2011-03-03 43 1 2 REPS 0 0 2011-03-03 The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 9 am, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers. 2191 Governor-General's Speech 2191 2191 09:01:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that, accompanied by honourable members, I waited yesterday upon Her Excellency the Governor-General at Government House and presented to her the address-in-reply to Her Excellency’s speech on the opening of the first session of the 43rd Parliament, agreed to by the House on 9 February 2011. Her Excellency was pleased to make the following reply: Mr Speaker Thank you for your Address in Reply. It will be my pleasure and my duty to convey to Her Majesty the Queen the message of loyalty from the House of Representatives, to which the Address gives expression. 2191 Bills R4530 2191 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Roxon. Bill read a first time. 2191 2191 09:02:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 0 Ms ROXON —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. As you will recall, the purpose of the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Act 2010 and the associated Midwife Professional Indemnity (Run-off Cover Support Payment) Act 2010 was to support the new MBS and PBS arrangements by enabling the establishment of a government supported professional indemnity scheme for eligible midwives from 1 July last year. Those acts removed a longstanding barrier for appropriately qualified and experienced midwives who wish to provide high-quality midwifery services to Australian women as part of a collaborative team with doctors and other health professionals. The Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Act 2010 currently excludes ‘employed’ midwives from accessing a Commonwealth contribution and a run-off cover Commonwealth contribution to ensure there is no intentional cost shifting from employers of midwives to the Commonwealth. The bill tidies up the act by placing the rule-making powers in a more appropriate section and thus ensures that eligible ‘self-employed’ midwives are not excluded from access to a Commonwealth contribution for claims that are made while they are in the workforce and also any claims that are made after they retire. By doing this, the act will continue to exclude other ‘employed’ midwives (such as those employed by private hospitals) to prevent cost shifting to the Commonwealth by employers. The changes to the act proposed by this bill will also allow a specific rule-making power to appropriately address any new and innovative midwife self-employment models that may arise in the future. This will ensure that the bill will be able to accurately describe midwives and their employment arrangements that are within the scope of the government’s maternity reform policy. This bill also corrects a typographical error in the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Run-off Cover Support Payment) Bill 2010 that would, if left unchanged, impose a higher than intended tax on insurers of eligible midwives. This bill is essentially a technical fix for two minor elements the act. The bill is an important component of the government’s maternity reform package. The package aims to improve the choices that are available to women in relation to maternity care. The total cost over four years of the professional indemnity for midwives component of the package is $25.2 million. I commend these small changes to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Billson) adjourned. 2192 Bills R4528 2192 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Roxon. Bill read a first time. 2192 2192 09:05:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 0 Ms ROXON —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today I am introducing a significant piece of legislation into this chamber that will form part of the new backbone of a modern, integrated, high-performing health system. It is a result of the government’s historic agreement with all states and territories to undertake fundamental reform of our health and hospitals system. Today I am taking a critical step with the introduction of this legislation to create a National Health Performance Authority—the new watchdog for Australia’s health system. The performance authority will work to: open up the performance of the health and hospital system to new levels of national transparency and accountability; allow for the identification of high-performing parts of the health system so those successes can be transferred to other areas; identify areas of the health system that require improvement so that action can be taken; and improve the health choices of Australians in making key decisions about their own healthcare needs. This forms one critical element of a new health system—one that is sustainable, transparent, efficient, high performing and well resourced. The reform of Australia’s health system is one of the most important public policy challenges of this generation. In many ways we are lucky that Australia has one of the most impressive public health systems in the world—our doctors and nurses are world class, our public system provides free hospital care for all and it delivers outcomes such as low infant mortality and long life expectancy. But we’re faced with a health system that is fragmented, costly, underresourced, unsustainable, overly focused on acute care and with constant pressure to deliver for more patients with more complex needs. And our access is not truly universal—improving the health of Australia’s first peoples remains a massive challenge. All of this would be challenge enough—but add to this the fact that Australia’s ‘baby boomers’ are now starting to retire. This population bubble will place more pressure on our hospitals as doctors and nurses retire, and more people require acute care. We’ve attacked these challenges ferociously since we entered office in 2007. We’ve taken the short-term measures that have been needed to avert pressures becoming crises while we’ve worked to reshape our health system for the long term. Hospital funding increased by $20 billion, over 70,000 more elective surgery operations have been delivered, the cap on the number of GPs being trained has been lifted with 475 new doctors now in training, the number of nurse places in universities has increased by over 1,000 a year, and primary care and preventative health is a renewed focus for government. And just this week I have announced 518 trainee specialist places, a tenfold increase compared to 2007. But truly putting our health system on a sustainable path requires fundamental reform. A genuine national deal was needed to make the changes necessary to ensure our health system is not overwhelmed by the rising costs of health treatment, to provide safer and higher quality services, to manage the demand for health services from an ageing population and the need for effective reporting and monitoring on the performance of health service providers. The government is now delivering this. Our 13 February agreement with all Australian states and territories on health reform creates a genuine partnership that will deliver much needed change to our health system. The partnership that this government has entered into with the states and territories demonstrates our commitment to action on health reform, and most importantly, to take decisive action to deliver a better deal for patients, and a better deal for communities. It means more money for hospital beds, increased local control of health services, greater transparency and less waste within the system. One of the greatest challenges facing our health system is ensuring it has enough money into the future. Therefore, the government will inject an extra $19.8 billion into public hospitals, on top of the extra $20 billion we have already provided, and develop robust national standards to make sure that money is directed straight to hospitals and patients. The government will meet 45 per cent of the growth in efficient hospital costs by 2014-15 and 50 per cent by 2017-18. From that point, the Commonwealth and the states and territories will meet the cost of efficient hospital funding growth on an equal basis. The Commonwealth’s contribution will include funding of no less than $16.4 billion towards public hospital funding growth over the next decade, and $3.4 billion extra for emergency departments, elective surgery and 1,316 subacute hospital beds over the next four years. A new national funding pool will be created which will deliver unprecedented transparency in the way hospitals are funded. These changes to the funding arrangements will provide security for hospital services into the future, combined with important changes in the delivery of vital health services. But in order to drive improvements in patient outcomes, it is vital that patients have access to better information about the performance of hospitals and other key health care providers. This government is committed to increasing the transparency of government and the services it delivers. We firmly believe that with transparency comes a greater chance of improving public services and empowering the public to make decisions based on the best information. There’s no better example of that than our reforms to the way that parents can make decisions about their children’s education through the MySchool website. Building on this success in the health portfolio we have also implemented the MyHospitals website which for the first time allows all Australians to see the performance of their individual hospitals including waiting times for elective surgery procedures and emergency department care. Our health reforms will drive this further. We’ve listened to the advice of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission that said performance reporting would ‘promote a culture of continuous improvement’ and improve consumer literacy of the health system. They recommended the development of national access targets, performance reporting that compares the clinical performance of hospitals and health services (both public and private) and reporting on safety and quality performance and patient satisfaction. Our health reform agreement delivers on that reporting, targets and transparency to improve health services. This includes: new national standards for emergency department care and elective surgery to improve waiting times for patients in our hospitals; and a new performance and accountability framework so that hospitals will have to measure and report on a range of performance, safety and quality and output measures. This work to improve transparency will not happen by itself. It requires dedicated resources and an independent authority to oversee the work. So the bill I am moving today will establish an independent body to drive this performance and transparency agenda. The National Health Performance Authority will exist to improve quality, increase transparency and drive value for money in the health system. It will drive transparency in the health system by improving Australians’ access to vital health information. Australians will have more access to information on their local hospitals, health services, primary health care and community health services. The authority will monitor and report assessments on the new local hospital networks, public hospitals, private hospitals, and Medicare locals. The authority will publicly report this information through new hospital performance reports and healthy community reports—that will be available for Australians to see on the internet. These reports will show how each local hospital network and Medicare local is performing—as well as individual hospitals, private hospitals and other organisations. To achieve this the authority will collect, analyse and interpret performance information and promote and conduct research into new and existing performance tools. Where performance needs to be measured in a new way—the authority will have the ability to develop new measurements to assess performance. Other performance related tasks may also be referred to the authority. Its independence will ensure that Australians know that nationally comparable information will be available and that it has been independently analysed. It will mean that Australians will have a much better picture of how their health services are performing—and the differences in performance between big cities, outer metropolitan areas, regional centres and remote services. This will give further impetus to improve the equality of service provision across the country. To ensure the performance authority’s membership has the necessary degree of healthcare expertise in rural and regional health issues, at least one member must have substantial experience and standing in the healthcare needs of people living in regional or rural areas, and must understand the challenges of providing first-class healthcare services to these Australians. Seven members of the authority will be ministerially appointed in line with the health reform agreement—a chair from the Commonwealth, a deputy chair from the states and territories and five members to be appointed with the agreement of the Commonwealth and the states and territories. Consistent with COAG’s original decision in April 2010, the performance authority is to be established as a statutory authority under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, or FMA Act. A chief executive officer will be ministerially appointed after consultations with the National Health Performance Authority. The chief executive officer will manage the authority and will be directly accountable to the Commonwealth Minister for Health and Ageing for the financial management of the agency. The chief executive officer will serve on a full-time basis for a period of up to five years, and is eligible for reappointment. Through this bill, Australia can take another large leap on the path to a modern, high-performing health system, one that prioritises continuous improvement and accountability to the patients it serves. This will be a powerful independent watchdog body that by using the power of accurate information will push our hospitals to deliver better services and push our primary healthcare sector to develop and improve. It will guide policymakers to develop better solutions that give greater account to our regional differences and will help patients to make better decisions on their own care. This is one important step on our major national health reform path—reforms which are critical to delivering for Australians a health system that delivers the services to Australians that they deserve and expect. It gives me great pride to commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Billson) adjourned. 2195 Business 2195 2195 09:17:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Leader of the House 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —by leave—I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following items of private Members’ business, being reported from the Main Committee, or called on, and considered immediately in the following order: Gas appliance safety—Report from Main Committee; Defence housing as an immigration detention facility—Report from Main Committee; Priorities for processing Special Humanitarian Program Visas—Order of the day No. 15 Foreign ownership of agricultural land and agribusiness—Report from Main Committee; and Tourism funding—Report from Main Committee. Question agreed to. 2195 Miscellaneous 2195 Order of the day returned from Main Committee for further consideration; certified copy presented. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The question is that the motion be agreed to. 2195 09:18:00 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 0 Dr STONE —by leave—I move: That the motion be amended to read— That this House: mourns the tragic loss of young Chase and Tyler Robinson, who died at Mooroopna on 30 May 2010 in a recently rented home; notes that Chase and Tyler Robinson were the victims of a faulty gas wall heater emitting carbon monoxide; and calls upon the Australian government to work the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) to task the Ministerial Council on Energy (MCE) to work with state and territory gas safety regulators to mitigate the risks of carbon monoxide poisoning from household gas appliances by urgently developing a strategy, which: explores the following: a requirement for all residential properties with gas appliances to be fitted with an approved carbon monoxide detector; a requirement for all residential landlords to have gas appliances installed in rental properties inspected by qualified contractors at intervals to be determined; the promotion of greater safety awareness, alerting all Australians to the dangers and symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning and the need to regularly maintain household gas appliances; the identification of training and workforce requirements to meet any recommendations, such as increasing the number of trained gas fitters to undertake safety checks; and any other options that may mitigate the risks of carbon monoxide poisoning from household gas appliances; and will be provided to the MCE for urgent decision and implementation, accompanied, if required, by a Regulatory Impact Statement. A motion moved in my name and debated in parliament on Monday, 21 February, was in response to the tragic deaths of young Chase and Tyler Robinson. They died in Mooroopna, in their rented home, when carbon monoxide was generated by a faulty gas heater. Their mother was also seriously injured with carbon monoxide poisoning. In that original motion we called for the requirement for all residential properties with gas appliances to be fitted with approved carbon monoxide detectors and that residential landlords with gas appliances also had to have them regularly inspected and have those gas detectors. We wanted the promotion of greater safety awareness, alerting all Australians to the danger and symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning and the need to regularly maintain their household gas appliances. We said that there needs to be the identification of training and workforce requirements to meet new recommendations that will come through, to improve the situation for all. We were very concerned that there should be a recognition of the tragic loss of the lives of those two boys. I thank the members for Mallee, Throsby and Chifley, who gave bipartisan support to this motion when it was debated. The amendments now before the House were introduced in response to this strong bipartisan support from the coalition, the crossbenches and the government and, in particular, the Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson, who will now shepherd this need for change and these new measures through the Ministerial Council on Energy, which is, of course, part of the COAG process. Therefore, the amendment now refers to the Ministerial Council on Energy and adds in, in particular, the identification of training and workforce requirements to meet any new recommendations coming through that council. Again, I want to thank members for the strong bipartisan support for this motion. I think it reflects on the fact that in Australia we do care profoundly for the health of all of our children and all of the men and women in our communities. This government can make sure that all states and territories, as well as the Commonwealth, have safety measures in homes which echo, for example, smoke detectors in relation to fire safety measures. I therefore commend these amendments to the House. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Question agreed to. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The question now is that the motion, as amended,, be agreed to. Question agreed to. 2197 Miscellaneous 2197 Order of the day returned from the Main Committee for further consideration; certified copy of the motion presented. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The question is that the motion be agreed to. Question negatived. 2197 Motions Debate resumed from 21 February, on motion by Mr Morrison: That this House: notes that: Australia has a long and proud record of resettling more than 700,000 refugees since the Second World War; there are 10.4 million refugees around the world and less than 1 per cent will be offered a resettlement place; Australia’s current refugee and humanitarian program is set at 13,750 with 6,000 of those places going to refugees mandated by the UNHCR and referred to Australia for resettlement; the current Government has lost control of our borders with more than 9,000 irregular maritime arrivals to Australia since August 2008; as a result of the failure to protect our borders, places in the offshore Special Humanitarian Program (SHP) are being taken up by onshore protection visa applicants and their families; and women who have been identified by the UNHCR as being in danger of victimisation, harassment or serious abuse have been rejected by Australia because there are no longer any places left in our offshore SHP; and calls for the Government to: give priority processing to the following visa applications within the SHP: offshore applications for subclass 201—In Country Special Humanitarian Program Visa which offers resettlement to people who have suffered persecution in their country of nationality and who have not been able to leave that country; offshore applications for subclass 202—Global Special Humanitarian Visa for those subject to substantial discrimination and human rights abuses in their home country and who are sponsored for entry by an Australian citizen or permanent resident who is not, and has never been, a subclass 866 visa holder; offshore applications for subclass 203—Emergency Rescue Visa for people who are referred to Australia by the UNHCR and whose lives or freedom depend on urgent resettlement; and offshore applications for subclass 204—Women at Risk Visa for women who are registered as being of concern to the UNHCR; confine immediate family members of sub class 866 protection visas holders, that includes irregular maritime arrivals, to eligibility for sponsorship only through the primary visa holder as a secondary applicant for a sub class 866 protection visa; and cap the number of visas available in the refugee and humanitarian program in the following ways: 6,000 subclass 200 visas for people identified by the UNHCR and referred to the Australian Government as mandated refugees; 3,750 subclass 866 protection visas for primary and secondary applicants, including irregular maritime arrivals and their immediate families; and 4,000 subclass 201, 202, 203 and 204 visas. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The question is that the motion be agreed to. Question negatived. 2198 Miscellaneous 2198 Order of the day returned from Main Committee for further consideration; certified copy of the motion presented. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The question is that the motion be agreed to. Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned. 2198 Miscellaneous 2198 Order of the day returned from the Main Committee; certified copy of the motion presented. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The question is that the motion be agreed to. Question negatived. 2198 Bills R4505 2198 Bill returned from Main Committee with an unresolved question; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Unresolved question— That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. Question put. 09:29:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins) 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. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. Gibbons, S.W. 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. 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. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Smyth, L. Snowdon, W.E. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, A. Windsor, A.H.C. Zappia, A. 69 Alexander, J. Andrews, K. Andrews, K.J. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Briggs, J.E. 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. 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 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. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Tehan, D. Truss, W.E. Tudge, A. Turnbull, M. Van Manen, B. Vasta, R. Washer, M.J. Wyatt, K. 4 Gillard, J.E. Abbott, A.J. Rudd, K.M. Schultz, A. Murphy, J. Keenan, M. Crean, S.F. Prentice, J. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 2199 Mr GRAY (Brand —Special Minister of State and Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity) 09:35:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 2199 Bills R4504 2199 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 2199 Mr GRAY (Brand —Special Minister of State and Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity) 09:36:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 2199 Bills R4490 2199 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 2200 Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari —Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and Minister for Indigenous Health) 09:37:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 2200 Bills R4524 2200 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 2200 Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari —Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and Minister for Indigenous Health) 09:38:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 2200 Committees 2200 2200 2200 09:39:00 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 0 Mr OAKESHOTT —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the committee’s report No. 421 entitled The role of the Auditor-General in scrutinising government advertising. