flood levy tax, which is an easy, quick fix. I mentioned that Labor governments interfere, and as an aside I will mention that there is no more classic example than the internet filter. The important thing that we have to focus on here is how the money will be raised, how it will be spent and what it will achieve. The Prime Minister has called on well-known Liberal John Fahey to head an outfit that is being described as the reconstruction inspectorate. This, of course, will be a great big new bureaucracy. If we donate to charities, as we all do, we choose carefully, because we want to make sure that our money hits the ground. We do not like money being frittered away in administrivia. We know that it happens, but we would prefer that the help went to the people who need it. But we as taxpayers are being asked to contribute to the reconstruction inspectorate. What will be the running costs of this organisation? We do not know. How can we be confident about the distribution of this $5.6 billion levy when it arrives? How, in fact, do we know that $5.6 billion is the right figure? Cyclone Yasi—which was a terrible tragedy that will involve great capital and asset replacement—had not happened when the flood levy was announced. Presumably it will also be included. How do we know if $5.6 billion is too much or too little? How was the figure arrived at? The Treasurer was asked in question time how many Australians would contribute to the levy. The answer was actually in the Australian newspaper that day, not that it was any big secret: 4.8 million Australians. The Treasurer could not answer the question in question time. He fluffed the answer, and I think he added to his answer later; perhaps somebody handed him a copy of the Australian newspaper. But he should have known that. Does, in fact, the Treasurer know where the money will go? It will go to consolidated revenue, where, as we know, it will be at the government’s disposal anywhere, anytime. So, if the Treasurer does not know how many Australians would pay the levy and he knows that it is all going into consolidated revenue, that gives you a flavour of the way this fund is going to be managed. We cannot be confident. Psychologists will tell you that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. Do not expect this government to change; they have form. The form is their wasted stimulus payments, their roof insulation tragedies and disasters, their school building rip-offs, their Solar Flagships and Green Loans mistakes and their undelivered computers in schools. Today I was drawn to perhaps the best example of why I do not believe in this flood levy. Of course it will raise the money. Governments can always raise taxes. As I said, it is easy and quick. But we have an example here of why this will not work. We look no further than Infrastructure Australia. I quote from an article by Richard Allsop in today’s Australian: Set up, with great fanfare, to “develop a strategic blueprint for our nation’s infrastructure needs”, the whole rationale of Infrastructure Australia was that it would be national, scientific and impartial. A body of experts would weigh the merits of competing infrastructure proposals from across the nation and pick those that would deliver the greatest benefit for the taxpayer dollar. It sounds good. It would have been good. But, three years after its establishment, this body has demonstrated irrelevance and incompetence. We probably should not blame it or the good chairman, Sir Rod Eddington, because today the minister stepped in once again, usurped the entire process—his process—and declared that Infrastructure Australia would fund the Epping-Parramatta railway line. It is a project that has not even been identified by Infrastructure Australia as recommended for funding and had not even been considered a strong enough proposal to form part of the New South Wales government’s submission seeking federal funding. So that is one example of how the minister stepped in and simply said, ‘This is where we’re going to allocate infrastructure funding for political purposes and political gain; never mind that we set up these bodies and they are all over the place’—because the previous Prime Minister set them up and the current Prime Minister has continued them. They cost a lot of money and they are there for appearances, but they are not delivering the goods. The other thing I want to say about the levy is: if it is so important, why has $450 million of it already been spent just on securing its own existence—if you like, a 25 per cent commission? I can remember the Prime Minister saying: The Government will make $2.8 billion in spending cuts, with the funding to go towards the recovery and reconstruction effort, including: …            …            … Reducing and deferring spending on the …Solar Flagships programs … …            …            … Discontinuing funding for the Australian Learning and Teaching Council Reducing the National Rent Affordability Scheme dwelling target … But on Wednesday the Prime Minister had to pay the Greens for their vote: $100 million to restore the cuts that had just been announced to the Solar Flagships program. There was another $264 million for the National Rental Affordability Scheme that the Prime Minister had just said she would cut, and the member for Denison, who shares the balance of power in this House, demanded his piece of the action. That was another $88 million for the Australian Learning and Teaching Fund. That is a total of $452 million already spent just to win the votes for a levy to raise $1.8 billion. So 25 per cent of this money has already gone to secure the existence of the fund in the first place. We have no confidence that when this fund exists that it will be administered in a way that delivers the best value for taxpayers or that the best cost-benefit analysis will be applied to it. We can all talk about good projects and the need to rebuild, and from this distance it is fine. But when it comes down to where the rubber hits the road it is about what everything we do is about: the allocation of scarce resources according to cost-benefit analysis. I have no confidence that that will be done in a way that makes sense to the people of Australia. I turn to my own electorate of Farrer and the circumstances we face. I do represent one of the forgotten flood regions of Australia—we are not Queensland and we are not Victoria. But for us in the electorate of Farrer, through the south-west and far west of New South Wales, these weather events have provided an enormous challenge for hundreds of local farmers and property owners. Between Broken Hill and Wilcannia local stations had walls of water sweeping through homes, outbuildings, sheds and paddocks. There were reports of decaying wildlife stuck in tree branches metres off the ground. Some of these properties are still cut off by road more than a month later. In the Riverina, record rainfall since the latter part of last year has made it near impossible to complete or even contemplate a harvest. Home owners flooded out in October last year are still waiting to get back into their houses four months on. Along the Murray Valley many vignerons and fruit growers have had their entire season decimated by continued and unrelenting water coming from both the sky and swollen rivers. Just last week on a visit to the northern end of my electorate in and around the Broken Hill area, drought- and now flood-weary constituents came up to me on the street asking about a continuation of exceptional circumstances funding to help them get through this period. What can I tell them? I can tell them the truth: I am sorry, but the government has run out of money. They might ask where it has all gone, and I can tell them: the Building the Education Revolution, the pink batts fiasco, the cash for clunkers exercise that never actually eventuated and fancy new websites—the list goes on and on. But my people in New South Wales are being further disadvantaged by this deficient Labor Party. New South Wales Labor is not even prepared to pay its fair share of the fifty-fifty natural disaster relief arrangements. In Queensland and Victoria, eligible recipients can be given up to $25,000 in order to rebuild—and, gosh, $25,000 does not go very far, but it is something when your livelihood is destroyed or on the line. But the limit in New South Wales is only $15,000. There is actually no reason for the $10,000 discrepancy; there is no reason why it should not also be $25,000 in New South Wales other than New South Wales does not have the money, which is a bit of a familiar refrain. But in upping the amount that New South Wales says that it could pay, they only actually have to pay half that amount; the other half is matched by the federal government. It is pretty stingy of them, and I have been calling on them for a while now to increase their cash payments to flood affected small businesses and farmers from $15,000 to $25,000. It demonstrates again a basic incapacity of government to effectively manage the needs of the people that they claim to represent. That has a knock-on effect on many other hard-working people and taxpayers from my region: retailers, manufacturers and service industries who derive an income from a flood affected area. Their own home may not have been directly flooded and their property may not have lost stock and fences, but they are affected and will continue to be affected by a downturn in rural customers and income. And what does the government do in acknowledging their circumstances? It tosses on a brand new tax. These same agricultural communities, so recently afflicted by drought and now devastated by floods, will again be forced to dig into overdrafts and debt to restore and recover. After factoring in their flatlining budget, rising costs of living, rising prices for basic commodities and rising interest rates, now there is a flood tax—yet another impact onto their quality of life because the Rudd and Gillard administrations continue to fail the most basic of tests for credible financial management. 1004 22:12:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Reid ALP 1 0 Mr MURPHY —I join with my colleagues on this side of the House this evening to speak in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011. I begin by commenting on the contribution made earlier today in this debate by my colleague the member for Dobell. He made a very good point: while those opposite like to point the finger and argue that it is an unfair levy, he reminded them that the Howard government was the highest-taxing government for five consecutive years. While those opposite make claims that our government has mismanaged the Australian economy, again the truth is that our economy is one of the most advanced economies not to have suffered a recession during the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression, and we still enjoy one of the lowest unemployment levels of all advanced economies. That is the truth. And just as the Labor government acted decisively in the face of the worst global recession since the Great Depression and delivered one of the strongest economies in the developed world, again we are acting decisively in the face of what is likely to be the most costly natural disaster we have endured in Australia’s history. While the immediate beneficiaries of the recovery efforts will be the communities directly affected, including the 75 per cent of Queensland declared a disaster zone, the scale of the disaster is far reaching and has adverse impacts for all Australians—but I will come back to that point later. Only in our last sitting week we remembered the victims of Queensland and Victorian floods, Cyclone Yasi and the more recent bushfires in Western Australia. There were sincere condolences from both the sides of the House, with some very personal stories and heartfelt reactions. There was, however, a very clear message from all our contributions that Australians all pull together in times of need. There can be no doubt that we all witnessed the full force of nature when nearly every state experienced flooding. After so many years of drought, it was a cruel blow for farmers who have already struggled with extreme climatic conditions. The footage we all witnessed on our televisions gave an extraordinary picture of havoc wreaked by the torrent of water flooding homes, farms and businesses. Initial estimates place the Commonwealth expenses of the damage at around $5.6 billion. That is a cost that we must all share. As the bridges collapsed, the ports and rail lines closed, the markets flooded and the livestock drowned, many businesses were brought to an alarming halt. This of course has flow-on effects for the people unable to work and pay their mortgage and pay for food, with an incredible loss to small business and larger industries alike. The flow-on effect to our Australian economy will be significant, but it is the intention of the government to mitigate the effects through decisive action, which we are taking tonight. It is vital that we address this problem as soon as possible. Today we are looking at the government’s plan for the recovery effort. Broken down, the government is tackling the issue with three main measures: (1) spending cuts to government initiatives, saving $2.8 billion; (2) delaying certain infrastructure projects, to a total of $1 billion; and (3) introducing a one-off progressive levy with contributions from taxpayers with taxable incomes over $50,000. In light of the immediate demands on the government to assist the recovery effort, these measures are very important to keep our excellent economy in good shape. While we acknowledge that our $2.8 billion worth of cuts to certain programs will disappoint some, these are the difficult decisions we face in the wake of possibly the worst natural disaster in economic terms that our country has ever experienced. The second measure, to delay infrastructure projects, is made with the intention of freeing-up funds as well as skilled workers. The Prime Minister has expressed the difficulties Australia is already experiencing with skills shortages. With the additional capacity requirement we will see with the rebuilding effort in Queensland, the shortages may worsen. To alleviate the pressures on skilled labour, it is a sensible and economically responsible approach to reduce demand on both labour and materials by delaying a billion dollars worth of government infrastructure projects. The government does not wish to compete with or delay the recovery effort so urgently needed in Queensland. The Queensland government has already outlined its $325 million worth of infrastructure project delays, and other states and territories will outline their respective project delays. This is not to say, however, that the projects are shelved forever. On the contrary, it is important to stress that these projects have only been deferred, not abolished, and they will commence as soon as practicable. It is the federal Labor government which understands the importance of infrastructure, more than doubling the Commonwealth investment in transport infrastructure compared with under the Howard government. Yet again, the opposition ignores these figures. However, in light of the changing circumstances we are very sensitive to the changing needs and priorities. In recognition of the additional pressures arising from skills shortages, the government is also proposing to establish a special team within the department of immigration to help deliver employer sponsored temporary visas, 457 visas. Mr Speaker, as you know, applications that are considered decision ready will be processed within five days for employers who are genuinely involved in the rebuilding effort. Due to the demand of the rebuilding effort, remembering the area affected is larger than the state of New South Wales, the government will double the number of places in the job seeker relocation pilot program to help job seekers fill the job opportunities. It is important to note that the 457 visa program is demand driven. These measures simply make it faster for employers to get the workers they need to rebuild. All workers seeking a 457 will still be subject to strict skills tests. I note the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, Senator the Hon. Chris Evans, made a statement last week concerning Australian jobs and foreign workers. He reiterated that the government will not tolerate Australians being forced out of work as a result of illegal and exploitative practices. Further, the minister noted that overseas workers play a critical role in meeting skills shortages but they cannot be used as a source of cheap labour and must not be paid less than an equivalent Australian worker. The minister also made it very clear that reports of exploitative practices will be properly investigated and we will not tolerate companies attempting to exploit foreign workers and undermine the conditions and wages of Australian workers. This, I feel, is important to clarify. The 457 visas are specifically to assist critical skills shortages where suitably skilled Australian workers are not available to fill those jobs. I know many people in the building and construction industry will understand the sense in these measures and I trust they will benefit value for money and timely rebuilding efforts. Turning to the financial costs as the government seeks to raise two-thirds of the funds needed to rebuild flood affected Queensland, the other third will come from the proposed levy. Treasury estimates that $1.8 billion will be collected from taxpayers earning more than $50,000. It is a progressive levy based, as I said, on taxable incomes above $50,000. Firstly, it is important to stress that the levy will not affect low-income earners on $50,000 or less, pensioners, DSP recipients or carers. People who have claimed the flood recovery assistance payment will also not pay the levy. Those earning between $50,000 and $100,000 will pay 0.5 per cent. To give some idea of what that will mean in the hip pocket, a person earning $60,000 will pay 96c a week while a person earning $80,000 will pay $2.88 a week under the levy. The levy will increase to one per cent of taxable income over $100,000. What is noteworthy about the proposed flood levy is the limited impact it will have on taxpayers. If you look at the raw figures, about 50 per cent of taxpayers will not pay anything, about 60 per cent of taxpayers will pay less than $1 a week and around 70 per cent of taxpayers will pay less than $2 a week under the levy. These figures are not as alarming as the opposition would have us believe. And if we take into consideration the three consecutive tax cuts that Australian taxpayers have received under our government, as other members have already pointed out, the figures clearly indicate that most taxpayers are still way ahead even after the levy. For example, people with taxable incomes of $60,000 will pay 96c a week for the levy for one financial year; however, after three consecutive tax cuts, delivered in 2008, 2009 and 2010, the same person has received a total of $25.96 per week in cumulative tax cuts. This means that they are $25 better off than before 2008 even after paying flood levy. The savings made by the three consecutive tax cuts far outweigh the cost of a one-off flood levy and I think we should bear this in mind. Our challenge as a government is to provide further opportunities to help industry meet its needs and boost living standards for Australians. Queensland produces about one-third of all our fruit and vegetables and is also an important tourism hub as well as a major mining state. Due to the recent floods, the damage and restrictions across those sectors will indeed have a negative economic impact. That is why it is so important that such an important trading state is fully functional again as soon as possible. One senior in my electorate told me that he could not understand why some people were opposed to the levy. He openly declared that the levy would not affect him, because he was a pensioner, but he would be willing to give up a cup of coffee a week for the victims and businesses in Queensland. Other constituents have even raised their concern that we do not have a natural disaster relief fund sufficient to deal with these extraordinary events. I note that, while these funds are set aside for emergencies, they do not have the capacity to cover events on the scale that we have just experienced. After such events as the Queensland floods, we have to think about these measures as we look forward to an uncertain climatic future. Australians affected by the floods need to rebuild and move on from the floods, and the sooner the better. It is in times of disaster that a government must make the tough decisions in the best interest of the people, and that is exactly what we are doing. Not surprisingly, there are strong indicators that, despite the fear mongering of those opposite, most Australians support the flood levy. In conclusion, we know that the Australian taxpayers expect value for money. We know that the taxpayers expect the job to be done properly and we are ensuring that we fulfil those expectations and take responsibility for appropriating taxpayers’ hard earned dollars very seriously. Right now, flood affected communities need our immediate assistance. Their homes, schools and businesses and lives will not rebuild themselves. It will be a group effort with individuals, businesses and each level of government providing the necessary assistance. I believe the bills meet the needs of the recovery effort and the needs of the communities affected. I commend the bills to the House. 1007 22:23:00 McCormack, Michael, MP 219646 Riverina NATS 0 0 Mr McCORMACK —I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Temporary Flood Reconstruction Levy) Bill 2011. The best levy for any disaster relief is to have a surplus. The Rudd-Gillard Labor government had a $20 billion surplus when it came into government in 2007; it also had two infrastructure funds. One was the Education Investment Fund and the other the Building Australia Fund. These totalled $50 billion between them and Labor, in typical Labor fashion, has squandered the money—the money set aside for the nation’s future. The Prime Minister and her Labor colleagues can stand in this place and harp all they like about the global financial crisis and use any other excuse for their own woeful mismanagement. The fact of the matter is this government is not good at handling money. Unfortunately in this case, it is the Australian people’s money, and Labor has frittered it away. This government’s fiscal record is abysmal. You only have to look at the Building the Education Revolution blow-outs, Home Insulation Program, Green Loans Program, GroceryWatch and Fuelwatch. The list of wanton, wilful waste just goes on and on. In principle, these ideas had some merit, some substance and some initiative. But this government cannot and will not carry anything through properly. It cannot and will not deliver. With government, everything is a blow-out—not just a blow-out but invariably one of massive proportions. If members of this Labor government were running their own business—which not many of them have—they would know that you cannot spend more money than you bring in. If you do or if you want to, you have to take money from elsewhere in your budget. The greatest worry is that, if and when this temporary flood reconstruction levy is introduced, it will be just another Labor blow-out. Of course, Labor has perhaps avoided a repeat of its recent litany of disasters by appointing former coalition premier of New South Wales, ex-federal finance minister John Fahey, to head up the new reconstruction inspectorate. Question: how does Labor avoid waste and overruns? Answer: get someone from this side to run the show. Of course, a levy—another tax on Australian families—should not have been needed had the government not been asleep at the wheel. Given that the government has little or no concept of economic delivery, the concern is that the money accrued from this tax needs to be spent where it is most needed. Mr Fahey, I am sure, will do his best, but this is a big task and one the government will need to exercise more care in delivering than it has in all of its other failed schemes since 2007. The opposition is not against supporting Queensland and Victoria in their time of need. Our members have, as many have on the government benches also, been out helping in the crises and supporting their own flood stricken electorates. We realise roads, bridges and other infrastructure have to be rebuilt, hope restored. We are also aware that there was no levy—no tax on Australian families—for Cyclone Tracey, which devastated Darwin at Christmas in 1974; Cyclone Larry which, caused $1.1 billion worth of damage to Northern Queensland in March 2006; or for the 10-year drought—the worst on record—which caused such widespread heartache and economic loss to rural and regional Australia. The Commonwealth government has charge of a $350 billion budget. How the government cannot find $1.8 billion to shave from programs which many Mr and Mrs Average Australian would easily deem unnecessary is breathtaking. We are not talking forever—just 12 months. Scrap some of the waste, trim some of the fat and find $1.8 billion to help pay for the Queensland and Victorian recovery. But, no, the government will instead make yet another imposition on hard-working Australian taxpayers. The government is not even quite sure how many people will be taxed because the Treasurer was unable to come up with the number of people who will be taxed when asked during question time. The tax will force many people in other states who were also flood victims to foot the bill. This will force many Australians who already dug deep to voluntarily and generously offer their charity and time to help in the relief efforts to again carry the can. This burden should have been borne by government. It should have been ready and available in a heartbeat once the torrential rain, the floods and the effects of Cyclone Yasi disappeared from the radar, leaving a huge clean-up operation and states which were definitely down but definitely not out. Parts of the Riverina have also been sent reeling from flooding of the Murrumbidgee River and local creeks. Farmers hopeful of bumper crop yields after enduring a decade of devastating drought had their hopes dashed by torrential rain. Communities at Adelong, Uranquinty and Tooma in my electorate of Riverina had walls of water rushing through their homes. At Tooma, the bridges were absolutely washed away by the rain and the flooding of Mannus Creek dam. But there has been little or no offer of special assistance made available to them. The opposition, as I say, is not against supporting the flood victims. At times such as these, the government should be reprioritising its spending. This is a time when Australians certainly need to pull together. Maybe this is a time when, as some have argued, we need to look at our level of foreign aid and really start to take a close examination of where and why we give money out. Certainly Australia needs to provide foreign aid—no-one is or should be disputing that—but sometimes charity should begin at home. New Zealand, tragically hit by an earthquake today, has a disaster fund, which it has had for more than 65 years. The initial onus is on the average New Zealander to take out adequate insurance. There are valuable lessons to be learned from all of this. We need plain-speaking terms in insurance contracts so Australians know precisely what they are covered for and what they are not. Thankfully, that process appears to be happening. We also need a government to be there to shoulder its share of responsibility when the demand arises, not to heavy-handedly hit ordinary, everyday Australians with another tax to make up for its own shortfalls. Debate interrupted. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —It being approximately 10.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 29 and the resolution agreed to by the House on 21 February 2011, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 1009 22:30:00 House adjourned at 10.30 pm 1009 Notices The following notices were given: JK6 McClelland, Robert, MP Mr McClelland to  present a Bill for an Act to amend the Corporations Act 2001 as a consequence of the enactment of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009, to amend that Act, and for related purposes. 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr Brendan O’Connor to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Customs Act 1901, and for related purposes. HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr Garrett to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to education, and for related purposes. HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr Garrett to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law in relation to child care benefit and child care rebate, and for related purposes. HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr Garrett to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to family assistance, social security and student assistance, and for related purposes. 00ATG Shorten, Bill, MP Mr Shorten to present a Bill for an Act to amend legislation in relation to trustee companies and other matters, and for related purposes. HVW Bradbury, David, MP Mr Bradbury to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to corporations, and for related purposes. 848 Secker, Patrick, MP Mr Secker to move: That this House: recognises the important role that community hospitals play in the lives of regional communities and in providing early access to care for life threatening conditions and trauma; condemns the South Australian Government for deciding in its 2010 State Budget to cut funding to three community hospitals in regional areas; recognises the critical role that the Keith and District Hospital Inc., Moonta Health and Aged Care Service Inc. and the Ardrossan Community Hospital Inc. plays in the lives of those living and travelling in regional South Australia; and calls on the Government to: reduce the National Healthcare Specific Purpose Payment to the South Australian Government by $1 046 000 in 2011-12; index the above amount by the growth factor contained in Schedule D of the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations; make a direct financial transfer to the Keith and District Hospital Inc. of $600 000 and annually index this amount by the growth factor contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement; make a direct financial transfer of $300 000 to the Moonta Health and Aged Care Service Inc. and annually index this amount by the growth factor contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement; and make a direct financial transfer to the Ardrossan Community Hospital Inc. of $146 000 and annually index this amount by the growth factor contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement. IYS Oakeshott, Rob, MP Mr Oakeshott to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Auditor‑General Act 1997, and for related purposes. A9B Jones, Stephen, MP Mr Stephen Jones to move: That this House: notes that climate change is a serious economic and environmental challenge; and acknowledges a carbon price is the cheapest and fairest way to cut pollution and drive investment in clean energy. 8T4 Ferguson, Laurie, MP Mr Laurie Ferguson to move: That this House: notes the Federal Government’s formal response to the recommendations provided by the Australian Multicultural Advisory Council; and calls on the House of Representatives to: endorse ‘The People of Australia’ policy which recognises the importance of the economic and social benefits of Australia’s diversity; recognise the success of multiculturalism in Australia and policies that reinforce the benefits our diverse communities bring; reaffirm support for multiculturalism in Australia and condemn political strategies or tactics that incite division and seek to vilify communities; and continue the tradition of bipartisan support for multiculturalism and multicultural policy in Australia sustained by successive Governments over the years. M3C Bandt, Adam, MP Mr Bandt to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 in relation to alpine grazing, and for related purposes. 2011-02-22 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper) took the chair at 4.14 pm. 1011 Constituency Statements 1011 1011 16:14:00 Vasta, Ross, MP E0D Bonner LP 0 0 Mr VASTA —It is with pleasure that I rise today to acknowledge and thank my community of Bonner for their generosity and commitment to assisting their fellow Queenslanders. So many people from my community assisted those threatened by floodwaters by filling and moving sandbags as the flood approached. I know that so many of those same people offered their time to volunteer in the clean-up. These were ordinary people who just wanted to help in any way they could to ensure their fellow Aussies were prepared for the inundation and then to get them back on their feet. At the same time, I would like to thank and acknowledge all those silent donors in my community who so generously donated goods for inclusion in the special flood care packages. Flood care packages of sanitary and hygiene products were considered to be a very practical way for people to assist those in areas hardest hit and who had lost everything. This was not only in Brisbane but across the state of Queensland. My office was overwhelmed by the community’s generosity in responding to the call for donations for flood care packages. Given that the floods occurred at a time when many children were also due to start or return to school, the community included school notepads and pens in their donations so that many of those children had everything they needed to start school. My community was truly inspiring in their call to action and these were all people who were selfless in their donation and wanted no acknowledgement or recognition. Since the flood my office has worked predominantly with the Red Cross to move all those donations out to the people who need them, and I know that they were very gratefully received. We have seen over 100 packages donated and the number continues to rise as people in the community keep donating. I am now working with the Liberal National Party women’s organisation to support those affected by Cyclone Yasi. So often a community’s true spirit is awakened at a time of crisis. From what I have witnessed, this is certainly the case of the Bonner community, but also the Queensland community. This is something that makes me so proud to be a Queenslander. 1011 1011 16:17:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 0 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —On 18 January 2010 CHOOSE Employment from our local O Group were successful in their application for $909,000 as part of the Get Communities Working stream of the federal government’s Jobs Fund. It fitted into the O Group’s Community Infrastructure Development Group. Part of that $909,000 went towards engaging four construction teams—two out of Devonport and two out of Launceston—to assist the third sector to improve their community building infrastructure, particularly under the watchful supervision of Wayne McConachy and Mike Jetson. They were to operate within the not-for-profit and charitable sector completing construction tasks. Many projects were completed. I was proud to attend the opening of an office facility and workshop for the Mersey Natural Resource Management Group. The extension of the Devonport rugby clubrooms was another worthwhile project, and I was also able to attend that opening. Other projects included the construction of storage sheds at Devonport and Greens Beach golf clubs, the construction of outdoor undercover facilities at Sheffield’s Tandara Lodge and at Ulverstone aged-care facilities, and a building extension, re-roof and toilet construction at the north-west sustainable living centre near Penguin. In total, in excess of 90 work experience positions were facilitated by these and some 15 additional projects. The program itself was structured to support two qualified builders, four trainees and 16 trade assistants in each team. All were paid award rates. The trade assistants worked on a casual basis over a five-day fortnight. Team members were recruited from recently redundant workers, early school leavers and job-ready unemployed job seekers who were seeking entry-level training and experience in building and construction. Job placements were also provided for out-of-trade apprentices within each team as they completed their remaining trade studies and sought ongoing employment where the construction took place. I would like to congratulate CHOOSE Employment and the O Group in particular and also Ian Fawkner, the manager of Community Solutions for CHOOSE Employment, for making this such a worthwhile project. For all those that have benefited from those projects, thank you for taking on these tasks and particularly to our two builders, Wayne McConachy and Mike Jetson, the latter a very strong supporter of my local Ulverstone Basketball Association Red Hoppers Basketball Club. 1012 1012 16:20:00 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 0 Dr STONE —The Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999 requires an annual report to be tabled in parliament identifying any organisations or businesses that have failed to comply with the reporting requirements of the act. The act requires that a workplace not discriminate between men and women, that women not be harassed, that women receive equal pay for an equal work contribution, that women will be able to access career opportunities that keep them in the main game and that women will be part of the informal networks of decision makers. Businesses are required by law to submit a 12-monthly report on their planning and progress in relation to them taking every practical measure to address these gender issues. It is very disappointing therefore that 12 businesses have been named and shamed in the report to parliament made just a few days ago because they have not complied with the equality for women in the workplace act requirements. Seven of these 12, or over half of these businesses, had been non-compliant for more than three years and one for two years. These businesses include Rivers Australia; Berri Hotel; Thomas Jewellers; Roverworth, a meat manufacturing company; and Charles Hull Contracting, a construction services company. Apparently, the sanctions do not worry these companies. Some of them are household names and we see their branches or shops across the nation. The sanctions include the naming and shaming as I have mentioned, but they also mean that the business cannot tender for government contracts and request business assistance in the future. Apparently, these 12 businesses are not providing any evidence of their efforts to provide a safe and supportive workplace or equal pay for equal work for women. Is this because they are discriminating in their workplaces or because they have no respect for the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act and its requirements? Either way, the noncompliance helps us to understand why Australia has a growing gender pay gap of over 17 per cent for equal work performed by men and women, a growing gap that is the shame of the federal government and a shame for the whole nation. As well Australia has amongst the lowest participation rates of women in the workforce. We have some of the highest rates of education of women in the developed world but we see too often that they are wasting these skills as they leave their workplace. They hit the glass ceiling and they find little flexibility when they have their babies and they want part-time work, work from home or job sharing. We have still a major problem in Australia in addressing gender issues in the workplace. Our own parliament does not reflect a fifty-fifty balance of men and women as it should. I repeat my disappointment that 12 companies in Australia failed to comply with the act and over half of them were non-compliant for more than three years. 