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. IYS Oakeshott, Rob, MP Mr OAKESHOTT —by leave—This report is tabled on behalf of the committee of the previous parliament, which undertook all of the work for the inquiry, including the conduct of the public hearings and the preparation of the report. After consideration of the report and its findings, the current Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit has decided to adopt this report. The inquiry was instigated by the previous committee in October 2008 to examine the Auditor-General’s new role in scrutinising compliance of public advertising campaigns under the Guidelines on Information and Advertising Campaigns by Australian Government Departments and Agencies. Under the guidelines implemented in 2008, the Auditor-General was not required to decide whether a campaign would run or not but only required to provide a review opinion as to whether it considered the guidelines had been satisfied. The committee commended the Australian National Audit Office for the diligence with which it undertook its role and believes that the ANAO’s involvement increased transparency. However, it is important to note that by the end of the inquiry, all committee members agreed that it was not appropriate for the Auditor-General to be involved in the scrutiny of proposed advertising campaigns. They considered that it blurred the boundary between executive decision making and audit review. Some committee members were also concerned that a positive review report by the Auditor-General could be seen to be publicly endorsing government policy. The inquiry was still in progress when the Special Minister of State announced on 31 March 2010, in response to the Independent Review of Government Advertising Arrangements, a refined framework for government campaign advertising. In consequence, the Auditor-General’s role in reviewing proposed advertising campaigns before their launch was abolished. Instead, the Auditor-General would be asked to conduct a performance audit on at least one campaign per year or the administration of the campaign advertising framework. The committee seriously considered the option of continuing to scrutinise government advertising, due to it being such a subjective area of government spending. The committee concluded, however, that the Auditor-General’s forward works program is likely to achieve this same purpose. That being said, the committee will take particular note of the Auditor-General’s forthcoming report regarding the implementation of the new system. As a result of the inquiry, the committee considers that any substantial proposed changes to the role of the Auditor-General in future should be first reviewed by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit on behalf of the parliament and not effectively implied by executive announcement. This would more properly reflect the Auditor-General’s standing as an independent officer of the parliament. The committee believes that many of the difficulties with the advertising function discussed in this report would have been picked up earlier if such a process had been followed. The committee has, therefore, made one recommendation to exactly this effect. In closing, I commend the chair of the previous committee, Ms Sharon Grierson, and all committee members on the work of this inquiry and this report. The report is a comprehensive consideration of the issues surrounding the Auditor-General’s role in scrutinising government advertising. I commend the report to the House and move: That the House take note of the report. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 2201 2201 Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) 09:43:00 —by leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate. Question agreed to. 2201 Miscellaneous 2201 Message received from the Senate informing the House of the following resolution of the Senate relating to the independent youth allowance: That the Senate— notes that the Government: has admitted there is a problem with the criteria for independent youth allowance for inner regional students, has committed to bringing forward its review of the matter and notes that the broad purpose of the review is to find a permanent solution to address the disadvantages that currently exist for rural and regional students in qualifying for financial assistance, and has indicated it will remove the difference between the inner regional areas and the other regional zones for the eligibility criteria for independent youth allowance; and calls on the Government to bring forward its timetable for resolving the matter and, in particular, ensure that: the review is completed and funds to pay for the measure are secured by 1 July 2011, that the current eligibility criteria for independent youth allowance for persons whose homes are located in Outer Regional Australia, Remote Australia and Very Remote Australia according to the Remoteness Structure defined in subsection 1067A(10F) of the Social Security Act 19.91 also apply to those with homes in Inner Regional Australia from 1 July 2011, and all students who had a gap year in 2010 (that is, 2009 year 12 school leavers) and who meet the relevant criteria qualify for the payment. 2202 Bills R4499 2202 Debate resumed from 2 March, on motion by Mr Gray: That this bill be now read a second time. 2202 09:44:00 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 1 0 Mr MELHAM —I made some remarks yesterday in speaking in support of the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Enrolment and Prisoner Voting) Bill 2010 where I quoted extensively from sections of High Court judgments delivered in this area that we rely on. They are from the Roach case and also the case of Rowe. The thrust behind the majority judgments was about enfranchising voters, not disenfranchising voters, which is what we now seek to put into place. The interesting thing is that it was the former government that legislated to put us in the position that the High Court found was not warranted in both the Roach and Rowe cases. We would not have had to do this if it were not for the paranoia of some on the other side about supposed fraud in the electoral system, or potential fraud. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which I chair, and chaired in the last parliament, made recommendations along the lines of what we propose in the legislation today. They were majority recommendations, and it is prescient to quote the summary and the preamble to recommendation 1, which led to the seven-day rule. The report said: The committee can see no valid reason why it should be necessary to continue with close of rolls arrangements that serve to disenfranchise electors and that require unsustainable levels of funding to be expended in order to partly mitigate their effect. There is no evidence that fraudulent activity was reduced as a result of the amendments to the close of rolls. On the contrary, there is no evidence available that indicates systemic fraudulent activity exists. I think it is worth requoting the joint judgment that I quoted yesterday. It is a judgment relating to Justice Gummow, together with Justice Bell: A legislative purpose of preventing such fraud before it is able to occur, where there has not been previous systemic fraud associated with the operation of the seven-day period before the changes are made by the 2006 act, does not supply a substantial reason for the practical operation of the 2006 act in disqualifying large numbers of electors. That is in paragraphs 166 and 167 of the judgment. What the judges are saying there is that you cannot merely assert fraud; you have got to show substantial fraud is occurring before you go down this path of disenfranchising a large number of electors. In relation to prisoners, the same proportionate approach has applied when they reinstated the eligibility to vote for those who were sentenced to a period of three years imprisonment or less. Indeed, the majority in that case of Roach contained the then Chief Justice Gleeson, someone who is fairly conservative when he comes to judgments. There is no doubt that of those of us who have followed electoral reform over the years—and I have in my 21 years of being in this place—I have to admit that I was very surprised at the pronouncements of the High Court in each of these cases. I was fairly pessimistic as to the success of those cases. I was very surprised, but elated, at the principle on which the High Court has basically enunciated in these cases; it is about enfranchisement. They are setting limits on the ability of this parliament to disenfranchise electors, and I think that is a good thing. I have a great regard for the High Court. I think we have probably one of the better High Courts in the world in relation to their independence and the quality of their judgments. This is not a radical court; this is a conservative court, if you look at the appointments. There are a number of appointments on the bench that were by the former government. Indeed, when you actually look at the Roach case, the former Chief Justice Gleeson and Justice Crennan, who were in the majority, were appointed by the former government. And in relation to the case of Rowe, Justice Crennan was in the majority—which was a 4-3 judgment—and was appointed by the former government. I think that is a good thing because it is also a demonstration that it is unlike other places around the world where appointments made tend to be of a more political nature and where there is demonstrated evidence that particular courts may well be following a political objective. That is why in the United States there is such a scrutiny of appointments to the Supreme Court. I think that in Australia we can be very confident of the independence and the separation of powers that exist in this country, and the quality of the people that we place on the bench. I do not always necessarily agree with some of those judgments; I have different views. And they are not always unanimous judgments—indeed, in the case of Rowe it was a 4-3 judgment—but we accept that. The case of Wik was a 4-3 judgment in a particular way. It created a furore in the broader community, but the truth of the matter is that we do not follow the system whereby you have unanimous judgments—so you are able to test the reasoning. But the reasoning of the majority in both these cases is a reasoning that this parliament should embrace. It should be about enfranchisement and not about disenfranchisement. The tragedy is that for the 11½ years of the former government all we saw was legislative action to disenfranchise, based on paranoia, fear and, I believe in some cases, on a view that a particular group of people did not necessarily vote a particular way—or that they did vote a particular way. We will see legislation introduced to reinstate provisional voters who, prior to amendments by the former government, were scrutinised and who had signed declaration forms on the day of voting which, when compared with the signatures that the Electoral Commission had, meant those people were reinstated to the count. Changes to the law meant that, unless they produced a proof of identity, those people did not have their vote admitted to the count and they had to come back within a certain period of time. What we now know is that 12,000 people during the 2010 election, who were given provisional votes because their names could not be found on the roll, were subsequently found to be on the roll but were still excluded because they were given provisional votes and the provisions of the act were such that if they did not bring along a proof of identity within the required time then their vote could not be reinstated. That was 12,000 people who were legitimately on the roll. In that instance, I would argue a signature is a good enough proof of identity. And as one who has scrutineered over many elections and by-elections, if there is doubt as to a signature you can compare it with the signature held by the commission. If there is doubt, it gets knocked out. That principle is consistent with these principles that are before us today in relation to prisoners—that is, imprisonment of itself should not be a disqualification from the vote. That is what former Chief Justice Gleeson says in his judgement in the majority in that case, and I commend to the House his judgement. It is worth reading; it is an excellent judgement in that regard. In relation to the challenge by GetUp!, it was believed that there were about 100,000 people who fell into this category. We are not talking about one or two votes here. The allegation of systemic fraud has been made at every electoral committee hearing I have been involved in subsequent to every election that has been held—this is the eighth I have been involved in personally as a candidate—and I am still waiting for the evidence of systemic fraud. That is what Justices Gummow and Bell were in effect saying in their judgement in that particular case. If you want to assert these things, and the consequences are you are going to disqualify people from their right to participate in choosing a government, then you must put up, you must show the systemic fraud. Not occasional fraud. There is occasional fraud, there is the odd person who multiple-votes. What we also found in relation to that multiple voting is that 80 per cent or more of it related to elderly people who were in nursing homes where confusion reigned, dementia reigned, and people were double-voting. That was the evidence before the committee last time in relation to those particular elements of multiple voting. It was not fraud, it was confusion. I hope to have the analysis of the Electoral Commission in relation to those matters. And in relation to the seven-day rule, let us be clear: we are talking about a situation where there could be 50,000 to 100,000 extra voters on the roll. It has been a situation where this has been progressively looked at because automatic enrolment now takes place in New South Wales and Victoria, and that is something we will look at as a Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. It is not about favouring the government or the opposition; it is about recognising that as a society there are some changes in our society, but the right to vote is one of the most important rights that can be exercised. It is true equality because an 18-year-old voter is just the same as a voter who has been voting for 40 or 50 years—their vote counts. But there is a lot more movement in the electorate. We have a situation where there are provisions in the Electoral Act that if I moved next door and did not fill out the proper form, even though I am within the same electorate, my vote does not count. It is madness! The nature of our society requires us to have safeguards, to have checks. That is what this legislation before the House is now about. The government is backed up by High Court decisions. I accept that in some instances you do not necessarily have to follow the High Court; just because the High Court says it, does not mean that you do it. But if we do nothing then the principles in the legislation are what underpin elections on election day. What we are doing is legislating what the High Court has said is the law. Because all of those people who took advantage of the High Court case in terms of Roach all got a vote. The Electoral Commission devoted extra resources to processing those applications. If the opposition opposes this legislation and this legislation is defeated then the principles underpinning this legislation still apply. Let us have that on the record. It is not a situation where your opposition is going to achieve a close of rolls on the same day that an election is called; the High Court has declared that what the former government did was not in accordance with the Constitution. Those provisions of the act have been struck down. I commend the legislation to the House. I believe it is worthy of support. It reinstates provisions that operated for a very long time—they are not new, they were taken away. (Time expired) 2205 09:59:00 Hawke, Alex, MP HWO Mitchell LP 0 0 Mr HAWKE —I rise to speak on the government’s Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Enrolment and Prisoner Voting) Bill 2010. It is quite instructive to follow the member for Banks in this debate. He made some pertinent points. The legislation before us is a result of a High Court decision. The High Court has interpreted the Constitution in a certain way. I think the member for Banks is correct in saying that we do not always have to do what the High Court says in relation to this. We have a separation of powers in our society. We have a legislative branch and a judicial branch and often they may disagree on points. In my view, this is not the end of this debate. Many of the issues contained in the legislation will be revisited in the future. While the government may have the numbers to get this legislation up, it is not unusual with the passage of time for the High Court to alter its decisions or for matters to be revisited. With the nature of the dissenting reports and the 4-3 split decisions in particular in some of the High Court verdicts, I think what we see is a genuine division in terms of how we should proceed. As the legislative branch, we should not be afraid of legislating—of setting what we believe are the fundamental principles for the integrity of the electoral roll and who can and cannot vote based on sound principles. It is a sound principle to say that people serving prison sentences should have their rights suspended. We suspend their right to liberty anyway by putting them in prison. I do not understand the argument that somehow they have a ‘super-right’ to vote above and beyond the right to liberty and their pursuit of happiness after committing a crime that leads to a custodial sentence. Society has already taken the decision to suspend most of their rights, but to say that somehow they have this ‘uber-right’—they have this absolute right to vote regardless of any other right or any act they have committed or anything that has happened—is an odd contention. So I do not find it unreasonable that the coalition amended the legislation to provide that prisoners serving custodial sentences of longer than three years ought not to choose the legislators that make the laws that put them in the prison they are in. I do not find that unreasonable. I do not think the average person in our community would find that unreasonable. Often the judicial branch is regarded as out of step and out of touch with community attitudes in relation to these sorts of matters. I think custodial sentences and prisoners voting in elections are a fine example of where the judicial branch has not got the right tenor of the public view. The coalition, of course, has acknowledged the High Court’s decision. I think it is important to note that this was a narrow decision in relation to a blanket exclusion. It did not—and I think this is where the Labor Party is being a little cute—seek to invalidate the general principle that the franchise may be removed from certain prisoners. That is why we will be moving an amendment to provide that this be reinstated for custodial sentences of one year or more. I think this is a valid way to proceed considering that the Constitution, at section 44(ii), says that any person who: … has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer … shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives. To clarify this for anybody listening today: you are incapable of serving as a member of the House of Representatives or sitting in the Senate if you are serving a custodial sentence of one year or more. Yet you are capable of voting on who can be a member or senator in this place. It seems odd; that that would be the case seems not the intention of the founding fathers of the Constitution. I do not think it is unreasonable for us to propose that, if you are serving a custodial sentence that prevents you from serving in this place—from holding office as a member or senator—you are not to have the right to select a member or senator or have influence over what laws are made. It is not an unreasonable proposition. I think the coalition is entirely reasonable and within its rights. I think it is also reasonable to suggest to the judicial wing: you may have a view about a particular court case that had a particularly impact on a particular group of people, but the parliament may disagree. I note the member for Maribyrnong, who is at the table, is laughing. What is funny about this? We are talking about a very small group of people who are in prison for offences. We are not talking about a major impact on the electoral roll; we are not talking about altering the outcome of elections; we are talking about a general principle in our society that says you cannot serve in this place if you have been sentenced. And it therefore follows that you ought not to be able to vote. This is not a political manoeuvre. There is no real value in this for anybody. It is simply a matter of setting these principles and standards and making them consistent across the board. This bill has another serious aspect to it, in relation to enrolment. This has been the subject of much discussion over the past few years, including in the lead-up to the 2007 election. The bill seeks to return the law to the situation where the close of rolls would occur seven days after the issue of the writ. In relation to this issue, the first point I would make is that the contention was that the coalition’s changes in 2006 somehow disenfranchised people. The member for Banks was keen to talk about disenfranchisement several times in his speech: ‘People were disenfranchised. People lost the vote—it is outrageous.’ The idea was that the current law—that you must be on the electoral roll and must maintain the correct enrolment address according to the provisions of the Electoral Act—would not apply to those people who could all of a sudden enrol once an election is called. Those who do the right thing make up the bulk of voters in our society today. The situation was that people who did not meet the well-outlined deadlines and rushed to vote at the last minute were in the same category as people who had maintained the correct enrolment all through the year, in accordance with the law of the land. Somehow there was something wrong in us asking people to comply with the law and be on the electoral roll. Again, I find this an odd argument. It is undermined by the fact that the submission of the AEC to the Senate inquiry noted that under the new rules in 2007 the number of people missing from the close of rolls in 2007 was 100,370 and in 2004 this was 168,394. So during just a three-year cycle 68,000 people were added to the roll, with the new legislation under the Howard government. That is a reduction of 40 per cent. The member for Banks said that people have been disenfranchised. The facts are very different. Actually, 40 per cent more people were franchised as a result of the legislation and campaign to ensure that people enrolled by the correct time and date and there was a consequence if you did not. It is no different from any other form of government activity that we set up. This is the question that the Labor Party has to answer: why should we treat the electoral roll, which is such an important and fundamental plank of our democratic society, as anything less than our other instrumentalities? We have punitive and enforceable measures in the Income Tax Assessment Act, for example. When the government wants revenue it will have what it wants you to do by the date it wants you to do it by or it will hunt you down until it gets that revenue. But with the electoral roll the attitude is: ‘Let’s relax. We can have people come on after the writs are issued. We don’t really mind if we get a lot of people coming on. What’s to worry about; we just want to enfranchise everybody.’ That is not the way to proceed with something so important. If it is good enough in all our other forms of legislation that we ensure there are deadlines, constraints and principles, it is only common sense to say on the closure of the electoral roll that there ought to be a deadline and that people have to meet that deadline. We have heard a lot about the court case involving GetUp! The issue was comprehensively dealt with by the High Court, which ruled in favour of GetUp! 