1013 1013 16:23:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 0 Ms RISHWORTH —I rise today to talk about a particular concern that a number of constituents have raised with me—that is, now having to either get a permit or pay to drive on Aldinga Beach. Down at Aldinga Beach there is a unique opportunity for residents and visitors to drive onto the beach, set up a picnic rug and enjoy themselves down there. Unfortunately, this summer the council has decided to levy a fee. The fee itself, I have been informed, is to try to restore the local foreshore environment. It is a smallish fee of around $5. However, constituents and local residents have argued that they believe that this is what their rates should go towards and that is why they pay rates. In response to this, the council has indicated that residents can get a permit to exempt them from this fee. Those residents have been quite concerned. When they are looking to have a day on the beach the last thing they think about is applying to the council for a permit to prove that they live in the area, getting that permit and making sure it is in the car when they go down to the beach. This does seem quite a lot of bureaucracy for something that is quite simple—do you or do you not live in the council area? Surely the council could check licences as an easy way to check whether or not residents live in the local area. While it has been a problem this year, it will be more of a problem next year because this only applies over a certain temperature. When it is over 27 degrees they have to bring their permits down to the beach. Whilst this summer has been quite mild and this has not been enforced on very many occasions, next summer, if the practice continues, assuming that the weather will get hotter, there will be a real problem with people not knowing about this, not realising that they have to go and apply for this permit and then remembering to take their permit with them when they go down just to enjoy a day on the beach with their family. Beaches are very beautiful and very wonderful down in the electorate of Kingston. While I understand the council’s idea is to gather some money from some of the people outside of the council area to improve and restore the beach, including the sand dunes, it really does not make sense to make local residents, who pay their rates in good faith, go through the rigmarole of applying for a permit and then displaying the permit just to go down and enjoy a day on the beach with their family. So I would ask the council to rethink this and to look seriously at whether or not an easier way can be established. 1014 1014 16:26:00 Kelly, Craig, MP 99931 Hughes LP 0 0 Mr CRAIG KELLY —On 7 January this year I attended a very sombre church service. What should have been a time of celebration had become a time of mourning. The Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Sydney, in place of their Christmas celebrations, held a condolence service to honour the innocent victims of a terrorist atrocity in their homeland in Egypt. On New Year’s Eve at least 23 people were killed in this attack on the Coptic people, this time targeting the Saints church in Alexandria, Egypt. Many, many more were left injured. The Sydney service was led by Father Tadros Simon of the Coptic Orthodox Diocese and was attended by representatives of all Coptic parishes in Sydney, as well as the broader Christian community, including Canon David Claydon of St Andrew’s Cathedral, the Reverend John Nammour of the Arabic Baptist Church of Guildford and representatives of the Uniting, Maronite and Armenian churches, the National Council of Churches and many others. Never before had I attended a church service under such tight security, requiring police protection. To have to attend a church service in our country under police guard is not the Australian way of life and underscores the terrorist threat that the Copts face in Egypt and around the world—and apparently now also here in Australia. The horrific incident that led to this service was unfortunately not an isolated attack on the Copts. Indeed, this attack has taken place within a pattern of continued violence towards and persecution of Egypt’s Christian minority. My experience of the condolence service at St Mary’s and St Mina’s Cathedral was that, beyond the deep sorrow felt by the Coptic community and all those in attendance, there was a deep resentment towards the Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs for their failure to personally condemn the attacks on Egypt’s Christian minority. The events of this year followed a similar tragic pattern to 2010, when my friend the member for Cook made the following statement on 11 March after the Christmas Eve shooting at the Nag Hammadi cathedral in Egypt. He said: We also call upon the Australian government to end their silence and join the calls of the international community in expressing our concern as Australians over the recent violence and continued repression of religious freedom in Egypt … By once again failing to act, Australia finds itself out of step with international opinion, with the likes of President Obama, Pope Benedict, the European parliament and many others immediately condemning these recent attacks of terrorism against the Coptic people. While our parliament seems set to condemn the attack, the failure of our Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs to do so leaves me wondering why. (Time expired) 1014 1014 16:29:00 Smyth, Laura, MP 172770 La Trobe ALP 0 0 Ms SMYTH —I am very pleased this afternoon to rise to make a few remarks about initiatives in my electorate of La Trobe. Education matters are very dear to me, as they are very dear to all members of this government, and that is certainly reflected in the commitment of this government in its initial term, and now in its second term, to education in terms of capital expenditure, curriculum development and its financial commitments to expanding the range of educational offerings available to people in communities such as mine. I would particularly like to mention two schools in my electorate. I had the pleasure of visiting St John the Baptist Parish Primary School in Ferntree Gully last week in order to open their new multipurpose hall, grounds upgrade and shade structure, which was completed under the BER program. It was an incredibly interesting experience. Not only was I able to meet with those from the school community and the parish who had contributed to this project but I also heard firsthand from the architect and from the builder who had been very heavily involved in the process. In fact the architect was enthused by the process and so appreciative of the BER program. He remarked that, when the global financial crisis hit, his firm was expecting there to be a significant loss of projects. It was looking very difficult for his firm to continue functioning, and so he was extremely pleased to be able to participate in a project which generated around 128 jobs in my community. We see not only the educational benefits of a fantastic initiative at St John the Baptist Parish Primary School but one which has assisted so directly in the livelihoods of members of our communities. I should also remark that St John the Baptist is known to me as a school and a parish which has made a significant commitment over the 75 years of the school and the 100 years of the parish to social justice initiatives in the community, and I am very pleased that the federal government has been able to support the ongoing initiatives through the provision of a school facility which assists in making connections between members of the community and the school. The second school I would like to mention briefly in my remaining time is Clyde North primary school, a much smaller school at the opposite end of my electorate. I was pleased to be able to visit the opening of their library and classroom area during the past week. Many members of the school community remarked to me that it is often difficult for them to compete with other schools, which are more established and have more advanced facilities than them, and they are incredibly appreciative of the federal government’s commitment to their new school facilities through the BER program. 1015 1015 16:32:00 Roy, Wyatt, MP M2X Longman LP 0 0 WYATT ROY —We have heard a lot about volunteers in Queensland over the past weeks. An army of volunteers has helped the most in need during the natural disasters of this summer, and we will long remember their contribution when Queensland needed it most. Our community showed up, it showed its true colours, and those who have had their lives turned upside down found some hope and comfort in the kindness of strangers. At a time when all seemed lost, those in my community knew they could lean on the shoulders of their neighbours. But it is important to recognise that there are many members of our community who work quietly all the time to selflessly help those less fortunate than themselves. They turn up all the time when it is inconvenient and difficult for them to give of themselves and lend a hand. They are the carers who give until there is nothing left and still they find more: the Red Cross volunteers, the parents who give their time at schools, those who help at sporting clubs, those who give their time to raise money for aged-care facilities and many more. These people show up not just in times of crisis; they show up every day in my community, and it is their efforts and generosity I would like to acknowledge today. Last week I attended the creative activities program run by the Seventh-day Adventist Church to thank Dulcie and Lew for their tireless volunteering efforts, both for coordinating the creative activity sessions and for other help they have also so selflessly provided over many years. The Caboolture Historical Village is another example of a community organisation which would not exist without the effort of volunteers such as Mr Len Turner, one of the key organisers of the Australia Day citizenship ceremony. These people form the backbone of our community, and we have many of them in my electorate of Longman. It is the effort of volunteers such as these that I will be recognising when I award the Longman Awards. The Longman Awards are about locals who make a significant contribution to the community. They are about recognising the local achievers who contribute positively to the Longman community, whether they be volunteers, community groups, youth achievers, senior achievers, environmentalists, young people who excel in sport or music, members of our community who help to look after our natural environment or community groups who provide tireless support to the less privileged in my electorate. I encourage my constituents to nominate any individual or group who they believe has played a role in the community. During National Volunteers Week in May I will recognise all these people who make Longman the great community that it is. Already I have received many nominations and heard many stories of unfaltering commitment. I look forward to meeting these individuals and thanking them for their service to Longman. Longman is the best place in the country to live, not only for our beautiful natural landscapes but because of our strong, binding sense of community spirit. 1016 1016 16:35:00 Mitchell, Rob, MP M3E McEwen ALP 1 0 Mr MITCHELL —Over the weekend I had the pleasure of attending the Whittlesea Community Connections International Volunteer Day picnic, which recognises the invaluable benefits and contributions that our community receives due to the hard work and the dedication of the many unsung people who donate their time so freely for our community. The picnic is a great annual event which is held at Hawkstowe Park on Plenty Road, inside what we call ‘Fortress Scullin’, which is of course the electorate of the honourable Speaker of this place, Mr Harry Jenkins. The picnic is a way for the City of Whittlesea to pay tribute to and thank all the precious volunteers. I had the pleasure of being there with Councillor Pam McLeod and the Mayor, Rex Griffin, cooking up and serving the volunteers some sausages, vegie burgers and salad on bread while the kids got their faces painted and went and played with the animals at the petting zoo. Bunnings were also there in attendance and they had some plant-potting exercises for people. Despite the weather there was a huge turnout of people who came to be recognised for the work that they do, whether it be in sporting clubs or in places like Community Connections, where they look after people who are going through some pretty tough times. We have some really good volunteers locally to get out there and help them. I also want to congratulate Whittlesea Community Connections for their commitment and dedication to the community—as I said, particularly those who are disadvantaged and struggling. Whittlesea Community Connections offer free services and programs to address disadvantage in our community and to promote community participation and involvement. I was also fortunate enough to attend the Panton Hill Rural Fire Brigade’s Ash Wednesday memorial ceremony and concert. I was there to pay tribute to the fallen firefighters and, in particular, those brave volunteers from Panton Hill who lost their lives in the Ash Wednesday fires when they travelled across town to help other communities in need. This very moving and personal ceremony was held in the memorial park at Panton Hill, which was built in recognition of the service those guys gave. There was an interesting story there about how there were no planning permits or anything. They just got in, dug it, built up the amphitheatre and put the stage up. The community has enjoyed it ever since as a fantastic part of Panton Hill to be in. Local artist Leslie Avril and Black Cat Bone provided some music and entertainment for all the community members who were there and it was broadcast on Plenty Valley FM, another great local community radio station. At these events we acknowledge the importance of our volunteers and we thank them for giving their time and, in the case of the five local firefighters, paying the ultimate sacrifice to help all of our communities. 1017 1017 16:38:00 Buchholz, Scott, MP 230531 Wright LP 0 0 Mr BUCHHOLZ —I rise to inform the parliament and all Australians of the situation as it is unfolding in the Lockyer Valley, which is in my seat of Wright, after the horrible devastation that was endured in the electorate as a result of the recent floods in January. My community is slowly rebuilding in the Lockyer. The council is doing a marvellous job up there with stretched resources. They will rebuild the roads. Our priority at the moment is to rebuild the people. It is our intention to try and get these people, who have been so adversely affected by the floods, back into some form of normality and routine. Our focus at the moment, and it may sound odd, is to try and get their local pub, which was absolutely demolished, back into some type of repair. It was not just a meeting place where people could come and share their stories; it was a place where people used to hold local meetings, where the CWA used to meet and catch up. For a community of 200 or 300, the pub is an important piece of infrastructure, as is the local shop. Every piece of equipment in the shop was destroyed or washed through open walls. Then there is the local garage—its fuel pumps were inundated. Our focus is to get those businesses in the Grantham area back up and running as soon as possible. The paddocks are slowly returning to some semblance of commercial viability, with small crops beginning to be planted. Fields are starting to resemble horticultural paddocks, as opposed to a couple of weeks ago when they looked like absolute rubbish tips strewn with motor cars and, in certain cases, full houses that had been swept many kilometres down the road. I acknowledge the fundraising efforts that have been undertaken for the electorate outside the electorate. In particular, I acknowledge the group of Canberra businessman who held a fundraiser here in Canberra. Organised by Michael Tabart, it was hosted at the La Scala Italian restaurant by Gab, his family and his wonderful staff in conjunction with Greg Robson and Angie Clairvoyant from radio station 2CA. The function was also promoted by Sir Ian Botham and Stuart MacGill. In one evening, with these generous people putting their hands in their pockets, we were able to raise $40,000 for my little electorate—that will be well received. I thank those people around Australia who have exercised random acts of kindness in donating cars—we have received 12 cars so far. With around 200 cars being washed away in my electorate, I put a call out to all Australians: if you have a spare car lying around, I can use it; please contact my office. (Time expired) 1018 1018 16:42:00 Leigh, Andrew, MP BU8 Fraser ALP 1 0 Dr LEIGH —I have often spoken about the role that volunteers and voluntary organisations play in bringing the community together, acting as a kind of social glue. People volunteer for many reasons and in many different ways, but I firmly believe that some of the most important voluntary work is done by those groups involved with the local environment. My home of Canberra is blessed with a number of park care, catchment and bushland groups, all of which are active in conserving the natural environment in our bush capital. I recently held a community forum for members of my electorate who are involved in the conservation and environment sector. Among the groups that attended were Friends of Mount Painter Park Care Group, Mount Rogers Landcare Group, Dunlop Environment Volunteers, the Conservation Council, the Cooleman Ridge Park Care Group, ANUgreen, the Ginninderra Catchment Group, Friends of Aranda Bushland and Friends of Mount Majura. As you can imagine, these organisations and others, like the Molonglo Catchment Group, Friends of Grasslands and Greening Australia Capital Region, are incredibly active organisations. Working in partnership with the community and government, they are able to deal successfully with a range of areas. Every weekend, whatever the weather, volunteers from these groups are out tackling issues as varied as stormwater quality, invasive flora and fauna, environmental restoration, cultural and heritage conservation and urban and regional planning. While the electorate of Fraser is a largely metropolitan one, it is also a diverse natural environment, from grass flats and wetlands in the valleys, to rugged woodland dominating the hill tops. The diversity of the natural environment is extraordinary. From environmental organisers like Jean Geue, Waltraud Pix, Anna See, Sarah Hnatiuk, Pamela and Fred Fawke, Bart Meehan and John Sullivan, I have learnt a lot about our local geography. For example, Black Mountain supports a diverse natural ecosystem that hosts an astonishing 59 varieties of orchids. I have also become accustomed to the ongoing battles against rabbits and the purple peril—the noxious weed Paterson’s curse that Landcare groups have to take the fight to when it invades the ACT each spring. I heard how people from all backgrounds—university students and staff, public servants, tradespeople, retirees—come together to make a difference to the environment that we all share. Volunteering with a park care group is not only an enjoyable opportunity to look after the environment, it is also a great way to learn about nature, get to know likeminded people in your local community. To get involved all that is needed is a pair of strong shoes and a bit of enthusiasm. 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—In accordance with standing order 193, the time for constituency statements has concluded. 1018 Condolences 1018 Debate resumed from 21 February, on motion by Ms Gillard: That the House: acknowledge with great sadness the devastation occasioned by this summer’s natural disasters including unprecedented floods, Cyclone Yasi and bushfires; extend its deepest sympathies to the families of those who have lost loved ones; record its profound regret at the impact of this summer’s natural disasters on the economic and social well being of affected communities; record its admiration for the courage shown by so many in the face of these disasters; acknowledge the enormous effort of defence personnel, emergency workers, and so many volunteers in responding to these disasters; and pledge the full support of the Australian Parliament and community to assist affected areas to recover and rebuild. 1019 16:45:00 Cheeseman, Darren, MP HW7 Corangamite ALP 1 0 Mr CHEESEMAN —I take this opportunity to rise to my feet today to speak on this condolence motion on the huge tragedy that has befallen Australia, particularly affecting those in Queensland and northern Victoria—my own home state. I can recall addressing a community group some two years ago in the wake of the Victorian bushfires. At that community meeting many of us were reflecting that that was probably one of the greatest natural disasters that this country has suffered and that it would be unlikely that in our lifetime we would see a natural disaster in Australia anywhere near as big as that. Then arrived the summer of 2010 and the truly horrifying circumstances which led to so much devastation in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. I was visiting family and friends in a small country Victorian town called Kerang during that period when the rains were falling on central Victoria. Some two weeks later those floods arrived in Kerang—a massive body of water inundating not only Kerang but many other communities right throughout northern Victoria. I can also recall, through that period of time, watching the devastating floods in communities across Queensland. I was absolutely horrified, and I am sure so many other Australians were. It is truly a remarkable Australian trait that in times of absolute tragedy the very best of the Australian spirit is demonstrated. That is certainly what we have seen this summer. There were so many acts of bravery and generosity shown by so many Australians helping those people caught up in those very devastating circumstances. That very much demonstrates to me the strong bonds of friendship and loyalty and volunteerism that exist within Australia. The footage that was so widely shown throughout the nation was truly tragic. We hear stories time and again of so many people who lost their lives in the prime of their lives. I know that my community in Corangamite very much has extended a warm hand of friendship to so many other parts of Australia. I would like to recognise the efforts of so many volunteers from my community who have gone to northern Victoria to help, through the SES. It truly is a remarkable Australian thing to do. The Gillard government—and, I am sure, the whole parliament—is keen to work with a spirit of cooperation to rebuild northern Victoria and Queensland and to do it in a way that recognises the tremendous pain and suffering that those communities have gone through. We certainly know in Victoria, after the fires of a few years ago, that the healing process does take a long time, and I am sure that will be the case here. I particularly wish to extend the hand of friendship to all of those families who have lost loved ones. It was truly a remarkable natural event and I know so much pain has been caused to so many people. I am committed, as a Victorian, to helping to rebuild the communities of northern Victoria and Queensland. I would like to take the time to acknowledge all of those who have lost loved ones and who have lost property. I acknowledge those volunteers who have gone out of their way to help in what has been an absolutely remarkable natural event that it is hard to describe with words. I put on the record my thanks to those from my community who have demonstrated a real Australian spirit of help. 1020 16:50:00 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP 0 0 Mr DUTTON —I will start by extending, on behalf of the people of Dickson, very heartfelt sympathy to those people who lost loved ones in the tragedy that took place in Murphys Creek and Grantham in particular and to those who were affected adversely in Toowoomba during the period of devastating floods. It was a remarkable scene as we watched it unfold. It is of course one thing to be able to prepare for the onslaught of a natural disaster, but it is something very different to have waters rising at an incomprehensible rate. When your family is stuck in that situation it must be a horrible and terrible experience. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all my local residents when I say to those people that we felt their loss very deeply. We know that their recovery will be long and protracted. Nonetheless, we hope they have some lift in their spirits by knowing that communities, including ours, right across the Pine Shire, are with them at this very difficult time and in the years ahead, when the difficulty will continue. Many of our local residents know that the floods followed many weeks of constant rain. Something like 18 inches of rain fell in a six-hour period in a catchment area around Dayboro, which I will use as one example. It was quite a devastating blow. About a metre or a metre and a half of water came through the main street unexpectedly. There is, of course, a huge catchment above and around Dayboro, particularly in the Mount Glorious region. That rain that fell into Dayboro had a devastating impact on businesses and people. I make special mention of those living in areas like Laceys Creek. They really were quite lucky, right across that particular area, that no life was lost. Walking through Dayboro watching the sheer force of water—the way it had moved shipping containers and the way it had moved mobile cold rooms that were storing the ice at the Matilda service station in Dayboro—was quite remarkable. Considering the people who were in the post office, people who were in the IGA and people who were in the local real estate agencies, it really was remarkable that nobody lost their life during that process. The devastation was quite remarkable at Laceys Creek, in particular to property but also in terms of loss of stock. It will take all of these people a long time to recover. Devastation was also wreaked in other parts of my electorate, including in and around the North Pine Dam region in particular—people living in Whiteside, in Grant Street. I know that Gerard Fernando, by way of just one example, is a resident who has been particularly adversely affected. He represents many others, and many of these people are angry and asking questions at the moment about whether reasonable amounts of water were released from the North Pine Dam in the lead-up to this event. All of those questions are rightly asked, and I hope they are properly answered at the current inquiry. People, particularly local residents in Pine Rivers, deserve answers. Their properties were adversely affected, their lives were turned upside down and they have incurred enormous damage that will take a long time to recover from. I also make special mention today of the people of the Esk shire. The people in the Esk shire were part of the Dickson electorate up until the 2010 election. Although I only had responsibility for that area for a three-year period, I created a lot of good and enduring friendships in that part of the world. Again, to see the sheer destructive force of the water that struck some of those communities really does bring a tear to your eye. They are a resilient people, many of whom have endured heartache before by way of natural devastation. They are rebuilding their lives, their properties and their livelihoods, and they will go on to bigger and better things. Nonetheless, it is right that we recognise in this place the enormous difficulties they have faced and will continue to face for a long time to come. I want to use my time to raise a couple of residents’ issues just to give an indication, by way of example, of the enormous stress and pressure that people were under when they were displaced from their houses. In many cases they were families with young children. They had an enormous challenge and most of them rose to the challenge. I visited Amanda and Michael Soteriou and their neighbours Deborah and David Aldrick in Highvale. The landslide that took place behind the Aldrick’s house completely devastated the side of their house. Had they been in a different place, as they had been only a couple of minutes before the land gave way, undoubtedly a tragedy would have resulted. Thank God that that did not happen. But the fact is they incurred tens of thousands of dollars of damage to their home. It is something they have grappled with, and will continue to grapple with, particularly because there were difficulties around the insurance aspect. I hope that that is now clarified and their insurer will provide them with support. Another devastating effect took place for Michael Pollard, of Strathpine, who lost his backyard and had to bring in tonnes of rocks to stop his house from sliding away. Residents of Rose Lane, in Laceys Creek—the Saurels, the Sergeants and the Kings—lost all contact when the phone lines and poles were destroyed. They had no mobile phone coverage and many of them had no landline contact either. It was a particularly worrying period for those families who were not able to make contact with their loved ones and for those people who were stranded in the floods. It is something that we have taken up with Telstra. I want to see immediate action in relation to this particular issue. They do need permanent mobile phone coverage in that region, not just because it is a growing community but also because these people have no other means of contact, particularly in cases of emergency like this. I would also like to mention some of the sporting clubs that were devastated by the inundation of floodwater—the Pine Rivers Swans AFL Club and the Pony Club at Youngs Crossing. These clubs, amongst others, incurred enormous damage. Fortunately they have a great volunteer supporter base. I helped for a short period of time with the clean-up at the AFL club and saw all of the volunteers there. These people were affected in their own homes and went to work elsewhere in the community to help others who were less fortunate. I pay tribute to them today as well. I would also like to recognise in particular the work of the police officers from the Dayboro Police Station. Senior Constable Troy Nowitzki, who was essentially in charge of the operations at Dayboro when the floodwaters were rising very quickly, had the additional stress of having his partner, who was returning from Brisbane, cut off by floodwaters. That made his job particularly difficult. I intend to write to the Police Commissioner of Queensland to recommend special recognition for Senior Constable Nowitzki and, indeed, the other emergency service workers who were on the ground—the rural fire brigade and the first responders. All of those people made the difference between us losing no lives and what could have been a very poor and dreadful outcome. This work, which has been widely acclaimed, particularly that of Senior Constable Nowitzki, does deserve to be recognised in a special way. I believe that the local community, through their fundraising efforts, through the way in which they have been able to rebuild the community, help their neighbours and help people in the local business district, have really honoured what is a wonderful community in Dayboro and the broader region. I think that is a great credit to them as well. I would also like to recognise, on behalf of our local community, all of those people who have been affected in the Brisbane City Council and Ipswich regions. In many cases they had time to prepare for the onslaught, but nonetheless, for many, nothing could prepare them for the inundation and devastation to their home, their property and their family. Many of those people will not recover from the floodwaters of this year. Many of them have incurred unbelievable financial stress, and that will continue to go on for many years to come. It is also right that we recognise those people who were affected by the cyclones in the north. I think we all went to bed on the night of Cyclone Yasi feeling sick because it was about to cross the coast somewhere around Cairns. It was not much consolation for those people in the affected areas, but thank God, in a way, that it did not cross a more highly populated area. That category 5 cyclone would have been absolutely devastating, so we are grateful in some small part. But of course, as I say, that is no consolation for all of those people who were adversely affected, and I say on behalf of my local community that we want to extend every assistance that we possibly can to you. I would like to close by thanking my staff. Not only did they have threats to their own homes and property but also at one stage we had to evacuate our office. So, to Sandy, Olwyn, Cath, Rosemary, Lyndel, Jodie, Trevor, Tom, John and all of those people, staff and volunteers, who were involved, I say thank you very much for not just being good guardians of our office but, more importantly, providing valuable assistance to the residents of Pine Rivers in their darkest hour. I was impressed by the contribution of these people in making a tangible difference to the way in which some people were able to respond. Our negotiations are ongoing, as I say, with some of the insurers, but nonetheless I think we are going to get a positive outcome, and if we do not I will be pursuing those companies through this place and in the public domain as well. I might also say that when I visited the emergency management centre at Caboolture, which was based in the shire council offices up there, I was impressed with the professionalism on the day and also, of course, with the professionalism and the amazing volunteerism of those people who were involved in the SES, the emergency services and the council—and with all of those people who responded in a voluntary capacity. It really did make a difference in people’s lives. For that I say thank you very much, and I commend you absolutely. These events, for all of us who have grown up in Queensland, are—particularly over the summer period—a frequent reminder of what it means to live in the state and in the subtropical region as we move further north. It was an issue as all of us were growing up. I can vividly remember hiding under desks at school on a Friday afternoon when storms rolled across and watching devastation take place with violent hailstorms and the like. That is the area that we choose, very proudly, to call home, but sometimes Mother Nature can be very cruel. That we suffered no loss in our local area is something that we are very grateful for, but nonetheless the scars for many will remain for a lifetime. The financial burden imposed on many will mean that they never recover from that burden. Nonetheless, we are grateful for the efforts of all of those who were able to mitigate and offset some of the enormous stress that people went through over a horrific summer, and I commend this condolence motion to the House. 1023 17:04:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 0 Ms SAFFIN —I rise to speak to this motion of condolence. I would like to begin by saying how sorry we were in my area, in the seat of Page, about the tragic loss of life that happened not only in Queensland but in other places. It was a terrible loss of life. I spent the Christmas and New Year holiday period occupied with floods in my area—not an unfamiliar occurrence in our neck of the woods. And so did many of our wonderful local volunteers from the SES, the RFS, the Red Cross—the helping agencies—and also employees of councils, police, health, community services, Centrelink and Country Energy. There are too many to name. A lot of those people were out working and putting in the extra hours gratis to respond to the needs of the community. The mayors of Ballina, Lismore, Kyogle, Richmond Valley and Clarence Valley councils and I were all on deck, along with the three state members in my seat of Page—the members for Ballina, Lismore and Clarence. We all had our sleeves rolled up and we were out with the community pulling together and working together as everybody does in times of crises. There were a number of floods in my area—they were minor, moderate and major—but there was no loss of life. We said at the time that we dare not whinge—because we had experienced losses but not loss of life as witnessed by our neighbours over the border in Queensland. Our hearts went out to them. When tragedies like this happen they are incomprehensible. People ask why, but there is no answer to that question. People in our area did practical things too. In Casino there was a fundraiser to help a local family devastated by the Queensland floods. They raised over $11,000, with more to come, and over 100 people attended. It was a benefit night on a Saturday night at the Charcoal Inn in South Casino. It was to support the family of Pauline Magner, who was killed when a wall of water hit the town of Grantham, east of Toowoomba, on 10 January. Having grown up in Ipswich, I am familiar with the areas of Toowoomba, Grantham and a whole range of other areas around Queensland. As I watched the water, I thought of being out in those areas of Queensland, in places like Cracow, decades ago as a young girl. A lot of people have never heard of those places. It was absolutely huge; it was hard to believe. We also had people from Country Energy in our area helping to restore energy to North Queensland after Cyclone Yasi. There were people from our area helping in whatever way they could. Up the road from me, in Eltham, they had a fundraiser to help the people in Queensland. This is while we still had floods in our area—and there were losses, particularly for our farmers. It reaffirms the human spirit to see people doing that in all areas. I have received emails, letters and phone calls from people, including one from a man in Brushgrove. The flood went through his house. He wrote me a lovely email saying that he supported the flood levy and would pay it if he could. He said send the bill and he would put the cheque in the mail. He said he would happily pay the flood levy even though he had water going through his house. Also, the chamber of commerce in our local area were out helping. They had grants and they were giving them to local businesses. Over the holiday period we had the Prime Minister and other ministers visit Queensland and Victoria. They were responding to the needs of people affected by the floods in those states and the bushfires in Western Australia. The Prime Minister and ministers were busy visiting communities to give solace and support, and to make sure that happened. I would like to thank them for coming to my area. People in the community appreciated getting the attention. It began with the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Mr Albanese, visiting the five mayors from across the seat of Page—plus their general managers, representatives and others—to talk about our infrastructure needs after the floods. Then we had more floods after that visit. The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, came to the Clarence Valley where we had a major flood and she thanked all the volunteer, SES and RFS workers who were there. She then met with the community. We walked around and talked to locals in the shopping centre. They were just so pleased that she came, and so was I. One of the unusual parts of the visit—and there are always lighter moments in a visit, no matter what has happened—was that President Obama had arranged to ring Prime Minister Gillard to offer his condolences for the floods. It happened on a secure line in the Grafton airport. He extended his best wishes to the people right across Australia and to the people in Queensland, obviously, and also to the people in Grafton. I thought they were probably looking at the map and asking, ‘Where is Grafton?’ They had been given two phone numbers to ring and one had been at the local SES headquarters and they had rung there first but we were not there. The headquarters were quite excited that they got a phone call from the White House. That was one of the lighter moments. The gravity of it was that he was a friend offering support to Australia in whatever way we needed—not only through sympathetic words but also through practical support. Simon Crean, the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, had a look at where the floods had damaged the area. There were also 10 local councils represented at that meeting; it was much broader than my seat. They were talking about the long-term rebuilding of infrastructure. I was talking about the notion of ‘build better, build once’, particularly with some of the roads and the bridges. Like some other members, I have a lot of bridges in my area. I think there were over 438 in Kyogle Shire alone at one stage. That is a lot of bridges to deal with. Some of those wash out and we have to deal with those issues. That was a really useful visit. The Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, who is responsible for emergency management in Australia at the federal level, visited and met with farmers. They were able to put to him some of the issues that concerned them. One of the big issues that we faced is that it was not just the floods—we have had wet feet for so long that it creates difficulties with planting, harvesting and all of those things. Cane farmers, soya bean farmers and some representatives from the beef industry met with the Attorney and thanked him for the schemes that are jointly operated on state and federal levels and that have been around for a while. They talked about some of the administration. One of the things I have often asked for is some flexibility around what we call the 51 per cent rule. Some of those issues were put to the Attorney, asking him to raise them with his state counterparts in the appropriate forum. I am following up on some of those issues. Our fishing industry also copped it and John Harrison from the Professional Fishermen’s Association was quick off the mark to make sure that we understood what was going on in that area. We have the famous Yamba prawns, and the industry was starting to pick itself up again but then this happened. These were just some of the issues that were raised. We also had our dairy industry affected. I have Norco in my area and I have met with them and made representations, but I welcome the Senate inquiry into milk prices because it will let us have a look at discounting by Coles and Woolworths. As consumers we love it—it means cheap milk—but it is not necessarily good for our dairy farmers, which is another issue that we have to be mindful of. I have had talks with people in our local tourism industry and they have prepared reports. Though people suffered losses because of the floods, the number of visits to our area actually went up, so things have played out in a patchy way. That is a snapshot of some of the things that happened across our area. I have taken the opportunity of speaking on this condolence motion to put on the public record both the snapshot and some of our needs. In commending the motion to the House, I would again say how much sympathy and empathy there is right across the community in the Page electorate for the families of people who lost their lives in the floods. 1025 17:16:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 0 Mr BALDWIN —I rise today to offer my sincere condolences on behalf of the people of Paterson. I also pay my personal respects to those who have suffered indescribable loss in this summer’s national disasters. The effects of flooding in Queensland, northern Victoria, northern New South Wales, northern Western Australia and Northern Tasmania, the bushfires in Western Australia and Cyclone Yasi in Northern Queensland have been devastating. As I speak, Cyclone Carlos is impacting the north coast of Western Australia. For those of us not directly affected, it is hard to imagine the sheer devastation and fear felt by residents who experienced these events. Many Australians lost loved ones and the properties they had worked so hard to turn into homes. They lost important documents, photos and special keepsakes that could never be replaced. My electorate of Paterson was not struck by the disaster. However, despite the fact that we do not share the same direct experience, I say to you today that we do share your loss. The nation as a whole is grieving for those lives lost, and we will help shoulder some of your burden if we can. I believe it is during times like these that the true Aussie spirit is revealed. In the days and weeks following the floods, fires and cyclones hardly an hour went by without at least one constituent calling the office to offer time, money and/or goods. In many cases it was all three. As their local member, I was humbled to see the huge turnout when I attended one of the many fundraisers held in my electorate, at Soldiers Point on the eve of Australia Day, to raise money for flood victims. The event was organised, run and supported by local people just wanting to help in any way they could. It now looks as if more than $15,000 was raised from that event, a wonderful effort from a small community. Of course, it was just one of the many support efforts in the Paterson electorate. I would like to point out another display of that Australian spirit, and from the beginning I want especially to acknowledge the support of Virgin Blue airlines. Recently, I was contacted by Susan Boyd from Hunter Valley Grammar School. She let me know that 40 of their students from year 7 and year 10 would be giving up their annual school camp to go to Queensland to assist those who have been affected by the floods. These schoolchildren are going to Warwick to clean out debris and to rebuild fences, working with an organisation called BlazeAid. They are doing it because they want to make a substantial contribution. After all, it is the Australian way to help your mates even if you have never met them. I contacted Virgin Blue airlines and without any hesitation they donated 40 return flights free of charge between Brisbane and Newcastle so that our local children could join and play a part in the flood recovery. Five teachers will be travelling with the students. I should particularly like to thank Susan Boyd, Linda Chapman and Lydia Woods. On behalf of my community, I say thank you to Virgin Blue and particularly acknowledge chief executive John Borghetti for his generosity. Sadly, in the Hunter region we did not go without the loss of loved ones. I would like to pay tribute today to 25-year-old Joshua Ross, who was killed by flooding in Grantham as he stayed with his mother, Brenda, in the family home. The member for Wright delivered an emotional tribute to this motion and I would also like to give my condolences. Josh was a childcare worker who moved to Grantham from Waratah in the Hunter region. He was killed after the torrent of floodwaters hit the home that he shared with his mum and a partner, refusing to leave them. We had many calls to my office after Josh’s story was published in our local newspaper, the Newcastle Herald. On behalf of all those constituents, I again offer my sincere condolences and honour the memory of Josh. I listened as the member for Hotham, Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, committed to the rebuilding effort in our towns. As thousands feel the loss of life, many thousands are also suffering the loss of their homes, businesses and livelihoods. It is an absolute priority that this government does everything that it can to ensure that the recovery effort is swift and effective. It is my job as the shadow minister for regional development to help ensure that each and every affected town across this nation gets the help that it needs and so rightly deserves, and I will do so. Minister Crean spoke of the need for a strategic approach involving not only those areas directly affected by floodwaters but also the surrounding towns connected by shared infrastructure. He spoke of helping people to cut through the red tape; of working in full bipartisanship to ensure the best for our local communities; of ensuring payments for those people who had their homes, small businesses and farms destroyed; and of the concessional interest loans to small businesses and farmers. Minister Crean spoke about re-examining policy to ensure that flood mitigation is improved for the future. He spoke of the need for value for money. We have heard how areas, not just in Queensland, are open for business—tourism business in particular. As the shadow minister for tourism, I welcome the $5 million from the Commonwealth, which matched the $5 million from the Queensland state government, so that a marketing campaign can be pushed showing that Queensland is open for business. Queensland is not the only affected area. Northern Victoria, northern New South Wales, northern Western Australia and Northern Tasmania—as I said before—have all been affected. I took the opportunity on 11 February, with the member for Wannon, Dan Tehan, to visit the Grampians on the eve of the jazz festival. The Grampians were devastated by floodwaters. They have suffered significant infrastructure damage to roads, to the township and to the mountains themselves. Some of their unique rock forms have destabilised. We all visited Stawell. We met with council officials and business operators. They all wanted us to put out one message: they are open for business. They too have suffered from the floods. But they too are open for business. One of the things that I saw when in discussions with the state minister for tourism in Victoria, Louise Asher, was that the Victorian government had also put up $1 million for a tourism fund after the floods. This was announced by Ted Baillieu, the Premier of Victoria, on 17 January. This money is for financial support for tourism. The coalition government will establish a $1 million tourism fund to support businesses in areas affected by floods that are heavily dependent on tourism. It will be administered by the Department of Business and Innovation. So I say to the government: areas other than Queensland are severely affected. I have called on the government to match that $1 million for Victoria, as indeed they matched the $5 million of the Queensland government to promote tourism and the fact that they are open for business. But more should be done. The floods have continued from late last year on in to recent weeks in Victoria. The Murray is flooding. The houseboat season is being devastated. There is that tourism aspect. So more needs to be done. More needs to be done in northern New South Wales, which is also flood affected. More needs to be done in North Australia and Western Australia. After the effects and impacts of Cyclone Carlos, as I said, who knows what will be needed there? It is not all over yet. We need support for these communities. The best thing that individuals, members of parliament and people in our constituencies can do to help out businesses in these communities, through the jobs that are created, is plan a holiday there. So I say to people: take the opportunity to put off that overseas holiday this year and holiday in Australia. Holidaying domestically will provide a sustainable economic basis from which businesses can rebuild. It will show that we as Australians are also committed to supporting fellow Australians. To those communities affected all over Australia, I commit today to help ensure the minister’s promises are fulfilled. I, along with my coalition colleagues, will work wherever necessary to help get the best outcomes for you. Today I join my colleagues in calling for a fairer approach by the insurance companies when dealing with claims—not using weasel words or hidden disclaimers. Back in 1999 I represented consumer interests on the insurance inquiries and complaints board, which fielded complaints and had a resolution process for unconscionable conduct in insurance claims. Through harmonisation with the finance industry the responsibility now rests with the Financial Ombudsman Service. So I urge people who are being denied what they consider to be valid claims to utilise the Financial Ombudsman Service hotline. The events of the past few months have been nothing short of tragic, and I pray that they are never repeated in Australia. By doing everything possible to protect people in the future, we truly recognise the sacrifices of those people who have lost their lives. Today I pay tribute to those lost, their families and their friends. I pay tribute to the many heroic acts that were performed—mostly unreported, but those people know who they are and what they did. I pay tribute to the many emergency services personnel, the Australian Defence Force personnel and the thousands of Australians who, when the call went out, rallied around their fellow Australians, standing shoulder to shoulder to help out. I pay tribute to the thousands upon thousands of Australians who have given what they could afford and more to help out. We are a strong nation because above all we have that unique Australian spirit that not floods, fire or wind can destroy. I commend this motion of condolence to the House. 1027 17:28:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 0 Mr WINDSOR —I support the condolence motion. I think all Australians are aware of the absolute disasters that have occurred in some parts of our country in recent months. I say so in the context of the disaster that has occurred in recent hours in Christchurch, New Zealand. It brings home to all of us the very significant point that we live in a natural environment and occasionally very unnatural things occur. I hope that we learn from the recent events, irrespective of which state they occurred in, in terms of some of the planning processes et cetera that will mitigate some of those circumstances in the future or ensure that we do not— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 5.30 pm to 5.44 pm 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr WINDSOR —I do support the condolence motion. I think it is very significant that so many members have spoken or intend to speak on this motion. It is obvious that the nation has been touched by the tragedies that occurred, particularly in Queensland, where the loss of life of such magnitude occurred, but also in Victoria. We saw some awesome events unfold in that period of time. It was really brought home to a lot of people because we live in an age of television, and historically we would not have witnessed many of the events that are now captured on our television screens. Even though many of us were not in flooded areas, we felt as though we were very close to the floods because of the media coverage. Queensland obviously has been the most affected. Having relatives in Brisbane and watching the magnitude of the flows that were in the Brisbane River, and watching the occurrence and the aftermath within Grantham Toowoomba and the other towns that were affected in the Lockyer Valley, really brought home the power that nature does have and can unleash. The electorate of New England, like a lot of electorates, did have some flooding. In the main it would be considered normal flooding except, in my view, for one particular area which was right on the Queensland border; from Tenterfield through to Mingoola and around the Bonshaw area, and further through around Texas towards Goondiwindi, Yetman and those areas. I do thank the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry for taking the time a few weeks back now to call in on his way back to Brisbane and have a quick look at the area. He was restricted in time and I appreciated his visit. He was able to talk to a small group of farmers and, very importantly, to see the damage that occurred to infrastructure. Thankfully, there was not any loss of life but there was an enormous destructive effect to infrastructure both on-farm and public assets. Relatively new bridges were absolutely destroyed. There were 22 inches of rain in 24 hours, which is a lot of rain in anybody’s language, and it proceeded down that relatively small catchment—a sliver of land in a sense—where the absolute disaster occurred. It was, as I said earlier, really part of the Queensland flooding. Even though it is in New South Wales it is just over the border from Queensland. Other towns and districts did incur some flooding but nothing of the magnitude that occurred there. I am deeply grateful to the minister for being there because I think he needed to see that it was a Queensland event occurring on the edge of New South Wales. I have raised with a few ministers that any assistance for that particular sliver of land, people live there of course, should be treated much the same as Queensland because it was an event that was not just demarcated by state boundaries. The people of Mingoola are still working to clear up the area from Bonshaw right back through the Mole River to Tenterfield. There was damage in Tenterfield itself but it was particularly downstream. As other members have indicated there was an enormous outpouring of concern from people who were not flooded. A lot of people from my electorate did travel to Queensland and other parts to help, assist, care, show their concern and make a contribution, and that happened in this valley in my electorate as well. There is one group I would like to particularly single out. They are called the BackTrack boys. The founder of the BackTrack boys is a man called Bernie Shakeshaft from Armidale. A few years back now Bernie brought together young Aboriginal people who were on the verge of probably not being the best citizens. They were a little bit lost, they may have been having difficulties at school, within the family or within the community. Bernie brought this group of young people together and through his leadership they have gained an enormous number of skills in welding et cetera. If I can, in the next few weeks I have to pick up a beautifully made bush barbecue that the boys put together. They are also responsible for training sheep dogs and other dogs I think, but sheep dogs in particular. Bernie has done an incredible job in the way in which these kids have lifted themselves, the spirit that they have and the skills that they are gaining. They volunteered to go out to the Mingoola area that I described and worked for nothing at various properties, clearing fences, putting up fences, doing a whole range of jobs. They have gained enormous respect and regard from the people who live in that area. I extend my congratulations to the boys and I intend to thank them when I pick up my barbecue. I also thank them for the concern that they showed for people. Obviously, when a tragedy of any magnitude occurs, money is important and I am sure there will be assistance granted to those who deserve it in an appropriate way. Some of these people were actually living in shock for days because of the event that had occurred, and I think it is just as important for them that they see people who actually care for them who have come to help them out. That is a true expression of mateship, and we need to preserve that mateship and recognise when people assist and help out. As I said, I pay particular regard to the boys and look forward to talking to them. There are a number of issues that will be raised in the parliament about what we do with natural disasters. In fact, in my maiden speech I raised the issue of the need for a national natural disaster fund, and I think what we are seeing at the moment with the proposed flood levy and the cyclones is that the way in which we respond to these disasters, in my view, has to be addressed in the future. Irrespective of whether climate change is a reality or not, there will be significant events—almost unnatural events, disastrous events, not normal floods. There will be events that occur from time to time that require a massive injection of public funds, and I think we have to put in place some sort of arrangement. It may well involve the sorts of things that Senator Xenophon is talking about, such as reinsurance at the state level. If this disaster had occurred in New South Wales, for instance, I think the New South Wales government would have had somewhere between $3 billion and $4 billion worth of insurance to cover the flooding. I know the cyclone is slightly different. Queensland did not in fact have those sorts of issues addressed. Part of what will occur later this year is that people will start to inquire into what happened and what we do when it happens again, because I think there is a lesson out of Queensland that we should take notice of. There were floods in 1974, there has been flooding in 2011 and there will be floods of that magnitude again at some time. We should take notice of that and learn from it. It is a great tragedy. I am critical of the administration of Brisbane, particularly at the local government level but also the state level. Over the years they allowed a massive building program to take place in the area where the 1974 flood occurred. There was this assumption that the mitigation of the dam would stop that from ever happening again. Well, it will happen again. Now we have a massive bill, not only in Brisbane but in other parts of the state, and others are being called upon to make a contribution too. I do not have a problem with that at all, as long as we learn and do not just repeat the sins of the past. There are things that can be done to mitigate natural disasters. Some of my electorate is on flood plains. Most of the towns have organised themselves in terms of levees. With the reconstruction activity that is going to occur, we should look very closely at whether some engineering work should be put in place to mitigate some of these occurrences. Our family experienced two floods at a property we have at Coonamble. It is about 250 kilometres from where I live. My son operates that property. He had two floods go across about 5,000 acres of cropping country. About 1,700 acres had not been harvested at the time. He was able to salvage a little bit but probably lost in the vicinity of half a million dollars, I would imagine, in income. Some farmers are suggesting that there should be recompense from government for those sorts of flooding activities. I disagree with that. We bought country on a flood plain because it floods. If you do not want to live on a flood plain, you should go and live on a hill, but obviously you cannot carry out the cropping activities on a hill that you can on some of the magnificent flood plains we have for agriculture. So I think we have to be a little bit careful, at a political level, that we do not start responding to any natural event as a disaster. A lot of natural events are quite welcome. At any time but harvest time the natural event at Coonamble would have been very welcome. I do not think we should bracket those sorts of events as being disasters. Even though they might be a disaster to individuals on a particular occasion, they should not in my view be included in some sort of long-term natural disaster response. I think that, if we do set up something for the long term, it has to be about extreme events, not normal ebbs and flows in flooding, droughts and other natural activities. The other thing I want to raise before I conclude my contribution is that there are other natural events that occur from time to time that we, as governments, will witness over a period of time. I was in the New South Wales parliament for 10 years and I saw a gradual disintegration of past practices, but fires will occur. After a very wet year like this, fires will occur again. We have seen recent disasters, particularly in Victoria but most recently in Perth, where fires destroyed lives and property. At some stage we have to recognise that the planning process has to kick back in, as it should have in Queensland all those years ago. People have been allowed to build on flood plains. The process should kick back in for the mitigation of fire risk as well. A man who is not in the parliament anymore but with whom I was communicating today—the Hon. Wilson Tuckey—made some memorable speeches in this place in the past about fire, fire mitigation and the prevention of death and destruction. Victoria has had a major inquiry into what happened down there. It will be very interesting to see what sorts of practices are put in place to mitigate the next disaster. I think we have to be very careful in this place to avoid repeats of some of the tragic events that have occurred in the past. To conclude, I convey the sympathies of my electorate to those families that have been affected, particularly those who have lost loved ones through the various tragedies that have occurred, and also to the people of New Zealand, who are experiencing a disaster as we speak. I am sure that those people who are impacted would respect and regard the parliament for taking the time it has taken to participate in this condolence motion. 1030 17:59:00 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 0 0 Mrs MIRABELLA —I rise to support the condolence motion. We have had an extraordinary summer. This nation has witnessed floods, fires and cyclones. We do not often have such a combination of natural disasters in such a short period of time, but we are no strangers to natural disasters. The sheer scale of the damage reminds us that nature is bigger than we are. It also reminds us that we are a nation of weather extremes. This motion gives us in this place an opportunity to express our sympathies for those who have lost so much and of course to reflect on the huge losses that we as a nation have experienced. At a time when we have a 24-hour media cycle, too often we are bombarded with images and too often we can become desensitised to these sorts of disasters. So it is important to take the time, as we are doing in this place, to remind ourselves of what happened only a short time ago. We have endured much as a people this summer. We have confronted floods in the east, cyclones in the north and fires in the west. Many have lost their homes, their businesses and, tragically, some have lost their lives. These events have tested the spirits and challenged the resilience that we are so renowned for. They have also brought out the very best in people. Communities have rallied, neighbours have joined together and strangers have worked side by side to lend a helping hand to those in need. People have flown from across the nation to assist in the immediate aftermath of these events and, of course, donations continue to flow, and continue to flow generously—even from the poorest corner of this nation. The spirit of generosity and volunteerism is on full and proud display. While there have been so many tragic stories of loss, equally there are stories of extraordinary compassion. For every image of disaster and destruction, there is a contrasting image of humanity. To all of those who have been a part of that, I am sure it will mark their lives for a long time to come: all those volunteers, all those emergency service personnel and of course our defence personnel. The events of this summer have proven that the Australians spirit of perseverance and compassion is well and truly alive. The story of young Jordan Rice has touched every single person in this nation and it has brought a collective tear to the eye. His selflessness will not be forgotten and it is a reminder of our responsibilities in some ways to our fellow man. The mere fact that a 13-year-old boy gave his own life for his brother’s brings new meaning to the words ‘bravery’ and ‘courage’. Over the last few weeks many have expressed the view that these events are unprecedented, and whilst in some respects the number of natural disasters occurring at the one time in Australia may not be a common phenomenon, it is wrong to say that these are totally new events. We are a country that has, throughout our history, experienced long droughts and raging fires—we now call them wildfires—and my electorate in north-east Victoria is often lashed by these fires and by flooding rains. While this year may have delivered more than its fair share of disastrous weather events, we should not and we cannot expect that such events will not be repeated in the future. They are nonetheless tragic events. But also tragic is the tendency of governments to ignore the lessons of past disasters. Long after the cameras and the front-page stories are gone, too often what needs to be done is left undone. We do need to learn from our mistakes and we cannot ignore the wealth of knowledge that local people can provide. I have long been of the view that local knowledge is a key ingredient in the decision-making process that follows these disasters and that governments tap into. I have from my early years in this place urged all governments to not only respect the knowledge and experience of local people but use it. We have seen in Victoria that inquiry after inquiry was ignored by the former Labor government. That happens even in this place. We established a committee after the 2003 bushfires and so many of those recommendations still have not been fully implemented. You can even go back decades to the Stretton inquiry and some of those recommendations still have not been implemented. And yet the same issues are raised in inquiry after inquiry. I do not intend to make pointed political criticisms at this time. But, for the sake of potential victims of future disasters and to respect the efforts and sacrifice of those already gone, we need to wake up collectively as policymakers and decision makers who can make a difference. We cannot ignore local knowledge. The fact that you may not have a degree in meteorology does not mean that you do not understand the weather conditions of your area. It does not mean that a family that has lived in a region for generations does not appreciate the nuances of what is happening during a particular season with the weather. The front page of Monday’s Australian clearly illustrates one example of the dangers in dismissing local knowledge. Brisbane Valley farmer Chris McConnel attempted to warn the Wivenhoe Dam’s operator of the imminent flooding and the need to release water immediately. He is somewhat of a local expert in forecasting flooding. His family had recorded rainfall and forecast flood events as far back as the 1840s. It is this type of expert knowledge that is invaluable. It should not be dismissed and it should not be discounted. As it turned out, Mr McConnel was correct and unfortunately his advice was ignored. Who knows what would have happened if there had been sufficient flexibility and openness within the existing processes for people to have listened to and accepted Mr McConnel’s advice? Natural disasters like the recent floods have happened before and will happen again. It is our responsibility to ensure that we are as well prepared as possible for when these events occur again. The best way we can do this is to work hard. What we have not done in the past so well is speak with local communities, understand what went wrong and try and fix it. We should not come up with a media fix for a solution but come up with a real solution that deals with some of these issues. Over the last month I have been meeting with locals in my electorate to discuss the impacts of recent floods in north-east Victoria and to consider some potential solutions. I thank all of those who have worked with me through that process. Indeed, I thank all of those in my electorate and right across Australia who have volunteered their assistance and information through dozens of government inquiries that have been conducted after previous natural disasters. People did that because they believed that what they said might be factored into decision making. They hoped that perhaps governments would engage in some common sense. I urge all members of this House not to disappoint these people and the goodwill they showed to us by taking time out from their families and employment to try and tell us what needs to be done. In concluding, and in commending the motion to the House, I say: let us not forget that so many corners of this great nation and so many people were affected, right across the board. We have seen, from previous natural disasters, how the emotional scars can still be there for many years to come. We need to be aware of that. We need to provide the resources to communities to ensure that we not only rebuild the bricks and mortar of communities but heal those deep mental scars. 1033 18:11:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Justice and Minister for Privacy and Freedom of Information 1 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I rise to support the motion of condolence in relation to the natural disasters that have affected so much of our country this summer. My sincerest sympathies go to those affected by these natural disasters: the floods, the cyclones and the fires that still affect large areas of Australia. This summer we have seen catastrophic acts of nature right across the country. However, the disaster and devastation has been countered by countless examples of the strength of the human spirit, with people all over Australia pulling together to help out their fellow citizens. I witnessed, firsthand, inspiring examples of this spirit last month when I visited the flood devastated town of Rockhampton while acting as Attorney-General. At that time, the town was cut off by the waters, and I was flown in by Australian Defence Force Black Hawk helicopter. What I flew over could only be described as an inland sea—the tops of trees were covered in yellow-brown waters and pockets of livestock were crowded on island hills surrounded by water. As I flew over the town I saw parks that looked like ponds, streets that looked like rivers and houses where water had swallowed up all but the tops of roofs. At the Rockhampton Community Recovery Centre, accompanied by the member for Capricornia, Kirsten Livermore, I met the emergency workers, the volunteers and the mates who had rallied together to help those in need. Some had lost houses and some had lost possessions, but all had been affected financially and emotionally. I was impressed and inspired by their stoicism, tolerance and humour during this adversity. I was also impressed at how orderly and well run I found that centre to be and at how the people showed such great patience in having their matters dealt with properly. These are difficult times for many people, but the government will not stop working to ensure that all the areas affected by the natural disaster will recover from this very challenging situation. As well as offering my sincerest condolences to those affected, I would like to applaud the enormous efforts of defence personnel, emergency workers and the many volunteers. I would particularly like to take this opportunity to praise two agencies in my portfolio, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, for their efforts. AFP officers have been working with the Queensland Police Service in some of the hardest hit areas of the Lockyer Valley, including Murphys Creek and Grantham. During the busiest times, the AFP provided around 70 personnel to support the Queensland Police Service. Their work included difficult operations such as search and recovery efforts, as well as general policing in affected communities. Customs and Border Protection staff have also been working tirelessly across areas affected by natural disasters to ensure that all goods required to support the emergency effort are processed urgently. These urgent items include food, health and medical supplies, clean-up tools and public infrastructure equipment. Customs and Border Protection is also ensuring that internationally donated goods for charities and philanthropic organisations are processed quickly and that the donor organisations receive advice on duty and tax concessions for those goods. Customs and Border Protection is providing officers to assist Centrelink to process food related claims. As the minister responsible for these two agencies for the past 18 months, I am used to seeing outstanding acts of public service. Once again I have been impressed by the level of commitment and dedication shown by both these agencies in dealing with the task at hand. Their response to this disaster is just another fine example of the magnificent work they do to serve the community, and I commend them for their efforts. As the emergency response to these events winds down, the focus of the Australian government is to provide what is necessary to assist local communities to recover and rebuild following these disasters. These events have been a national tragedy and a dark time for many, many Australians. But the courage of Australian people, the local leadership and the spirit of resilience of local communities continue to shine through. 1034 18:15:00 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 0 Mr CIOBO —The summer of 2010-11 has been a time of great trial, tribulation and, regrettably, tragedy. Across the length and breadth of this nation we have seen weather take its toll upon the Australian people. In particular, we have seen the flooding that took place in Brisbane and throughout much of Queensland, including the Grantham Valley and Toowoomba as well as up the eastern seaboard of the Queensland coast. To compound these matters, we saw the impact of Cyclone Yasi and the battering that small coastal communities in Tully, Port Hinchinbrook and those areas all endured as a direct consequence of that cyclone. We also had the fires that took place in Western Australia, which cost so many homes. In addition to that, the flooding rains that moved down through Central Australia also saw massive and rapid flooding occur throughout, in particular, the north-west regions of Victoria. On every measure, this past summer has seen Australia live up to its most unfortunate and fiercest reputation as a continent of extremes. That is why I rise today to add my voice to this condolence motion for the tens of Australians who regrettably lost their lives as a consequence of the natural disasters over the summer. In addition to the tragic loss of life—and there have been some absolute tragedies—there was also significant property damage and there will be the emotional hardship that goes with the tragedies that have unfolded over the last several months. As with any of these tragedies, there are very real, personal experiences people have that sheet home to all of us as members of parliament what we should be doing about the way in which these types of events touch people sometimes in a way that is just so horrific. Like with any great tragedy though, this has also been a time when we have seen people rise up. We have seen communities, through the tumult and darkness of these times, come together. We have seen the reignition of those bonds that exist in communities that too often we think are gone but in reality remain strong. We have seen the re-emergence of the neighbour and the re-emergence of the volunteer come to the fore as people have leant on each other and been each other’s shoulders. I am mindful in particular though of some of the tremendous lengths that our volunteers have gone to as a consequence of these tragedies. One story that particularly affected me just for its sheer horror was the unfortunate circumstance in the Grantham Valley and, in addition to that, what took place and transpired in Toowoomba with the flash flooding and the rescuer who tried valiantly to help rescue children from a trapped vehicle. Unfortunately, in those tragic circumstances, one small child in the rushing torrent of water escaped the grasp of her rescuer and was lost. Words can never heal the wounds that that family feels. I have no doubt that for the rescuer involved the knowledge, feeling and guilt on his shoulders will take perhaps his entire lifetime to forgive himself for. It is unfortunate. These things are never predicted and they are the very ugly side of these natural disasters. At a time when as a nation we need to reflect and to heal, we need to recognise that through the tragedy we find an inner strength and that our responses to these types of events help to mark us as a nation and as individuals with the character and the inner strength to keep moving forward. I think if we as a parliament can draw inspiration from the personal challenges that people have had within themselves, and more broadly the challenges that communities have faced and have collectively worked to overcome, then I know that this parliament can truly do the great work that is required of it to help the people and the communities to recover. On a personal level, I had family members who were indirectly affected by some of the natural disasters. We had many friends in Brisbane and extended family members who were close to being flooded and lived in anguish at their homes being potentially in harm’s way. In one particular case we had cousins in Oxley who had water lapping at their bottom doorstep. They had taken the hours involved to move furniture up to a higher level, hoping and praying that they would not be affected. In this particular instance they were spared, although we know that there were thousands of others who were not spared. As a kid who was born and bred in north Queensland, I spoke to my parents about the preparations they had made to ensure that they were ready when at that stage it was predicted that Cyclone Yasi would still be a category five cyclone as it moved across the Atherton Tablelands. My parents-in-law in Townsville also lived with the anguish that this cyclone could greatly affect them. Living only a matter of metres from the ocean front, and with the predicted storm surges in excess of seven metres, there was great stress placed on all of those communities. Through all of this I know one thing: whether it is speaking with family members, with friends or with people who were previously strangers, you understand that Australians are resolute about our willingness to fight against the natural environment, to recognise the majesty of these events that also happen and to recognise that we must always be mindful that mother nature reigns supreme in these types of events. Now is the time for the government and the opposition to work constructively together to ensure that we respond to the demands that are out there in the community, to work in a manner that will ensure that the community can get back on its feet and to make sure that we are there to be that shoulder for people to lean on when they need to as they go about the months and, in some instances, years of work to recover and get back on their feet—so much of which they have lost. On behalf of the electors I am privileged to serve, our condolences go to those who lost immediate family members and your loved ones. To the volunteers, the police, the army, the fire brigade, the ambulance, the medical doctors and nurses, and all the auxiliary staff who worked in many instances around the clock to help with the relief effort and to help those who were struggling through this time of tumult, we say a very sincere and heartfelt thank you. Without the volunteers who did what they did, and without the support coming from so many regions, there is no doubt that we as a nation would have been poorer. I am mindful as well of the volunteers from my own community of Moncrieff. Remarkably, we were largely unaffected on the Gold Coast. We were not flooded. We did not suffer the consequences of the cyclone. In every respect we were blessed to have endured this summer without any major problems. Yet, as a community, we rallied to the call for help that people were wanting. I have to say that initiatives were taken by local Rotary groups, by Lions clubs and by community volunteers. They helped put together food baskets and donations of fridges. They spent a weekend, organised by the Gold Coast Bulletin newspaper, cleaning up Goodna. They literally bussed hundreds of volunteers from the Gold Coast to help with the cleanup. Through the ugliness of the natural disasters it has been these shining examples of pure humanity and concern that we as Australians have for each other that really re-ignites within the heart the belief that when times are tough we will be there for each other. That, more than anything, is the greatest inspiration that flows from these times of tumult. With that, I confirm my condolences to those who suffered so much. 1036 18:25:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure and Transport 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —I rise this day to speak on the motion and add my voice to those in this House of Representatives who have acknowledged the tragedy and loss experienced by so many Australians this summer. I speak primarily not as the Leader of the House, nor as the federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and nor as the member for Grayndler. I speak today from the heart as a fellow Australian who simply cannot imagine what it is like to endure what so many Australians have been forced to endure over this terrible summer of tragedy. The floods in southern Queensland included the devastating wave of water that took so many lives in the Lockyer Valley. The devastation then moved through the towns and farmlands of Victoria. Cyclone Yasi then blasted Far North Queensland, wrecking towns, destroying homes and ruining livelihoods. Then there were the bushfires of the West. The summer of 2011 will be recalled as the season where nature did not relent, when the nation watched and suffered and asked when it would all end. And, of course, for those who lost a child, a husband, a parent or a friend, the summer of 2011 will really never go away. The statistics never reveal the human pain, so I am going to tell just one story. One of the enduring images of the floods was of a mum, a dad and a young boy sitting on the roof of a four-wheel-drive as it was carried down by the roaring waters that coursed through the Lockyer Valley, near Toowoomba. Their plight was caught by the news team in the helicopters overhead and was pictured on the front page of the Australian and broadcast around the world. That family was James and Jenny Perry and their son, eight-year-old Teddy. The family had just moved to Queensland so that James could take up the position of senior steward at the Toowoomba and regional racetrack after a number of years in Korea, where he had established a very successful career in the racing industry. Remarkably, Jenny was saved by passing rescuers, who waded 50 metres through the wild current to reach her. Downstream, another rescuer plucked Teddy from the waters. He had been clinging to a hay feeder. Tragically, his dad, James Perry, has never been seen again. A memorial service was held for him recently in Sydney, where his family have returned to start rebuilding their lives. The country has lost a fine Australian. A man, from all reports, of great integrity, decency and honour. I tell this story because my good friend and Labor Party colleague, the former Premier of New South Wales, Nathan Rees, had just spent Christmas with the Perrys at their home and then returned when the floods hit. Nathan Rees is now helping to administer the James Perry Trust to raise funds to help his family find their feet again. The story of the Perry family is one of so many tragedies this summer. You ask yourself, ‘Has anything good come from all this loss?’ Of course, it has. Each day our television showed us the best of humanity—the teams of volunteers with their buckets and mops, the selfless rescuers whose bravery saved so many families from certain death and the personal initiative of Australians in the suburbs and towns who have passed around the hat, have held fundraisers or have packed up a bundle of clothes and sheets and toys to send to those who have been left with nothing. In my electorate of Grayndler we held our own fundraiser on 31 January in Steel Park in Marrickville. It was a barbecue at which around 200 locals turned up. We raised close to $2½ thousand. I give special thanks to the Sydney Turkish Islamic Culture and Mosque Association in my electorate, which passed over a cheque for $1,500 for the relief appeal. My thanks also go to Marrickville resident Hellen McGlade. Hellen was so affected by the human tragedy of the floods that she felt compelled to do something. So throughout the recent Sydney heatwave she, her mum and 40 neighbours doorknocked the local neighbourhood collecting fresh linen, toys, clothes and household goods. She said they had set aside a couple of hours but was so overwhelmed by the response that she is still receiving donated goods from the neighbourhood—from people so grateful for a way to help their fellow Australians. Hellen works for Hewlett Packard, which is covering the cost of delivering the many packing boxes filled with goods, and I thank that company for its effort. As transport minister I have had a busy summer watching our precious roads and rail lines face nature’s force. We have had to slow the progress of some of our large road and rail projects to help fund the national rebuilding program. But I am delighted at the speed at which the damaged roads have been repaired. I personally thank the 2,000 workers who have worked around the clock to get Queensland moving again. Around 70 per cent of Queensland’s roads were badly affected. Some 150 major roads were cut. We have put together a $5.6 billion package to help with the recovery. This includes a $2 billion up-front payment to Queensland to help with the rebuilding effort. In Victoria we are still assessing the damage. These disasters have tested us, but out of the human misery we have united as a nation and shown how powerful we can be as a force of good to help people we have never met but who our hearts go out to, knowing that they would do the same for us. So while we continue to mourn those who have gone, we look ahead to what we can do. Let us heed Queensland Premier Anna Bligh’s call and book our Queensland holidays and help the mums, dads and many, many small business operators whose livelihoods depend on tourism. Let us heed the Prime Minister’s call on the weekend for people of all ages to get behind the rebuilding effort. We need an army of skilled workers and an army of apprentices to join the front line to rebuild the homes, the roads, the bridges and many other building structures ruined by the floodwaters. Of course, the Gillard government has a series of incentive programs in place to encourage new apprentices. Let us help the people of Queensland to repair their lives and look forward to the future with hope. And let us all go forward knowing with confidence that when the nation is hit by disaster the rest of Australia does not sit idle; we pitch in. That is us; that is who Australians are. In these worst of times we have seen the best of Australian humanity. I commend the condolence motion to the House. 1038 18:33:00 Frydenberg, Josh, MP FKL Kooyong LP 0 0 Mr FRYDENBERG —I rise here today to contribute to the condolence motion brought forward by the Prime Minister in response to the summer of natural disasters that has ravaged many parts of Australia. This summer has been one filled with tragedy across our great land. From the overwhelming floods and Cyclone Yasi in Queensland, which followed the slow mass of water that has devastated so many Victorian and New South Wales towns, many parts of Australia have been left reeling. Just a couple of weeks ago we also saw the people of Western Australia battle their own natural disaster, with a fast-moving bushfire destroying 72 homes on the outskirts of Perth. No part of Australia has been left immune. As my colleague the member for Curtin has said in this House, recent events have reminded us of the prescient words in Dorothea Mackellar’s poem, My Country, first published in 1908 and written when she was just 19: I love a sunburnt country, A land of sweeping plains, Of ragged mountain ranges, Of droughts and flooding rains. I love her far horizons, I love her jewel-sea, Her beauty and her terror— The wide brown land for me! And so it is that we love the combination of our unique and beautiful landscape and weather, but there is also a great deal of unpredictability and, at time, sorrow that flows from unforeseen events. The devastating floods that have ravaged our nation over the past few months are one such event. In early January the floods began to hit Queensland, quite literally sweeping some rural towns away in their deadly path. Communities were left devastated and heartbroken in scenes similar to those throughout Victoria following Black Saturday and they now face the daunting task of rebuilding. The January floods in Queensland have claimed a total of 35 lives so far. There remain a further seven people missing. As the waters in Queensland rose, many people lost everything, including treasured family possessions that cannot be replaced. The impact on the communities of the Lockyer Valley and Toowoomba was particularly significant. The sight of this inland tsunami was beamed across the country and the world as we started to appreciate the scale of the unfolding tragedy. But what we have seen through the entire crisis has been the true nature and grit of the Australian people. Thousands lined the streets offering their services for the massive clean-up operation, and busloads of volunteers came from afar to lend a hand. This was true Aussie mateship at work. We must not forget that even now, weeks later, many people are still involved in the clean-up operations. I commend the leadership shown by the Australian Defence Force, emergency service workers, police, fire brigade and ambulance workers in their tireless efforts to help the people affected. I also acknowledge the role of Brisbane City Council and the mayor, Campbell Newman, for their significant efforts. I know many of my colleagues have done all that they can to help their constituents and I want to make specific mention of the leadership of the member for Wright, the member for Groom, the member for Forde, the member for Kennedy, the member for Herbert, the member for Leichhardt, the member for Longman and the member for Ryan in their electorates. I pay tribute to members on the other side of the House for their efforts too. Just as Queenslanders began to regain their stride, they were told that the full force of Cyclone Yasi was heading their way. The courage showed by the people of Northern Queensland, in particular those in Tully and Cardwell, facing this ordeal was inspiring. As the floods began to subside in Queensland and New South Wales, the people of Victoria started to experience the rising waters themselves. After 10 years of horrific and soul-destroying drought, our state began to experience heavy rainfall and flooding. The livelihood of many of our farmers and regional communities was threatened. The Victorian government, led by Premier Ted Baillieu and Deputy Premier Peter Ryan, have dealt with the continuing crisis with compassion and urgency. Towns such as Creswick, Rochester, Skipton and Mildura felt the force of the rising waters, with some calling it a ‘mass inland sea’. Nearly 100 Victorian towns have been affected by the flooding, with a number of electorates facing widespread damage. More than 3,000 farmers have been hit, more than 4,000 kilometres of fence destroyed, over 120,000 tonnes of hay lost and over 8,000 tonnes of grain flooded. Damage is estimated in the billions of dollars. I know many of my colleagues whose electorates were hit hard, including the member for Wannon, the member for Mallee, the member for Murray and the member for Flinders, have worked tirelessly with their communities to assist those affected. Whilst it was not on anywhere near the scale of the floods and storms experienced by so many Australians over the past few months, a torrent of rain lashed my own electorate of Kooyong, causing incidents of minor flash flooding in different areas. A number of traders and residents were affected, with shops having to close due to water damage. Trading associations like the Camberwell Traders Association, under the presidency of Henk Kelly-Kobes, and the Boroondara council, under Mayor Nicholas Tragas, have worked hard to assist those affected. In conclusion, what we have seen over the past month is the Australian spirit being tested by the full force of Mother Nature. Through heavy rains, floods, fire and cyclones, the people of Australia have been tested. What we have seen as a result is a testament to the character of our great nation. When faced with disaster, people have rallied round their neighbours, not hesitating to get their hands dirty in the rescue and clean-up operations. As the Leader of the Opposition said in parliament this week, we have seen Australians at their best over the past few months as we all come together to assist in the important recovery task ahead. 1039 18:40:00 Ferguson, Laurie, MP 8T4 Werriwa ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services 1 0 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —On a day when we have heard the reports of devastation and deaths in Christchurch, I join in this condolence motion for those affected by the recent natural disasters in Australia. I join with the many members on both sides of this House who recognise the suffering of the families and individuals affected and the massive effort by Australians to help, whether as neighbours or local volunteers or as part of organisations that help out in crises. However, I want to turn to a different facet of what has occurred. Whether you have seen two Filipino women during the bushfires in Victoria with older Anglo-Saxon Australians; the many Italian names that come across our screens who are local government leaders in Northern Queensland; or farmers with German and Austrian names, it all certainly drives home again the diversity of this country and the nation-building that has occurred through the waves of migration, particularly since the Second World War. At a time when we have had some divisive comments about minorities in this country, I want to talk about some of the events hosted by minority groups in Australia that either my colleagues or I have attended over the last month. I want to talk about Probashi Inc. Probashi is an organisation that was founded by a group of young Australian women—predominantly former students of Macquarie Fields High School, all of them professionals and of Bangladeshi Muslim extraction—to help the victims of acid attacks in Bangladesh. Since then they have branched out. I was pleased to be in attendance at an event in my electorate where they raised $15,000 for the Queensland flood victims, supported by a number of companies—Lenard Charles Menswear, ABS & Co. Pty Ltd and Bengal Grocery Pty Ltd. My electorate has the largest concentration of Bangladeshis in the country, so many of the events and efforts by Australians that I will talk about are in that community. So I went to Probashi’s event and, a few weeks later, I also had the privilege of attending an event run by the Bangladesh Islamic Centre in Minto—on a swelteringly hot day, one of the worst days we had during that heatwave in Sydney. I was there with very enthusiastic Liberal and Labor state candidates at an event to, again, raise money for the Queensland flood victims. Similarly, the Pakistan Association of Australia, with the consul in attendance, held a function at the Himalaya restaurant in Granville. There would have been fewer than 100 people there, but that group also raised $15,000, mainly through the sale of cricket memorabilia. Once again, they are Muslim Australians. I also had the benefit of attending an event of the Campbelltown Bangla School—Bangla is the language of West Bengal and Bangladesh—a few weeks ago at the Grange Public School in Minto where they conduct weekend classes in their language. They had a breakfast. It is a very small language school because there are a number of them in different suburbs of Sydney, so there were not a large number of people, but they still raised $1,600. My colleagues the members for Reid and Blaxland attended an event at the Auburn Gallipoli Mosque, which from its title people would understand is predominantly Turkish, to accept a cheque on behalf of the Queensland flood appeal, for which the mosque raised $12,000. Once again, it shows Australian Muslims joining other Australians in helping their fellow countrymen in this time of crisis. Then there is the Australian Chinese Charity Foundation. I was there with the Governor of New South Wales—and it is indicative of her role in our state that she was at that event—with close friends of the member for Berowra, Hudson Chen and others. They raised $20,000 to $30,000 the other week and have now reached a figure of $250,000 from Sydney’s Chinese community. The weekend before last, I had the benefit of attending in my former electorate of Reid a combined effort by Sri Om—an association for the elderly that aims to establish nursing home care for the Indian community, which is an increasing need, despite our view that they are predominantly a very young skilled migration intake—in conjunction with the Chinese New Year, instigated by the former Mayor of Auburn, Councillor Lee Lam. The event was in a park in north Auburn. Sri Om had originally intended to have their own event. But, in a very good indication for this country, they joined together with the Chinese community to raise money at an event during the Chinese New Year to go towards this massive Australian endeavour. Then there was the Kapitbahayan Cooperative, the leading housing cooperative in the Filipino community in New South Wales. I went the other week to an opening of some new units out in Leumeah. As well as opening the new venues and welcoming the neighbours to come and have a look at what they do, they used that event to raise money for the Queensland flood victims. I also want to cite a Bangladeshi effort. The Bangladesh Welfare Society Campbelltown, led by Iqbal Farrukh, came to my office to present a cheque towards the appeal. These are predominantly Muslim groups. But I was at a Hindu Puja the other week in the Bangladeshi community—Hindus are a minority in Bangladesh—and in the middle of their main religious event of the year they took time out to make a donation towards this appeal. I talked about the Filipino community earlier. My colleague the member for Chifley attended a very broad Filipino event in what is basically the capital of Filipinos in this country, the Blacktown municipality, where a very significant effort was made towards our national needs in regard to funding for flood affected people to help alleviate the suffering that they have experienced. I want to mention the efforts of Gloria Gallegan, a personal friend and an acknowledged painter. She donated an effort on the Murrumbidgee River to the crisis. She and her husband, Bob Gallegan, a former secretary of the Painters and Dockers Union New South Wales, raised significant amounts of money on a local basis in Guildford towards this appeal. In conclusion, what I hope that I have shown in this contribution is that despite the divisive efforts of some people this country is fundamentally built on diversity. In these times of suffering when people need assistance, people bind together regardless of their religion, understanding that we are all part of this nation. This kind of attitude and effort is particularly driven in times of crisis such as this. 1041 18:48:00 Laming, Andrew, MP E0H Bowman LP 0 0 Mr LAMING —Obviously, this has been one of the most trying times for the state of Queensland. I rise in my capacity as a local member from the Brisbane area who saw some of my constituents do extraordinary things in the effort to bring relief to the communities of Grantham, Toowoomba and North and Central Queensland. Suzie Masters lives in Victoria Point in my electorate. As the central person in my region for the provision of relief and emergency services to the community of Grantham, she maintained a blog that I think is something that is important enough to be read into Hansard to be available for future generations. Suzie begins with her first trip to Grantham: Words cannot describe what we saw on our first trip there almost two weeks after the water had been through. Although we had sent a convoy on the previous Saturday and I have been told often by several of the locals out there, that we were the first of anyone to get items out there to the people. We used the Emergency Vehicle Access Roads off the Main Highway to access the town. …            …            … I cannot even start to fathom how on earth anyone could have survived such a disaster. Would be good if someone was able to show such places like the little green building on the corner opposite where the police are set up, etc. To see that building sitting at the angle it is. Or the pub! No doubt, maybe it has been on TV. But I have been too busy with doing the flood relief work. While up at the Fire Station on Thursday, the little boy who lost his Mummy, Sister and Brother turned up after his day at school. Behind him was his Dad. Again, I just felt so inadequate as a human being, knowing who these people were and not to be able to do anything to be able to change their lives just now. The emotions they would be going through would be impossible to comprehend. Thursday was a flat out full on day of driving and visiting many places that have been affected by the terrible floods. Having to be a Mum at the start of the day and taking my Katie into the city for an interview. So I had made a conscious decision to go and visit the RNA and find a gentleman called Craig who I had heard was running a place for flood victims to go to so they could get food, clothing, linen, toys and many other items that have been donated to his cause. Very similar to what we had set up in the Redlands … I got Craig’s details so that I can pass his information onto people as I hear of people wanting to donate items that I know are not being received at so many other distribution centres these days. In addition, I got a list of what he is in desperate need of so that I can get the word out about donations required for his depot. So that families and individuals who need items after loosing so much in the floods can access for free. Even if most is second hand at his centre. Again, this set up is only for the rest of this week as the RNA is having an event there this weekend, so the doors will be closed.            …            …            … Next stop on the trip was Gatton. I had to call into Gatton as I had been given shovels and gum boots. On my previous trip out to Grantham, I inquired if they needed such things anymore. However, as they said they had enough, we kept the items in my car and I said I would take them to a place where they may be of use … I will not say too much about Gatton Showground and their centre. Let us just say, it will not be a place that I would go back to in a hurry. As the staff there (be it volunteers or paid staff, did not want to assist, so I would suspect they are paid workers). Their laid back I don’t care attitude was appalling. Perhaps it was due to the fact I was an outsider. However, one would think that anyone should be greeted in a pleasant manner and everyone would be grateful for offers of donations. …            …            … One of the other reasons I stopped in Gatton was to purchase cases of soft drink to take to Grantham. There is talk that the local businesses need our support and to put the money back into the communities which were so badly affected … We went into the main street of Gatton and had a cool drink. We went into Crazy Clarks on the hunt for lip balm and then ducked next door into The Reject Shop for the same items. Lip balm is one of the constantly requested items from Julie at Grantham as she puts them in little packs with sunscreen and insect repellent for the workers including the volunteers who are constantly at the sites of the devastation helping to do what ever they can to clean up and sort through things. …            …            … Then I went to Grantham. This time via the main road as I had been told by the locals on my previous trip to use the main road. As previously, I have been using the Emergency Services Access Road via the main highway. …            …            … I could not find what looked like a normal way in to the town; all the streets had signs for local traffic only. I did not want to disrespect this nor have to see any more of the devastation. Especially as I had always been in via the Emergency Access Road. I needed to get to the school, which was on the other side of the railway tracks. Easy to do under normal circumstances. However, not when there is so much destruction, devastation and the feeling of death surrounding you. My stomach was churning. I just wanted to turn the car around and get out of there as fast as I could and go home to the comforts of my walls and roof over my head, my kids, the cat and dog etc. I had to go back to get directions by the police. They have a portable office set up with a police bus, like the ones you see on TV where they take people for breath tests on those shows. Then they have a few marquises with folding tables and chairs set up. So many flies to bug you and a generator for lighting and to run the cooler, which obviously would be full of water for the police and the workers in that area of the township. …            …            … There were houses with police tape around them. Houses with painted words on them saying UNSAFE. Some buildings were sitting at 45-degree angles some of the buildings looked like they would have originally been beautiful heritage listed buildings from the 1800’s. Every building in the main road was wiped out. To see garage doors twisted and bent but still hanging, which showed the ferocity and pressure of the water when it hit the buildings is something no one can ever imagine. To see the pub with massive chunks of the building totally missing and other parts of it looking like nothing had happened to it. I think what really was the amazing part of this town which looked like a bomb had blown it away, was the hand painted banners which were erected on at least 2 of the buildings on the main road that was Thanking the people of Australia or helping Grantham in their time of need … with the generous donations from so many people of so many walks of life, these people would all know someone who perished on that day in January. Another photo I would have loved to have taken for people to see so that they too can try to comprehend how bad this disaster has been was that of what would have once been a gorgeous looking river. How it has been carved up and looks like a quarry more than a lovely riverbank. With whole trees looking like little leggo ornaments. …            …            … Once I got the directions by the police how to get to the school, arrived at the marquise to unload the boot load of pots and pans, cooking utensils and cutting boards that had been so generously donated by many people in the Redlands area … The husband brings home money from the people at work and the wife goes shopping from what is on the wish list I publish on our facebook site… . they give because they know that the items will get to the people who are in so much need. For that, I am truly humbled yet again with the generosity of strangers. Also Delma, they loved the eggs. Because the almost 60+ dozen I took out the previous week had all been used up. Delma is a gem for going out of her way all the time to fetch items on the wish list, and then drop it at my doorstep, so that I can take them out there on a weekly basis. Along with many other people who all read my blogs and pass them onto other people via networking means … My house is not longer a home. It is a mini receiving and despatch centre for the people of Grantham and other flood affected areas of the southeast. After dropping off the things to the marquise at the community centre where people congregate for breakfast, their lunch, community dinner nights on Tuesday and Friday evenings, cups of teas or a cool drink. I went up to the fire station. This is the place where all other donations are taken for the victims so that they can get supplies of non-perishable food items, toiletries, clothing, linen some times the odd request for brand new men’s boxers, or like last week, and a cut out Bundy Bear, which was washed away from someone’s unique Bundaberg Rum Collection. (I have now had five offers of a cut out Bundy Bear to replace the one that washed away… The fire station is where I meet with Linda each week, being greeted with a hug and how you going. I take a photo of the Wish List so that I can come home with it, type it up and attach to my blog that I write each and every trip I do. It is important that I do my blog so that the people who donate items know their goods have been delivered. In addition, it helps them to try to understand just what it is like out there. Those of us, who have not been out and see the remnants of the floods that only see things via the media, do need to know what is going on. It is an instinct we all have to be a little bit curious and to know that things are being done. While at the fire station last Thursday, the little fella who lost his Mummy, Sister and Brother, turned up from his day at school. Behind him was his Daddy. They had only buried their family 11 days before hand. Of which 3 days after the funeral I had seen the Dad on his ride on lawn mower doing his work at the local primary school, as he is the grounds man there. …            …            … These people who have lost so much have not only lost family members or friends. They have lost their homes, their toys, their personal belongings. Nothing can replace what they had. As each event comes along through out the year they will realise that, they have no Mum to celebrate Mothers Day with, No Dads on Fathers Day. Everyone who lost their home will at Christmas time, realise that they don’t have their usual Christmas Tree and decorations to go and get down from a dusty shelf in a shed to put up as it was more than likely washed away. Therefore, every single event in their lives each and every day will only bring back more sad and frightening memories … Just as it is for the kids out there who cannot stand to have a bath anymore, it reminds them of the day the water came and washed everything away. After leaving Grantham, I drove back towards Brisbane. I took an exit and went into Goodna. I had been there when we had our depot opened. To drop off truckloads of donations for the 500-600 homes which were damaged or destroyed in the floods … I heard stories of how the people were on the first weekend, walking the streets and had not eaten since the floods. Our people who were volunteers at our centre went out there and started handing out bottles of water and food. Their pride and culture plus the way they had lived in their own countries had probably prevented them from realising that they should be asking for help. One lady who was unemployed some how managed to get the under ground car park of Max Employment in Queen Street. She then contacted us and we filled the car park many times over with non-perishable food items, clothing, linen, toiletries, home baked cakes from the good people of Meals on Wheels at Cleveland some of the seven pallets of bananas, which were donated, to our centre for us to give to the victims. We had car loads of items going over there each and every day for a week. If it had not been for our depot that we started up in Capalaba the day after the floods hit Toowoomba and the Lockyer Valley, these people in Goodna would have been forgotten completely. As the Red Cross and Salvation Army were busy running Evacuation Centres. This week has been even more frustrating than normal in so many ways. I personally have not been displaced nor have I lost anything in the floods. But yet I am so distraught to hear that so many people are still with out power, with out a home to live in and with out items, which were