4-3 in a split decision. There were plenty of dissenting judgments, including one by Justice Heydon, which is particularly damning of what we would regard as the hypocrisy of the plaintiffs and the poor nature of their arguments. Justice Heydon said: The plaintiffs were prevented from exercising their entitlement because they failed to comply with simple obligations and procedures … …            …            … All other voters outside the three exceptional classes who fail to enrol or transfer enrolment are the authors of their own misfortunes. They have not taken steps to enable them to vote which were not only available to them, but required of them by s.101. They are simple steps. It would have been very easy to take them. There was ample time to take them. …            …            … It is they who disqualify, disenfranchise, exclude or disentitle themselves, not the legislature. …            …            … The legislation placed no “burden” and no “disproportionate” burden. If there were any burden on anyone, it was a burden which those who bore it placed on their own shoulders. …            …            … There is a statutory command to claim or transfer enrolment. That command is backed by a criminal sanction. The plaintiffs did not dispute the constitutional validity of either the command or the sanction. What they demand is an entitlement to continue disobeying the command and ignoring the sanction for longer periods than the impugned provisions allow. This is a very sound dissenting judgment. What you hear from Justice Heydon goes to the heart of everything we do in this place and to what I regard as the biggest difference between the Labor Party and Liberal Party. What kind of society is it that we seek to set up? Is it one where responsibility is a key word, the responsibility of the individual to do the right thing, to look after themselves and to conduct themselves in accordance with the law or do we seek to make exemptions and allow people to get away with breaking the law? Justice Heydon is very clear in this regard. This is a law. It has a criminal sanction. It is required of people to be on the electoral roll. There was plenty of opportunity for people to access the electoral roll. Nobody is denying people the opportunity to enrol to vote. It has never been contended that anyone ought to have the right to deny someone the right to vote, but they have to comply with the simple, as Justice Heydon puts it, procedures. It is very simple: all you have to do is get a form, fill it out and lodge it. There are very few other requirements today to get on the electoral roll, yet we have this contention that people are somehow being disenfranchised. It is a completely odd and bizarre contention, in my mind. We ought to pause and be very careful about this because, while the High Court might have by a 4-3 judgment made a decision in that particular case, it is not outside the realms of possibility this will be revisited in the future. That very valid dissenting judgment by Justice Heydon may end up becoming the law and may end up becoming the majority view of the High Court. To simply say that this has happened and it is all over is wrong. It is a reasonable and plausible contention for the legislature of this country to say that people ought to comply with the law. There was no challenge to this part of the law that says you must be on the roll or you will face a sanction. This legislation before us today, as the member for Banks says, is reacting to the High Court, but there is a tension in democratic society between the judiciary and the legislature, and the legislature has a strong role to play. I am an advocate for the supremacy of the legislature. We are the people’s house. We get voted here to put in place laws to govern society and ensure the smooth running of the Commonwealth, and the electoral roll is a fundamental tenet of what we do here. It is well within our rights as a parliament to pause and say that there are two very important parts of this legislation where we need to think about what we are doing. We need to be consistent with the Constitution on prisoner voting. On enrolments, we can validly say that people ought to comply with the existing law of the land—that is, comply with the requirements of the Electoral Act. 2208 10:14:00 Ferguson, Laurie, MP 8T4 Werriwa ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services 1 0 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —That was indeed a tortuous contribution by the member for Mitchell on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Enrolment and Prisoner Voting) Bill 2010. Arguments like, because we have particular provisions for who can be in parliament, it should follow that we have exactly the same conditions for voters, are preposterous. That is like saying that, because the United States says that a person born outside the United States cannot be President, no person born outside the United States should vote. Equally, there are age differentials in many countries between who can be in parliament and who can vote. In this country, we have a history of renunciation of citizenship of other countries being a requirement to get into parliament, which certainly every voter in the country does not have to prescribe to. That was a pathetic performance by the member for Mitchell. Similarly, he made the tortuous argument that, because in the GetUp! case the vote in the High Court was 4-3, somehow that makes the decision second rate—that essentially we can sit around for the next decade and not act on these matters because of the nature of the majority. I am a person who might feel very troubled by many decisions of our court—particularly in regard to immigration—but that does not give me the right to say that we do not have a Constitution in this country and that the parliament can do as it wants. To say it can sit around for decades, twiddling its thumbs and ignoring decisions by the High Court, is absolutely ridiculous. I do not want to dwell at length on the question of enrolment. I want to devote myself more to the question of prisoner voting. But, as the member for Banks indicates, after every election we have heard complaints by the coalition about massive corruption and we have had all these submissions by Amy McGrath and her group—and they have never, ever produced systematic, worthwhile, valuable evidence about electoral fraud in this country. After every election the number of people who have double-voted is minimal. They are usually found to be people with intellectual disabilities, aged people et cetera. There has never been systematic evidence of electoral fraud in this country. It also has to be noted that the numbers involved in this change in regard to the enrolment prescription are significant. In the last election, 57,732 voters had been enrolled and a further 40,408 voters had had their enrolment details updated. These are significant numbers of people whose votes would be voided by the provision of the previous government. As anybody who follows this issue knows, the predominance of these people have certain characteristics. They are overwhelmingly people who move more often than most, people who rent properties and people with lower economic circumstances. Quite frankly, the coalition’s position is discriminatory. As the High Court noted, on moving to a situation where there was a seven-day allowance for re-enrolment, there was: … no compelling practical problem or difficulty in the operation of the electoral system. I want to turn to the question of prisoner voting. One would assume from some contributions that the kinds of people in prison are the same and always have been, that this is not subject to political decision making and that there cannot be any kind of bias in the way in which people are imprisoned. It is interesting to note an article by David Cole, ‘Hope and betrayal on death row’, one of a series of articles he has written for the New York Review of Books. He noted that in the 1970s in the United States the incarceration rate was very similar to that of Europe—roughly 100 people out of every 100,000 people went to jail. Today it is 700 per 100,000—a growth of seven times the number in the 1970s. They put that down to a tactic by the Republicans in the United States to portray themselves as anti-crime and to portray their political opponents, the Democrats, as pro Afro-American, pro-crime and against law and order. After that period of massive growth in the numbers incarcerated in the US, we saw a trend—predating the election of Obama—in many states of a movement back towards reduced severity, towards treatment, early release, parole, probation, and reduced use of mandatory sentences, because of the absolute cost. What interests me is the kinds of people who are in prison. They also show very distinct characteristics. In another article by David Cole in the New York Review of Books on 19 November 2009, he noted that in the United States Afro-Americans were 13 per cent of the population but 50 per cent of the prison population. He noted that, whilst their unemployment rate was twice, and their net worth was only one-fifth of, that of whites, they had an incarceration rate eight times higher. He also noted that 60 per cent of all young black men who had dropped out of high school had been to prison, but, for those who had a college education, it was only five per cent. More has been written about this in the United States than even in western Europe or Australia. In those figures we see a very distinct pattern of who goes to jail and who, it is argued, should be disenfranchised. They are overwhelmingly of black derivation, with poor eduction and low income. This of course has some political repercussions. In the article ‘The truly disenfranchised’ by Jeff Manza, Christopher Uggen and Marcus Britton it was noted: Our results suggest that felon disfranchisement played a decisive role in several U.S. Senate elections, contributing to the Republican Senate majority of the early 1980s and mid-1990s. Moreover, at least one recent Democratic presidential victory would have been jeopardized had contemporary rates of disfranchisement prevailed during earlier periods. We saw this most nakedly in Florida some elections ago, where the state governor, brother of the President, illegally disenfranchised large numbers of, predominantly, blacks. In Florida at that stage they had a rule that you could not vote for the rest of your life if you had been in prison, but, as I understand it, it only applied to people who offended inside Florida. Illegally, they scrapped from the rolls people—and they would have had no chance of getting back on them—who had served sentences in Tennessee, Kentucky, Idaho et cetera. That is an example of how these situations can lead to political outcomes. Florida has, since then, moved towards scrapping those laws. I congratulate the Kings College of London. They produce a very good website, which I would recommend to people, which talks about incarceration rates around the world and the numbers of people who can be affected by these laws. In 1992 the rate of incarceration in England and Wales was 90 per 100,000. The latest figure is 149 per 100,000—the same trend but not anywhere near as extreme as in the United States. More and more people are being incarcerated to the point where today UK prisons should be holding 77,000 people but they are holding 84,000. That is indicative of the large numbers of people who are disenfranchised. There was a person who took this matter to the European Court of Human Rights. People might be aware that the UK parliament has, in the last few weeks, started to bow to a European Court of Human Rights decision which was made back in 2004. British governments, Labor and Conservative, have been trying to avoid the outcomes of this decision made seven years ago. Now that they are facing a bill of $143 million in compensation to prisoners they are deciding that they might abide by the decision. Last week they voted in the House of Commons, by 234 to 22, to tell the European Court to go jump, but in the end they will do what they are told. The situation was that there was a prisoner serving a 27-year sentence for manslaughter. He educated himself and he read a book that said that through political pressure and by activity you can affect politics. He set about this challenge to the European Court and eventually succeeded. Around the world there are very different attitudes towards voting by prisoners. Some countries nominally allow prisoner voting but in practice do not. Cyprus says, ‘Yes, you can vote, but you have to be allowed out of jail on the day.’ Slovakia says, ‘You can vote,’ but does not give people facilities to vote. But the German Constitution—not the laws of the government but the Constitution—says, ‘We should encourage people to vote.’ I had the opportunity a decade ago to go to the Netherlands, to a jail near Groningen, to see prisoners there. I have mentioned this in parliament before. Ironically, the Netherlands is very liberal—it might have changed with conservative governments over the last few years—and has the most advanced prison system in the world. This is not Left liberalism of the 1960s and 1970s. They had a royal commission into jails straight after the Second World War. The Dutch political establishment had been in jail under the Nazis and they thought it would be a good idea to have good prison conditions. In the Netherlands the political parties actually campaign in the prisons. It may interest anyone here to know that virtually every prison guard at that prison is a university graduate rather than a retired policeman. As I said, it is very different in different places around the world but in general most European Western progressive liberal countries that we associate ourselves with have extremely liberal provisions on this front. As I noted, the European Court is very strongly enforcing prisoner rights in the United Kingdom. In Australia we have not been immune from the increasing number of people being put in jails. Australia’s rate varies but New South Wales is the most extreme case. I have to give a bit of a plaudit to the state opposition. The shadow Attorney-General has indicated that the matter is so serious that he intends taking very strong measures, if the Liberals are elected, to reduce the number of people in prison. It is a very ironic situation for the Liberal-National parties to be in but that is the policy they have come to because the situation is so serous. In Australia 140 people per 100,000 are incarcerated. That rate has grown very greatly. In 1992 it was about 90 per 100,000. So it has increased from 90 to 140 per 100,000 in the course of 20 years. We are talking about significant numbers of people who are incarcerated. We are talking about people who predominantly have certain characteristics. People in prison often have intellectual disabilities are often illiterate. Large numbers of people are only in prison because they have not been able to get a stable job and were not able to survive in our society. Many of those people would be disenfranchised. You could have a situation in a country where the rates of incarceration are so high that it has political dimensions. The kind of people being imprisoned and the number of them are such that political decisions will be different. You could have a government which legislates to put more and more of these people in jail. That has been the trend in the United States in particular. In Australia an Indigenous woman, Vicki Roach, took up the cause. She shows that people can recover and make a contribution. She did a masters degree. She studied and saw the need for people like herself to have a voice. I commend both parts of the legislation. Returning to the theme of the member for Mitchell, we cannot have a situation where people blithely say that it is irrelevant that the High Court did this because the decision was 4-3 and it might be reversed next week, or that some judge might die and be replaced by a conservative or that this and that might happen. All these are excuses as to why the High Court should be ignored, but it is really a mask for having provisions, particularly in relation to the enrolment period, that seek to make things more difficult for people. Under the guise of concern about fraud—fraud that has not been evidenced or proven—they seek to make it difficult for people to enrol. There is a whole history of this, including the requirements for how people enrol, the time period for enrolment and identification requirements. All we have here is a systematic long-term approach by the coalition to say that this country is dreadful. Its world-renowned Australian Electoral Commission, respected in most countries around the world and used for electoral observation in so many countries, is so incompetent and stupid that it cannot police the alleged fraud by which people get rights that they should not have. We know the reality: the Australian Electoral Commission is world renowned and we have one of the best electoral systems in the world. These excuses should not be used to justify disenfranchising people and making it more difficult for people to participate in our society. 2211 10:28:00 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 0 0 Mrs MIRABELLA —The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Enrolment and Prisoner Voting) Bill 2010 contains two minor, non-controversial amendments which deal, firstly, with a prisoner being able to remain on the electoral roll even if they are prevented from voting and, secondly, an insertion in the interpretive provision to ensure that references in the Electoral Act to an ‘election for a division’ or similar expressions can operate in the event of a half Senate election held independently of an election for the House of Representatives. The coalition has no issue with these two non-controversial amendments but, as you have heard, it certainly does have concerns with the two issues dealing with prisoner voting and the closure of the rolls. At the outset, I want to say that it is right and fitting that any government remains vigilant and makes changes that are necessary to improve the integrity of our voting and enrolment system. But, as we know, often much does not change with government legislation and often such change is not for the better but makes schemes worse, and when you are dealing with the very foundations of our parliamentary democracy that can be a very dangerous thing. The Howard government was very vigilant about trying to improve our electoral system and a number of bills were passed to strengthen and protect it. At the core of our electoral system is the joint Commonwealth-state electoral roll, which of course is used for the conduct of all elections at the local, state and federal levels. For as long as there have been political systems there have been jokes and stories, and indeed legends, about the rorting of the electoral roll—about dead people voting, about cats voting and other dodgy practices. Until very recently the integrity of the roll has been based largely on trust, and still is to a certain degree. It is much easier to present yourself on election day to vote than it is to join up at your local video store, and some people find that a rather peculiar situation. It was only under the Howard government in 1997 that the AEC commenced a process of continuous roll updates, which of course include mailing and doorknocking campaigns to help ensure that the roll is as accurate as possible. In 2006 the coalition introduced legislation saying that the rolls would close for new enrolments at 8 pm on the day that the writs were issued, and for changes to existing enrolments they would close three days after the issue of the writs, and it did so notwithstanding the concerns regarding potential disenfranchisement with an early closing of the rolls. The government was concerned, and quite rightly so, about the potential for electoral fraud associated with high levels of enrolment activity during the existing seven-day period. Putting aside the hysteria and the extraordinary claims, let us just have a look at the facts for a moment. In 2004 the number of transactions that the AEC had to process concerning enrolments and changing of addresses was 520,000. In 2007, after the change to the close of the electoral roll to an earlier time, that number dropped to 263,000. This enabled the AEC to deal with those fewer changes in a more efficient and, very importantly, a more accurate manner. It is critical to note that together with the change in the legislation the government did make more money available to the AEC so that they could conduct more aggressive campaigns to get people enrolled in a timely manner. Those of us who were mindful to these matters will recall very extensive television and print media campaigns to get people to change their enrolment details or to enrol, and that started some months before the election. Under the existing legislation, it is the obligation of an individual to enrol once they attain the age of 18 or become a citizen. It is an imperative and thought to be a sufficiently serious responsibility that it is a criminal offence not to do so. So it is important to realise that it is not just about the rush to try to get people on the roll at the last minute. Where you can have integrity issues and where you can have stacking and fraud, particularly in marginal seats with people putting themselves on the roll at the last minute, having a prolonged campaign to get people on the roll is the proper way to appease those concerns about people being disenfranchised. It is a balancing act, and a sophisticated democracy like Australia can surely be organised enough in the administration of its laws, including its electoral laws, to do what it can in between elections to ensure that electoral rolls are as accurate as possible and people are encouraged to change their details when it is appropriate. In 2004 when there were an extra seven days for enrolling as a new voter and an additional three days to get your address transferred, fewer than 168,400 missed the deadline with that longer period. But with the shorter deadline—that is, when you had to be on by 8 pm on the day the writs were issued, if you were a new enrolee, or you had three days to change your address—we only had 100,370 people who missed the deadline. Not only did we see fewer transactions, we actually saw a drop in the numbers of people who tried to enrol and were unsuccessful because they had missed the deadline. This proved the strength of a strong and concerted campaign to get people on the roll or to amend their details. Those of us who have been involved in public debate and in politics for some time can point to a number of examples where individual seats, or in fact governments, can be decided by the narrowest of margins—or in some cases not even decided, as is the current situation in the federal parliament. Let us just have a look at one of these examples. The 1996 Mundingburra by-election in the state of Queensland is a classic case in point. The state election of 1995 saw the Goss government returned with a majority of one seat. The result of that election hung on this seat. The Mundingburra electorate, where the incumbent Labor candidate had been declared successful, had a margin of just 16 votes. Of course, as is normally the case with such narrow margins, this was disputed by the Liberal Party. When the Court of Disputed Returns declared the result in this electorate void and ordered a by-election, it obviously showed us yet again how critical it is to get the integrity of the rolls and the voting system right. Ultimately the seat was won by the Liberal candidate. As we know, as a consequence the state Labor government lost and the coalition became the new government for Queensland. So let’s not get hysterical and be dismissive or glib about the absolute importance of getting the integrity of the electoral rolls right. A handful of votes can and do matter. They have mattered in the past, they matter now and they will matter in the future. The fact is that there have been documented incidents of electoral fraud in the past, and for those who say we have the best system in the world and there have not been significant cases of electoral fraud, we are not perfect. Of course we do not have a dodgy system akin to some non-democratic—I am trying to be politically correct here because I do not want to cause a diplomatic incident. But we are not some tin-pot nation that gives lip service to democracy. That does not mean we are perfect and that does not mean that there is not fraud. There is. In fact, we have had documented evidence in the past and all we need to do is go through the history books and have a look at our political history to see some of these examples. I do not know why Queensland throws up such interesting political examples, but it does. If we go back to Queensland and we fast forward five years to the year 2000 in North Queensland, we see the state Labor candidate in Thuringowa, a former Townsville city councillor, plead guilty to 24 counts of forging Commonwealth electoral forms. She was sentenced to three years imprisonment. So, yes, of course we are not as bad as some of the worst countries on earth, and of course our electoral system is something that many would consider enviable, but that does not mean we cannot improve it and it does not mean that there is not fraud. We all remember when political parties change and alter voting systems to favour themselves. We all remember when Neville Wran changed to optional preferential voting in New South Wales, because he saw that by conducting three-cornered contests with compulsory preferences the Liberal and National parties were able to maximise their amalgamated support and were able to defeat Labor candidates more easily. Introducing optional preferential voting, effectively minimising the impact of the amalgamated so-called ‘conservative vote’, proved very successful—so much so for the Labor Party that Queensland followed that model. But now that we see a different situation in Queensland, where there is one major non-Labor party, the Premier, who finds that the Greens preferences are now working against her, is looking to change the legislation to go back to a compulsory preferential system because that will assist the Labor Party with Greens preferences. The Labor Party, being the larger party, would of course benefit from that. So we do have a history where political parties do change—some would say manipulate—voting methods to suit their own political purposes. To return to the bill, if we look at the High Court decisions that relate to the questions of the difference in the time made available, in the case of Rowe and the Commonwealth we see that there are some very strong judgments given by dissenting judges. Three of Their Honours supported the plaintiff and the 2006 provisions were struck down, and three of Their Honours, with separate judgments, supported the argument that the enactments were valid and that they should stand. Justice Heydon made some very important points when he noted: The legislation placed no “burden”, and no “disproportionate” burden. If there were any burden on anyone, it was a burden which those who bore it placed on their own shoulders. …            …            … There is a statutory command to claim or transfer enrolment. That command is backed by a criminal sanction. The plaintiffs did not dispute the constitutional validity of either the command or the sanction. What they demand is an entitlement to continue disobeying the command and ignoring the sanction for longer periods than the impugned provisions allow. There is much more to this debate that will follow. These are important issues that do concern people out there in the community, and I am sure that we have not seen the last of judicial consideration of these particular matters, so let’s not be under the illusion that these legal issues are settled once and for all. If we turn to the issue of prisoner voting, I think the member for Mackellar made some very important points. The Howard government took the view that a person who was serving a custodial sentence should be denied that franchise because they had volunteered up the right through the actions that resulted in their custodial sentence in the first place. If you commit offences against society sufficient to warrant a prison term then you should not be entitled to vote and elect the members of the society whose laws you have disregarded. It is as simple as that and a very decent principle by which we stand—as do most Australians. (Time expired) 2214 10:44:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —It is a pleasure to follow the member for Indi because she always gives me good information to dispute. When we look at the issue we are debating, which is the closure of the rolls, it is interesting that she highlighted in her contribution the fact that governments change laws to favour themselves. It is also interesting, when we look at her reference to the High Court decision on this issue, that she concentrated on the dissenting judgments, because they favoured her argument, rather than on those judges who supported the majority verdict. The member for Indi is always a person who will speak on a piece of legislation or a motion and really distort the facts in some way to give an interesting view of the legislation or motion before the parliament. The legislation that we are debating today is the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Enrolment and Prisoner Voting) Bill 2010, which gives effect to majority decisions of the High Court. I rise in this place to acknowledge those decisions and to work to see that the problems that were identified in Rowe v Electoral Commissioner are rectified, because that is what this legislation is about. In both Rowe and Roach the High Court declared that certain amendments to bring about the early closure of the rolls and to disqualify all prisoners from voting were invalid. This bill will update the text of the Electoral Act to reflect the current constitutional position. That will restore the close of the rolls to a period of seven days after the date of the writs for the election and reinstate the previous disqualification of prisoners serving a sentence of imprisonment of three years or longer. One of the really good sources of information relating to this legislation is the Report on the conduct of the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto, from the inquiry conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. It made some very good points. I refer to the section in chapter 3 that talks about enabling the franchise. It highlights that when we are looking at enrolment it is about getting the appropriate balance between ensuring that those people who are qualified to vote are able to exercise their vote and ensuring the integrity of the electoral roll. It then goes on to talk about whether the changes that were brought in under the Howard government were actually about ensuring the maximum ability for people to cast their vote or whether they were really distorting the electoral rolls so that those people whom the Howard government perceived were less likely to vote for them would be disenfranchised. The background to this legislation is highlighted in the report. The report goes through the history of voting in Australia and enrolling to vote in Australia. It has always been the case that Australia has had an inclusive entitlement to vote. That was fully established in 1962, when all Aboriginal people were granted the right to vote. It has gone through a process, but generally the aim of the changes that have been made has been to absolutely ensure that everyone who is entitled to vote can vote and that that vote is based on Australian citizenship. That changed when the Howard government came to power, because instead of working to maximise the ability of people to cast their vote, they looked at ways that they could restrict the number of people whom they perceived were less likely to support them in a ballot. People who were identified as being more likely to enrol at the last moment were people who were homeless, people who were itinerant and people who were young. In the lead-up to the last election, a number of young people came into my office who attended local high schools and were trying to enrol to vote. They had only just turned 18. They had not been 18 for very long at all. They wanted to cast their vote, but they were denied the ability to enrol and cast their vote in the last federal election because of the change that was introduced under the Howard government that prevented them from enrolling. The early close of the rolls was opposed in a number of areas. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission submission to the committee inquiry, I thought, was very impressive. It started by saying: A healthy democracy makes sure that all members of a community have equal access to the political process. It went on to highlight that we are a democratic nation, that politicians are elected by popular vote and that to actually maximise that democracy you need to ensure that all people are registered. The report highlighted the fact that the commission was very concerned about the early closing of the rolls because of the disenfranchisement of many Australians, particularly those that I mentioned before, that are marginalised: young people, Indigenous Australians, people in remote and rural areas, homeless, itinerant or ill people or people with some sort of intellectual disability or, for that matter, any disability because they find it more difficult to access the paperwork that they need to complete before they can enrol. The early closure of the rolls was also opposed by a number of community groups, groups representing the disadvantaged and rural Australians. I must be upfront with the House and say the changes did have some support. My reading of this report showed that the Liberal Party of Australia supported the closing of the rolls when the writs were issued, as did the Festival of Light Australia. The report shows that the majority of the submissions received by the committee supported the closing of the rolls seven days after the writs were issued but that the Liberal Party of Australia supported retaining closure at the time of the issuing of the writs. They felt so strongly about it that they prepared a dissenting report. It supported the previous scheme and supported the disenfranchising of all those Australians that actually wanted to enrol to vote. Now might be an appropriate time for me to mention the Canadian system. The Canadian system of voting is based on maximising the ability of people to vote, it is based on trying to ensure that no voters are disenfranchised and voters in Canada can enrol to vote on the day of the election. Provided that they can show the appropriate identification and verify that they are who they say they are and that they live where they say they live, they can enrol on the day of the election and they can vote. I am not advocating the Canadian system, but I am showing the two extremes here. The Liberal Party want to close the rolls on the day the writs are issued and the Canadian system allows people to enrol on the day of the election. I think what has been recommended in the legislation before us today is appropriate. It gets the balance right between ensuring people are not disenfranchised and ensuring the integrity of the roll. I know that in the community, in the electorate that I represent in this parliament, people do support the notion that if a person wishes to vote they should be able to vote. They support a system that ensures maximum flexibility of the electoral roll and, at the same time, ensures the integrity of the roll. I noted that the member for Indi was talking about political parties and the voting systems in different states. She seemed to refer a lot to Queensland. We all in this House remember the Joh Bjelke-Petersen years when there definitely was not a system of one-person one-vote and the government of the day distorted the system of putting the same value on each person’s vote. I am sure the member for Indi would be very supportive of that system being reintroduced not only in Queensland but throughout the whole of Australia whereas we on this side of the parliament believe that we should have a fair system of voting that is part of our democratic process and that reflects the overall voting pattern of people within the community. We should not seek to introduce laws that will prevent people that we as members of parliament feel may not support our particular party or ideology. This is important legislation because it is about enfranchising people to vote. The other aspect of the legislation, which refers to Roach v Electoral Commissioner, refers to the disqualification of all prisoners serving a sentence. What this legislation does is reinstate the previous disqualifications of prisoners serving a sentence longer than three years. This is a very fair provision, and it will be constitutional, not like those changes made by the Howard government. This legislation is very good legislation. It is fair legislation. It is about ensuring that Australians are not disenfranchised from voting when they choose to enrol. It is maximising the ability of all Australians to enrol to vote when a federal election has been called. 2217 10:59:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 0 0 Mr SLIPPER —The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Enrolment and Prisoner Voting) Bill 2010 contains a mixture of objectives, some of which are supported by everyone in the parliament and some of which are opposed by the Liberal-National opposition. I say at the outset that it is vital that all elected representatives in the Australian parliament recognise that it is important to have an electoral system with integrity so that, when an election is called and the result of the election is known, the people of Australia get the government that they actually voted for. It is very, very important in a modern democracy like Australia that our electoral system be open and transparent, free and fair, and equitable because, frankly, we are a country that has had democracy continuously and we are the envy of many other countries around the globe who do not share our long history of democratic electoral tradition. That is not to say that members on both sides of the House cannot differ on the fine points of what ought to be in the electoral law. I would like to mention briefly a couple of items which are non-controversial amendments and which are not being opposed by the Liberal-National opposition. The first amendment permits a person who is incarcerated to remain on the electoral roll even if the law prevents that particular person from exercising a vote. The second is the insertion of an interpretive provision to ensure that references in the Electoral Act to ‘an election for a division’, or similar expressions, can operate in the event of a half-Senate election held independently from an election of the House of Representatives. As I said, those amendments are not being opposed by the opposition. They are sensible amendments. The first one is practical and the second one clarifies something that possibly ought to have been clarified in the legislation before. However, I have a very great concern about the attempt by the government, following a High Court decision, to reinsert into the electoral law a provision which would permit people who have been imprisoned—for offences of which they have been convicted—to vote in an election. Surely, voting in an election is a very important right and, at times, that right should be suspended when the conduct of a person has resulted in imprisonment, being locked away and not being allowed to operate as everyone else does, as an ordinary citizen going about their daily life. What I am suggesting is that, for the period a person is incarcerated, it does not seem unreasonable to me that such a person should be denied the opportunity to vote in an election. The decision made by the High Court was not a wide-ranging decision. When one looks at what the government is proposing in this legislation, one would imagine that the High Court has mandated that the proposed amendments in the bill with respect to prisoner voting ought to be implemented in full. The opposition response to the High Court decision was contained in the opposition members’ dissenting report to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report on the 2007 election. While that dissent has been stated before, I will restate it here in the House today. The members said: We acknowledge the High Court’s decision in Roach, but we also note that the Court only gave a narrow decision in relation to a blanket exclusion, and did not seek to invalidate the general principle that the franchise may be removed from certain prisoners. It is the view of the Coalition that voting should be denied to those who are currently serving full-time custodial sentences of one year or longer. … This would align the voting disqualification with the disqualification from being a Member of Parliament, at s.44(ii) of the Australian Constitution: Any person who … has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a state by imprisonment from one year or longer … shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or member of the House of Representatives. We have a concern that what the government is proposing will diminish the integrity of the electoral roll and will permit people who, in our view, ought not to be permitted to exercise a vote because they are imprisoned. That is why the opposition will not support what the government is suggesting. With respect to electoral enrolment, there is a concern that the Australian Electoral Commission, while it is a body with very great integrity, clearly has limited resources, and the flood of enrolments which have occurred in the past following the announcement of an election has meant that it is virtually impossible for the Australian Electoral Commission to follow the usual, thorough processes it does to make sure that those people who seek to get on the electoral roll are in fact eligible to do so. Prior to 2006, the close of rolls for a federal election was set at seven days after the issue of writs. In 2006, the parliament decided that, for new enrolments, the electoral roll would be closed at eight o’clock in the evening of the day the writs were issued and, with respect to changes to existing enrolments, three days after the writs were issued. It has been pointed out by the opposition that the reason that the then government took this view and the then parliament supported that view was their concern about the possibility of electoral fraud associated with high levels of enrolment activity during the seven-day enrolment period which existed prior to 2006. Elections are held in a cycle. There is an election for the House of Representatives approximately every three years. There is an ongoing obligation on citizens to enrol to vote as soon as they are eligible to do so. In fact, the Commonwealth Electoral Act even makes provision for people not yet 18 years of age to provisionally enrol in the event that an election is called for a date not very far after they will turn 18. So there is already a provision for a young person who is approaching the age of 18 years to be able to get on the electoral roll. If people were doing their duty and getting on the electoral roll as soon as they are able to and if people were prepared to change their electoral enrolment details as soon as they moved then there would be no reason at all for the amendments currently before the chamber. I have a great concern because in the electorate of Fisher I have seen vast numbers of new enrolments and it was simply not possible to identify those people. We wrote to some of those people and much of the correspondence came back unclaimed. So, if these people ever did live at the addresses they were seeking enrolment for, they certainly did not live there a very short time after their name went on the electoral roll for that electorate. I believe it is important for the Australian Electoral Commission to be able to do its job in an orderly and timely way. It ought to be able to check the veracity of the details of people seeking to join the electoral roll. It is entirely unreasonable for us to ask the Australian Electoral Commission to make sure that the electoral roll has integrity when we have a huge flood of people seeking enrolment after an election is called. Everyone knows when an election is approaching and there is ample opportunity for good citizens to get on the electoral roll in a timely way so their enrolment details are able to be checked by the Electoral Commission to make sure that, as far as possible, only people entitled to be enrolled are enrolled. All of us know that the Electoral Commission works extremely hard in the run-up to a polling day, so we ought to support anything we can do to ease that workload, to minimise mistakes and to avoid dodgy and fraudulent enrolments. The existing time frames are practical, sensible and reasonable and they do assist in maintaining the integrity of the electoral roll. The amendments the government is proposing undermine the integrity of the electoral roll, and I do not believe these amendments will be supported by the community at large. The government ought to reconsider the proposal with respect to the closure of the electoral roll. The seven-day period is unnecessary. It places additional demands on the AEC and its staff. It creates a mad flurry of activity and increases the possibility of mistakes. For 365 days a year voters are able to enrol and change their details. I do not believe we ought to risk the integrity of our electoral roll to assist those people who do not carry out their community duty and enrol as they are required to under the law of Australia. Regarding those people who launched the High Court action after missing the enrolment deadline just prior to the 2010 election, Mr Justice Heydon on the High Court bench said: They are simple steps. It would have been very easy to take them. There was ample time to take them. …            …            … It is they who disqualify, disenfranchise, exclude or disentitle themselves, not the legislature. I believe the government ought to heed the very sound words of Mr Justice Heydon. The High Court decision was a four to three ruling. Admittedly, it becomes part of the law of Australia because there was a majority on the High Court, but it was a very close decision. The government will say that this bill formalises the decision of the High Court, but I believe that the bill goes beyond what the High Court actually said. All of us have heard stories of cats and dogs and even of goldfish being placed on the electoral roll. Although it is funny, it does not assist the integrity of the system. We need to make sure that the Australian community does not disengage from the political system. When one hears of mistakes or oversights and sees cats, dogs and goldfish enrolled, it is really very unfortunate. I am not for a moment suggesting that the Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity wants to see cats, dogs and goldfish enrolled—I am sure he does not want to go to kennels, pick up dogs and put them on the electoral roll; I would not suggest that for a moment, because I do have very high regard for the minister—but I think the minister’s brief in this matter is flawed. He ought not to be seeking to make the amendments that he is. Australians over the years have had an electoral system which has been admired and respected. The Australian Electoral Commission is often asked to send observers to other countries to assist them to conduct fair and free elections. We in Australia have the right to vote freely and without reprisal, and that is the way it should be. We do not face the threat of assault or beatings if we do not vote a certain way, we do not have the risk of riots in the streets and we do not face the fear of losing our lives or having our fingers chopped off, as has been faced by some in Afghanistan, but this does not mean that we should now become excessively complacent with respect to the integrity of our electoral system. While we might not agree with the result of an election, it is always important that we respect the process. It is important that we have an electoral system of integrity. While I believe honestly that the government does also share that belief, in my view the amendments before the chamber today go some distance towards reducing the integrity of the electoral system. Frankly, I do not think that is a good thing for the electoral system and I do not think it is a good thing for Australia. I ask the government, through the minister, to reconsider these retrograde amendments. 2220 11:14:00 Gray, Gary, MP 8W5 Brand ALP Special Minister of State and Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity 1 0 Mr GRAY —in reply—I thank all of those who participated in this debate. There have been 17 contributors; they have varied, and probed and made observations on the nature of these amendments. But in essence there is one golden thread that runs through the commentary on all sides of this House, and that is the importance of our electoral system and the great good fortune that it bestows on our nation. When it comes to our electoral law and its integrity the important thing is that we do actually believe in the ballot and we do believe in democratic elections. As we look at troubled regions around the world as we speak here today we can only reflect again on the great wisdom of our forefathers and of the great contribution that our democracy and the Electoral Act itself bring to this place. All of those who have contributed to the debate on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Enrolment and Prisoner Voting) Bill 2010 have made a range of observations, but the bill gives effect to two decisions of the High Court. The first decision, which relates to the close of the rolls period, is Rowe v Electoral Commissioner as decided on 6 August 2010. The second, which relates to prisoner voting, is Roach v Electoral Commissioner as decided on 30 August 2007. This bill responds to these matters that were found to be constitutionally invalid, and it responds by removing provisions added to the Electoral Act in 2006. As I said when I introduced the bill into the parliament in November of last year, it is appropriate for the parliament to respond to these decisions of the High Court to ensure that the Commonwealth Electoral Act reflects the current state of the law. The shadow minister has claimed that the bill is politically motivated; this is wrong. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that the electoral law in this area complies with Australia’s paramount law: the Constitution. I find it remarkable that the shadow minister would oppose such an action. Allow me to summarise the key measures contained in this bill. The bill updates the Electoral Act to reflect the current constitutional position as declared by the High Court to restore the close of the rolls period to seven days after the date of the issuance of the writs for a federal election, be that a double dissolution election, a House of Representatives election, a House of Representatives and a half-Senate election, a half-Senate election, a by-election or a referendum. The close of rolls period helps to ensure eligible voters are able to exercise their obligation to enrol and thence their right to vote. The bill also reinstates the 2006 provisions that the disqualification from voting at a federal election covers prisoners serving a sentence of imprisonment of three years or longer. Furthermore, the bill provides that while people serving a sentence of imprisonment for three years or longer would be disqualified from voting they may remain on or be added to the electoral roll. This gives effect to a recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters following its inquiry into the 2007 federal election. The bill also addresses an anomaly in the Electoral Act regarding certain references to an election for a division, or similar expressions. An interpretive provision in the bill enables such references to operate in the event of a half-Senate election that is held independently from an election of the House of Representatives. Consequential amendments to be made to the Referendum Machinery Provisions Act 1984 would ensure consistency with the Electoral Act. I note that the shadow minister has foreshadowed moving an amendment to provide that persons serving a sentence of imprisonment of one year or more cannot exercise their right to vote. The government will not be supporting this amendment on the basis of good and proper reasons, including the longstanding view of this parliament and legal advice from the Attorney-General’s Department. I am happy to discuss this further during the consideration in detail stage of this bill. The government believes that it is an important bill that is necessary to ensure that the electoral legislation complies with the requirements of the Australian Constitution. Again, I would like to thank all the members who contributed to the debate on this bill, and I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 2221 Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 2221 11:19:00 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP SE4 Mackellar LP 0 0 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —by leave—I move opposition amendments: (1)    Schedule 2, item 2, page 9 (line 23), omit “3 years”, substitute “1 year”. (2)    Schedule 2, item 3, page 10 (line 8), omit “3 years”, substitute “1 year”. (3)    Schedule 2, item 3, page 10 (line 11), omit “3 years”, substitute “1 year”. (4)    Schedule 2, item 3, page 10 (line 19), omit “3 years”, substitute “1 year”. (5)    Schedule 2, item 3, page 10 (line 22), omit “3 years”, substitute “1 year”. I agree with the Special Minister of State that this is an important issue, and the fact that 17 members have chosen to speak on it indicates that it is seen by the members of the House to be important. I would like to support my amendments on two bases. The import of my amendments are to lower the disqualification period for prisoners from three years to one year, and that would bring it in line with the one-year period that the Constitution provides in section 44(ii) where a person, being a member of parliament or standing as a member of parliament: Is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer …                 …            …            … … shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives. It seems to me that the argument that the provision of the right to vote and the right to be selected and to sit in the parliament are unconnected is not a good argument. Indeed, the High Court in its majority judgment in Roach v Electoral Commissioner specifically said—and they were Justices Gummow, Kirby and Crennan—that the Commonwealth had argued: … that whatever implication or principle may be evident in the grounds in s 44(ii) for disqualification of senators and members, and of candidates for election, s 44(ii) is disconnected from consideration of the validity of the denial by s 93(8AA) of the exercise of the franchise. The court said: That submission should be rejected as being too wide. In other words, the connection does maintain. If you look at state governments, they have a variety of disqualification periods, from no disqualification, to one year, to three years, to five years and so on. It is important that here at the Commonwealth level we set a true basis for the decision that we as a parliament exercise the right given to us in the Constitution to determine when the franchise can be exercised, and more particularly in what circumstances you can be disqualified from exercising that right to vote, which is seen as being part of what a citizen does when they are part of the community. But in addition to that I want to point out that, on a practical level, whereas the court in that narrow 4-3 decision said that any person who is subject to a prison sentence should be disqualified for voting was too broad, very often a dissenting judgement in a High Court case subsequently becomes the prevailing decision of the day because the High Court is not bound by its own decisions. I also want to point out, as I did in the course of my speech in the second reading debate, that the nature of the criminality of people who are serving sentences of less than two years is really very significant. I cited three examples, and I will cite them again because it is important that we know just what sort of person we are talking about when we say they should be disqualified while serving that sentence. One person is serving two years for aggravated burglary, false imprisonment, armed robbery and theft. The victim of the attack was tied to a chair with an electrical cord, doused with kerosene, forced to eat dog food and hit over the head with a broom handle. The attacker stole a number of items from the man and forced him to disclose his ATM PIN before robbing his bank account of $300. If we pass my amendment, this offender would not be allowed to vote. If the government’s position of three years is maintained, he will be entitled to vote—as indeed will this person with a 2½-year sentence: a teacher who sexually abused three young boys at school and on camping trips in Western Australia. He lured children into his office block, stripped them down—I will not going into further details. A boy was assaulted. Another boy was assaulted in a tent on a camping trip, as were two other boys under 14 and so on. He got 2½ years. Under my amendment as moved, he cannot vote. (Time expired) 2222 11:25:00 Hawke, Alex, MP HWO Mitchell LP 0 0 Mr HAWKE —I rise to support the member for Mackellar’s fine amendments to this proposed legislation from the government on the basis that we have heard in this debate a number of things that I do not think are valid in relation to prisoner voting. It is important that we take note of some of these arguments as we move forward from this juncture. I do not think it is right that member for Werriwa comes in and says that people who are in prison are highly illiterate, they are uneducated, they are on the wrong side of society so, therefore, we ought to grant them the vote. I have no doubt that may be the case with many people who are in prison, but surely our responsibility as a society is to deal with those issues and assist those people with their problems, not say, ‘Well here is a great gift of enfranchisement of voting within our society.’ That is why I find this a necessary amendment to the legislation that is proposed to the House today, because the government is seriously proposing to enfranchise people who are serving custodial sentences of one year or longer for really no logical basis. There is no real argument that has been put forward here in this House today, other than the member for Werriwa’s bizarre interpretation that theoretically there could be one day, according to one academic that he read out, a large number of people who were imprisoned who all of a sudden would then need to have the right to vote against the legislators who had imprisoned them—presumably on some sort of false basis. If you are finding that a bizarre argument, Mr Deputy Speaker, I can tell you I found it quite a bizarre academic argument as well. The reality is, as the member for Mackellar has pointed out, there are people who have committed serious offences serving custodial sentences who will vote on who legislates in this society. I do not understand how that is a better outcome for us. I do not understand why the government wants to pursue this as such a matter of importance, considering that really this has no impact upon the electoral system, other than we must set those foundational principles as a society which says, ‘If you commit these acts, you ought not to have the right to vote.’ We have already heard that the Constitution states that you cannot serve as a member or a senator in this place with a custodial sentence of a year. It is a fine instrument from Federation, in the very foundation of the law of our land, that gives the setting and the message that they wanted to send—that is, prisoners serving a custodial sentence of one year or more could not serve here. If they cannot serve here then it would be odd to extend the vote to ensure that they can vote on who does serve here. It is an odd setting, and that is why I think it is a very worthy amendment. The member for Mackellar also proposed another amendment, which is also very worthy. In this case, the government has failed to outline the guiding principles that it wants to see as a government in terms of the integrity of the electoral roll. Again, this is this tension between the judicial and legislative branches in our society. It is the role of the legislature to set policy. It is the role of the legislature to spell out its intentions in legislation. We ought not to be afraid of that. When we stand here looking at this fundamental guiding principle for our democracy—who gets the right to vote and when—I do not have a problem with standing on the right side of ensuring that people have an obligation to put themselves on the electoral roll. They have a legal command obligation with a sanction at law to do so—an imperative that forces them to do so. I find the legislation before the House, with these two particular sections, to be reactionary. The legislation is looking at the High Court’s judgements in a very narrow way and not looking at the full implications of where we believe we should head as a society. These two very fine amendments from the member for Mackellar ought to be thoroughly supported by the House. 2223 11:29:00 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP SE4 Mackellar LP 0 0 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —I am making the case out by example to give effect, virtually, to the considerations of the High Court that said that the question of disenfranchising a person—disqualifying them from the right to vote—is a very, very serious issue. It has to be a serious matter that causes that disenfranchisement. I am making the case that three years for people whose disenfranchisement from voting would otherwise be seen to be seriously justified is too long, whereas the one-year period would accommodate the High Court’s decision, because the High Court makes it quite clear that under the Constitution members of parliament are given the right to determine when disenfranchisement may occur. As of 30 June 2006, when the 2006 legislation was passed, there were 20,209 prisoners in Australia serving a sentence. That is distinct from 5,581 who were either on remand or unsentenced—we are only dealing with prisoners under sentence. Of the 20,209 prisoners, 35 per cent were serving two years or less. That is why I chose to give the two examples of people serving a two-year sentence and a 2½-year sentence, and I will give another example of a person serving a two-year sentence. A man who possessed, accessed and transmitted child pornography was among 19 men arrested in Australia by the AFP as part of a 12-month global child abuse investigation. The charges relate to more than 10,000 images and 250 videos. Many of the people on these types of sex charges do seem to get a sentence which is under three years. I would like to contrast that with the situation for a member of parliament or somebody who is seeking to be elected to the parliament and section 44 of the Constitution. There are two relatively recent examples of how this applies. One was Keith Wright, who was the Labor member for Capricornia from 1983 to 1993. He was sentenced to eight years jail on 28 October 1993 for child sex offences. He was charged in August 1992 while still a member of parliament but he was not sentenced till after the election. He did attempt to stand for the 1993 election as an Independent, but he was, of course, not elected. Had he been elected he would have been unable to take his place in the parliament because of section 44 of the Constitution. Another example was Andrew Theophanous, the Labor member for Burke, who was charged, found guilty and sentenced to six years jail for bribery, conspiracy and defrauding the Commonwealth in relation to immigration matters. He too attempted to seek election as an Independent and was soundly defeated, but had he been elected he would not have been permitted to take his seat in this place because his sentence was for one year or more. So I think there is a very sound argument for setting in place a truly sensible situation with regard to disallowing prisoners to vote and make it the same period as operates for members and senators being unable to be chosen or take their place in the parliament or continue to sit in the parliament if they are so sentenced. In putting this proposition forward, I would point out that over the years there have been a variety of terms. It began in 1902 with one year—I think they got it right. In 1983 the Labor Party government put it up to five years. It went back to three years. When the High Court was giving its deliberations in Roach, it found very simply that three years was still constitutional. In other words, the parliament has the right to determine the matter. 2224 11:34:00 Gray, Gary, MP 8W5 Brand ALP Special Minister of State and Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity 1 0 Mr GRAY —The government will not be supporting the amendments proposed by the shadow minister. The reduction of the proposition in the bill from three years to one year is simply not consistent with the decision of the High Court or with decisions of the previous, Howard federal government. The bill gives effect to two judgments of the High Court that found that amendments to the Electoral Act made by the coalition in 2006 were inconsistent with the Constitution. One of the coalition’s 2006 amendments removed the right to vote from all persons serving a full-time sentence of imprisonment. This was the first time in many decades that the right to vote in federal elections had been completely stripped from full-time prisoners. The bill amends the act to reinstate the situation that existed prior to the coalition’s 2006 amendment. That is to say it reinstates the situation that existed for 10 years of the Howard government. It would provide prisoners serving a full-time sentence of less than three years the right to vote. The amendments to the bill now proposed by the shadow minister would remove the right to vote from prisoners serving a full-time sentence of one year or longer. The government has received legal advice on the international law aspects of this proposal from the Attorney-General’s Department that states that limiting the right to vote in the way envisaged by the shadow minister’s amendments would ‘not be objective, reasonable or proportionate according to the standards of international law in this area’. The advice concludes: ‘Such a ban would be unlikely to comply with Australia’s human rights obligations.’ The obligations in question are contained in article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was ratified by the coalition government in 1980, a government led by Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, ably assisted by former Prime Minister John Howard. Of course, a member of that government was Mr Philip Ruddock, the member for Berowra, who is currently a member of this place. The shadow minister is now proposing to ignore this international legal obligation entered into by a coalition government and supported for over a decade by the former coalition government. She is intent on trashing Australia’s reputation on the world stage in relation to civil and political rights. I do acknowledge that this would be entirely consistent with the long-running assault on the achievements of Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser and that the measures in the bill would be considered far too liberal—truly liberal, indeed—for the member for Mackellar. Not only this but she wants to blindly pursue a political objective which the shadow minister knows has been exposed by the High Court as being contrary to our Constitution. However, we need to be crystal clear here. The shadow minister is using this amendment as a smokescreen to hide her real intention to attack other key provisions of the bill, namely, the reinstatement of the seven-day close of rolls period. The provision seeks to give effect to the second High Court decision, that of Rowe v Electoral Commissioner, a decision which resulted in 57,732 additional Australians being added to the electoral roll. The bill would update the Electoral Act to reflect the current constitutional position as declared by the High Court in the Rowe decision to restore the close of rolls period to seven days after the date of the writ for a federal election or a referendum. The opposition’s real motive here is to deprive Australians of their democratic right to elect their political representatives. The opposition’s obsession with this goal has produced an approach that regards ignoring the High Court—ignoring Australia’s Constitution—and our international obligations as simply acceptable collateral damage, even a political tactic. The High Court has made decisions, finding aspects of the coalition government’s 2006 amendments to be unconstitutional. What part of this don’t we get? Our duty is to faithfully reflect those judgments in the electoral law of the Commonwealth. We now seek to achieve this in the bill before the House today. The government seeks no more than to simply enact the principles determined by the High Court. The government simply does not support the opposition’s irresponsible amendment. Instead, we will continue to follow an approach that is based upon historic precedent, our international obligations, our electoral culture, practices and conventions, decency and proportionality and the consistent and unswerving commitment to the fundamental principles of our democracy, our Constitution and the decisions of the High Court. 2226 11:39:00 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP SE4 Mackellar LP 0 0 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —Let me make the position quite clear. I said with regard to the closing of the rolls that it is something we would readdress in government and I set out all the reasons why that is the case and cited various tranches of the High Court judgments to support that position. We are not attempting to oppose that provision in this bill. But the Special Minister of State is also quite right: I am definitely, absolutely and positively trying to deny the right to vote to the man, a teacher, who got a two-year sentence for sexually abusing three young school boys on camping trips. Yes, I would like to disenfranchise that man from voting; you apparently would not. 10000 Bird, Sharon (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms S Bird)—The member will address her comments through the chair, not at the chair. SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —Through the chair, yes. A man is serving 2½ years in jail. He had gone to his ex-girlfriend’s home at 1.15 in the morning armed with a shortened .22 rifle and thrown furniture aside in the house. He had gone outside the unit, fired several shots into the air and then demanded to be let back in. His ex-girlfriend fled. He then started firing at other people who came to her aid. Yes, I would deny him the right to vote. The Shadow Minister of State seems to think it is proper that he have the right to vote. I do not. Yes, I would deny somebody who has been found to have 10,000 images and 250 videos of children who are being sexually abused the right to vote. Yes, I would deny him the right to vote because he got a two-year sentence. I ask you, Special Minister of State, whether you are serious about valuing the right to vote in this country and about valuing those decisions given in the High Court. They showed the history of the provision of disenfranchisement for prisoners and showed that from 1902 to 1983 there was no change, and it was one year. It is the same time for members of parliament—for Mr Theophanous and for Mr Wright being disbarred from this parliament, if they had been successful. The point is that we need to have some consistency and to recognise, as the High Court recognises, that the members of the parliament have the right to decide—given expressly in the Constitution—on what basis a person should be disenfranchised from the vote. All through those judgments, every last one of them, they are concerned that it is in proportionality—that the degree of seriousness that a person has to offend society in order to be disenfranchised must be serious indeed. If we cared to go through the media we would find many more reports of people who are entitled to vote—you say you want to uphold their right to vote—and I say they should be disenfranchised. By having a one-year period, you could say that a misdemeanour or a lesser crime being committed is not a serious offence against the nation and therefore should not be disenfranchised. That is certainly not the position with the examples that I have put to you as upholding the proposition that we should lessen the period from three years to one year. Any decent Australian who listens to those arguments would be in agreement. It is proper to put a disenfranchisement provision in our law because we have made a decision that certain people have offended against the community to such a degree that they should not be allowed to have a vote counted in an election. By our lowering that period from three years to one year, we would bring about a just position. But to hear the argument that you said I am using this as a shallow false argument— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am sorry, but again would the shadow minister direct comments through the chair. SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —Through the chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. For the Special Minister of State to say that I am using this as a subterfuge, to somehow say that there is a second agenda on this particular point, is false, misleading and just plain wrong. The fact of the matter is that these people deserve not to vote, and by having these provisions that I have moved enacted the rest of your bill will be supported by the opposition. That is our position. I put it strongly to you, Special Minister of State, that you should reconsider and not just read out what is a political position that you should accept the amendment and let the bill pass. (Time expired) Question put: That the amendments (Mrs Bronwyn Bishop’s) be agreed to. 11:49:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins) 70 Alexander, J. Andrews, K. Andrews, K.J. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Briggs, J.E. 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. 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. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Tehan, D. Truss, W.E. Tudge, A. Turnbull, M. Van Manen, B. Vasta, R. Washer, M.J. Wyatt, K. 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. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. Gibbons, S.W. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Husic, E. Jones, S. Katter, R.C. 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. 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. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Smyth, L. Snowdon, W.E. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, A. Windsor, A.H.C. Zappia, A. 3 Abbott, A.J. Gillard, J.E. Schultz, A. Rudd, K.M. Keenan, M. Murphy, J. * denotes teller Question negatived. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The question is that the bill be agreed to. 11:56:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins) 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. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. Gibbons, S.W. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Husic, E. Jones, S. Katter, R.C. 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. 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. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Smyth, L. Snowdon, W.E. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, A. Windsor, A.H.C. Zappia, A. 70 Alexander, J. Andrews, K. Andrews, K.J. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Briggs, J.E. 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. 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. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Tehan, D. Truss, W.E. Tudge, A. Turnbull, M. Van Manen, B. Vasta, R. Washer, M.J. Wyatt, K. 3 Gillard, J.E. Abbott, A.J. Rudd, K.M. Schultz, A. Murphy, J. Keenan, M. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Bill agreed to. 2229 2229 11:56:00 Gray, Gary, MP 8W5 Brand ALP Special Minister of State and Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity 1 0 Mr GRAY —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 2229 Committees 2229 2229 2229 11:59:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Fowler ALP 1 0 Mr HAYES —I present the report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being placed on the table. Report—by leave—agreed to. 2229 2229 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that the Senate agrees with the resolution of the House relating to the appointment of the Joint Select Committee on the Christmas Island Tragedy of 15 December 2010. 2229 Bills R4514 2229 Debate resumed from 23 February, on motion by Mr Garrett: That this bill be now read a second time. 2229 12:00:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 0 Mr PYNE —I rise to speak on the Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011, which seeks to amend the Schools Assistance Act 2008 in order to extend the current funding arrangements to non-government schools. This includes extending recurrent funding arrangements until 2013, using the coalition’s socioeconomic status, SES, funding model. Grants for capital expenditure are also to be extended until 2014. It has long been the coalition’s policy to maintain the existing SES funding model, and for this reason the coalition will not oppose the bill. While schools know exactly where they stand with the coalition on school funding, a very serious question mark hangs over the future of school funding under the Gillard Labor government. Nine years ago, the Prime Minister described the SES funding model as ‘flawed and unworkable’. Today in this chamber we are considering, at the Prime Minister’s behest, whether we should extend this model. It is the sort of doubletalk we have come to expect from this Prime Minister and this government. The decision to extend the existing SES funding model was made during the election campaign as the government faced mounting pressure to outline what form the new funding model would take. No-one in the non-government school sector is in any doubt that this was done to avoid revealing Labor’s true plans for schools funding right before the election. It was a desperate attempt to avoid a showdown with the non-government school sector. Further evidence of this can be seen with the initial refusal of the then Minister for Education, Simon Crean, to guarantee during the election that funding for non-government schools would be maintained in real terms, inclusive of indexation, beyond 2012. The coalition knew, based on published information from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, that indexation and supplementation for all non-government schools over the four-year life of a school funding agreement equates to approximately $1.3 billion. It was only at the eleventh hour in the election campaign that the Prime Minister, after intense pressure from the coalition and the non-government school sector, was forced to guarantee indexation for non-government schools until 2013 by extending the SES funding model for another year. A $1.3 billion shortfall in funding would have resulted in higher school fees for families. Unlike Labor, the coalition acknowledges that many parents scrimp and save to send their children to a non-government school of their choice. It still leaves a potential $1 billion shortfall in non-government school funding in real terms over the life of the next agreement if indexation is not guaranteed beyond the end of 2013. Parents who have children in non-government schools deserve to be told by the Prime Minister and Labor whether they can expect a massive hike in their school fees in a few years time. The Prime Minister must also guarantee that, beyond the next election, no non-government school will be worse off in real terms. Labor have certainly promised a lot in education, but in reality they have delivered very little. The coalition believes in excellence in both government schools and non-government schools. That is why the former coalition government introduced the socioeconomic status funding model for non-government schools, which ensures funding is distributed on a much more equitable basis than Labor’s former educational resources index. Because general recurrent funding under the SES model distributes according to need, the schools serving the neediest communities receive the greatest financial support. It means that parents at all income levels have a realistic capacity to choose the most appropriate schooling for their child. The SES funding model creates an incentive for non-government schools to attract students from low-income families. Unlike Labor, we genuinely believe in the absolute freedom of parental choice when it comes to the education of our children. We believe that it is the right of every parent to choose the education of their children and we advocate that government should encourage and facilitate, not control or restrict, the exercise of this freedom of choice. Comments made by the members of the Labor Party remind us that it is the party of the ‘private schools hit list’ and the politics of envy. They voted against the SES funding model when it was introduced, and many of their members, including the Prime Minister, are on the record opposing equitable funding for non-government schools. The Prime Minister once said of the SES funding model, on 20 August 2001: This government, for its funding for private schools, has adopted a flawed index, the so-called SES model, which does not deliver on the basis of need. We know that model is flawed … So I want to caution the parents of children at all non-government schools: Labor’s hit list of non-government schools will be more deadly than ever this year, given the review of schools funding will be led in the context of this new Labor-Greens alliance. HWM Collins, Julie, MP Ms Collins interjecting— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —I note that the parliamentary secretary at the dispatch box tries to suggest that Labor support the non-government schools sector, but I will be fascinated to see, as will the non-government sector, what comes out of the Gonski review a the end of this year. The member opposite, the member for Franklin, will of course, I am sure, stand up and oppose any cut in funding in real terms to the non-government school sector! I am sure that she will support the coalition in standing up for non-government schools and making sure that every child in a non-government school has the same opportunities, the same access and the same choices as children in the government school sector! My great fear is that this year we will see the assault on the non-government school funding that Labor has been holding onto for nine years since the Prime Minister made those fateful remarks about what she regards as the flawed SES funding model. They wanted to get through the 2007 election and the 2010 election. We had to drag the then education minister, Simon Crean, kicking and screaming to extend the SES funding model, but they only extended it by one year. They did not commit to it for the future, because we all know they just wanted to get through the election so they could then assault non-government schools’ funding. That is why they want to publish on the My School website the financial data of the non-government schools. What they want to do is build a case to attack the non-government schools sector, and every small religious and non-religious school that is a