donated to many of the centres, while we had our depot opened. However, these centres which are run by charities and they pay their staff to operate, are closing down. I have heard how people have had to go to lifeline and purchase furniture. I have constantly read and heard that NO CHARITIES will accept clothing or toy donations anymore. Yet I have had more than one person contact me via our Queensland Community Flood Relief site desperately asking for help for people they know or have adopted. In the likes of furniture and toys for one family of 4 kids and for the mum who has cancer, who are moving into a home this week in the Ipswich area. If it wasn’t for a group of ladies getting the word out in Esk the Red Cross and Salvation Army would not have turned up to take over. These people were working tirelessly in terrible conditions to help the elderly. One poor dear woman, who was stranded by the floods, was eating dry dog food crumbs when the volunteers who went out to see what they could do found her. These Volunteers were not part of any Mud Army, nor have they got paper work to say they are a registered volunteer. Due mainly to the fact that if they were registered with Volunteer groups, they would not have even known about the towns that need so much help. I have an acquaintance. He is a soldier at Enoggera. I met this person on Christmas Day when both he and I were doing volunteer work and Christmas lunches for the homeless in King George Square … To the point, that he and I were going to help set one person up who was ex army who had spent several years in the Sunshine Coast National Park as a homeless person. Until he was taken in and went to Brisbane where he was in a shared house community. On Christmas Day, the soldier and I organised to help. The soldier was going to give the homeless man spare furniture he had in his garage. I was going to give him pillows and blankets along with sheets and towels. I had not been in touch with the soldier until about 2 weeks ago. I sent him a text to see how he was going and to find out when we were going to get our things to the homeless person. I found out that while the soldier was out sandbagging and moving people’s furniture. His own home in Toowong which people kept telling him that where his unit was located was fine in the 1974 floods went completely under water. He lost everything. Not only that, but his insurance company has left him high and dry. …            …            … He went out and spent money at a big department store. Buying a lounge suite, dining suite, fridge, TV, washing machine, etc. However, the $1,000 did not cover all of this. If he had been in a relationship at the time and had several kids living with him, then yes he would have been able to purchase these things and all been okay. But, no, his ex-partner lives in New Zealand. …            …            … Another friend of mine lost everything where she lived in Brisbane Street, Riverview. I guess I would have to say, fortunately for her, she was in a commission home and the fact she has four kids. Therefore, she was much better off being in the situation she lives in. The reason being, she would have gotten $400 for each of her kids. Although a few of them are adults, so I guess they would have gotten $1,000.00 each. She is in another home now. However, the place she is in is not home for her. They are desperate for wardrobes so that they can pick all of their things mostly donations from friends up off the floor. As it has been 5 weeks since the floods this week. She is now starting to get very depressed and emotional. The past however many weeks were full of cleaning up, finding a place to live, moving in, getting pieces of second hand furniture for them to use in the new place. Nevertheless, where is the emotional support that these charities were asking for cash donations so that they could provide counselling for all of those affected by the floods? Tonight, Sunday 20 February 2011, I read something that one of the ladies who often donates items for me to take out to Grantham has put on her facebook page. It says that $245 million has been donated for the flood victims, but only $13 million has been handed out. These people need that money NOW. Not down the track. Alternatively there will be more homeless people and families as they cannot afford to purchase items to re furnish their homes, pay their outstanding bills and get on with life. Especially if their insurance companies have reneged on their payouts. …            …            … Along with this, Goodna is waiting for papers to be signed off to say that they can have apprentices come in and plaster walls. Goodna has plaster coming out of their ears with so much of it being donated. However, unfortunately. they cannot get trades people to erect it. Unless they meet the criteria of being Queensland Registered Trades people or if from NSW, they have to be registered with the BSA. People who are perhaps qualified electricians, who have done plastering in the past, cannot go and do the plastering. Cathy Beauchamp told me from Westlife Church who is running the coordination of many of the houses in Goodna being repaired … so much red tape is what is holding up some of these houses being worked on so that the families can start to move back in. Goodna is now like a ghost town except at the train station where commuters park their cars. You have to drive in the middle of the road where it is marked for no traffic access. The potholes are so huge on the actual road where you should be driving … They are like moon craters. Cathy Beauchamp also said that double beds and queen size beds are almost impossible to come by when refurnishing these homes. She also told me that if the people of Goodna go to the Salvation Army, that they will be given a voucher for two major stores. With these vouchers, the people will get FREE BRAND NEW fridges and washing machines. I am curious to know why this is not offered to all victims if the floods in all the areas of the Ipswich and Brisbane districts. Not to mention the families who have lost their homes in the Lockyer Valley … …            …            … I have got a Wish List from Grantham, but at the same time, I am also putting the word out for Toys. Along with a Wish List for the RNA. Unfortunately, I do not have the room at my own home to take the donations … So please see below for the contact details of the people who are running those venues GRANTHAM WISH LIST THIS WEEK. Dolphin torch batteries Hoses Insect repellent Power boards; ext cords etc Air freshener Fabric softener Paper towel Mouth wash Shaving cream Bi-carb soda Cooking oil Mixed herbs Picnic salt Plain flour Sultanas White vinegar Nothing could more exemplify how everything has been lost in this tiny community. They are a proud people. Obviously, everyone in Queensland is proud and loves the lifestyle we enjoy. No-one could have predicted this nor seen it in advance. The self-reliance that we traditionally associate with Queenslanders is no better on show than at this moment. It is a shame that it had to be under such incredible circumstances. But, as you know, with the despondency, with the desperation, there is also the elation and sometimes the frustration, but in the end Queensland will persevere. 1046 19:03:00 Tudge, Alan, MP M2Y Aston LP 0 0 Mr TUDGE —I rise to support the motion of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the recent floods and other natural disasters throughout Australia, including my own state of Victoria. This summer, more than any other in memory, has wrought devastation throughout our nation from floods, cyclones and bushfires. I offer my personal condolences to those who have tragically lost loved ones and those who have suffered loss of home or property. In the first signs of the summer to come, floods hit Central Queensland in early January, severely affecting the towns of Bundaberg, Emerald, Dalby, Rockhampton and smaller settlements such as Theodore and Condamine. Hundreds of homes were inundated, dozens of businesses devastated and thousands of head of stock drowned. Separate floods hit the Gascoyne region of Western Australia. They hit central and northern Victoria as well as northern New South Wales. We were all shocked by the inland tsunami that went through Toowoomba and the flooding in the Lockyer Valley, particularly in Grantham and Murphys Creek. In that region alone, 20 lives were lost and nine, I understand, are still missing. Cyclone Yasi was deemed one of the worst cyclones to hit the north-east coast of Queensland in the last 90 years. And after that there was more flooding in Victoria. Finally, there were the fires in Western Australia on the eastern outskirts of Perth. I can scarcely imagine the horror many people experienced in the face of these disasters. Australians have always been cognisant of the high prevalence of natural disasters on our island continent. However, these past months they have been particularly devastating and extensive. The impact of the disasters extends to the economic and social wellbeing of all affected communities While my own suburban electorate of Aston did not suffer anywhere near the devastation of those towns in Queensland and western Victoria, it did not go unscathed. The local SES had tended over 400 calls due to the heavy rains; there were houses flooded and businesses seriously damaged. SES unit deputy controller Craig Carson described it as the worst flooding he had ever seen in the area. The council had to close over 20 roads over a single weekend. As always, the local SES, police and other emergency services did an outstanding job. Local residents in Knox and Whitehorse in my electorate were also typically generous in their desire to help out fellow Australians in need outside of their own community. Russell Smith and fellow volunteers from the Rowville CFA pulled together resources from the community, calling on donations of buckets, mops, floor cleaner and disposable gloves to help Victorian flood victims with the clean-up. Knox City Council offered specialist staff to the flood recovery in Queensland and in the Wimmera and Mallee areas of Victoria. Knox Gardens Cricket Club president, Rob Cottle, brought his club and the Knox Football Club together for a charity Twenty20 cricket match last week to raise funds for flood victims. Knox CFA volunteers from Scoresby and Ferntree Gully were sent to clean up in and around Rochester. Dozens of churches and local community groups held fundraisers or sent volunteers to help out. We have an incredibly strong sense of community in my electorate, and it is particularly demonstrated in times of crisis such as this. As a small way of contributing to the clean-up effort, and in order to better understand the issues, I organised for several of my parliamentary colleagues and some of my local church leaders to visit some of the flood affected towns in western Victoria, in the electorate of Wannon where Dan Tehan is the federal member. Included in the group were Greg Hunt, Bruce Billson and Scott Ryan, as well as Judy Shaw and Sarah Eldridge from the Rowville Salvos and Senior Pastor Dale Stephenson from Crossway Baptist Church. At community meetings in the small town of Skipton we heard very raw emotions. Almost every business in the main street had had five feet of water through it. Many houses were uninhabitable. People spoke of the devastation that it had caused them, although one lady in tears gave thanks, noting that ‘at least no-one had died’. She had lost her business several days earlier but represented the typical stoicism of fellow Australians, particularly those in the country. We became aware of the fact that floods can have all sorts of consequences on people’s lives. We assisted one elderly woman whose house was not flooded but whose septic tank was. Her problem was that the septic truck could not access her driveway in order to empty the septic tank because there were trees covering it. She was an elderly lady living by herself. So we were able to help out in a small way by just clearing the driveway so that that issue could be addressed. That is not something that you would immediately think about as a consequence of a flood. No doubt there are dozens and dozens, if not hundreds and thousands, of other smaller issues like that throughout the community. While in Beaufort, we were able to assist in a small way with cleaning up houses and small businesses which were completely flooded. As a result of this trip, I called on Knox residents to join a Knox volunteer army to give whatever time they could spare to flood victims in western Victoria. As a consequence, I am aware of at least a few dozen people who will shortly be offering some service to help rebuild fences on agricultural properties that were affected by the floods. I would like to pay tribute and give thanks to all those who have volunteered or who have given to the relief effort, whether they be from my electorate or elsewhere. We have seen incredible efforts and contributions made by so many, but particularly by the police, SES volunteers, health workers, CFA and defence personnel. The people of Australia have demonstrated our ingrained sense of defiance and mateship in the face of adversity. We have rolled up our sleeves and shouldered the collective burden to help others in distress. This summer will always be remembered for the disasters that have occurred throughout our nation. The thoughts and prayers of Australians are with the loved ones of the 35 of our fellow Australians who died in the Queensland floods. We mourn with the family members of those who have perished. Over coming weeks, months and years, many Australians will face a journey of recovery but they will not face this journey alone. Our nation has lived through these tragedies together and we will rebuild together. 1048 19:11:00 Entsch, Warren, MP 7K6 Leichhardt LP 0 0 Mr ENTSCH —On Wednesday, 2 February, we were told that Cairns had a real prospect of receiving a serious blow from a cyclone that was forming quite some distance to the east of us. It was closer to Fiji than it was to us; nevertheless it was one that we should watch. At that time, we had some concern about it but at Christmas time another cyclone that had crossed the coast south of us, around the Babinda area, had gone into a rain depression. It had not caused any serious structural damage but there had certainly been minor flooding. However, the one that came across our region on Boxing Day was the start of what ended up being the major floods that we saw travelling south. That weather affected the entire east coast of our country, down into Victoria. Nobody could have pre-empted the extent of the damage or the extent of the tragedy that unfolded. The ensuing loss of life was absolutely tragic. As the flooding went through the region, it was interesting to see people immediately starting to pack up and go to the affected areas to offer their support. As the event unfolded, before the water even started to subside, not only our emergency services people but also private individuals were making arrangements to travel down into the affected areas to give their support. The whole nation mourned those lives lost in the floods. The graphic images that we saw of the floods touched everybody. The spirit of recovery happened very, very quickly. We started to look at how we could rebuild this area. And while we were trying to rebuild our south-east corner, people in New South Wales and in Victoria were still waiting for the flood event to arrive. In Western Australia, up in the Kimberleys, there were massive floods in the Carnarvon area and, at the same time, bushfires in the south-western corner of Western Australia. You have to ask the question: what in the hell have we done wrong? There have been so many catastrophic events occurring in the same period of time. We were just starting to breathe a sigh of relief, and a lot of resources were being sent down to the south-east corner to help with the rebuilding, when we were told that there was another cyclone heading towards us. I think initially people were not all that concerned—although I have to say they were very prepared. With Cyclone Larry in 1996 we saw what could happen with a significant cyclone, but travelling around the region now you hardly see where it was, even though it was only four or five years ago. So when we hear that these cyclones are coming we do not particularly worry about them. But as Yasi started to come closer and closer we began to have a much higher level of concern, because when you hear on radio news broadcasts that a cyclone is something like seven times bigger than Cyclone Tracy, you know you are in for a bit of a blow. For the six or eight hours leading up to it, when it was heading directly for Cairns, I started to get seriously concerned. I was once in the military. I was actually part of the cyclone recovery crew for Cyclone Tracy and also involved with Larry, so I was very much aware of what happens with a category 4 or category 5 storm and was starting to get seriously concerned. Interestingly enough—and I guess this is what saved lives—the majority of people were prepared, and by the afternoon of Wednesday, 2 February there was hardly a person on the street. That in itself shows the high level of preparedness. People had themselves well and truly ready to go. I battened down that night with my neighbours—and their neighbours—in the downstairs area of their house so that we could give each other support, and it started to affect us late that evening and went on well into the night. Anybody who has gone through a cyclone understands how serious it can be. I woke up in the morning expecting a helluva lot more damage than there was. I was very happy and relieved that we had missed the bulk of it and that the size of cyclone they had talked about—more than seven times bigger—related more to the width of the eye than to the intensity of the winds. The fact that we missed out on the eye meant that somebody else copped it. The whole area around Tully Heads was absolutely devastated by this event. In Cairns we were fortunate in that most of the damage was almost what you would call a compulsory pruning exercise for the vegetation. There was only a very small amount of structural damage due to the fact that we had been building to cyclone standards for a long time, but moving further south, particularly past Innisfail—and Innisfail was lucky that it missed the bulk of it this time as it was still in the process of being rebuilt—and down around Tully, Cardwell and Mission Beach the devastation was absolutely profound. We are fortunate that there was very little loss of life. We did have one unfortunate death. We were without power for a long time and a man who was operating a generator in an enclosed area passed away due to carbon monoxide poisoning. Immediately after the cyclone, you started to see the community spirit and the way the volunteers come out. It was amazing how quickly not only our emergency services but our police and the Ergon Energy and Telstra people got people reconnected. There are people today who are still waiting for power, but generators have been brought in. The way in which it was handled was amazing. I have to say that, leading up to the storm, I did actually receive a call from the Prime Minister, and I appreciated that. I also had a number of calls from the Leader of the Opposition, and I was really pleased to see him arrive immediately after the event to offer support for those who were affected. There were a number of things that really touched me. Within days we had people wanting to travel down to the area; they were giving so much of themselves. We had people down there setting up food vans, to provide free food to the workers and what have you, struggling to get through to these areas. I got a phone call from a lady in Adelaide who had been providing pallets of different supplies into the flood affected areas. She had 15 pallets left over, and she was looking for directions so she could send them up to Cardwell and Tully. The Castaways Resort on Mission Beach had been absolutely destroyed, but they still had rooms available—even though they had no generators or anything like that. They put 14 displaced families into those rooms, at no charge. They cooked on barbecues and open fires and what have you. Such was the generosity of spirit at that time. There was a caravan park in Cardwell, a couple of streets back, that actually survived the devastation. They were looking for generators, and they provided a lot of accommodation for emergency workers and those who went down there to offer that support. In Cairns probably the only major casualty was an 87-year-old, Mrs Cecelia McMillan, from one of our inner suburbs, who lost not only the roof of her house but everything in it. Unfortunately, as we see with many of these insurance situations, her house, built in 1975, suffered $175,000 damage but there was only $85,000 worth of insurance. At 87 years of age the chance of being able to raise the difference is going to be very low. Nevertheless, her neighbours, the Miotto family, came to the rescue. As I speak here tonight, she is still living with them. Already the community is starting to rally. We now have a deficit of about $50,000, which the community, in its generosity, is helping to raise so that this lady can get back into her house. There have been some difficult things, though, which have caused me some concern. When we have a circumstance like this I think it is important that we put the politics aside, because we have to work as a community. I was very disappointed that, in spite of requests to our local mayor to keep me informed in relation to the disaster centre, because my phones were running hot—I was pleading with her to have me involved as part of the centre, so I had an idea of what was occurring and could pass it on—I am still waiting for that phone call, to invite me to be part of that. We need to put that sort of thing, the politics, aside in emergencies like this. We all have a contribution that we can make in offering support in our communities, and I think it is important that we do that. I hope that future mayors will see the importance of engaging the federal member in the disaster relief centres so they are able to be briefed, as are other community leaders, and are able to be part of helping to find solutions to some of the challenges that we face. There are some other serious issues I would like to raise here, because they are very serious. Our hospital was evacuated. This is a newly refurbished hospital. Unfortunately, we had to sell our airport to pay for a new hospital—the only community in Australia to have to do so—which has not even been started yet, so they refurbished an old waterfront building that they had. The 350-odd patients had to be relocated to Brisbane because it was revealed that not only would the hospital not withstand the storm surge but it also could not withstand category 5 winds. So for over 24 hours we had a situation where we had a major community of over 250,000 people that was without a hospital—no hospital whatsoever. All of these sick people were relocated in Hercules aircraft down to Brisbane. We had a child born in a sports centre that was not category-5 graded—so, had the storm hit, there was no way in the world that building would have withstood those winds. We had another situation where a doctor took a sick child from the sports centre to his own home, because he was fearful that the child might die during the night. That sort of thing is totally unacceptable and we need to start to address it. We need to start to get this hospital built and we need to do it without delay. As I speak here tonight, there are still 29 people—patients from the hospital—stranded in Brisbane. Queensland Health were very quick to move them out but unfortunately, when it came to moving them back, that was somebody else’s problem. Frankly, a lot of these people are quite ill and some of the problems fell to the Flying Doctor. They had to try to schedule people back on regular flights. That is quite unacceptable and we need to look at building a new hospital sooner rather than later. We cannot see this occur into the future. One of the other major problems we have in Cairns is that, although we were not structurally devastated, the business community has been devastated by these events—the flood followed by the cyclone. Unfortunately we are predominantly a tourist town and, going back even as early as before Christmas, people were cancelling their accommodation and their travel to Cairns in droves because they assumed that we were either flooded or blown away. The reality is that those making the cancellations from Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra were closer to the flood event than we were in Cairns. The impact on our businesses was quite profound. There is a real push now to get our businesses re-established. This is an area that has had the highest unemployment in Australia for the last two or three years, so these businesses are coming off a very low base. We are really looking for support for these businesses, and I think it is important to realise that, while the structural damage might not have happened, these businesses are just as affected by these events. The generous support that I see happening around the Tully and Cardwell areas, and to a degree in the Brisbane area, also needs to happen in places like Cairns and other areas that are equally affected in a different way. Another thing we have some serious concerns about is that as a community we need to be given the opportunity to rebuild ourselves. Our region was built by our own tradespeople. What is happening—and there is major concern about this—is that there is a large influx of tradespeople to the area who are being offered opportunities, predominantly through the insurance companies with prearranged agreements. We have people like Peter Campbell, who is a fully qualified electrician, unemployed—he cannot get a job—and they are flying them in from other areas. It is a bizarre situation. A fellow by the name of Rob Fraser, a builder in Cairns, was so concerned about this that on Wednesday, 16 February he called a meeting and with only 24 hours notice had over 450 builders and subbies attend. At this meeting we established a register whereby we are pleading with the state government, the federal government, the local government and the insurance companies to give the locals a go, because if you are going to start to rebuild a community the bricks and the mortar is the easy part. A community is more than bricks and mortar. You have that of course, but it is also the social and economic fabric of a community that makes a whole community. You will not be able to rebuild your community with bricks and mortar alone; you need to give economic opportunities by allowing the community to rebuild itself. There is going to be a lot of money going into those communities in the next couple of years, and locals need to be given priority as primary contractors in these areas. Then they will do the infrastructure, and building the economic capacity in those areas will help rebuild the social infrastructure in the community as well. So it is absolutely critical that is being considered. I had a very serious concern with the state government only a couple of days ago. They have just announced the delivery contractors for the restoration works for their natural disaster relief effort of over $30 million. It is from the state government department of transport. You would have thought that, with the commitments that had been given by the Premier, Anna Bligh, we would be allowed to rebuild our own community. You would have thought that the government would have heard this. The 450 tradesmen and contractors that attended the meeting were, all the time, paid lip service of: ‘Yes, we’re going to do something. We’ll make sure it happens.’ Yet the three contractors that have been given the far northern region are national contractors. None of them even have an office in Cairns. Small civil contractors, which are approved for government works up to $150 million, did not even got a look in. This is the sort of work that CEC, which employs over 200 people in Cairns, does and they have not even been considered. They are on their knees already and they are going to get knocked over unless they get an opportunity. Glenwood Homes, which is one of the last of our big builders, is still standing, although only just, but has been excluded from any opportunity to be part of the rebuilding. Tonight as I speak on this condolence motion I plead with all levels of government to give our locals a go. We have to give them a chance to rebuild the community because they are the ones that are going to be there in the end. If this does not occur we will find that more and more of our people will leave our area. The tragedies that we have experienced over the last six months, the series of events and the tragic loss of life have impacted on all of us in the area. We have to also remember the generous spirit and fantastic work that has been done by so many people. We have a wonderful community and we have an opportunity to rebuild. I am sure the resources will be made available to rebuild but, as a community, we need an opportunity to do that ourselves. 1052 19:32:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 0 0 Mr SLIPPER —Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker Murphy, and I am very pleased to see you, of course, competently handling the chair, as you always do. 10000 Murphy, John (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Murphy)—Thank you. 0V5 Slipper, Peter, MP Mr SLIPPER —The Deputy Speaker is, obviously, very correct in his response to my remark. I think that I would not have anyone argue with me when I say that Queenslanders and Australians more generally are resilient, determined and courageous. They are qualities that have been borne out again this year given the untoward tragedies throughout Queensland and the tragedies which have also occurred in other parts of Australia. In Queensland we had two major tragedies within a very short space of time. We had the flooding which swept through Brisbane, Ipswich, Toowoomba and other parts of South-East Queensland including the Lockyer Valley. And, of course, that flooding extended to other states of New South Wales, Victoria and parts of South Australia. Then we had the bushfires in Western Australia in which some 70 homes were lost. As Australians we have a lot to be proud of. We have a parliament which does respect the will of the people. Every three years we have an election and, while we might sometimes quibble with the result, we cannot quibble with the process. Australians are able to endorse or reject the government of their choice and this is not a situation which occurs in every country in the world. We are also a resourceful people. We have, perhaps, an understandable distrust of authority, but most Australians, regardless of where they stand politically, are very good people, they feel keenly for their fellow Australians and they are more than happy to extend a helping hand when that helping hand is needed by those fellow Australians. I have to say that all of us have listened, watched and participated in what has happened and also, of course, in the reconstruction efforts. The resilience and determination shown by so many people right across this vast continent make us all feel very humble. They might be human qualities, but they are also qualities that have captured the hearts and minds of everyone. There were, in many cases, people who lost everything and yet even some of those who lost all were prepared to help others. They turned aside from their own tragedy and were prepared to look at those people who were even worse off. Australians do not give up; Australians will not be gutted. Australians who are dealt a major blow will bounce back. It is what we have always been about as a nation, and it has been vividly and clearly demonstrated in the light of the floods, the fire and Cyclone Yasi. I suppose we really are a continent that stretches across the Tasman, and the tragedy in Christchurch today shows that New Zealand is not immune from the forces of nature. The tragedy which has occurred there, while it may well be of a different nature from the tragedy experienced on mainland Australia, is still very much significant and every bit as great as what has occurred here in Australia. My own parents, who are now in their 80s, live in Ipswich, which was very badly affected by floodwaters. My parents, fortunately, were not personally affected but they have many friends who were. Businesses were completely inundated, and many of those businesses will find it very difficult to survive. My friends, the members for Blair and Oxley, have outlined what has happened in that Ipswich area. I was also incredibly moved by the contribution made by the honourable member for Wright when he spoke about what had happened in the Lockyer Valley. There have also been discussions in relation to Toowoomba in the speeches made by honourable members. I think most of us saw that YouTube video of the inland tsunami which engulfed so many cars and people in the main street of the city, which had been devastated by drought for more than a decade. I understand that people were not even able to wash their cars in Toowoomba because of the plight the city had experienced as a result of lack of water and the impact of drought. Many people would ask, as I think all in this place would ask: how on earth could such a thing happen—a tsunami of the nature that we saw occurring in a place that had been engulfed by drought for more than a decade? I found that video of a car driving away from other cars which were being engulfed by the waves particularly interesting. It really brought home to me in a very clear, chilling and concise way the personal tragedy that was being experienced there, which of course represented the tragedy that was being experienced in other parts of the state of Queensland and the nation. I want to commend all sides of politics for our determination as a community to help those people who have lost so much to rebuild. While the different sides of politics might have arguments with regard to a flood levy and whether it should be imposed not, no-one in the parliament actually opposes the principal that the government of Australia should play its part in helping the reconstruction. The argument is really over how it is going to be funded. Of course, I do not want to say that is a secondary argument, because it is an important argument; but what I think is really reassuring is that all of us believe that as a nation we have a role to play. The story of the heroic teen in Toowoomba, Jordan Rice, and his self-sacrifice and love for his younger brother Blake has touched us all. He was prepared to give up his own life to save his younger brother. I have a staff member who grew up in Toowoomba. His parents and family members live there, but thankfully they were not harmed. I have another staff member who lives in Brisbane. He had settled on the purchase of a home only to be told, seven days later, to expect seven metres of water to come right through his home. He was fortunate to suffer only minor damage to his home, but he spent a considerable amount of time heavily involved in the clean-up. He helped rid the streets of toxic mud, helped clean up damaged belongings and did all that he could to help the victims get back on their feet as soon as possible—to help them try to resume a normal life again. He has told me of close friends he has whose homes went completely under water, losing everything they owned and causing considerable structural damage. Another of my staff was trapped for several days by floodwaters north of Gympie, but she was able to help a number of tourists and overseas visitors get back on the road as soon as the floodwaters subsided. These natural disasters have touched everyone. There are few people in Queensland who do not have family or friends who were impacted in a personal way by the flooding disaster or later by the cyclone disaster. At least 35 lives were lost in the floods and quite rightly those floods will be the subject of a wide-reaching commission of inquiry. Following the floods, just when people thought that life was trying to return to normal, as indeed it was, our state was hit by Cyclone Yasi—a massive system that had a front stretching some 600 kilometres and which brought high winds of up to 300 kilometres per hour, heavy rain, storm surges and damage to a massive section of North Queensland. My former mother-in-law was in hospital in Townsville at the time the cyclone hit. Her husband was once the mayor of Townsville and had been a member of the state parliament and a member of the Queensland cabinet, but sadly he has passed on. My former mother-in-law is a resilient person, but she is in a very precarious state of health. So you can imagine what it was like for her, being in her hospital room, hearing the wind whistling around and, while she could not actually see anything, feeling the terror of what was being experienced. I think that, when we saw the video footage and the television coverage of the damage caused to North Queensland and Far North Queensland by the cyclone and more widely in Queensland by the floods, it really seemed unbelievable to us. But, again, the resilience and determination of the people has provided a silver lining. Our state is accustomed to annual cyclones, but we have not, in recent times, experienced such devastation in such an ongoing way, in such a gross way and in such a diverse manner. The television images and newspaper photographs of the damage revealed a vivid and breathtaking picture of what has been a nightmare. It would be hard to even imagine something like this on such a massive scale, but it requires no imagination because it is so real. It still requires contemplation and reflection to try to absorb properly and to understand the immensity of these tragedies. Had we not seen it and, for many Queenslanders, experienced it, we may not have believed that such a chain of events was possible. To be hit with Cyclone Yasi just weeks after the floods and while some areas were still flooded is incomprehensible. Now, as a community, we have to deal with the consequences. The damage bill from the floods is estimated to be around $5.6 billion. This was then backed up by the damage from Yasi, estimated at some $500 million. Anyone who saw those frightening satellite images of Yasi—and I suspect that just about all of us did—as it approached the Queensland coastline and who heard the sheer terror in the voices of radio interviewees preparing to face this monster are well aware of how incredible the weather system was. With that in mind, the extent of the damage is really no surprise. But then again, the will of the people to stand up to the worst of nature and do what is needed to rebuild is a heartening and uplifting fact. The way in which Queenslanders have banded together with the assistance of their fellow Australians to tackle the clean-up and begin the rebuilding highlights the positive and good side of the community. This love of community is reflected so often in our society and I applaud all of those people who give so much to make sure that their fellow Australians are assisted in their time of desperate need. As a Queenslander I feel sometimes that we should probably apologise because, while we focus on Queensland because of the hugeness of the tragedy in our state, we ought not forget that in other parts of our country, in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia—I look at the member for Fremantle opposite and at you, Mr Deputy Speaker Murphy—different tragedies of varying natures have occurred. Now, today, there has been a horrible earthquake across the Tasman. As Australians, and as New Zealanders, we have a lot to be proud of. We face incredible adversity, as we have over the last few weeks, yet somehow we manage to come through. Somehow we manage to put aside our political differences to focus on what needs to be done. There might be differences on how what needs to be done should be paid for, but we do not disagree on our obligation to meet the need of those who have great requirements at this difficult time. Every cloud has a silver lining. While these tragedies are not things you would wish on anybody, in adversity we often see the best coming out in people. The way in which Australians have responded and are responding to this great need is something that should make all of us feel truly humbled. 