non-government school around Australia should be very fearful about what will happen under this Labor government that absolutely loathes the private school education system. We have managed to hold them off for a long period of time. We have held them off, but they are coming this year and next year to assault the non-government schools sector funding model. I notice the member for La Trobe scurrying out of the chamber. She knows the truth and she does not want to sit here and have to listen. She does not want to have to listen to the truth about her dislike of the non-government schools sector and her determination to rip money off the non-government schools sector and distribute it, once again, to the public servants in the department rather than see services delivered on the ground in the electorate of La Trobe. I caution the parents—I have said that, of course. I got slightly distracted by the member for Franklin, but I think we have dealt with her! We know the Greens policy seeks to return the total level of funding for all non-government schools to the 2003-04 levels and restrict the development of new non-government schools. This alliance between Labor and the Greens, therefore, poses a real threat, as it will seek to undermine the opportunities of young people and the choices of families who wish to educate their children at a non-government school chosen in accord with their religious faith or educational philosophy. The review into schools funding this year for both government and non-government schools remains a key area of concern for the coalition, and we will scrutinise every step of this process. Already it is becoming clear that the My School website is slowly being politicised in a transparent attempt to build a case against public funding for non-government schools. The decision by Peter Garrett to delay the launch of My School 2.0, which was to be launched last year, is an indication of the political sensitivity of the decision to publish school financial information for all to see. Some government school lobbies and the education unions continue to argue that funding by the Commonwealth to non-government schools reduces funding to government schools. They of course overlook the fact that the states and territories have primary responsibility for government school funding, but these fraudulent arguments have not really progressed in decades. These same advocates have applauded Labor’s decision to publish school financial information on the My School 2.0 website, hoping it will bolster their case that once information is made available it can then be used as a method to justify reducing funding later down the track to Catholic and independent schools. Sadly, it has already come to my attention that some schools already preparing for the inevitable under Labor are starting to put their school fees up now in preparation for 2013, when the Howard government’s socioeconomic status funding model is set to expire. Despite all the talk about My School being a resource for parents that will increase transparency and accountability, the evidence has recently mounted that the website is morphing into an instrument to run a campaign against government funding of non-government schools. This is evidenced by the fact that Labor were all but set to publish inaccurate and false financial data about non-government schools on the website without seeming to care what impact this could have had on some schools. It was not until some non-government schools threatened legal action last year that the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth decided to delay the website. Further evidence is found in the recent Senate education committee inquiry into schools testing and the My School website. Labor made it obvious in the report that there is only one thing on their mind, and that is to bring back the Latham-Gillard private schools hit list. I quote: Government senators note the financial data to be captured on My School version 2 is a good start but will not capture accumulated surpluses, assets, trusts or foundations. In the interests of providing more information, government senators believe that there should be full disclosure of financial assets including assets, foundations and investments, otherwise true comparisons will not be possible. There are limited obligations on private schools in return for public funding.                 …            …            … If non-government schools continue to expect a share in federal funding then full financial disclosure in the interests of the tax payer and the better allocation of resources must be required. If non-government schools do not wish to comply with full financial disclosure, then public funding should not be provided. The Labor senators have let the cat out of the bag in this report. They do not want to accumulate information to be used to determine the funding for each school. They want to publish the private financial information of the non-government schools—the trusts or foundations that have been established through the hard work of the parents, grandparents and former students over many decades and in some cases over more than 100 years—so they can then assault the non-government schools sector and take the funding from the non-government schools. That is the agenda of the Labor Party in schools, and we will see that played out, if the government lasts long enough, in 2012. Unfortunately, at the moment it looks as if the government might not even last till the end of this session. They are immolating before our very eyes. So they might not even get to implement the outcome of the Gonski review, but if they are, unfortunately, in government next year then we will see their assault on the non-government schools sector for all that it will provide. Indeed, just this weekend we saw reports that Peter Garrett will take the proposal to force schools to include their assets on the My School website to the next council of education ministers meeting in April this year I raised grave concerns about schools having to provide excessive reporting on financials during the debate on the original schools assistance bill in 2008. I know that the non-government sector authorities were willing to provide information in good faith, but my concern was and still is that Labor would one day seek to use all of this information as the basis to take away funding from the non-government sector. It looks set in stone that Labor will attempt to discredit the SES funding model. I note that the recent issues paper released by David Gonski goes into details of the arguments made against the model but elaborates little on the views of those who support the model’s underlying assumptions or options to improve the model. The model as it is conceived now is on a socioeconomic status, in that it uses students’ postcodes but does not take into account schools’ resources or fees. Parents are not asked intrusive questions about their income or other personal information; rather, the SES model links students’ addresses with current Australian Bureau of Statistics census data. Schools which draw students from areas of predominantly high SES receive lower levels of Commonwealth funding than schools which draw from areas of the average or low SES. The coalition has long argued the benefits of this system as schools are not penalised for fundraising efforts—for example, income from fetes and working bees—nor are schools forced to provide onerous financial information. It has offered all parents a real choice of schooling options, regardless of their economic circumstances or the price they are willing to pay for their children’s education. I am concerned that the principles that we now have in the SES model will be increasingly compromised as the review and changes to My School progress. It will be a real shame if under Labor in 2011 we will see the focus on schools funding drifting back to the arcane public-verses-private school debate when there is so much more to be done. It is unclear to me how publishing the assets of a non-government school is going to enhance any student’s education or how publishing the details of school trusts is going to result in improved literacy and numeracy. I would argue that, instead of trying to create a digital private schools hit list, the policy focus for the government should be on increasing autonomy in schools. My School in Australia runs a real risk of impacting negatively on student achievement, unless it goes hand in hand with the principals and schools being given autonomy. I turn to mention a clear omission from this piece of legislation and flag I intend to move an amendment to address it. The coalition is absolutely focused on holding this government to account on the development of an appropriate national curriculum. A solid curriculum that lifts standards of literacy and numeracy within Australia will form the basis of the kind of eduction policy Australian mums and dads really want in the future. They want solid, practical accomplishments founded on decisions that are not based on the politics of envy. Last year we saw the government clearly underdeliver on its original promise to have the national curriculum available to implement from the beginning of this year due to concerns about its quality. The national curriculum has become another Gillard-Garrett failure as state education ministers last year at the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs refused to begin implementation in January 2011 as was promised. Instead of endorsing a finished product, its final consideration was moved until October 2011 with the curriculum due to be implemented by 2013. Peter Garrett’s claim last year that the curriculum was ‘historically’— 10000 Bird, Sharon (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms S Bird)—Order! I interrupt the shadow minister and ask him to refer to members by their positions. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I momentarily forgot myself. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is the third time. I have let it go through twice and I ask you to use titles. 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr Hartsuyker —He’s so absent-minded. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —I was distracted momentarily. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Would the shadow minister at the table like to put that on the record? 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —The claim of the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth last year that the curriculum was ‘historically’ endorsed suggests he did not understand the difference between success and failure. Far from endorsing the finished curriculum, the ministers appeared to have humiliated the minister for schools and the Prime Minister by accepting the patently obvious that a lot more work needs to be done to get this curriculum right. In fact, they in the end had to endorse a proposal from New South Wales to develop a blueprint to iron out issues such as the curriculum covering too much content, being overly prescriptive and lacking clear achievement standards. It is a very sad day when the federal government have to take a proposal from the New South Wales government, arguably the worst government in the history of the nation, because their own minister for schools is so inept and incompetent that he did not realise the national curriculum was not ready for introduction. And do not just take my word for it, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I doubt you would. The curriculum has been roundly criticised by the state governments, stakeholder organisations and education experts. It has been described as ‘overcrowded, incoherent and lacking depth’, ‘a step backwards’, ‘inferior’, ‘lacking quality and clarity’ and as being ‘unclear and not ready to teach’. Its rigidity is outlined in a letter last year to Minister Garrett from the Australian Curriculum Coalition, which consists of 13 peak bodies ranging from the Australian Education Union and the Australian College of Educators right through to the Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia. The one thing the national curriculum has achieved is uniting the most diverse range of people imaginable across the sector. They argue that Labor’s curriculum lacks a clearly stated direction with no overarching framework: There is no clear statement about the issues that a national curriculum is designed to address, apart from the problem of mobile students … There is a need for an overarching framework for the curriculum to provide clarity about the conceptual model underpinning it. They went on to explain that the curriculum is overcrowded: As they stand, the documents will lead to serious overcrowding of the curriculum. The documents include too much lower order content to be learnt at the expense of higher order skills and conceptual understanding, leading to a degree of risk to teaching quality and the chances of effective student learning. Julia Gillard has long claimed the curriculum would take three years to develop and be ready to implement by January 2011. In April 2008, Ms Gillard, the Prime Minister, promised: A national curriculum publicly available and which can start to be delivered in all jurisdictions from January 2011. This brings me to my final point. Last year it came to my attention that the Schools Assistance Act 2008 requires non-government schools and systems to introduce the national curriculum ‘prescribed by the regulations’ on or before 31 January 2012. Now that the curriculum time line is behind Labor’s original schedule, with some states and territories having announced they will not implement it until 2013, this obviously needs to be amended. But I note that the Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill does not deal with this issue, as one might have expected. So, while the coalition will not delay the passage of this bill, we do make a simple suggestion that it makes sense to amend the act now and change the time line for the curriculum for non-government schools to be implemented in line with state and territory schedules. I foreshadow that I will seek to move the following amendment: (1)    Schedule 1, after item 3, page 3 (after line 17), insert: 3A Subsection 22(2) Omit “31 January 2012”, substitute “a date set by the Minister by legislative instrument”. 3B After subsection 22(2) Insert:          (3)    The Minister may not set a date for subsection (2) that is earlier than the date by which he or she is satisfied the national curriculum will be implemented in government schools in each State and Territory.          (4)    If it appears that the national curriculum will be not be implemented in government schools in each State and Territory by the date that has been set for subsection (2), the Minister must set a later date. Why is this so important? While it sounds slightly arcane— 10000 Bird, Sharon (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms S Bird)—I would just indicate to the shadow minister that, having talked about them, he will have to move them in the consideration in detail stage as formal amendments. He can talk more broadly then. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —Okay. I am foreshadowing that I am going to do that. I am foreshadowing that in this speech. That is fine. Why are these amendments so important? They are very important because the absurd situation in which the government has now placed the curriculum and the schools sector is that the non-government schools, under the act, are required to introduce the national curriculum by 31 January 2012, but the national curriculum is not ready for introduction, and the state governments have announced that they will not implement the national curriculum until 2013 at the earliest. So this minister is so inept and incompetent that he has a situation where the non-government schools are being required by law to implement a national curriculum that is not ready and, if this law is allowed to stay in place, the state government school systems will not implement the national curriculum until after the non-government school sector does. You would think that the minister would fix that problem. You would think that he would move an amendment to his own bill. In fact, you would think he would have included it in the bill in the first place. Unfortunately, it takes the opposition to fix this minister’s absolute and sheer incompetence. On a daily basis we are trying to help this government and save it from itself, and today we have to foreshadow an amendment, which we will debate in the consideration in detail stage, to fix another government bill. We could just let it go through. We could just allow the government to place the non-government sector in the absurd situation of having to introduce a national curriculum which is neither drafted nor completed while the government sector does not have to do so. But we in the opposition are bigger than that. We want to help the non-government school sector, so we will move these amendments. I hope that the crossbenchers and the government will support them. If they do support and adopt them, we will be very happy. With that, while the opposition will not of course oppose this bill since it extends our SES funding model, I do recommend my amendments to the House. 2236 12:24:00 Leigh, Andrew, MP BU8 Fraser ALP 1 0 Dr LEIGH —Education is the best anti-poverty vaccine we have yet invented. It provides the foundations from which Australians can build a life of their choosing. Education lights a spark which can see a child from Cape York not just go on to university and become a leader in her community but also become Young Australian of the Year, as Tania Major did a couple of years ago. A great education means that a child from Ilfracombe can become the first female member of the Queensland bar and our first female Governor-General. This great building, this national parliament, is a showcase of the opportunities which education provides to children from all corners of the nation. So many members of the House acknowledged in their first speeches that they would not be here today were it not for a great education. I remember hearing time after time those stories of where a particular teacher or a certain educational opportunity had made the difference in someone’s life. Providing a great education is not just good social policy; it is good economic policy as well. Raising the human capital of our workforce is the most promising way of increasing Australia’s productivity, which has been sluggish over the last decade or so. By boosting the quantity of education we will help our labour force deal with future changes in the economic structure. A great education means that children will be more resilient when, as workers, they face changes in the kinds of jobs they are expected to do. Improving the quality of education ensures that Australian children learn more from each given year at school, at VET or at university. The importance of education means that we in this place have a responsibility to ensure that our schools get the resources that they need to do the job that we know it is important for them to do. The Gillard government, having recognised this, has invested a record amount in school building infrastructure. The great school modernisation program, Building the Education Revolution, has given schools great buildings which allow them to do extraordinary things in the educational space. I have to confess that I was a sceptic about the BER program. When it was introduced, I was not in parliament and did not have children at school, so I had not visited any of these schools. But one of the great things you get to do as a local member is to go out to your local schools to talk with the parents, the teachers, the children and the principal about how these new school buildings have made a difference to the work they have done. I have seen with my own eyes so many examples of how the BER program has transformed the quality of education in Australia. Yesterday morning I was out with the Prime Minister and the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, Mr Garrett, at Turner School. It was my second visit to the school, because I had been there to open their new school library. Principal Ms Jan Day, the teachers, the children and the parents are as excited by their new school library now as they were last year when the library was opened. M2Y Tudge, Alan, MP Mr Tudge interjecting— HW9 Champion, Nick, MP Mr Champion interjecting— 10000 Bird, Sharon (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms S Bird)—I would just indicate that the member is talking about school students being excited, not members of this House. Perhaps we could settle down with the interjections and let the member make his point. BU8 Leigh, Andrew, MP Dr LEIGH —They are still as excited by this new school library as they were last year. I am sure the member for Aston would himself be very excited if he had the opportunity to visit it, an invitation which I formally extend to him today. The community got involved in that school library. There is a mural on the outside of the school library which was put together by Kirsty Verook, one of the local parents. She is a mosaic artist, and she worked with the schoolchildren. She asked them what designs they would like to have on the outside of their library, and she then put their ideas into a mosaic which I was pleased to show to the Prime Minister and Minister Garrett when we visited yesterday morning. Turner School’s is not a lone story. Across Fraser I have seen the impact the BER has had on our community. At Black Mountain special school, a school for students with intellectual disability, the BER project was the building of a new school hall. I know that many in this chamber think that a hall is just a hall, but for students at Black Mountain the new hall means that for the first time students in a wheelchair can attend the same assemblies as able-bodied students; the school can now fit all of those students into the same hall. The school used to have a stage which was so steep that, when students in wheelchairs got an award, they had to receive it down on the floor in front of the stage. But now, with a well-designed stage, it is possible for the first time for a student in a wheelchair, when they receive an award, to go up and shake the hand of the principal and receive the award in the same place as every other child. This affords them the simple dignity that a great school experience provides. I had the pleasure of opening new school facilities in Florey Primary School, which has seen renovations to its hall and also the introduction of science labs. That is particularly appropriate given that the school is named after Sir Howard Florey, the great Australian who invented penicillin—possibly one of the greatest Australians of all time. At Amaroo School, new classrooms with innovative learning spaces have been constructed. Students can learn in their traditional classroom or have lessons with their entire peer group. The dividing walls between the classrooms can be taken down and improve the quality of the teaching experience. Team teaching is now possible at Amaroo School thanks to the Building the Education Revolution program. When I was in school—as may have been the case when you were in school, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams—we just had blackboards. We then moved to the age of whiteboards. Now, in Canberra, whiteboards are being replaced by innovative SMART Boards. These are just some of the examples that Prime Minister and the Labor government have brought about through our commitment to high-quality education. The Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011 builds upon the Gillard government’s commitment to ensuring certainty of investment in all Australian schools. The government’s review of funding for schooling is a once-in-a-generation chance to build a community consensus around the education needs of our nation. It will enable us to further the aspiration that every Australian child should have the opportunity to get a great education. By amending the Schools Assistance Act 2008, the Australian government will be able to continue to provide recurrent and capital funding to non-government schools while the review is conducted. That will provide certainty to Catholic and independent schools to enable them to continue to give their students a good education. This bill will also enable the government to continue to work with school communities, parents and families in the non-government school sector to build on the partnerships that are so critical to improving outcomes for Australian primary and secondary students. This is just one part of our broader education agenda. We are also investing over $64 billion in school education over four years—almost double that of the previous government. We are making more information about our schools available than ever before, through the My School website. As my wife, Gweneth—who I am pleased to acknowledge is here in the chamber today—and I went about choosing a school for our four-year-old we found the information on the My School website absolutely invaluable. My School 2.0, which will be launched tomorrow, will for the first time provide parents and the community with information about the resources that schools have and the changes in student performance over time. I have to say that I am deeply disappointed that the Liberal Party is going to oppose this information being made available to Australian parents—that the Liberal Party supports keeping the blinds down on this critical information. The Labor government is implementing an Australian curriculum for the first time, working in partnership with states and territories to make sure our students get a great education no matter where they live. I have to say to the member for Sturt that students in my electorate are learning from the national curriculum today. Classes are being taught in ACT schools based on the national curriculum. So, despite what the Liberal Party may say about the national curriculum—and despite what the member for Sturt said before the election when he said that, if you did not like it, the coalition would ‘scrap it and start again’—the national curriculum is a success and it is being taught in schools just a few kilometres from this building. Labor is supporting students in low-socioeconomic school communities, and improving literacy and numeracy, through a $2½ billion investment in national partnerships. Those national partnerships are investing in over 2,000 schools across the country. They are not just government schools—though many of the low-socioeconomic status communities are served by government schools. Some of them are independent schools and some are Catholic schools. For us in the Labor Party these debates between the government and the non-government sector are very much a thing of the past. We are investing to ensure a quality education for all students, focusing on making sure that every school is a great school. We have recognised that having high-quality teachers in every classroom is absolutely critical. That is why we are implementing national professional standards for teachers and principals. That is why we are investing in rewarding great teachers and attracting new people to the profession through Teach for Australia and Teach Next. We are empowering principals to manage their schools in a way that best suits their local needs and we are providing rewards for school improvement. We are investing in infrastructure in schools through, as I have already noted, the Building the Education Revolution program, trades training centres and the digital education revolution—making sure that students have access to modern facilities and equipment to ensure they are prepared for work and life in the 21st century. The National Broadband Network will be another part of this—making sure that e-education provides all students in Australia with a great education. But great education is not just about dollars. Sometimes when we talk about school buildings and the huge injection of funding—a historic injection of funding—into Australian schools, we can miss the fact that great education is really about a teacher making a connection with a student. It is nothing more complicated than that. Many of us in this chamber will remember a great teacher who made a difference to our lives. For me it was probably Judith Anderson, my high school English teacher, who showed a devotion to the great works, whether it was Browning, Shakespeare or Donne, and provided us with an opportunity to learn outside school hours. She was willing to be there for a group of us who wanted to practise plays. She showed through everything that she did at the front of the classroom her love of education. But a teacher’s job is not a simple job. I would like to quote from one of my favourite books on education: Teacher Man by Frank McCourt—the great writer of Angela’s Ashes, who sadly passed away recently. He wrote in Teacher Man: In the high school classroom you are a drill sergeant, a rabbi, a shoulder to cry on, a disciplinarian, a singer, a low-level scholar, a clerk, a referee, a clown, a counsellor, a dress-code enforcer, a conductor, an apologist, a philosopher, a collaborator, a tap dancer, a politician, a therapist, a fool, a traffic cop, a priest, a mother-father-brother-sister-uncle-aunt, a bookkeeper, a critic, a psychologist, the last straw. In closing I would like to pay tribute to Australia’s teachers, who each and every day do extraordinary work in improving the lives of Australia’s children. I commend the bill to the House. 2239 12:37:00 Tudge, Alan, MP M2Y Aston LP 0 0 Mr TUDGE —I rise to speak in support of the Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011. This is an important bill and broadly speaking it is a good bill. It is important because it concerns the largest and most significant part of our education system—the school education system—and because it concerns the funding that they receive from the Commonwealth. Our schools cater for 3.5 million students: 2.3 million in the government school sector and 1.2 million in Catholic and independent schools. By and large we have outstanding schools in this country, as judged by the international PISA results—although there were some concerns which showed themselves in the most recent PISA results and I have made comment on those previously. Our schools educate our children for the future. Our schools are about the future and, importantly, they have the greatest influence on our children outside that of parents. So any bill that concerns schools is an important bill. School funding bills are particularly so. This is a good bill, by and large. I say that because it extends the existing funding arrangements for schools for another calendar year to the end of 2013. Importantly, it also extends the funding system for non-government schools—the SES or socioeconomic status system—until the end of 2013. By the end of 2013, that system will have been in place for 13 years. That system was introduced in 2001 by the Howard government, under Dr David Kemp. In 2004, Dr Nelson brought the Catholic schools into the SES system, so now all non-government schools—independent and Catholic schools—are part of that system. The model is based primarily on providing funding to schools according to the wealth of those families that those schools serve. So the wealthiest schools receive the least money; they receive 13.7 per cent of the cost of educating students in a government school. The schools which cater for the poorest families receive the most money; they receive 70 per cent of the cost of educating a child in the government school system. The system is also based on some fundamental core principles, and I will mention two in particular. The first is the principle of school choice. This is a very important principle on this side of the House, and we will continue to uphold that principle and continue to fight for it. It is also based on the principle that every student should attract some level of funding, regardless of which school they attend. The only thing that should differentiate the level of funding which that student attracts is the wealth of the parents of students attending that particular school. Parents under the SES system are encouraged to also contribute financially, if they choose to do so. They are not penalised for doing so. The SES system also enshrines what is called the AGSRC—the average government school recurrent costs—indexation method, which typically ticks over at about five to six to seven per cent per annum, so that school funding basically keeps up with rising school costs. These are very important attributes of the SES system. It is a good system and it is a transparent system. It is by no means perfect but it has worked very effectively now for 10 years, and with this bill it will work effectively for 13 years. The weakness of this bill, however, is that it only extends the system for one additional year. Most school assistance bills go for four years. The 2000 to 2004 schools assistance bill went for four years; the 2005 to 2008 schools assistance bill went for four years; the 2009 to 2012 schools assistance bill went for four years. If the government were serious about the SES system—as it seems to indicate by putting this bill forward—then it should extend it for a further four years, not just for a single year. However, we know that the government is not serious about the SES system. It does not support this funding model. So, while we are happy for it to extend the system for an additional year, we fear what is planned from 2014 onwards. We know that the government do not like this system because they have been explicit about it since the system was introduced in 2001. They have maintained a campaign against this system since 2001, and often against the non-government school sector itself over the last 10 years. I point to a number of comments from senior frontbench members of the government. I will start with Julia Gillard: she said that the system was fundamentally ‘flawed’. She said that it did not deliver on the basis of needs. She complained that it made no allowance for the private resources that a school has. Jenny Macklin, when she was education minister, used to rail against the SES system, day in, day out. Kevin Rudd said that he had ‘grave problems’ with the system. Craig Emerson criticised the system. Mike Kelly said that the system was ‘ridiculous’ and ‘totally crazy’. But probably the most stinging criticism came from the Hon. Stephen Smith when he was education minister. Stephen Smith, the dark horse in the leadership race on the other side of this House, said: You see there the destruction of our egalitarian society. The destruction of a chance for a fair go, a fair opportunity for access to education for all Australians. When he was education minister that is what he had to say about the SES system, but I presume he will be coming into this chamber to support the extension of it for a further year. Let us look not just at what the Labor Party have said about this funding system but also at what they have done. At every election they have promised to repeal or at least review the system. At the last few elections they have promised to cut funding to non-government schools. No-one in this chamber would forget the 2004 ‘hit-list’ election when it was promised that dozens of schools would have their funding cut and hundreds of others would have their funding reduced or cut over time. They also promised to cut funding for non-government schools at the 2001 election and at the 1998 election. They have only supported this particular system for the 2009-12 quadrennium, and now for a further year, largely for political reasons: they did not want to have a fight with the non-government school sector and 1.3 million parents going into the 2007 election. Despite those stinging criticisms which I have mentioned, they continued to support it. But what is to come? We know that they do not like the system. We know that the government is doing a review of the SES school funding system. But we also know a few other things in relation to non-government schools in particular. We know that the Labor Party has been deeply antagonistic towards Catholic and independent schools in the past. We know that their alliance partners, the Greens, are even more antagonistic towards Catholic and independent schools. The Greens committed at the last election to not providing any public funds to non-government schools. We know that some of the key funders of the Australian Labor Party, the teachers unions, have similar views to the Greens. We also know that the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, the Hon. Peter Garrett, will not guarantee that schools will not lose real funding in the future. I believe that parents whose children attend non-government schools should be very nervous about the review that is coming up and the proposals which will be put in place following the expiration of this schools assistance amendment bill. What is more, I am concerned that subsequent to the expiration of this particular bill a model which has been tried in the past and discredited in the past will be put in place. It will most likely be a model which is based on the fees that a school collects rather than on the wealth of the parents—that is, it will assess the fees first and, if required, provide top-up funding to a school, from the public purse, to meet a defined benchmark of $12,000 or $13,000 per school. This was basically the model that existed before the SES model came into place in 2001. This detailed model was taken to the 2004 election, elements of it were taken to the 2001 election and all the indications are that a similar type of thing will be introduced from 2014 onwards if the government is still in power. It may sound superficially attractive to take the school fees into account before you determine the public funding which a non-government school receives, but it has fundamental flaws. Most importantly, it creates a disincentive, if not a penalty, for parental investment into schools. Under such a model, if parents put more money into their school through higher fees then the government funding would be reduced. That makes no sense to me. We have also seen in the past that the system can be somewhat corrupted. That was the case with the ERI system that existed before the SES model was introduced. Importantly, this moves away from the core principle that every child should receive some government assistance for their education regardless of which school they attend or the fees and the contributions made by their parents. In practice, if such a model is introduced, it will likely mean that many schools will have their funding cut in nominal terms and certainly in real terms. It may be in the first instance that only a couple of hundred schools will be listed to have their funding cut but, if the model that is introduced is anything like the previous models that have been introduced, over time hundreds of non-government schools with relatively modest fees will also have their funding reduced in real terms. We will be watching very closely the school funding model that comes out of the review that is currently being undertaken by the government. We are concerned that this is being overseen by Mr Garrett; this does not inspire confidence. We are concerned that it will be negotiated in conjunction with Bob Brown, so it is likely to be even harsher on non-government schools than the Prime Minister herself would want. The proposed model would have to appease the teachers unions—the Prime Minister cannot afford to lose more support from the Left of her party or she will suffer the same fate as Mr Rudd. We will be watching very closely in the months ahead, and parents will be very nervous. I said at the beginning that the current SES system is not perfect, but it is transparent, it is difficult to manipulate and it creates the right incentives for parental investment. I support this bill, because it extends that system for a further year, through to the end of 2013. But we will be watching very closely what the government proposes for school funding following that period, and ideally the SES funding model will continue after that time. 2242 12:50:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 0 Mr PERRETT —I rise to speak in support of the Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011. Before I do so in great detail, I just want to respond to a couple of comments made by the member for Aston, who obviously does not quite have a full grasp of the SES system. He failed to point out the most obvious point, which is that two out of five schools have funding maintained, which effectively means they are outside the SES system; 39.5 per cent of schools have funding maintained. To have a system where two out of five schools are not effectively part of the system shows that you have to recalibrate. I understand the logic behind the SES model in trying to look at the needs. The ABS data gives a bit of insight into where parents who send kids to a school might come from, but there are some obvious flaws. I taught in Catholic schools, I taught in state schools and I was a union organiser working in private schools—every sort of private school, from grammar schools to Anglican schools, Lutheran schools, Christian schools and Aboriginal schools. I have been closely associated with those schools, as well as schools in my electorate, so I have a fair understanding of the SES model. One of the obvious flaws is that you import ABS data using a postcode from, perhaps, a poor area, but you could be the richest person from that particular area. That is one of the problems with it. Particularly with regard to boarding schools, you might have the richest kid from the country area and you are importing the ABS data for a poor SES part of Australia. That is one of the many flaws with it. The most obvious thing is that two out of five schools have funding maintained. The bill before the House does not remedy that but it goes some way to giving funding certainty to non-government schools right here, right now. It will support the operating costs of non-government schools until the end of 2013 and capital expenses until the end of 2014. Like any other industry, schools need funding certainty to make investment decisions and to plan for the future, especially when it comes to the more complicated things such as capital projects. This is exactly like the energy and resources sector, which is obviously also crying out for certainty when it comes to something such as a carbon price. The good thing is that this piece of legislation follows on from the biggest investment in schools in 100 years, via the BER program, which I note was not actually mentioned by the member for Aston, even though it is slightly outside the legislation in front of us. Now the Gillard government is undertaking the biggest review of education funding in 30 years. Let’s be up-front: the Labor Party passionately believes in education. We are a party based on opportunity that comes from education at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels and everything in between—before-school care, TAFEs and everything else. This review of funding for schools, due to report later this year, is looking at how we can best support quality education outcomes—the funding allocations, the most effective funding mechanisms and appropriate accountability. We passionately believe in federal accountability. Everyone expects that government funding must be transparent—fair, financially sustainable and obviously useful. The review that the Gillard government is undertaking will help achieve that. However, as the government is yet to receive the report, we need to ensure funding security now for our Catholic and independent schools, and that is why this legislation is before the House. I know from talking to schools in my electorate—schools like St Thomas More College at Sunnybank, Southside Christian College at Salisbury, the Murri School at Acacia Ridge, St Aidan’s Anglican Girls’ School at Corinda, Christ the King Primary School at Graceville, and Our Lady’s College at Annerley—that they need this certainty. This bill provides that certainty by extending the funding arrangements, including indexation, for a further three years. We want to ensure Catholic and independent schools can plan for the future and ensure that schools can give parents and carers greater certainty when it comes to setting school fees for future years. The basic philosophy of the Gillard government is that all kids deserve a great education, regardless of the name on top of the school fence. The member for Aston dredged through history for a couple of incidences where the Labor Party might not have made that as clear as it needs to be, but the Gillard government—especially since the Prime Minister is the former education minister—can be proud of its achievements. Admittedly, they might have been particularly generated by the global financial crisis, but we poured money into educational facilities to give schools opportunities that they would never otherwise have had. I was at a school in my electorate the other day, Our Lady of Fatima at Acacia Ridge. It was just a community barbecue, using the school hall facility. One of the parents made the point that they would not have even dreamed of beginning to sell lamingtons and the like to build such a facility. The Gillard government has a proud record when it comes to investing in education and making sure that the education system is as good as it could possibly be. We want to be world leaders in education. Catholic and independent schools play a very important role in our education system. I saw that when I worked as a teacher in Catholic schools. I saw that when I was a union organiser working in all sorts of independent schools. So the Labor government is committed to ensuring that all students—whether they are public or private, rural or metropolitan, primary or secondary, boy or girl, rich or poor—receive a quality education. This bill amends the Schools Assistance Act 2008 to appropriate $8.2 billion in 2012-13 and $8.9 billion in 2013-14. I mention these figures just in case there is any concern about this government’s commitment to support non-government schooling—to combat some of the scare campaigns, which is such a novice approach from those opposite, as exhibited by the speech by the member for Aston. It also includes about $140 million each year to go towards capital expenses in non-government schools. As we know on this side, every school principal has a list of projects. Every parent group has a list of things that they want to do in their school community. We took advantage of that during the global financial crisis, because every community has a school, they all have a list of projects that they need done and they all have connections with their local tradespeople. Whilst we went some way to changing those tasks, you might suggest that we did 20 years worth of work in one year, basically, in response to the global financial crisis. I hasten to add for the sake of those with an interest in economics that, overall, we are talking about costs that, at worst, were three, four or five per cent over budget. In a lot of cases, particularly in Catholic and non-government schools, they were under what would be the going rate, because they had great relationships with their builders. That might make a front-page story in the Australian tomorrow, but I am not holding my breath. We are talking about a huge investment. That is why it was so important for the government to get the review of funding for schooling underway to ensure that this huge outlay in taxpayers’ dollars will achieve the educational outcomes that we want for Australian kids in the future. I guess our economic heaven will come from how we educate the kids of today. That is why the partnership with non-government schools is so important and so valued. This partnership helps deliver funding for important capital infrastructure that some schools, particularly emerging schools, cannot fund alone. The capital grants are available for schools to help purchase land and buildings, to upgrade utilities and purchase equipment and technology. They also help with library resources and teacher accommodation and support for students with disabilities. When you go to modern-day schools, as I am sure you have done recently to open some of those BER facilities, and look at the library, you can see how much they have changed. The library when I was a kid, sitting at home watching F Troop— PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —You’re not that old! HVP Perrett, Graham, MP Mr PERRETT —Yes, I remember Agarn and O’Rourke and all those people. When I was at primary school at St Patrick’s in St George, the library was where all the knowledge was and if you ordered a book it would take months to come in. But nowadays, with the internet, students have access to the world at home. It does mean that their filtering system is not quite as good as a librarian’s, obviously—and I did meet a roomful of Commonwealth librarians the other day, actually, up on the second level. Librarians have such a different role now. Instead of being the ‘sage on the stage’ they are now the ‘guide on the side’ to bring people into where the data and resources are. So things have changed a lot. We are proud of our record on education on this side of the chamber. I would suggest that for those opposite, particularly the former teachers—and I think that we have one in the chamber now, the member for Canning—the record is not as proud, unfortunately. Maybe it is just because the Labor Party is so committed to opportunity and investing in schools—all schools. Sure, it was great to see that schools were able to access that great contribution to learning, the flagpole, and I do admit that there were schools in my electorate that did not have flagpoles before John Howard was elected—15 years ago yesterday—and they ended up with flagpoles at the end of his time. It is good that there is a flagpole and that there was a ceremony and a name of the member at the time near their flagpole. That is a good thing, for a flagpole is an important part of any school, I guess. But it is also great to go along and open a language lab, as I did at Yeronga State High School the other day, or to open computer labs or classrooms. They are the sorts of things that schools particularly appreciate, especially when you can add in the interactive whiteboards and the like. That is the way of future education. We do understand education particularly, and hopefully those opposite will start to embrace some of these things. I would like to hear a member opposite say a good thing in this chamber about the BER program. I have certainly seen lots of photographs of them giving the thumbs-up out in their electorates. I am sure that the member for Canning would not be so hypocritical as to vote against the program in here and then go out and cut a ribbon in his electorate, but some people might. Some people might give a big thumbs-up out in their electorate but in here say: ‘No, no, no, we are against that. It is not a good thing.’ Unfortunately there has been a bit too much hysteria about the Building the Education Revolution. The BER program was about a job-saving, economy-boosting, massive capital injection into education. It could have been in the military, it could have been into roads, it could have been into lots of other things, but I am very proud as a former teacher that it was into educational facilities. Every educator, every parent of every schoolchild, needs to remember that if those opposite had had their way the BER would not have happened. The BER program delivered what we promised—modern educational facilities that double as community facilities. BER facilities in my electorate on Brisbane’s southside actually became evacuation centres during the floods, including St Aidan’s Anglican Girls School at Corinda, Yeronga State School Hall, and the Oxley State School Hall, which was also used for community meetings. So these community centres used in a time of crisis came out of the BER program. Last month I attended ceremonies to mark the opening of a new international language centre at Yeronga State High School and new and improved classrooms at the autism centre in Sunnybank and, as I said, I was also at a community barbecue at Our Lady of Fatima at Acacia Ridge. So no matter what those opposite say, these investments will always be good news stories—good for students, good for support staff, good for teachers and good for the communities in my electorate. And I am sure it could be said by all 150 members of this chamber if we were totally honest. So I am pleased that this bill provides funding certainty. Once upon a time there might have been a different story about the members on this chamber concerning where they had come from, but now I think that all sides the chamber would come from private and state, Catholic and other schools. I think that there is quite a mix of people in terms of backgrounds. I went to a Catholic primary school and then to St George State High School—in fact I was there on the very first day that it opened. So the mix of educational backgrounds has completely changed over time and we are committed to supporting our non-government schools and our Catholic schools. They do a great job. I could perhaps have declared a conflict of interest, as my son does go to a Catholic school, but I do not think that was completely necessary. This bill provides funding certainty that non-government schools need and deserve, and I commend it to the House. 