1055 19:46:00 Fletcher, Paul, MP L6B Bradfield LP 1 0 Mr FLETCHER —I rise to speak on the motion moved by the Prime Minister and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition. On behalf of my electorate of Bradfield I strongly support the motion. Australia has suffered great loss this summer. Above all, we have suffered the loss of life. We mourn those who have been lost and think of their families, loved ones and friends. We think also of those who have been injured and are recuperating. We wish all of them a speedy and full recovery. We have seen enormous losses of homes, businesses, farms and personal possessions. People who have spent lifetimes working towards building their homes or businesses have found this effort washed away or burned to the ground in little more than an instant. This summer we have also seen the loss of public infrastructure—roads, railways, bridges and ports. It has been both heartbreaking and inspiring to hear members of this House whose electorates have been directly affected talk of the experiences of those in their communities, to hear of the extent of the grief and loss and to hear the demonstrations of strength and courage. Perhaps the most serious of the natural disasters that afflicted Australia this summer was the floods in Queensland. Sadly, this was only one of many. We saw also the devastation of Cyclone Yasi and the impact of floods in Victoria. New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania have also been affected, and recently Western Australia suffered from very serious bushfires. Those Australians who have suffered loss in this summer of flood, cyclone and fire have to start again to rebuild their lives. In some cases they will be rebuilding their lives without loved ones. In many other cases they will be rebuilding their lives without the homes, businesses or treasured possessions that were previously part of those lives. Governments, too, need to start the task of rebuilding lost or damaged infrastructure. This rebuilding process requires determination, resilience and courage. These are traits, as many of my colleagues have already observed, that reside in the Australian spirit. I do not say—none of us say—they are unique to the Australian spirit, but they are certainly traits that reside very firmly in the Australian spirit. We live in a harsh and unforgiving country. In our recent history, success has required hard work, determination and the ability to deal with adversity and setback. Throughout our history we have seen that in times of crisis Australians pull together—be it in conflict or war or in the many natural disasters that our country has experienced. Many Australians have been directly affected by the disasters of this summer. Equally, many Australians who live in areas distant from the events have not suffered in a direct sense. We live in a world of modern and instant communications. This brings great benefit, as we can see instantly what is happening. But there is also a risk of becoming numb to the tide of suffering and loss when we see it daily in our newspapers, on the nightly news or on the internet. My very strong impression is that it is the first effect that has prevailed in Australia this summer. It seems to me that Australia as a whole has been connected to and shared in the loss and suffering that those directly impacted have felt. The broadcast, print and online media have done a very important job in allowing all Australians to witness the events in many parts of the country and in triggering appropriate responses. We have seen an outpouring of emotion and support from individuals and communities all around the country. We have seen very generous donations of money, goods and effort from Australians to support relief efforts and we have seen a remarkable volunteering spirit demonstrated yet again in supporting those who have suffered a direct impact. In my own electorate of Bradfield I have been proud to witness the contributions that have been made. We are geographically remote from the areas that have suffered this summer, but it is clear that those in my electorate feel deeply the suffering of their fellow Australians. More than that, they have wanted to do something, and have done something, to assist. Many individuals and groups in Bradfield have provided financial and other support. Let me provide just a few examples. The Lions Club of Hornsby held a range of events, including bucket appeals, a singalong by choristers from the Sydney Philharmonic and a sausage sizzle, and raised over $15,000. The Lions Club of Ku-ring-gai raised over $5,000. West Pymble Public School raised $9,500 in an ‘obstacle-a-thon’ in which students did laps of a giant inflatable obstacle course. I want to mention particularly Mr Stephen Cha, who lives in Pymble in my electorate. Stephen is the assistant pastor at the Chatswood Open Door Church in the neighbouring electorate of North Sydney, which has a Korean congregation of around 600 people, many of whom live in Bradfield. Stephen organised seven of his congregation, from all over Sydney, to drive to Queensland in a van to help out. The church donated $5,000 to fund the trip. Stephen and his team ended up in the suburb of Goodna, which is on the edge of Ipswich, about 20 kilometres from Brisbane. Half of Goodna had been submerged by the floods. Stephen and his team spent four days cleaning out homes—cleaning gutters and windows, sweeping floors, removing nails from walls—in preparation for homes to be rebuilt. Stephen recounts that those impacted by the floods were devastated at their loss, but at the same time managed to be cheerful and grateful for the volunteer support. Stephen was struck by the fact that in the areas where he and his team were working volunteers had come from all parts of Australia—driving in, flying in, doing whatever they had to do to get there and help. What has been done by people from around Australia, including, I am proud to say, people from my own electorate, is an inspiration. Let me also pay particular tribute to those who have had a direct responsibility to assist. The remarkable work of the various emergency services—the SES, police, fire, ambulance and defence personnel—has been truly impressive. It has been particularly impressive to see organisations from multiple states going into the state that is most afflicted in a particular instance. The work of many charities is remarkable. As a former executive in the telecommunications sector, let me particularly commend that industry for its work in rapidly restoring network where it had been damaged or destroyed. That is a challenge after every natural disaster, and you find across the industry people from all companies working very long hours, going the extra mile to get the network up and serving the people who need it as quickly as possible. I want to pay tribute in particular to our leaders for the way they have conducted themselves throughout the crises that Australia has faced. I include in that the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard; the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott; the Premier of Queensland, Anna Bligh; and leaders at many levels and in many other parts of Australia. It is natural that we should focus our attention and support in the immediate aftermath of the disasters that have devastated many parts of Australia. The path to rebuilding lives, homes and businesses, however, is a long one. A key challenge will be when all the attention dies down. Support from across Australia will be needed well into the future. It is important that governments know this and act on this basis, as it is that all Australians continue to provide support until lives and communities are rebuilt. The parliament has an important role in facilitating a continuing focus on the rebuilding effort and maintaining support and momentum. Australia has suffered considerably over the last few months. I am confident that, as we respond to these challenges and rebuild, we will emerge better and stronger. Out of loss and destruction new life will emerge and communities will be rebuilt better than before. That is, I am sure, the hope and expectation of my constituents in the seat of Bradfield, and I am very happy to convey that hope and expectation to the parliament today. 1058 19:56:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —Many members have stood in this House and regaled us with stories of great heroism, survival, tragedy and sadness. And whilst those stories have become matters of public record, history will record some of the great deeds that were done during the floods. I want to put on the public record my thanks to our fighting men and women, who did so much for so many in a time of need. For so many years Australia’s fighting men and women have come to the fore not just to protect Australia’s interests at home and abroad but to protect Australians in a time of desperate need in national emergencies. It is fitting that I focus just on what our fighting men and women, the Australian Defence Force, contributed during that horror period of some weeks, not just in Queensland but around the country, when Mother Nature wreaked her worst across this wide brown land we call home. In the aftermath of the devastation in Queensland, Headquarters Joint Task Force 637 commenced Operation Queensland Flood Assist. This task force, based at Enoggera Barracks in Brisbane, was commanded by Major General Mick Slater, who was seconded to the Commonwealth to lead Queensland’s flood recovery. Major General Mick Slater is a Queenslander and a former commander of Australian led forces in East Timor. He earned a Distinguished Service Cross for his command in East Timor and he was also the commander of Army’s 1st Division based at Gallipoli Barracks. In March 2006 he led the response to Cyclone Larry. I assure the nation that Major General Slater is a bloody good bloke and doing an outstanding job. At the time, ADF Commander Colonel Luke Foster also assumed command. He was replaced by Brigadier McLachlan, who assumed command of the joint task force on 17 January. In fact, ADF elements have been assisting since December 28 in Queensland and have roamed across the country. At the height of the disasters more than 1,900 Army, Navy and Air Force personnel were deployed to support the Queensland people and across Victoria as well. Elements of the 6th Battalion, who were reserve forces staying back when the battalion deployed to war, were sent out to assist. Men and women were recalled from leave to assist in the same manner. The ADF also provided significant specialist capabilities and, importantly, the manpower that was desperately needed in the aftermath of the floods and Cyclone Yasi. Troops from the 8th/9th Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment were deployed to the heart-wrenching search and recovery task in Grantham and the Lockyer Valley. Soldiers from Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera were deployed to assist with general support. ADF helicopters provided a vital early response, brought in supplies and conducted some of the most daring airlift rescues during the day and, more importantly, at night. The commanders of those aircraft said operational flying in Afghanistan and Iraq did not compare to what they had to endure, especially on that fateful night of Tuesday, 11 January. Our fighting men and women brought more than great logistic resources; they brought one of the finest things needed in time of disaster—they brought confidence. There can be nothing better than to see the joy of people, who had been on the ground struggling, when armoured protected mobility vehicles, Bushmasters, came along with hundreds of soldiers. It let the communities know they were not forgotten and that, indeed, the Defence Force—that fighting capacity of Anzac renown—had come to support them. The confidence that brings to communities is second to none, which is what person after person accounted to me. They felt sheer joy at seeing our men and women in uniform turning up. It let them know that they were not alone. At one point 19 aircraft were flying continuously out of RAAF Base Amberley in support of the Queensland operation. Navy clearance divers were used to survey all of Brisbane’s 16 river bridges for damage and blockages. HMAS Huon commenced operations on 18 January fitted with, obviously, sophisticated sonar equipment to search the debris that posed navigational hazards to shipping in Moreton Bay and the Brisbane River—particularly good use for a Minehunter I would have thought. Joint task force 664 was established under the command of Brigadier Stewart Smith of 3rd Brigade to deal with the Cyclone Yasi response. Specialist aviation engineering, health and logistic assets were on standby. Patients were transferred from Cairns to Brisbane completely emptying the Cairns Base Hospital on board a Royal Australian Air Force C130 Hercules and two C17 Globemasters. Fifty elderly Townsville residents were also transferred from a nursing home and the ADF assisted Queensland police in droves. My only disappointment in the ADF response was the lack of an amphibious capability that would have been desperately needed. However that is a matter of the public record. If we work through on a day-by-day basis the nation can get a feel for the capability and resources that the ADF put into assisting victims. On 1 January a RAAF Hercules flew to flood devastated Emerald where 1,200 people had already abandoned their homes. The last route to Rockhampton had been cut, Madam Deputy Speaker Livermore, the member for Capricornia, as three Defence Force helicopters provided the city’s only lifeline of food and medical supplies—which is lucky for you because you are probably too thin already! On 3 January Defence personnel working closely with Queensland emergency services provided subject matter expertise as well as the planning and coordination of the ADF support. They provided support in evacuating people from Theodore, Emerald and Condamine. Emergency food drops were conducted and medical supplies were also provided. Three Army Black Hawk helicopters provided relief support for Emerald and relocated to Rockhampton for relief work along the Fitzroy River. On 5 January a C130-J Hercules delivered groceries to Mackay. Air Force personnel were working 12 hours around the clock loading pallets onto aircraft. Resupply flights were occurring up to three times a day. Fifty tonnes of groceries, including long-life milk, Weet-Bix, batteries, pasta, rice, baked beans, Coke, toilet paper, nappies and baby formula have been delivered to Rockhampton and Mackay to keep our regional cities moving. On 6 January the Royal Australian Navy evacuated the local hospital in the town of St George. In fact not even a lightning strike could stop the delivery of rescue supplies from RAAF Base Amberley. A Hercules transport aircraft was forced to return after being hit by lightning during a supply mission. RAAF Base Richmond C130 aircraft and Defence staff based at Richmond began airlifting supplies north to flood-stricken Queensland towns. Townsville based Chinooks started bringing in water filtration plants. Royal Australian Navy Commander Paul Moggach and his aircraft commander, Lieutenant Commander Tanzi Lea, were recorded trying to reach flood victims in the Lockyer Valley. It is recorded that low cloud, high winds, a lightning storm and rain that came in like a wall all combined to make it impossible, yet they still landed. On 11 January—that fateful Tuesday night—two Sea King helicopters redeployed from Roma, then to Oakey and then to Amberley along with two more Black Hawk helicopters, Black Hawk 220 and 201, also based at Amberley. These four helicopters evacuated up to 300 people from Forest Hill to an evacuation centre in Gatton. Indeed, the crew of one aircraft alone, Black Hawk 201, that fateful night rescued 146 people. Hundreds of people are alive because four platforms—two Black Hawk and two Sea King aircraft—responded in dreadful conditions, at night with full night-vision goggles in torrential rain. The conditions were horrendous, with powerlines down—antennas everywhere—but they kept flying throughout the night. On 12 January, 223 ADF personnel along with 15 helicopters, six fixed-wing aircraft, trucks, a water purification detachment and other ADF specialist equipment were flown in to start assisting communities. On 13 January Private Mitchell Mead, a reservist with the 9th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, was pictured in the newspaper unloading local sandbags. With him were most of the 9th Battalion, including trucks. The entire Army Reserve unit turned out to support their community: 15 Bushmaster protected mobility vehicles; 16 trucks; an ambulance and over 100 troops were deployed to Toowoomba and the Lockyer Valley to commence the clean-up and the search and rescue. Amazing stories started to appear about what our fighting men and women were doing. Tonnes of food were arriving by 16 January at Townsville base, No. 1 Airfield Operations Support Squadron. Twenty-five reservists from Delta Company, the 9th Battalion of the Royal Queensland Regiment, were in Gympie to assist the Gympie Regional Council as part of its civil restoration. The minesweeper Huon was by that time working in Moreton Bay looking for debris. Two Royal Australian Navy hydrographic ships were assisting and 600 ADF personnel were working in communities in Brisbane, Toowoomba, Rockhampton, Townsville, Amberley, Roma, Theodore and St George. C-17 Globemaster and C-130 Hercules aircraft and many other aviation assets not deployed in our combat zones were by then working in South-East Queensland. It was an unbelievable effort from our defence force in aid of the civil community. And nothing illustrates the ADF’s effort better—without diminishing anything that our individual sailors, soldiers and airmen did—than the story of the Blackhawk 201 and the two Sea King aircraft that flew that fateful night of Tuesday 11 January. Corporal TJ Southwood, Lieutenant Colonel Tim Witenden, Petty Officer Nicholas Anderson, Lieutenant Commander Scott Palmer, Chief Petty Officer Kerwyn Ballico, Lieutenant Simon Driessen, Corporal Rob Nelson, Warrant Officer Tony Young and Sergeant Bryson—these are the names of some of the pilots and crew that flew those four airframes, rescuing up to 300 Queenslanders trapped on roofs, in ceilings and on top of carports, many of them waiting for eight hours in the most horrendous conditions of rain, squall and storm. You can almost picture it. Mum, dad and the kids are huddled on the roof, unsure. Phone lines are down and there is no electricity. They do not even know whether anyone knows where they are. Suddenly a sound fills the air above the raging storm, lights start to flash in between the raindrops and a black, thunderous shape stops above them. A man comes down in a sling, trying not to swing wildly as the breeze picks him up. The winch operator is trying to land him on an area the size of a desk in these tremendous conditions. If you looked up from that roof you would have seen in the cockpit two pilots, night-vision goggles covering their eyes, desperately trying to keep the helicopter in a hover in horrendous conditions. You would have seen a winch operator hanging out the side of an aircraft, saturated, with night-vision goggles steamed up, in the most horrendous conditions, trying to avoid live powerlines as he sends a junior soldier down the wire to begin picking up people. That is how over 300 were rescued that night—person by person, house by house. That shows the calibre of the fighting men and women that we have. It is the calibre of those who rescued Australians. Who can forget that immortalised image of a warrant officer, saturated, exhausted, goggles fogged up from the heat of his breathing into his eyes, holding a bedraggled small child, completely saturated, that he literally snatched to bring back up into a helicopter? As my parliamentary colleagues quite rightly talk about the flood and its victims, the horror, the sadness, the joys and the delights and the heroes, just let me put on the record that there is a group of men and women, up to 2,000, who served our nation because the Minister of Defence called them out. They got their heels together and served, as do almost 3,000 of our fighting men and women across the world today. Many of them are unsung heroes. Many of them will not know the results of their actions on those fateful days and that fateful night, yet their saving of hundreds of lives is without doubt and beyond dispute because of the capability and the capacity of our fighting men and women. We as a nation are truly blessed to have such a professional fighting force that is so well trained and so willing to risk all to save the lives of other Australians. It is a credit to the Anzac spirit. It is a credit to us as a nation. Whilst no-one would wish such a devastating flood and cyclone upon us again, I know in my heart that, should such devastation again visit our shores, our fighting men and women will once again rise to the challenge, because that is who they are and that is what they do. If I can speak on behalf of all Queenslanders and all those in Victoria who were so ably assisted and so ably helped, we thank them for their service, which went above and beyond. 10000 Livermore, Kirsten (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms K Livermore)—I thank the member for Fadden for ending the debate on the condolences motion on that note. I understand that it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the committee. Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) 20:12:00 —I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. 1061 Debate resumed from 21 February, on motion by Ms Gillard: That the House record its deep sorrow at the death on 19 February 2011, of Sapper Jamie Ronald Larcombe, while on combat operations in Afghanistan, and place on record its greatest appreciation of his service to our country and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement. 1061 20:12:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —I rise to honour and respect the outstanding but tragically short life and supreme sacrifice of our brave Sapper Jamie Larcombe. It is important that we in this parliament acknowledge his life and his commitment to the freedoms and values that we hold so dear here in Australia. We also need to honour and respect the sacrifice of his loving family. I offer my heartfelt condolences to the Larcombe family—his mother, Tricia; his father, Steven; and his sisters, Anne-Marie, Emily and April; his partner, Rhiannon Penhall, and all of his extended family, his friends and his ADF mates in the 1st Combat Engineer Regiment. Every single day this cherished young man will be in their thoughts and hearts. His mother and father will remember Jamie as a little boy, his happy, fun-loving nature and sense of humour, his many antics—as we all do as little people—his achievements as he grew through life and his life’s one ambition: to serve his country. His sisters will remember their childhood fun and their games and, I am sure, the endless adventures. His partner Rhiannon will remember how much they loved each other and the plans and dreams that they shared for a future together. In spite of the terrible grief of the Larcombe family and Rhiannon, they do know that Jamie chose his path. They know why his personal qualities made him a leader, the very same qualities of the engineers—courage and a skill and capacity to lead, to go in ahead of their ADF mates to make sure an area is safe, to protect those who are to follow behind them and to make the area safe for the local people they are there to protect. Jamie loved his job. He was well regarded, as Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston said, and was not only a real team player and someone you could rely on but also a quiet achiever who worked hard and was focused on getting the job done. Jamie will also be mourned and greatly missed by his close-knit local community, his fellow Country Fire Service volunteers and all of his mates at his local footy team. I have no doubt that everyone who knew Jamie will have their own special memories of this fine young man. Can I also offer my most sincere condolences to the 1st Combat Engineer Regiment. You have lost two of your mates in the past two weeks or so, and I can only imagine what you are going through now and how tough this must be for you all. I do know, however, just how resolute and strong your units is—the very qualities it takes to be a sapper. I have no doubt that, like you, Jamie shared the views of Corporal Ben Roberts-Smith VC when he said: I do what I do because I believe in the country that we live in. …            …            … I believe that we are making a difference in stemming the flow of terrorism into Australia, and I want my children to be able to live as everyone does now without the fear of getting onto a bus and having it blow up. Jamie epitomised, I think, the motto of the combat team: ‘Never alone and fight together’. I honour and respect the life and supreme sacrifice of Sapper Jamie Larcombe. Lest we forget. 1062 20:16:00 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 1 0 Mr FITZGIBBON —I rise to support the condolence motion moved by the Prime Minister after the event of the loss of Sapper Jamie Ronald Larcombe. I note that members of both the government and the opposition have unsurprisingly been supporting the motion. I did not know Sapper Larcombe, although it is possible that during my time as defence minister I may have met him. I met many members of the Navy, Army and Air Force during that time. But, notwithstanding not knowing Sapper Larcombe, I can be very, very confident of a number of things about him. The first is that he would have loved what he was doing, he would have been absolutely committed to what he was doing and he would have been proud of what he was doing. He would also have been undertaking his task without harbouring any doubt that what he was doing was important for his country and, of course, for our national security. It is important to note that Sapper Larcombe was, like all of our personnel who serve in Afghanistan, a volunteer. He was not conscripted to do what he was doing but a person who volunteered to serve the Army and to undertake the particular tasks he was undertaking in Afghanistan. There is something else that I can be very confident about too, and I take some licence here because I have not spoken with his family, nor do I know his family. But I am very confident that, based on historical experience, Sapper Larcombe’s partner and family would have supported what he was doing. Sure, they may have been concerned from time to time about his choice of career but he would have gone to theatre with the full support of his family—a family who I am sure understood both what he was doing and why he wanted to do what he was doing. We are doing important work in Afghanistan. There is no doubt that there is a direct link between our own national security and our work there. It is going to be tougher to maintain public support for our deployment the longer we are there and the more people we lose. But continue we must, until we are confident that the Afghan government is capable of taking care of its own security and therefore capable as a democracy of preventing Afghanistan once again becoming a breeding ground for those prepared to impose their fundamentalist reforms of Islamism on other people, with the terror events that flow from that. I offer my very sincere sympathies to his partner, Rhiannon; his parents, Steven and Tricia; and, of course, his sisters, Ann-Marie, Emily and April. I am advised that the community of Kangaroo Island is a strong one. I know that both his family and the broader community will be feeling a great sense of loss at this time. Sapper Larcombe goes down in the annals of history as an Australian hero, having given his life for a good cause and for his country. For that reason we will not forget him. Going back to the theme of why we are in Afghanistan: we need to remind ourselves that we should collectively ensure that his sacrifice was not in vain, that we continue Sapper Larcombe’s good work and, just as importantly, that we continue to give bipartisan support to those who served with him in Afghanistan and to those who will serve in Afghanistan until our work there is done. 1063 20:21:00 Ramsey, Rowan, MP HWS Grey LP 0 0 Mr RAMSEY —We stand in the chamber together today united in grief and mourning at the tragic loss of 21-year-old Sapper Jamie Larcombe, who was killed in Afghanistan on the weekend. It is the second fatality for the Darwin based 1st Combat Engineer Regiment, which laid to rest Corporal Richard Atkinson less than a week earlier. Sapper Larcombe was the 23rd Australian to die in Afghanistan while serving in the Defence Force, but it never seems to get any easier to accept, understand or come to terms with the loss of a fine young Australian. The death of Sapper Larcombe, a country boy from Kangaroo Island, leaves his immediate family stricken with grief. His mother, father, three younger sisters and a loving partner have been dealt the most unimaginable blow. While Sapper Larcombe does not come from my electorate, I am moved to speak because Parndana could be any one of a hundred or more country communities that I represent. I come from just such a community. I know how strong the family and friendship links are in such communities and how individual tragedies are amplified because everybody knows everybody. I have spoken to the member representing Kangaroo Island, Jamie Briggs, who is unable to be in parliament this week and who would wish to speak on this motion. He is concerned for the family, and has written to them, and the community. When he returns he will seek space in another debate to make a statement. While I do not know them personally, I know that Jamie’s school mates, his footy club mates and all in the Parndana and Kangaroo Island community who knew him well are sharing his family’s pain and grief. Jamie was fulfilling his dream to serve his country in the armed forces. By all accounts, he loved his job. Every member of our forces knows the risks and their families know the risks, but still, thankfully, we have the best of the best putting their name forward to be first in the line of resistance of those who would dismantle our societies and seek to suppress the democratic freedoms sought by the oppressed. This brave young soldier was on his first tour of Afghanistan when he was shot by insurgents while on patrol on Saturday night. An Afghan interpreter was killed in the same incident. A true-blue South Aussie, he grew up playing footy and riding motorbikes and was a volunteer in the local CFS. He was a passionate Adelaide Crows follower and idolised Andrew McLeod. He loved life, his family and his country. He had dreams and aspirations for the future. He was a dearly loved and cherished member of a family and a community. Sapper Larcombe was a dedicated and honourable young man and I, like all Australians, am deeply saddened by his death. I offer my sincere condolences to his family, friends, community and regiment. My thoughts are with his mates and all Australians fighting in Afghanistan. Rest in peace, Jamie: you have done your family and your country proud. 1064 20:24:00 Snowdon, Warren, MP IJ4 Lingiari ALP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and Minister for Indigenous Health 1 0 Mr SNOWDON —We are here to mourn the death of Sapper Jamie Larcombe and express our sincere condolences to his parents, Steven and Tricia; his younger sisters, Ann-Marie, Emily and April; and his partner, Rhiannon. I would also like to offer my sympathy to his extended family, friends and comrades in the Australian Defence Force. Sapper Larcombe was, as we have heard, an outstanding career soldier. His life ambition was to serve his country. He was born in Kingscote on Kangaroo Island, South Australia, in 1989. Sapper Larcombe joined the Army in 2008 and was posted to the 1st Combat Engineer Regiment in Darwin after completing his initial training. He was just 21 years old. To those in this place who are parents, let us try to put ourselves in the position of his mum and dad. I have a son who is 21 years old. He attends university in Melbourne. I cannot imagine the pain and grief that is being suffered by his family as a result of his death. His mates have described him as a dependable and genuine young man, and we need to express to them our understanding of the way they are feeling. I spoke to Brigadier Gus McLachlan only today, and we talked about how his mates are feeling. They are feeling the pain of losing a mate, a comrade, someone who they served beside. He was described as a young man whose country upbringing instilled a wisdom that was respected. This was his first tour to Afghanistan. He had previously deployed on Operation Padang Assist. Sapper Larcombe has been awarded the Australian Active Service Medal with Clasp: International Coalition Against Terrorism, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, and the Army Combat Badge. Sapper Larcombe’s commanding officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Darren Huxley, said Sapper Larcombe will be missed terribly. He remarked: He was a trusted sapper, our comrade in arms and our mate. We have had the privilege of serving with a fine Australian and we will honour his sacrifice by finishing what he helped us to start. As I said, I spoke to Brigadier Gus McLachlan, Commander, 1st Brigade, based at Robertson Barracks in Darwin, this afternoon. The Darwin based 1st Combat Engineer Regiment has now lost two of its best within a fortnight, with Sapper Larcombe’s death following that of Corporal Richard Atkinson. Brigadier McLachlan assured me that he had made all necessary support arrangements for the family of Sapper Larcombe. I know that the 1st Combat Engineer Regiment are a tight-knit group, and they will be feeling it. They have lost two of their comrades in a very short period of time. I understand that the unit are doing it tough. But I have great faith in their professionalism, their determination and their ability to support each other as they focus on their mission. I want to make sure in this place that we all understand what Sapper Larcombe was doing for us. Along with his mates, as part of Operation Geelong, Sapper Larcombe was participating in an unpartnered patrol. The aim of the operation is to extend our influence in the Mirabad region, where the Army are building a new patrol base. His platoon was outside the wire, patrolling an area to the south-east of Patrol Base Wali, when they were engaged by an insurgent group. The Chief of the Defence Force said: The patrol was dismounted from their Bushmaster vehicles and were stationary at the time of what appears to be a coordinated insurgent attack employing both machine gun and small arms fire. The other soldiers on the patrol were able to repel the attack … Sapper Larcombe was taking the fight to the insurgents. In the incident in which Sapper Larcombe was killed, a local Afghan national rendering translation assistance to Australian forces was also killed. Both of these men were struck by gunshots and despite immediate first aid were not able to be saved When I spoke to Brigadier McLachlan, the thing he stressed to me was how grateful he was, and the unit was, for the support being expressed by this parliament for Sapper Larcombe and his mates, for the understanding that was being expressed through this discussion in the parliament of what was being done, and for our understanding that those soldiers who put on the uniform know what they are doing. They are very professional young men. They are trained to a very high standard. They understand the risks that confront them as they embark upon their task. They deserve our support, they deserve our adulation, because they have taken the decision to put on a uniform and fight for their country. As Minister Smith has said, and I echo it, Sapper Larcombe died pursuing his country’s national interests. He was helping to stare down international terrorism. He was there, in Afghanistan, doing a job that we asked him to do. On behalf of the Australian government, I offer my support to Sapper Larcombe’s family and friends and assure them that the sacrifice of this exceptional young soldier will not be forgotten. Sapper Larcombe made the supreme sacrifice. He died serving his country and is owed a special debt of gratitude that can never be repaid. We will not forget him. Lest we forget. 1066 20:32:00 McCormack, Michael, MP 219646 Riverina NATS 0 0 Mr McCORMACK —‘He was just a lovely boy and very well known and liked around here. He was the kind of boy you’d wish your daughter brought home with her.’ They are words spoken about a departed friend from someone—a Kangaroo Island local—who was lucky enough to know him better than most; words spoken about an everyday, fun-loving Aussie bloke; words spoken about our latest, our 23rd, digger killed in the line of duty in Afghanistan. As the member for Riverina, whose home of Wagga Wagga is also home to the Army Recruit Training Centre at Kapooka—the home of the Australian soldier—the death of soldier Jamie Ronald Larcombe is especially sad. It is especially sad because I know how strongly this will be felt at Kapooka; especially sad because this is another young life lost. Sapper Larcombe was just 21 years old. Many of the war monuments which dot the Australian countryside, in every city and town large enough to support even a handful of volunteers who answered our country’s call in its greatest hour of need, have a solemn message chiselled on them. They are the words of St John: ‘Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.’ What powerful words. What an appropriate epitaph for Sapper Larcombe, who has made the supreme sacrifice. He leaves behind grieving parents, three sisters who thought the world of him and a girlfriend whose happy face, pressed close to Jamie’s in a beautiful recent picture which featured in yesterday’s media accompanying the tragic news, really reinforced what a terrible loss the nation in general and his own close-knit community in particular have suffered. The ANZAC spirit burns brightly in the hearts and minds of all who proudly wear an Australian military uniform. We must stay the course in Afghanistan. Australia’s oldest surviving Victoria Cross recipient, Vietnam hero Keith Payne, has warned that it would be a mistake for Australia and its allies to set a specific exit date from the conflict. It would, he argued, encourage the Taliban to hide in the mountains and emerge when our troops departed. The sacrifice of Sapper Larcombe and his 22 brave comrades must not be in vain. We must now, more than ever before, ensure that terrorism and oppression do not win out against those who seek peace, the price of which is eternal vigilance. We give thanks to Sapper Larcombe, to his three engineer mates who have also lost their lives and to the other diggers who have returned to our shores not in the way they ever should have had to, but as fallen heroes having fought the good fight, having kept the faith—the faith of their family and friends, of a nation and of the ageless ANZAC legend. May it always endure. May Sapper Larcombe rest in peace. Lest we forget. 10000 Livermore, Kirsten (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms K Livermore)—I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify their respect and sympathy by rising in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank honourable members. Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) 20:35:00 —I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. 1067 Ministerial Statements 1067 Debate resumed from 9 February, on motion by Mr Dreyfus: That the House take note of the following document: Closing the Gap: Prime Minister’s Report 2011 1067 20:36:00 Wyatt, Ken, MP M3A Hasluck LP 0 0 Mr WYATT —I rise today to talk on the third annual Prime Ministerial statement in the House of Representatives on closing the gap. I have an issue with the illusion of words versus the reality of what is occurring on the ground and the pragmatism of those who are translating that into actions that improve outcomes for Indigenous Australians, no matter what the setting. The former Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, the member for Griffith, delivered the apology to Australia’s Indigenous people. It was a key turning point in Australia’s history that has healed many and brought many together. I quote a comment of his that epitomises the directions that are being sought: A future where we harness the determination of all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity. A future where we embrace the possibility of new solutions to enduring problems where old approaches have failed. A future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility. Symbolism is important but the apology was more than symbolism; it was a recognition of the pain of the historical past. It created the opportunity for Australia to move on from where it was. It is not the sentiment that makes history; it is our actions that make history. The apology is also aimed at building a bridge between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians based on real respect. Our challenge for the future is to cross that bridge and, in doing so, to embrace a new partnership between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. We have not done that thus far. There are still many challenges. If I were to ask every member in the House of Representatives to visit every Aboriginal community within their electorate, they would find that the gap is not closing and that in fact there are many things that have been left undone. I want to acknowledge the Hon. Warren Snowdon for the work that he does. He travels this land extensively, looking at the challenges and the problems in housing, education and economic participation, and I know that to him the challenges seem absolutely surreal. This demonstrates that we have not moved the agenda of reform significantly, even though partnerships have been developed under the national partnership agreements, of which there are six. All of them go to a set of priorities that we would hope would make a difference, and with each is a substantial investment by state, territory and Commonwealth governments. Yet in my own seat of Hasluck, in an urban context, I do not see the Aboriginal community of some 4,000 to 5,000 gaining from the closing the gap strategy. If I were to talk to them about elements of the closing the gap strategy, they would ask what the detail was—where is the money and where is the difference? There is still much to be done. In my own state, Western Australia, we have the third largest Aboriginal population, behind New South Wales and Queensland. I want the people of Hasluck—the Indigenous Australians who live, work and experience the trauma of poverty, who experience the challenges around the lack of economic participation and who experience low educational outcomes, although they are improving—to also be part of the total equation. When we talk about closing the gap, we make a universal assumption that this reaches every Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander in this nation. Let me assure you that it does not. Therefore, our readings and the reports we present on closing the gap should reflect the reality. Many of the NPAs, or National Partnership Agreements, are targeted to particular locations, and universality is not a factor. That creates a degree of scepticism. It has been my philosophy of life that difficulties vanish when faced boldly. I think we need to be bold in the way we tackle the absolute gap that exists in every facet of Indigenous Australians’ lives. How do we collectively ensure that scepticism difficulties are overcome? It is challenging, but I think we need to listen with a mindset that is different from expecting people to participate and follow without being part of a process. Scepticism is the view that, since we cannot confirm or prove that something exists outside of our perception of it, we should deny any claims to true knowledge of it or at least suspend judgement. The word ‘scepticism’ comes from the Greek word ‘skeptos’, which means doubt. If we look at the past, we find that the future we talked about when the apology was given has not been delivered to all Indigenous Australians; but it has been delivered in targeted areas, where I do concede that there are some improvements. These improvements are not significant when you read the COAG Reform Council’s report against the measures that are particular to the NPAs. That report indicates that there is some improvement but that it is not universal. I was taken aback by the Prime Minister’s admission that there will be a three-decade period in which we really should push for significant reform. The other thing we need to think about seriously is that if we are going to change the status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people we must be universal in our approach and look at providing the pathways that will make a difference. But we have to premise this—and I use the words that Tom Calma spoke when he was Commissioner for Human Rights—on the idea that: Partnership is a process that must be recognised as a fundamental part of any approach to ‘Closing the Gap’ in Indigenous health equality. That would equally translate for any other facet of work that we do as an Australian government or through the COAG process with state and territory jurisdictions. Unless we have people sitting as equals at the table, how can we expect sustainability? There are plenty of examples. Again, colleagues who work within the area of Aboriginal affairs would quite happily confess that funding that is often required for simple projects cannot be found because it is tied up by criteria. Some of the solutions are so simple yet so complex against the requirements of funding processes. Partnership must include recognition of the power imbalances that exist between the partners and an understanding of the effect these power relationships have in the way in which we seek to move the agenda of reform. A challenge for the future is to embrace a new partnership between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. The core of this future partnership is closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous—words delivered by the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. Prophetically, I would have to say that we have not been universal in the achievement of those goals. We need to lead, and allow communities to lead, but we also have to be responsive to what communities want, as opposed to their being continually passive recipients of government programs, policies and services. Certainly within Hasluck I would like to see that all the Aboriginal constituents have much more of a responsive, guiding, leading role than being the recipients of programs. When I look at those six key outcomes, if we could achieve Indigenous economic participation right across all capital cities we would make major inroads. I know that it is challenging in the remote areas of Australia but there are opportunities to look at fly-in fly-out models. If we do not change Indigenous early childhood development in the next two to three years, we can push that gap of three decades out further, because the impact of those early years is absolutely critical. Housing, remote service delivery and access to a whole range of things are important. I listened to the Prime Minister when she said: Today I make the third annual prime ministerial statement to this House on closing the gap. The parliament should be in no doubt that prime ministers will be reporting on closing the gap for decades to come. This work will go on. I would hope that is not the case, that in fact in some things we will rethink the mindset of how we deliver. We should rethink the mindset around the inhibitors that cannot allow a community to make even the smallest quantum shift in what is needed. Again, I do not envy my parliamentary colleague Minister Snowdon. I know that when you visit communities they express to you what they desire and what they seek to have in place for them, their children and the future of their communities. The trouble is that we go there and we say that we can do this amount but we cannot give you the totality of what you desire. The reality of change is never simple. It is not going to be universal. It will be problematic. We need to act on the best evidence that we can get, and some of the best evidence comes from communities themselves. They will talk to you about the failings of government agencies. They will talk to you about the failure of people to stop and listen to what it is they aspire to. I think that the tripartisan approach is absolutely critical if we are going to achieve these things. We need to revisit the way in which programs are shaped and implemented. The expenditure of money languishing is problematic when housing shortages are so critical, when the education of children is affected by a decision not to proceed with preschool centres. I think that ‘closing the gap’ means that we know what we are trying to achieve in education and we know what we are trying to achieve in employment and in health, but the gap also means bringing people with us. It is interesting to note that, in the business sector, if you want to do something you sit and negotiate. You work with people to a common position. You then work out who is responsible for what and then you provide the resources to allow that to occur. You review, evaluate and continue the process of continuous reform. We have not done that yet. The Prime Minister also went on to say: I know our people think of the past, of the great policy movements and the passionate debates, of the money spent and the stubborn persistence of Indigenous disadvantage, and I know that sometimes we wonder: ‘Can we really make a difference?’ To use Obama’s words, ‘Yes we can.’ But we also have to have the will and commitment to change the way in which we do things. We cannot go annually and say that we have rollovers in budgets when there is a dire need in so many places. The Prime Minister also said, ‘I am certain that Australia will never close the gap without all of us committing to change.’ The National Integrated Strategy for Closing the Gap in Indigenous Disadvantage is a tremendous document in the way that it identifies targets and directions, but it also provides a roadmap for future action. How can future action ever be achieved if the partners whom you are travelling with do not know what is in the map for the future, if they do not know the detail that is contained within this document? I suspect, Minister, that, if you and I were to sit together with a community and show them this and walk them through it, we could quite honestly say that many would never have seen the detail of the future map. I think it is beholden on us to collectively take that map, work it towards the future and achieve the outcomes. I certainly hope that in my electorate many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander constituents will have the opportunity in the future of also being equal players in the changes and reforms that come and not excluded from probably a monumental point in the history of this nation where we can achieve changes of a magnitude that we have not seen before. Let me, in closing, acknowledge the fact that both John Howard and the current Prime Minister have committed to the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people within the Constitution. I think that is a visionary step forward that builds on the 1967 referendum. It builds on the apology. But it also builds on the psyche of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. In particular, I will take a very close interest on behalf of Aboriginal people who are my constituents living within the electorate of Hasluck. I compliment the minister on the achievements thus far that that minister has personally been involved with, but I still say there is a significant gap between what government promises and what government delivers. 1070 20:51:00 Snowdon, Warren, MP IJ4 Lingiari ALP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and Minister for Indigenous Health 1 0 Mr SNOWDON —Firstly, I thank the member for Hasluck for his contribution and his somewhat prophetic yet wise words. I acknowledge the First Australians, one of the oldest continuing cultures in human history, the original owners of this land, and ancestors past and present. I know that the Prime Minister has once again committed to reporting to parliament on annual progress towards closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. We recognise this is a national goal which will not be achieved in a parliamentary term. We can, must and will continue to work together to improve the status of our First Australians. Last week, after the statement was made, I was delighted to accompany the Prime Minister, Minister Macklin and Minister Roxon to a meeting with a delegation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders from various health and related organisations. I am very happy to report that the sentiment of the morning was of renewed energy and intent—intent to work together in partnership with the Australian government, intent to provide leadership and a national voice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and intent for action and to make a change in the lives of their fellow people. As the Minister for Indigenous Health, I can report that there has been significant action towards closing the gap in Indigenous health outcomes. We are investing $1.2 billion in Indigenous Pacific expenditure for the 2010-11 financial year. This is an 87 per cent increase since 2007-08. Last year I informed the House of our progress with the Commonwealth’s $805.5 million Indigenous chronic disease package. The package targets key risk factors, chronic disease management and expanding the workforce. Substantial milestones have been achieved: a total of 337 new positions for the Indigenous health workforce; more doctors, nurses and medical specialists on the ground; and more than 29,000 adult health checks in 2009-10, an increase of 26.1 per cent on the previous year. As at 31 December 2010, 41,320 eligible Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people accessed medicines. As at 31 October 2010, around 1,600 practices in Indigenous health services had registered approximately 25,000 eligible patients to the PIP Indigenous Health Incentive program to provide better chronic disease management. In the area of child and maternal health, as reported by the Prime Minister, we are confident of being able to halve the gap in mortality rates for Indigenous children under five by 2018. The 2010 report by the National Indigenous Health Equality Council, on which the member for Hasluck was formerly a member, advised that the Indigenous infant mortality rate has been declining and the gap has been narrowing. In 2009-10, 10 new child and maternal health services were approved for funding across Australia, bringing the total to 63 services funded under the New Directions Mothers and Babies Services program. A total of up to 11,000 Indigenous babies and their mothers may be assisted over five years under the $90.3 million program. We can, we must and we will continue our efforts in child and maternal health programs to ensure that all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids have the best start to life. We are on track. There is a long way to go, but we are on track. In the area of male health, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men play a significant role in the lives of families and the wider community. In May 2010, the National Male Health Policy was launched, which includes a focus on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men. As part of this policy, the $6 million Strong Fathers Strong Families Program will promote the role of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander fathers, partners, grandfathers and uncles, and encourage them to actively participate in their children’s and families’ lives. The program will commence shortly and provide funding for projects to develop male-friendly, father-inclusive services, practices and information in existing Commonwealth funded antenatal and child and maternal health programs. At a national level, there is also partnership. At all levels, we need to work in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples is the platform for a national voice with which government will partner. Let there be no doubt of this government’s intent to support the national congress as the appropriate representative mechanism for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The Australian government has committed $29.2 million to the setting up and initial operation of the congress. I encourage all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and organisations to become members. In 2008 the National Indigenous Health Equality Council was established as an independent expert committee to provide policy advice regarding the Australian government’s commitment to closing the gap. NIHEC has made significant progress towards improving our abilities to measure how we are tracking to close the gap. It was the NIHEC report in 2010 which indicated the positive trends in improving the gap in child mortality. In mid-2011 the current NIHEC membership will lapse and I will be appointing a new committee with a new work plan. I look forward to working closely with the national congress and NIHEC. I want to speak briefly about the often unknown and unacknowledged organisations and individuals that are driving change in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health—Indigenous health organisations such as the Australian Indigenous Doctors Association and the professional organisations for nurses and other health workers. I also must mention the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health services, which do fantastic work in delivering fantastic primary health care to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and their peak organisation, the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, NACCHO, and its state affiliates, with whom I work very closely. The first Indigenous doctor in Queensland and current Director of the Inala Indigenous Health Service, Associate Professor Noel Hayman, is an outstanding example of a dedicated Aboriginal man committed to improving Indigenous health. Within the healthcare sector, there is Indigenous leadership with a strong voice and determination to improve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health. There is a call for a new national Indigenous health equality plan. I am acutely aware of the Close the Gap coalition’s call for the government to urgently progress a national Indigenous health equality plan. I recently met with members of the Close the Gap coalition and informed them of my support for and intention to work with the national congress on developing this. I will be directly responsible for the consultation and development of the plan. The plan will build on existing structures, such as the National Strategy Framework for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and COAG’s statement of intent, and will take into account wider reforms to the health and hospital system. The plan must acknowledge the significant funding allocations made by the government to close the gap in health inequality and should create practical benefits and efficiencies in allocation of existing resources. We have turned a corner in establishing the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples. There is now a national mechanism for a partnership on closing the gap in Indigenous disadvantage, a partnership I know that the member for Hasluck will support. I look forward to working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health leaders and their organisations to make a difference in the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Debate (on motion by Mr Entsch) adjourned. 1072 Adjournment Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) 20:59:00 —I move: That the Main Committee do now adjourn. 1072 1072 20:59:00 O’Dwyer, Kelly, MP LKU Higgins LP 1 0 Ms O’DWYER —I rise to discuss an issue that concerns my constituents of Higgins—the stewardship of the Australian economy and the continued failures of Treasurer Wayne Swan. The Treasurer, like the Prime Minister, promised to be an economic conservative during the election before he was first elected to government. Like so many other election promises such as GroceryWatch, Fuelwatch, no carbon tax, a federal takeover of hospitals, retaining the private health insurance rebate, an East Timor processing centre and so many others, this promise has been broken many times over. Far from being an economic conservative, Treasurer Wayne Swan proves time and time again that he does not understand economic policy. Perhaps more dangerously, he does not listen to those who do. Take three examples this week. Firstly, there is the flood tax. Treasurer Wayne Swan is responsible for imposing yet another tax on the Australian people this week, a flood tax. And why? Both the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have been at pains to say that it is because they believe in pay as you go and that the people who can afford to pay should. They forget to mention that disasters in the past have been paid for out of consolidated revenue—that is right: taxes that you and I have already paid to the government for government priorities and unforeseen circumstances. With the creation of this new tax, they are creating a new economic precedent of the disaster tax. This decision was slammed by Professor McKibbin, economist and member of the Reserve Bank board, in the recent House of Representative Standing Committee on Economics inquiry into the flood tax. He said: Most economists who study public finance would support the view that taxation is not the optimal way to finance the reconstruction of infrastructure after a natural disaster. The argument has a long tradition in economics. He went on to say My view is that we should always, where possible, establish good principles for economic management because when the big decisions have to be made we have a framework in which to act, whereas if we continue to do what we have always done then we end up becoming a banana republic. We have to be very careful that all decisions, even the small ones, are done in the appropriate way. So after the $10 million Henry review, which raised concerns about the existing 125 taxes and provided ideas for reform, the Treasurer seeks not to cut taxes, as the previous government did, but to add more—a mining tax, a carbon tax and now a flood tax. The Treasurer does not seem to understand that people are profoundly affected by cost of living issues. His failure in economic management, with a net debt of $79.6 billion, billion-dollar blowouts in the budget and waste of taxpayers’ dollars on overpayments on such things as school halls, all adds up to one thing: higher taxes and higher interest rates for Australian families. The second issue that was made clear this week, and the latest example of the Treasurer’s failure, was on display for all to see last night with the release of 25 Treasury documents under the freedom of information laws. You will recall that last year the Treasurer released a package of much hyped and much promised bank reform, as he called it. Part of that bank reform, he said, was to ban exit fees. The Treasurer said in his release on 12 December: Vigorous competition is the best way to keep interest rates for borrowers lower over time and create a system that offers real choice. Quite contrary, though, to the Treasurer’s claim, the Treasury documents reveal their concern that the abolition of exit fees are likely to result in unintended consequences. I quote: Banks are likely to move to recover the legitimate costs associated with establishing a mortgage through other means (eg higher interest rates, higher other fees … The Treasurer is not a man motivated by real reform and real solutions. He is a man motivated by spin. Finally, the lack of leadership by the nation’s Treasurer, and Deputy Prime Minister, was most on display this week in his response to the attacks and threats by the secretary of the Australian Workers Union this week towards one of the country’s biggest employers, Rio Tinto. After repeated questions about this issue, he failed to answer on not one but two occasions. He went missing in action. Not so the Minister for Regional Australia, Simon Crean, who warned that the unions should not return to the bad old days. He said: “The way forward is co-operation, not confrontation,” … “That was the clear message of the 80s and 90s, that is what established the foundation of our prosperity.” By contrast, when the Treasurer finally did belatedly make a comment, he said, ‘I do not sit around and referee fights between unions and employers.’ Shame! 1074 1074 21:05:00 D’Ath, Yvette, MP HVN Petrie ALP 1 0 Mrs D’ATH —It was a federal Labor government that saw the most historic reforms occur to pensions in this country. In September 2009 we saw the base rate of the pension significantly increase and a new formula brought in that continues to see higher than previous increases to the pension for both single and couple pensioners. I am very proud of the fact that the federal Labor government’s reforms in the area of pensions has not ceased. We continue to move forward to make important reforms and improvements for pensioners across this country and across the electorate of Petrie. On that point, I seek to talk about the importance of the new work bonus payments. On Thursday last week the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Minister Macklin, introduced legislation that will see us further support older Australians on the age pension to stay connected to the workforce through a new, more generous work bonus. It was the Labor government that introduced a work bonus scheme on 20 September 2009 to enable pensioners to earn extra money and not have that apply to their income test. As part of the election commitments in 2010 we made a commitment to improve this work bonus. I am very pleased at the fact that the minister has now introduced legislation that will allow pensioners to build up any unused amount of their $250 per fortnight bonus in an income bank to a total of $6,500. The income bank can be used to exempt future earnings from the pension income test so that a pensioner could earn up to $6,500 a year extra without it affecting their pension. This could be from regular work each fortnight or, for example, over a six-week period before Christmas or four weeks over tax time. In Petrie there are more than 21,400 pensioners. These pensioners have already benefited from the government’s historic pension reforms. They will now benefit further from the introduction of this new work bonus scheme that, once passed, will become applicable from 1 July 2011. This means that those pensioners in my electorate of Petrie and across this country who do part-time work—they may do Christmas wrapping or other part-time work at Christmas time, or they may pick up some retail work or they may be retired accountants who do taxes for people in the community at tax time to earn a bit of extra money—will be able to earn up to $6,500 per year without it affecting their pension. This is an important reform. It is not a reform in isolation. In 2010 the federal Labor government announced a whole range of further reforms in the area of seniors as part of the Delivering for Seniors package. I am very pleased with some of the additional initiatives, not just the work bonus, which will be so beneficial for those pensioners in my electorate. These initiatives include the $4,000 worth of training and assessment to support 7,500 mature age workers, a dedicated Age Discrimination Commissioner, new peer support for grandparent carers and new rules for reverse mortgages to protect seniors, which is so important to ensure that their assets are protected for the long term. In relation to mature age workers, we know how important it is to keep people in the workforce and to ensure that people are able to fulfil their working life and provide support. If they find themselves in a situation where they become redundant later in life but they have not yet reached pension age, they need to get back into the workforce; they need to have an income. Retraining these people will be so important, and this will be very beneficial to those seniors in my community who find themselves unemployed later in their working life. These are just some of the reforms this government has introduced. I am very proud of these reforms. I look forward to speaking on the legislation in detail when it comes before the House. The work bonus will be a blessing to my electorate. (Time expired) 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—Before I call the Nationals Chief Whip, the Government Whip has pointed out to me that we are creating history tonight—this is the first time that the chamber adjournment debate has been held in the Main Committee. 1075 1075 21:10:00 Coulton, Mark, MP HWN Parkes NATS 0 0 Mr COULTON —Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope my contribution befits this historic moment. I want to discuss a report by the University of Technology Sydney’s Institute of Sustainable Futures entitled Advocating kangaroo meat—towards ecological benefit or plunder. A report on the sustainability of the kangaroo industry done in a transparent and even-handed manner would be worthwhile, but this report has clearly set out to follow an agenda. Just a glance at some of the information shows it makes a complete mockery of the report, and ultimately the fine reputation of this institute has been damaged. It is claimed that the average kangaroo carcass yields 1.5 kilograms of meat—the weight of a No. 15 chicken—and that the average carcass of a sheep is 49 kilograms. Its live weight would be 110 kilograms, so the big end of the mob would be about 130 kilograms, which is the size of the average sumo wrestler. In their attempt to distort the facts they have done themselves a great disservice. The kangaroo industry is a very important industry in my electorate. Not only does it provide employment but also it is actively involved, under the New South Wales government, in the management of kangaroo herds. It provides a valuable service in managing the kangaroo flock. Despite the fact that Professor Garnaut claims that we should be farming kangaroos and that kangaroos can indeed replace sheep and cattle, the reality is that the kangaroo industry has to be flexible and fit in with the nomadic nature of kangaroos and acknowledge that their populations ebb and flow with the seasons. The kangaroos of 250 years ago were naturally hunted by Indigenous Australians and a large dingo population. Now the kangaroos have no real natural predators. They are not subject to the vagaries of climate and seasons like they were, because farmers have put in watering points and improved pasture. The kangaroos no longer experience the natural declines in population that they used to in their natural environment. This UTS report is wrapped in a thin veneer of science. It also tries to claim that kangaroos have no impact on farming. Where did they get the information that kangaroos have no impact on farming? This report has been touted by radical animal liberationists such as the Voiceless group as evidence that the kangaroo industry should be closed down. The University of Technology Sydney’s Institute for Sustainable Futures, which published the report, is supposed to be trying to find more sustainable ways that we can live in this land, yet this report is a clumsy attempt to put only a negative spin on the kangaroo industry. It makes no attempt to examine the kangaroo industry’s numerous positive environmental benefits, not the least of which is that kangaroos do not emit methane, making their meat and leather a greenhouse-friendly option. Kangaroos are a resource which can be utilised sustainably, so why not use them? It appears that this document was produced with a predetermined outcome in mind. If this is the type of science that the institute puts its name to, are the taxpayers’ dollars being spent wisely? 1076 1076 21:15:00 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 1 0 Ms BURKE —The Australian government’s multicultural policy rests on four key principles: celebrate and value Australia’s cultural diversity within the broader aims of national unity; strengthen the government’s commitment to social inclusion, social cohesion and responsive government services; welcome the trade and investment benefits of Australia’s diversity; and promote the understanding and acceptance of cultural diversity while responding to attitudes and actions of intolerance and discrimination with strength. I am pleased to see that we have been re-emphasising and re-energising the benefits of multiculturalism in our society recently. This policy outlines rights and responsibilities enshrined in our Citizenship Pledge, which requires future citizens to pledge their loyalty to Australia and its people, uphold our laws and democracy and respect our rights and liberties. I attend a lot of citizenship ceremonies, and they are always an indication to me of people’s utmost respect for Australia by their taking that pledge, by their committing and speaking those words. These rights and liberties include Australians of all backgrounds being entitled to celebrate, practise and maintain their cultural heritage, traditions and languages within the law and free from discrimination. They give them the right to embrace their multiculturalism. I am deeply committed to multiculturalism in Australia. I am proud to represent a party that has a strong record of promoting the richness of ethnic diversity, but I believe we need to share this heritage, and I think the Liberal Party should be proud of their roots within the multiculturalism debate as well. Multiculturalism has proven itself as a successful policy for our nation. In my seat of Chisholm, over 37 per cent of residents were born overseas. One of the great joys of my job is interacting with the various ethnic communities, whether it be in sampling the delights of the Chinese and Vietnamese restaurants in Box Hill, visiting the dynamic and active Italian and Greek senior citizens clubs in Clayton and Oakleigh or interacting with the emerging populations of Sri Lankans and Indians in Mount Waverley and Glen Waverley. Chisholm is an electorate thriving and demonstrating the benefits of mass migration. The benefits are obvious. Some that we laud are new customs, religion, music and cuisine. I always say at citizenship ceremonies that I am so grateful for mass migration because my ancestors’ meat and three veg has been greatly enhanced by the cultural cuisines from across the world—but that is just one very low level thing. The great benefit of multiculturalism has been the prosperity of our nation, the drive and prosperity and wealth generated by all the new arrivals who have come to our country. This is very evident in my electorate. I have been celebrating this prosperity over the last couple of weeks because in my community one of the largest ethnic groups is the Chinese community. I have had the joy of celebrating Chinese New Year quite a lot lately, with quite varied groups from the Chinese community. They are not a homogeneous mass, and we need to recognise that. I celebrated with the Cantonese-speaking part of my electorate in Box Hill, I celebrated with the Taiwanese group in Box Hill, and then I celebrated with the predominantly Mandarin speakers in Mount Waverley. That was terrific. I have unfortunately eaten my body weight in Chinese food, and I thank them for that! The last census in 2006 found that six per cent of my electorate’s population was Chinese. I believe that would be much higher today. Chinese New Year is a big celebration in my electorate. At one end, in Box Hill, they have the annual dusk-to-dawn celebration. Literally thousands of people come into my electorate. It is great because it brings people to the suburbs and takes them out of Melbourne’s CBD. They come to the suburbs and they spend money. It is really important to recognise and thank them for that. I particularly want to thank the Asian Business Association of Whitehorse, who do a phenomenal job of assembling and creating the dusk to dawn ceremony. I particularly thank the president, Ken Huang, and the rest of the community for their magnificent work, and also the Whitehorse council for the work they have done for this ceremony. I thank the Box Hill police, who do a great job, because we literally shut down Box Hill from dusk to dawn and thousands of people come through. This is a fundraising event and all the money went to the flood appeals this year. I thank them for that. I also went to the Buddhist Tzu Chi Foundation’s annual Chinese New Year blessing. They asked us to pray and think about recycling, which is their big message this year. At the other end of my electorate, I attended the Glen Waverley New Year and Lantern Festival organised by the Monash Chinese Events Organising Committee, led by their president, Vincent Chow. Vincent is also the chair of the federation of all the Chinese ethnic groups within Victoria. I thank Vincent and his team for their great work, and the foreign minister, Kevin Rudd, for coming along and making the event even more spectacular. Again, this was a huge event organised by the community. Multiculturalism has been a successful policy in Australia. It has ensured we are not a narrow, introspective country. (Time expired) 1077 1077 21:21:00 Hawke, Alex, MP HWO Mitchell LP 0 0 Mr HAWKE —Tonight I want to put on the record a compelling case within my electorate of the success of the group of parents who took on the education system in New South Wales and won. This is a story of six families who have kids with special needs. In our society today I think their story is so relevant because we pay so much tax and we are prepared to put so much into government because we believe government will do the right thing by those who have a desperate need and a special need. When government does not do that, when it does fail, I think we all have the right as taxpayers and citizens to question why we send so much money into government. It is a story of great community enterprise and initiative in the face of bureaucratic inaction. The What About Me Foundation was formed by a group of parents I want to name today to record their important achievement: Robert Addie, Rachael Addie, Darren Dietz, Natalie Dietz, Jenny Craig, Rob Craig, Jae Eun Kim, Scott Berry, Julia Berry, Tanya Brennan, Michael Brennan and Munesh Khan. The premise of this organisation was simple: children who require a place in either autism or IO classes should be given the opportunity they deserve for access to quality education in their local school community. Their children were the initial special needs class at Sherwood Ridge Primary School in my electorate of Mitchell. It is a great school. It is a great development from education departments that we now cater for all kids with special needs, including autism and other disabilities, and that they are catered for through school. But, of course, when they start in kindergarten and advance towards high school years you would expect that the army of bureaucrats we pay for and fund within state bureaucracies would think, ‘Here is a class of kids going through from K to 6, so we now need to think about their transition from 6 to 7.’ To the shock of these parents, to the shock of these kids, to the shock of my community and to my shock as a local member, nobody had catered for these children to transition to their local high school, which does have special needs places available. Instead, the department of education in New South Wales suggested that these parents and these kids, this community of children, break themselves up and spread themselves across Sydney in a way that would be completely unsatisfactory for the needs of those kids, the families and my community. The value of keeping a class of kids with special needs together cannot be overestimated or overstated, nor can the value of having places in local schools. I want to record here again, as I have so many times, that I have the highest number of couples with dependent children of any electorate in this country. I have the highest concentration of kids and families in any electorate in Australia. It is so important to recognise that local schooling of kids with special needs makes a great difference to the community and the parents. To the great credit of this group of parents, What About Me was formed to fight the state government and to take them on where it counted. They went and saw the minister. With great initiative and enterprise they got a legal team and put up a great set of arguments. They actually read the Principals Handbook. They went through all the department paperwork, all of the bureaucracy, all of the red tape, and they ended up knowing more about the department’s policies than the department’s own officers. They were able to say to the department, ‘This is your policy, that you must plan and provide for the transition of these children.’ Again I question why we fund so much bureaucracy and so many people in government today at all levels. Why do we do that if we do not look after kids with special needs? Why do we have such a high taxation burden on the ordinary Australian if we are not there to look after the most vulnerable in our society today? That is the justification for the entire foundation of our taxation system. If we do not do those things well then, in my book, we are not doing anything well. The initiative and enterprise of these parents in forming this group was able to achieve a commonsense outcome, and I praise them for it. But it had nothing to do with government. It was a forced outcome—forced by the determination of a group of parents to understand and explain to the education department in New South Wales that their kids had needs and that they deserved local schooling. I want to highlight this case today in the House because one of the parents, Jenny Craig, unfortunately, passed away during this period. She was a very courageous woman. I had the privilege of knowing her for some time. She fought very hard for these kids. It was such a wonderful thing to attend the celebration party for the awarding of their positions at their local school. Unfortunately, Jenny was unable to be with us but the materials that she put together were there. The initiative that she put into those children and this group to ensure that they got the right outcome from the department in New South Wales was something amazing to watch and something that I was privileged to be involved in. I want to highlight this case to the House today because this is a model for students and parents across New South Wales. We do have to seek better for kids with special needs in our society, and it ought to be the prime function of government to look after those who cannot look after themselves. (Time expired) 1079 1079 21:25:00 Byrne, Anthony, MP 008K0 Holt ALP 1 0 Mr BYRNE —I rise today to acknowledge the historic events that have recently taken place in Egypt, with President Mubarak stepping down following mass protest action for change. As US President Obama noted in his recent remarks on Egypt, ‘The people of Egypt have spoken, their voices have been heard and Egypt will never be the same.’ Most particularly tonight I would like to acknowledge the members of the Coptic Orthodox community in Australia, who have been and are living with fear about the fate and wellbeing of their loved ones in Egypt as a result of the recent Egyptian revolution. I understand that the Coptic community have expressed concerns about the transition of power in Egypt, fearful that the end of the Mubarak regime may trigger a surge in discrimination towards Coptic Christians in Egypt. The approximately 80,000-strong Australian Coptic community are deeply concerned about Egypt’s future; however, I know they remain hopeful that Egypt can achieve a better future where all of Egypt’s people’s voices are heard and where minority groups are not discriminated against. It is true that the Coptic community are watching developments carefully. They are concerned about the interim military rule and are closely monitoring the Muslim Brotherhood, as many Copts have been discriminated against by the government and extremist elements of the Islamic community in the past. On that note, I wish to express my condolences to all people in the Coptic community that have been victims of violence and terrorism in Egypt. The extent of that was made clear on 1 January 2011, when Coptic Australians were in a state of grief and outrage after the heinous and evil Orthodox New Year suicide bomb attack on an Egyptian church. Twenty-two people died after a suicide bomber set off a massive explosion as hundreds of Coptic Christians celebrated a New Year’s Eve service in the Church of the Two Saints in Alexandria. Several congregation members who were killed in this murderous atrocity had relatives in Australia. His Grace Bishop Suriel, the Bishop of the Coptic Church communities in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and the ACT, has articulated on behalf of his community the reaction, the shocked horror of Copts in Australia and around the globe. In his words, ‘The whole Coptic community all around the world is just in total shock and dismay and never expected anything like this to happen in Egypt.’ In the light of this terrorist attack and the subsequent revolution in Egypt, I met with His Grace Bishop Suriel to obtain further information about his community’s concerns. He informed me that two of his parishioners had lost four family members in the terrorist attack in Alexandria and he reiterated the community concern about loved ones in Egypt. This is because of the uncertainty of the current power vacuum, which may be filled by organisations such as the Muslim Brotherhood. There is a belief that, should this group become ascendant in Egypt, with the effective establishment of an Islamic theocracy a new campaign of fear and violence against Christian Egyptians may sweep through the country. These are not unfounded fears by this ancient Christian community. For over a thousand years Coptic Christians have suffered persecution under different rulers in Egypt. As approximately 10 per cent of the population of about 80 million people, the situation of the Coptic Christians in Egypt is and to some extent always has been precarious; they are an ancient Christian minority of Egyptians in the epicentre of the Muslim world. We hope that during this difficult transition period extremist fundamentalists do not scapegoat Egyptian Christians or incite hatred against them. I wish to note that Bishop Suriel had to cancel Coptic Christmas celebrations earlier this year in the light of the terrorist attacks, but I note the bishop’s efforts in releasing doves in Federation Square to represent the 22 Coptic Egyptians who died on New Year’s Eve. I also wish to praise the efforts of Bishop Suriel. He has untiringly kept the Coptic community in Australia informed of developments in Egypt. He has also promoted the value and role of interfaith dialogue in building a diverse and harmonious society in Egypt during this transition period. I also wish to commend His Grace on his efforts in advocating publicly the value of democratic rights and the right to freedom of religion and culture in Egypt during this historic transition period. Moreover, in the light of the crimes committed against the Coptic community in Egypt in recent months, I also wish to endorse the motion that was put in federal parliament on Monday by the federal member for Calwell, Ms Maria Vamvakinou, which basically includes the protection of the rights of all Egyptian citizens. I also wish to note, briefly and in passing, that the Egyptian military did not fire on the demonstrators, the people they were sworn to protect. However, the overseer of this, General Tantawi, has a right and responsibility to ensure a transition that is credible, democratic and peaceful for all Egyptian people, Moslems and Copts, which means protecting the rights of all citizens. It is an honour to acknowledge here the works of His Grace Bishop Suriel and the terrible atrocities that the Coptic Egyptians have experienced over time in Egypt. (Time expired) 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—Before calling the member for Swan: I am sure that most, if not all, honourable members would associate themselves with the sentiments so ably expressed by the honourable member for Holt. 1080 1080 21:31:00 Irons, Steve, MP HYM Swan LP 0 0 Mr IRONS —As we all know, it has been a summer of natural disasters for Australia, a summer of floods, fires and storms. I am sure the thoughts of all Australians who were not affected by these disasters go out to the families of those who have lost their lives, their livelihoods and their homes through the disasters, whether that has been by flood, fire or storm. I think all Australians in general have been impressed with the resolve and the character that the people affected by these disasters have displayed during this most difficult time. Western Australia has not been untouched by natural disasters. On the weekend of 5 to 7 February fires destroyed at least 72 homes and damaged 32 others in Perth’s eastern region. It is thanks to the evacuation plans and the speedy work of our firefighters, police force and emergency services that there were no lives lost in those fires. Those communities have been badly shaken, but I am sure that they will bounce back. In the meantime, we need to provide them with as much support as we can. My electorate of Swan did not escape unscathed from the weekend of fire damage in WA. During the weekend a fire started in Cannington and spread across the wetlands, burning through much of the Canning River Regional Park. I visited the wetlands to inspect the damage, and it is extensive, particularly on the Ferndale side. I have a map, provided to me by Russell Gorton from the Wilson Wetlands Action Group, which shows the affected areas. I would like to put on record my sympathies for all the volunteers at the park, who have witnessed the burning out of large areas which they have spent years rehabilitating. The area patrolled by the Canning River Regional Park volunteers has been severely affected. The area in Ferndale near the Willcock Street bridge, where the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, and I last year helped some green army volunteers clear weeds, was within that fire zone. In the aftermath of the fires I held a meeting with one of the local environmental groups and we discussed the way forward. The most immediate problem will be controlling the weeds that will try to recolonise the bare ground where native vegetation had been planted. This is going to take a vast effort, as the affected area is so large. The West Australian reported just after the event that the police suspected that arson was the cause of that particular blaze. There has been plenty of speculation in the community that arson was the cause. Arson is one of the worst crimes imaginable. Plenty of residents live right on the edge of the wetlands in areas close to the edge of the fires. There were reports that some people were forced to evacuate their houses. Fortunately, in this instance the fire was well contained within the park, thanks largely to the efforts of the firefighters. However, the fact that someone could deliberately have started a fire that might have threatened homes and lives is inexcusable. I believe that arsonists should be charged with attempted murder or murder. Of course that was not the first fire of the season. Local groups said there have been at least four other spot fires recently. It is not known whether or not they were deliberately started, but we must be vigilant about the build-up of dead grass and weeds in the park area. When I walk around the wetlands with environmental volunteers, they frequently point out areas of dry, tall grass and dead material which need to be cleared. The volunteers are very good at reporting these problems to the rangers; however, it is impossible for them to cover the whole park. Many Lynwood residents are concerned about a build-up of fire fuel in the Bannister Creek area. The Bannister Creek catchment, which feeds into the Canning River Wetlands, passes within five to 10 metres of some Lynwood houses. After the prolonged hot weather in Perth, the floor of the bush contains a fairly thick covering of dry leaves and branches. Local residents are calling for these areas to be cleared. The recent fires that swept through the park show that the area is like a tinderbox at the moment. We certainly must do everything we can to protect these houses and lives. In conclusion, I would like to once again extend my sympathies to the victims of the natural disasters across Australia’s summer. I will be working with the people of my electorate and volunteer groups to make every effort to see that the fire affected areas recover and that we make sure that we minimise the danger of built-up fire fuel in the parkland area around the residential suburbs of my electorate of Swan. I seek leave to table the map showing the extent of the fire damage in my electorate of Swan. Leave granted. 1081 1081 21:35:00 Mitchell, Rob, MP M3E McEwen ALP 1 0 Mr MITCHELL —Every day across Australia there are countless lives saved because of the invaluable work in the provision of out-of-hospital emergency medical services, or EMS, performed by qualified paramedics in the widest ranges of circumstances. Back in 2007-08 it was reported that ambulance officers attended some 2.88 million incidents across the states and the ACT. Ambulance Victoria alone responded to just on half a million emergency incidents, including 120,625 road incidents across regional Victoria and some 2,488 emergency air incidents. I have spent years working closely with paramedics in Victoria and learning as part of my training to obtain first responder qualifications as part of setting up and delivering the first community emergency response team in Victoria. During my time with CERT as an active volunteer, I dealt firsthand with a wide range of medical issues such as drug overdoses, trauma and even childbirth—and I can assure you that is something I will never forget. This time exposed me to the quality and dedication of service that our paramedics deliver. Australian paramedics deal with life-and-death situations on a daily basis, administering restricted medications and applying CPR, defibrillation, intubation and cannulation. The professional and clinical activities of paramedics are squarely focused on preserving life, preventing the escalation of illness or injury and supporting patient stability on the way to hospital. Much of the work that paramedics undertake for patients involves time-critical decisions which deal with invasive procedures such as endotracheal intubation and artificial ventilation of seriously ill patients, cardiac defibrillation, and decompression of a tension pneumothorax, running the risk of infecting those paramedics in the line of duty, as well as the administration of drugs classified under schedule 4, prescription-only drugs, or schedule 8, controlled drugs, of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981. The clinical interventions performed by paramedics often are what keep patients alive until they can receive more definitive care. Every day paramedics in their roles are out there ensuring the safety, welfare and health of patients without often knowing a patient’s medical history and, in many cases, having to triage unconscious, incoherent and often rebellious patients. What has concerned me for a long period of time is that there is no national registration and accreditation for Australian paramedics at a state or territory level. We know that the United Kingdom has had a national system of paramedic registration since 2000 and that even the United States of America is moving to a national accreditation by 2014. But Australia still does not. This means that paramedics who, for whatever reason, move interstate have to resit their exams when making their initial move and, should they at a later date wish to return to their home state, they have to resit their exams again in the state in which they already achieved their accreditation. The other concern is the disparity in the education standards and clinical expertise that is required in different jurisdictions for one to be able to call oneself a ‘paramedic’. In some cases one can qualify as a paramedic after doing a six-week course, whereas someone working for Ambulance Victoria requires many years of full-time study. Our communities expect uniformly high standards of professionalism and clinical care from our paramedics, no matter where they live. With this in mind I believe that we should move to national standards and accreditation to ensure that every Australian can receive high quality, professional service that will ensure the patient’s welfare is not put at stake. To do this I believe we should investigate the delivery of a national regulatory regime for paramedics which will deliver benefits in the public interest, ensure that we foster workforce mobility, which of course means workforce sustainability, and offer better support for rural and remote regions. Therefore, I seek the assistance of the Minister for Health and Ageing in encouraging her state and territory counterparts to engage in meaningful dialogue with the aim of delivering national accreditation and standards for paramedics as soon as possible. 1083 1083 21:40:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP 0 0 Mr BILLSON —It is a sad time for the Liberal Party in the Dunkley electorate. One of our stalwarts, Flo Parnaby, has passed away after some time in hospital coping with illness. I was fortunate enough to speak briefly with her son, Reid, at a function last week and pass on our best wishes for Flo’s recovery. Sadly, the illness took her life. I extend my sincere condolences to her family and friends. She was a remarkable contributor in the Liberal Party for many decades and she will be sorely missed. The gravesite of the former Acting Australian Prime Minister James Fenton has fallen into disgraceful disrepair at Mornington Cemetery. Of the three sections that cover the surface of the gravesite, the middle section has a gaping hole in it and another section is cracked all the way through and falling apart. James Fenton was a distinguished politician. Uniquely, he served in senior positions for both Labor and the conservative party. He was Acting Prime Minister for almost five months in 1930 and was afforded a state funeral, which was conducted in Frankston before his remains were laid to rest in Mornington. Sadly his gravesite is in disrepair and there are no known relatives. Senior lecturer in politics at Monash University Dr Nick Economou says Mr Fenton was around at the time of the creation of the United Australia Party, a forerunner of the modern Liberal Party, when he defected from Labor. He also says Mr Fenton was instrumental in the creation of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The gravesite of a gentleman such as this, who, as Dr Economou says, was an important contributor to this country’s politics and government and who was afforded a state funeral, should be kept in adequate order. There would be about $4,000 to $6,000 involved in its restoration, and I urge the government to do the right thing by the late Mr Fenton, his memory and his role as Acting Prime Minister. I am pleased that the Frankston City Council last night unanimously agreed to support a proposal I have been pushing since 2007, which is to have the Frankston Magistrates Court renamed the ‘Southern Metropolitan Court Complex’. As you know, Frankston is a regional centre for a larger catchment, and when the media report criminal activity that has been tried at the court the name Frankston is often associated with those acts, when in nearly all cases they have nothing at all to do with our city or our citizens. A simple name change would protect the city’s reputation. It is a simple change that is important to ensure that any negative perceptions drawn from the simple fact that we host the court do not detract from the vitality and the many positive benefits of the city. I put this to former Labor state Attorney-General Rob Hulls in 2007 and sadly he rejected the request, dismissing the concerns that the reports of the criminal cases being heard at the court were being associated with our city and damaging our city’s reputation. We are all optimistic that the change of government might see a change of heart. I hope that the new state government will support my work and the Frankston City Council’s work to have the name change introduced. On a related issue, it has been quite an ordeal to get the CCTV network that I secured funding for under the Howard government up and going. There have been issues around whether Jemena would allow Frankston City to use its poles to mount the CCTV units. There has been some confusion over the terms and conditions for mounting the technology. We have finally got through that and, some 4½ years after the funding was secured, these cameras are now up and operating in the Frankston CBD. As part of my election campaign, and as the next instalment in the Dunkley community safety plan, I pledged that an elected coalition government would provide additional funding to extend the CCTV rollout to hotspots of community safety concern in our city. Sadly, the Labor campaign did not match that commitment, which was a great disappointment to our community and to the Frankston City Council and chamber of commerce. Never mind, we persevere. We have lodged a funding application to fund the rollout of additional cameras to locations in Keys Street, Clyde Street and Gallery Lane and also to see the Wells Street and Thompson Street intersection and the busy Wells Street and Nepean Highway areas covered. I am hopeful that the council and its advocacy, as well as mine and that of my parliamentary colleague Mr Dreyfus, can persuade the Gillard government to cough up some cash. They did not seem too keen to make commitments in the Dunkley electorate during the election campaign. Now is their chance to show that they do care about Dunkley. Otherwise this government risks being the Harvey Norman of Dunkley politics: no interest for three years, no down payment, no contribution. They can do something about this. I have spoken to the Attorney-General about it and am encouraged by his interest. I hope there is some follow-through by the Gillard Labor government to actually do something to help out the Frankston community. 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—The honourable member’s time has expired, and I would remind him of the provisions of standing order 64. 1084 1084 21:45:00 Champion, Nick, MP HW9 Wakefield ALP 1 0 Mr CHAMPION —It is certainly good to be back in the Main Committee discussing things of importance to our electorate. I am mindful of the Prime Minister’s pledge that this year is going to be a year of decision and delivery. Reflecting on that, I want to talk about a piece of infrastructure that has been built in my electorate in our time in government: the 23-kilometre Northern Expressway. It is a pretty vital bit of infrastructure in my part of the world. It is a result of a $451 million commitment—$451 million that we budgeted for and provided, not only to deliver this project on time but to deliver it ahead of time. It opened three months ahead of schedule, just one week after the election—a bit too late for my own personal liking! Certainly it was an important project for the state. Nearly 3½ thousand people worked on that project, 130 local subcontracting firms were used on the project and, most importantly, a training component was put in the legislation to basically make sure that young people and Indigenous people got their first start in civil construction. I know that the member for Bradfield attended a primary school in my electorate, so no doubt he will take some interest in what I have to say. This is an incredibly important project for the local area. Just recently the Bunyip, which is my local paper in Gawler, asked the question, ‘Six months on, how has the Northern Expressway cut your travel time?’ They interviewed five people. One of them was Colleen Jaensch, of Gawler East, who said: I use it about fortnightly, and it normally cuts about 10 or 15 minutes. Dianna Carbone, of Gawler East, said: I go up to Bolivar from Gawler and it cuts about 15 minutes. Marion McCourt, from Willaston, said: We’ve noticed going out to the airport how quickly we get there now, and even going into the city—we have to wait for appointments because we get there earlier! Daniel Wakefield, of Gawler, said: I’ve taken it a few times—it’s quicker—I think it takes about 30 minutes to get to the city (using the NEXY). Finally, Philip Waldergrave, of Evanston, said: I use it fairly regularly to go north towards Nuri—it saves about 10 minutes. So we have there five local constituents, interviewed by the local paper in an independent manner, telling the community, telling the public, just how it has affected their lives. I meet people all the time who travel either up to the country—up to the Barossa Valley, our premier wine region—or down to places like Gepps Cross or into the city, and it nearly always saves them time and provides them with a more amenable commute to those places. There are fewer stops than on Main North Road, I have to say, and it is a very smooth road—so smooth that some of the truck drivers are now complaining that it is too smooth. This is a very important project for the state. It was fast-tracked as part of the government’s stimulus, which was about saving 200,000 jobs in this country. We hear a lot from the opposition about the stimulus, but we do not often hear them talking about jobs in this country and we do not often hear them comparing this country’s jobless rate with that of the United Kingdom, the United States or any other OECD country. It is the one economic indicator that they do not ever want to talk about, because jobs are this government’s strong point. While the rest of the world is caught in a sea of unemployment, this country’s jobless rate remains low. Obviously we all want it to be lower. We all want those who are unemployed to get jobs. That is why in South Australia the government is now building a new superway, down the end of the Port River Expressway, connected to the Northern Expressway. It is a new project which will, again, cut travel times and which will, importantly, improve South Australia’s freight network and create more jobs. Down at the intersection of Grand Junction Road and South Road you can see the work already beginning. Yet again, the government have committed money to infrastructure, we are creating jobs through infrastructure, we are building this country through infrastructure and we will deliver the project on time and ahead of budget. 1085 1085 21:50:00 Fletcher, Paul, MP L6B Bradfield LP 1 0 Mr FLETCHER —I rise to raise a matter which has been put to me by several constituents who have self-managed superannuation funds. Unfortunately, they have fallen victim to conduct by a number of parties which, according to some views, appears to be criminal or fraudulent and, at the very least, negligent or careless. In fact, as there have already been convictions recorded, I think it is not inappropriate to describe the conduct as criminal. The constituents who have come to see me are in the troubling position whereby they have sought to provide for themselves in their retirement but, due to fraudulent conduct, their retirement savings have effectively either been lost completely or at least been very substantially reduced. I want to speak of one particular sorry story I have heard which concerns the ARP Growth fund, which is part of a stable of products offered by a funds manager, Trio Capital. Regrettably, a financial adviser urged a number of my constituents to switch much or all of the balance of their self-managed superannuation funds into the ARP Growth fund. Let me describe the experience of one constituent. I will not name him, to preserve his privacy, but I will describe some aspects of the experience that he and his family have faced. This constituent had been building up funds in a self-managed superannuation fund for many years. He was a very busy executive, travelling a lot but still taking active steps to provide for his own retirement and ensure that he and his family would not be a burden on the state and on the public purse. In 2004, based upon advice from his financial adviser, he put a very substantial proportion of the balance of his fund into the ARP Growth fund. In 2007, a company called Astarra Capital became the responsible entity. This company was subsequently renamed Trio Capital. Danger signs presented themselves, statements became less frequent and, by 2009, an administrator had been appointed to Trio Capital, following complaints from a number of people who were concerned about the danger signs that were emerging or who had had dealings with Trio Capital in some way or another. It now appears that the total amount of retirement savings missing in this affair is somewhere between $123 million and $170 million. Some of it may never be recovered. In the case of the ARP Growth fund, much of the money went to the British Virgin Islands. Recovery action is underway, but there is reason to be very concerned that much, if not all, of the money may not be recovered. Some key rogues were involved: a Mr Shawn Richard, the investment manager of Trio, who has been convicted and will be sentenced in May this year; a Mr Jack Flader, chairman of a Hong Kong company, Global Consultants and Services Ltd, which received substantial amounts of money from Trio; and a Mr Frank Richard Bell, who managed the so-called exploration fund in the West Indies, which received about $75 million from Trio, and who has been the subject of adverse action by US securities industry regulators. Trio was the responsible entity for quite a number of funds. Some of those were regulated by APRA and have the benefit of a statutory compensation scheme, so underlying members are protected. However, self-managed superannuation funds which invested and which were defrauded do not have the benefit of this scheme and members of those funds are therefore left in the position where they face having very little provision for their retirement when they thought they had been doing the right thing for many years. I am a supporter of self-managed super funds and I believe it makes good sense for such vehicles to be available to people who wish to manage their superannuation assets directly. I acknowledge that if you choose to manage your retirement funds yourself you must accept the consequences of your actions. But that does not mean I believe—or that any of us should accept—that self-managed super funds should be left as sitting ducks for fraudulent operators. I have pursued this matter with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and will continue to do so, but I consider that it also raises a question of broader policy issues and deserves continued scrutiny. 1087 1087 21:55:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 0 Mr DANBY —I think it is appropriate, as revolution sweeps the Middle East, to do a survey of the countries that are contemplating or should be contemplating democratic change. Syria is a country that has not been focused on enough, in my view. It is a vicious police state controlled by a 10 per cent minority, the Alawis, who hold all security and armed services positions. It is run by President Bashar al-Assad, and is described by Freedom House as one of the lowest rating countries in terms of liberty in the world. The previous president, Hafez al-Assad, was famous for, in 1982, when there was a Muslim Brotherhood uprising in the city of Hama, taking a division of Syrian artillery and flattening the city by grid, killing 20,000 people. This was only discovered a few months after the event, by the Swiss Red Cross. Iran is only a marginally better state, according to Freedom House. In my view, it is modelled very closely on the interwar German police state, with the Revolutionary Guards being very similar to the SS, and the Basij, the street thugs, very comparable to the Sturmabteilung, the SA, whom the Nazis used to use as their street thugs. In the demonstrations of young people in Tehran and Isfahan and all the famous cities of Persia, the Basij go into the crowd disguised as demonstrators and arrest, assault and kill people. This is the Ahmadinejad-Khamenei gangs’ way of keeping control of Iran and preventing the democratic revolution that is sweeping the Middle East from coming to their society. Libya used to be a place that some people in Australian society—I can only call them crackpots—20 years ago used to adulate as a society that ought to be imitated by people who wanted social progress. Many of them travelled to the Libya of Colonel Gaddafi—which now machine guns its own citizens in its streets, uses its air force to bomb its own citizens and hires mercenaries from Africa to stab, assault and shoot people in the streets of Tripoli and Benghazi. The names of Hartley, Coxsedge, McLean and McKinlay, all of whom were advocates of Gaddafi and his Libyan Jamahiriya, and of Claudia Wright, who advocated for Colonel Gaddafi, all live in intellectual infamy given the true nature of what has happened in Libya over the last 43 years. That benighted country is a terrible police state, with a terrible deprivation of the freedoms that we consider so normal here in Australia. The events in Egypt fill us with more hope. I think that President Obama and the Western world could not have opposed the democratic revolution in Egypt. If we had, for strategic reasons, the Egyptian people would, quite rightly, have swept aside the Mubarak government, and the Western world would have been seen to have supported the antidemocratic forces. We hope that the election that will take place in Egypt in a year’s time will not be the only election. We hope that civil society gets a chance to establish itself and that other democratic parties apart from the Muslim Brotherhood will have a chance to establish themselves and contest that election. We only wish the Egyptian people well. After all, Australia provides a great deal of food aid to that country and has paid for wheat that helps that society. Egypt is a society where 45 per cent of women are illiterate. In a recent poll, 70 per cent of Egyptian women said they had experienced sexual violence, as had 98 per cent of foreign women in Egypt—we saw the terrible incident with the CBS reporter Lara Logan, where she was pack-attacked during the demonstrations in Tahrir Square. The liberation of women, the restoration of civil society, the control by government of the police and the establishment of a proper, independent judiciary, as we have in Australia, are all the kinds of things that Egypt needs to do before it can have a proper, democratic society. We wish them well in the forthcoming democratic elections. (Time expired) Question agreed to. 1088 22:01:00 Main Committee adjourned at 10.01 pm