2245 13:06:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 0 0 Mr RANDALL —I am very pleased to speak on this Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011 today, and if the member for Moreton wishes to stay a little I am happy to respond in a positive way on this bill. In fact while he is here briefly, I will. Yes, you can hear it from me, Member for Moreton: the BER itself—the principles behind the BER—were excellent, providing greater resources and greater infrastructure for schools. I do not think that there is a member in this House who would not agree with that. Where we depart though, Member for Moreton, is over the fact that that bill was cobbled, as you know, along with other initiatives such as what we call the ‘cash splash’—the $900 giveaway. It was also a program which under the previous minister, now the Prime Minister, became legendary for its mishandling. To be fair, in Western Australia the BER is going along very well mainly because the state government has taken out several layers of interference, which are some of the mates along the way. In other words, consultants and others cannot get their hands on the cash on the way through, force up the bill and have it blow out to an extraordinary amount for sometimes very ordinary, plain school buildings. Now the member for Moreton has gone I am willing to continue to say that, when decoupled, this was a good initiative and was part of the stimulus package. The only problem is that some of the packages are still stimulating and we are now supposed to be into reasonable economic times. The problem is that this Gillard Labor government has a continued stimulus package operating when the Reserve Bank is trying to dampen the economy by increasing interest rates. You have this conflict going on at the moment because it was beset and beguiled by so many problems, particularly, as I said, on the east coast rather than on the west coast. The fact is there has been a lot of criticism of what could have been a really good program in terms of school infrastructure and facilities. I will move on to the nub of the bill now that I have addressed the member for Moreton’s challenge. The bill amends the School Assistance Act 2008 to extend the existing funding arrangements for non-government schools including indexation arrangements until the end of 2013 and grants for capital expenditure until the end of 2014. This will ensure certainty for Catholic and independent schools. Can I again point out that, as the member for Moreton mentioned, my bona fides are that I was a schoolteacher for some 18 years—one of the few in this place—as was my wife, my brother and my two sisters. So we come from an education family and we are very proud of the fact that we were all educated in government schools in Merredin, a tiny wheat belt town in Western Australia. We were very happy with the education we got and we were big supporters of the government system. But on the record, I am now making sure that people understand that in this country there is need for choice and that is what this bill goes to address. If you listen to the teachers unions, they are not interested in choice that much and I will get onto further details about the choice that the teachers unions are trying to stymie and the penalties that they are bringing to parents who wish to exercise their choice. This bill needed to be extended because the then education minister in the lead-up to the election, the now Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, for months and months would not commit to any maintenance of school funding, particularly for non-government schools. I recall being at the opening of the Catholic school in Dawesville when Senator Glenn Sterle opened the BER project there and Bishop Holohan from the Bunbury diocese was very critical of the government not giving any certainty to the education system by making any statements regarding this issue. The Catholic bishops of Australia in particular became quite vocal in their call for the government to come out and say something about the continuing of the funding. Obviously, as the polls closed up during the election campaign Julia Gillard was forced into making a statement and she did. Today this is what this legislation is about. The cynic in me says: ‘It’s good, but the timing of this is interesting. This is going to be extended to 2013 and the capital expenditure to 2014.’ What do we have in 2013? Probably a federal election, so it gets them past that because 2012 would have been a terrible time to have come down with any variation on the funding model. The SES model is one that has stood the test of time. It is not perfect, like most things, but flexible enough to deliver into the areas because it certainly hits all the buttons. It includes the dimensions of income, education and occupation in the census collection districts and it drills down to those levels where in a CCD you have on average 250 houses in any one area, so it gets quite sensitive in the information that it draws upon. As I said, this funding needed to be retained in real terms for non-government schools. An interesting article by Janet Albrechtsen in the Australian on Australia Day this year pointed out a number of issues regarding the Gonski inquiry and some of the hypocrisy surrounding the input, particularly by those who do not want to see growth in non-government schools. Let’s just get this fact clear—this is an irrefutable and indisputable fact: the growth in government schools across this country averages about one per cent per annum; the growth in the non-government sector is about 20 per cent per annum. What does that tell you? It tells you that the parents of this country are voting with their feet and exercising their choice. When they exercise a choice they know that it is going to cost them whether it be a low-fee school—and I have a number of them in my area like the Pioneer Village School in Armadale, which is an independent school, and of course I have a number of Catholic schools and other independent schools. The low-fee schools cost roughly $2,000 a year at most. Then you can go to some of the other schools in my area such as the Frederick Irwin Anglican School and the Serpentine-Jarrahdale Grammar School, which started not so many years ago—which, by the way, the then Premier of West Australia, Alan Carpenter, tried to quash but it is full now and they are trying to extend it. So these parents do make a commitment on education. I will refer to this article by Janet Albrechtsen where she talks about this mentality of the rich taking from the poor. She said: Take Trevor Cobbold, convener of Save Our Schools, who likes to highlight average total expenditure. In government schools in 2007-08 it was $10,723 a student, compared with $15,147 in independent schools and $10,399 in Catholic schools. It’s true that total expenditure in government schools is about $10,500 per student. But now add the relevant facts. State and territory governments provide about 88 per cent of funding to public schools, the federal government provides about 8 per cent and parents the remaining 4 per cent. Understand this: 88 per cent of the funding for state schools—as their very name suggests, they are owned, run and financed by the state—comes from the state which they are in and the rest, 12 per cent, comes from other means. Ipso facto, non-government schools get 12 per cent funding from various sources. As for where the rest comes from, I will return to the article. Ms Albrechtsen said: Almost the reverse funding pie applies to independent schools. State and territory governments provide just 12 per cent of the funding per student, the federal government picks up the tab for 31 per cent … And here is the rub: the rest, 57 per cent, is provided by the parents. It is estimated that if parents did not fund the $3.1 billion which they take out of their own pockets every year to send their children to these schools, the federal government would have to pick up the tab. This is where the slur on the non-government sector comes in, from those who want to make some mileage of this. The slur is that the people who go to these schools are filthy rich and it is abominable that they are getting such a walk-up start. The fact is that a lot of the parents who send their children to these schools are single parents, those who are doing it hard. I know parents in my electorate, for example, who get a second job or take a second mortgage on their house to send their children to some of these so-called elite schools. It is their choice. I am not saying for one moment that we should say, ‘Isn’t it terrible that they are not getting more money?’ The fact is that they pay taxes and they are entitled to some money. But they make this choice and, as I said, quite often some of them go through distinct hardship to do so. But, as the member opposite said earlier, they see education as the path to the enhancement of opportunity, a better career path and therefore a better income. Most parents want to see their children have better opportunities than they had. My daughter and my son went to a government primary school and then went to a non-government school for their secondary education. I am glad the pain has finished. It cost a lot of money. But we did that because we thought, like many other parents in Australia, that that choice would give them better opportunities in tertiary education and therefore better career paths. So let us not in any way say that this bill is anything but the right thing to do. As I said, I am a bit sceptical about its timing, but, at the end of the day, as has been said, real funding in real terms is something that needs to be maintained. We do not want to go back to the threat that we were getting from the then shadow education minister under the Latham opposition, the member for Lalor, that there was going to be a schools hit list. We have to get past that and realise that the education opportunities in this country are something that should be available to all. Choice in education is something that is desirable. Therefore, we are keen to see this go ahead and in no way be undermined after the review. We do not want to see the review being used to reduce opportunity for the taxpayers of Australia, the parents, who make a choice. We do not want to see their funding being in any way eroded because of this class warfare that sometimes goes on from other sections of the community, particularly the education unions in this case. Therefore, I support the intention of the bill. 2248 13:19:00 Mitchell, Rob, MP M3E McEwen ALP 1 0 Mr MITCHELL —I rise to support the government’s Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011. At the 2010 federal election, the Gillard Labor government made a commitment to support independent and Catholic schools across the country. With this bill, we are honouring that commitment. Whilst there is a review into school funding currently underway which is expected to be released this year, we are providing schools with the certainty and security that they want, because education is the government’s top priority. Education has always been a Labor priority because we believe that a good education is a great start to life, equipping our kids with the opportunities and skills that they will need for the future. The bill amends the Schools Assistance Act 2008 and guarantees and extends the current funding, including indexation arrangements until the end of 2013 and grants for capital expenditure until the end of 2014. As members are aware, my electorate of McEwen is a diverse electorate which encompasses many rural areas. Therefore, I am pleased that this bill will continue funding support for both rural and remote schools, particularly for the disadvantaged Catholic and independent schools which are in rural and regional areas. I and this government alike believe that, no matter where you choose to live, accessibility to good education is essential. As I said, we are undertaking a review. We have established a review panel, headed by Mr David Gonski, to examine in depth how school funding arrangements can be made fair, transparent, open and financially sustainable. The review has enabled parents, educators and the community alike to have a say on the issues that are important to them. The Gillard government are listening to stakeholders, listening to the views of people who work in the education sector and to parents and students in the Catholic and independent schools. We believe it is crucial to listen to their opinions and get the feedback from the people and the sectors that are directly involved and affected. This review will be the foundation that we work from to improve the current school funding system, because that is what the parents and school communities want. This government supports all schools and this was evident through our Building the Education Revolution. Local principals have told me that this has brought education forward by 20 to 30 years. 210911 Tehan, Dan, MP Mr Tehan —Ha, ha! M3E Mitchell, Rob, MP Mr MITCHELL —The member for Wannon laughs and we know how unhappy he is to see that investment in his electorate. He is so ashamed of it, which is really an embarrassment and an indictment of him. Can you imagine if the coalition was in government and cut the BER? Education would probably go back that 20 or 30 years. Schools would end up looking like a fort out of F Troop. I have many fantastic catholic and independent schools in my electorate and many I have recently visited as part of the BER, schools that have praised the government’s BER program. When you stand there and feel their excitement it truly makes you proud to be part of a government that makes a genuine difference to the education of our children. I take this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister and the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth for their support of education in my electorate. The principals and students of schools like Eltham College, Plenty Valley Christian College and Ivanhoe Grammar School in Mernda have also asked me to extend their thanks. I recently attended a BER project at Eltham College for the junior campus extension. I will read out a speech by student Kathryn Clarke. She said: In early January 1999, I arrived to start my first day of school, walking in excited and ready for a new experience. The day I began I made my first walk up the long path towards the prep house. It had such a homely feel, instantly welcoming. 13 years later I stand before you with the honour of being part of this opening at Eltham, part of yet another year and a new beginning. I’ll admit to you I was somewhat nervous you could say about seeing the building finished and ready when we had a look recently with Jodie. But the moment we walked in it had that same feeling, that immediate warmth that makes our school special as it is still today. This isn’t just another building with 4 walls and a roof; it’s a place where futures will begin, where the next college captains will have their first day at school. So I’d like to personally welcome each and every one of you to this new place, as it will become a part of our community as much as every other part of our school. It is exciting! Our school on a whole has put so much into this development though we couldn’t have done it without the support of our current government led by Julia Gillard, who financially assisted in a very large way towards this build, so thank you. Enjoy the change, embrace the development and I hope you will be able to feel as at home in this new space as I know we do, already. That was a fantastic speech by a student about the children and young adults whose education and lives will benefit from the BER and our ongoing investment in their education. Eltham College is a fine example of what can be achieved in our independent schools. The staff and students are doing great work. Also, one of their key projects is eliminating homophobia, racism and prejudice. The principal, David Warner, said last year when launching the program: Any school will have elements of homophobia but it is much easier to deal with in our culture. We are not about putting people in boxes and our community needs to accept that behaviour such as harassment and homophobia is not acceptable.” I commend David Warner and the staff at Eltham College for their great work in stamping out discrimination through education, which in my opinion is the best way to do it. It was fantastic to tour the junior campus with students Riley, Milly and Eliza. These young kids did a great job, proudly walking me through their school, informing me of what they were learning and what projects they had been undertaking. The confidence and level of knowledge they have about their school and education was incredible, and I formally thank them here in this House for the great work they did. I am pleased to report to the Prime Minister that Riley is a Western Bulldogs supporter, much to my dismay! I also acknowledge the college captains, Caitlin, Cummane and Daniel Patrick, for taking part in the celebration of the new building. Mr Deputy Speaker, you could sit here and listen to the rhetoric and negativity we get from the opposition when they talk about how the BER is a waste and how it would be scrapped if they get into government, but remember that one of the key problems we see with BER is a skills shortage that was a legacy of 12 years of the Howard government. It is a skills shortage that we know is going to take a long time to rectify. IPZ Chester, Darren, MP Mr Chester interjecting— M3E Mitchell, Rob, MP Mr MITCHELL —If you had put tradesmen on, you would have had tradesmen to do it. You know that is a fact, too. You could listen to that rhetoric, listen to the negativity and listen to the wrecking attitude or you could go to schools and listen to what the parents and staff are saying. For all those students like Riley, Milly and Eliza, I am very pleased that we have a Gillard government that invests in education. With this government’s support, it is kids like these that will learn, grow and gain from these new learning centres. I invite members of the opposition to go into schools and talk to the students and listen to the teachers and parents who are overwhelmed by the new buildings, pleased that they have a government that takes education seriously. This government supports and will continue to support our schools, whether they be independent, catholic or public—as we always have. All catholic and independent schools in the electorate of McEwen have received funding through the BER. There are 26 non-government schools in McEwen—14 catholic and 12 independent schools. There are 50 projects: 26 National School Pride projects, three science and language centre projects and 21 Primary Schools for the 21st Century buildings in McEwen. They either have been completed or are currently underway. Besides this, there has been a great deal of cooperation between government and non-government schools in McEwen, which has been fostered and demonstrated through the Gillard government’s trade training centre initiative—another program that would have been scrapped and left us with more skills shortages had the opposition fallen into government. 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—Does the member for Lyne want the call? IYS Oakeshott, Rob, MP Mr Oakeshott —No, I am just cleaning up. M3E Mitchell, Rob, MP Mr MITCHELL —You had me worried then, Rob. The education sector has come together as a whole to support young people being educated in McEwen. There are 10 schools—two catholic and eight government—in my electorate that have pooled their resources in order to give students every chance to succeed. Last November, the minister for school education announced that a consortium of schools in McEwen had been successful in obtaining funding for the Trade Training Centres in Schools program. The Gillard government has committed $2.5 billion over 10 years to enable all secondary students to access vocational education through these trade training centres. My local school, the Broadford Secondary College, is the lead school in the cluster. The schools have been allocated over $11 million to provide three training hubs in the central ranges area. Other schools involved in the trade training centre are Alexandra Secondary College, Euroa Secondary College, Seymour Special School, St Mary’s College, Wallan Secondary College, Whittlesea Secondary College and Yea High School. The trade training centre will offer qualifications in automotive, engineering, carpentry and joinery, and hospitality. These facilities will allow the schools to better manage any skills shortages with locally trained experts, while creating opportunities and training pathways for our students. For these reasons and so many more, I support the government’s Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011. As I said at the beginning, Labor support education and we will continue to invest in school education, as we always have done. We will continue to fund Catholic and independent schools and undertake this once-in-a-generation review of school funding to ensure that we get it right today, tomorrow and in the future. I support this bill and wish it a speedy passage. 2251 13:30:00 Tehan, Dan, MP 210911 Wannon LP 0 0 Mr TEHAN —I rise to speak on the Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011. But, before I do, I would like to respond on the record to a couple of points that the member for McEwen made about the Building the Education Revolution in reference to me. I agree wholeheartedly that the approach taken to funding Catholic and independent schools where the school parents, principal and community have been involved has led to some very, very good results. The sad thing about the BER is that, where public schools have been involved, principals and communities have not been allowed to have any say in what happens and that has led to some disastrous results. In the Herald Sun on Monday, this was again highlighted, unfortunately. Students at the Waubra Primary School have been in portable classrooms for a year now and, for the last three or four months, they have been looking out at their brand-new BER school while sitting in their portable classrooms on the oval—which means they cannot play footy or cricket—waiting to get into their BER project. It is all there for them to see, but it is surrounded by wire. The trouble is that no-one seems to be able to arrange to get the fittings in there so that the students can move in. This inefficiency and waste is another indictment of this program. Every day, when those students arrive at school, they are reminded of the Prime Minister’s incompetence because this BER program, which has seen such waste, is her program and it is, sadly, still not delivering the right outcomes for our public schools in Victoria, which so badly need them, and for our local communities. I wanted to get that on the record so that the member for McEwen is not in any way able to distort the picture of what is happening at the moment. M3E Mitchell, Rob, MP Mr Mitchell —You just distorted it then! 210911 Tehan, Dan, MP Mr TEHAN —If the member for McEwen would like, I would be more than happy to take him to Waubra. M3E Mitchell, Rob, MP Mr Mitchell —I would love to! 210911 Tehan, Dan, MP Mr TEHAN —He can come with me and help me to get the big wire cages— M3E Mitchell, Rob, MP Mr Mitchell —You admit you need my help! 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—The member for McEwen! 210911 Tehan, Dan, MP Mr TEHAN —removed so that the students are not still looking from their portable at their brand-new building and wondering to themselves, ‘When are we going to get in?’ M3E Mitchell, Rob, MP Mr Mitchell interjecting— 210911 Tehan, Dan, MP Mr TEHAN —The member for McEwen continues to interject, so I will continue, because there is more to this story. The school community had a meeting last week, and at that meeting they contemplated whether they had to reduce school hours. This is serious. Because the students are working and playing in such confined areas, the principal and the teachers gave parents the option of school finishing at three o’clock. What we are seeing under the BER program—such gross incompetence—is local communities having to contemplate reducing school hours. This is the wonderful, equal education opportunity that the government is presenting! I have to remind the member for McEwen that this is the Prime Minister’s program. This is hers; this is her baby—yet we are still seeing problem after problem with it. M3E Mitchell, Rob, MP Mr Mitchell interjecting— 210911 Tehan, Dan, MP Mr TEHAN —If you are happy to come to Waubra, Member for McEwen, I will introduce you to the parents who came to me saying: ‘When are we going to get some action on this? When will we get the Prime Minister to take notice of what her “wonderful” program is doing to our poor students? Here we are having to contemplate reducing school hours.’ I think that says it all. I have that on the record now. The member for McEwen’s comments about me and the BER have been clarified, so we are all very clear on that. Before I turn to the bill itself, I say that I would also be happy to take the member for McEwen to see four, five or six BER projects in my electorate which are not shining examples of this Prime Minister’s program. Pity help us with future programs if they are going to be rolled out like this one was. The coalition support the Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011, as it extends recurrent funding arrangements until 2013 using the coalition’s socioeconomic status, or SES, funding model. While schools know exactly where they stand with the coalition on school funding, a very serious question mark hangs over the future of school funding under the Gillard Labor government. Nine years ago, the Prime Minister described the SES funding model as flawed and unworkable. The decision to extend the existing SES funding model was made during the election campaign, as the government faced mounting pressure to outline what form the new funding model would take. It was a desperate attempt to avoid a showdown with the non-government school sector. Further evidence of this was seen in the initial refusal of the then education minister, Simon Crean, to guarantee during the election that funding of non-government schools would be maintained in real terms, inclusive of indexation, beyond 2012. Based on published information from the department of education, that indexation and supplementation for all non-government schools over the four-year life of a school funding agreement equates to approximately $1.3 billion. It was only at the eleventh hour in the election campaign that the Prime Minister, after intense pressure from the coalition and the non-government school sector, was forced to guarantee indexation for non-government schools until 2013 by extending the SES funding model for another year. Schools and school communities do have a right to be concerned about the Prime Minister’s commitment to this funding arrangement because we have seen already this year the commitment made by the Prime Minister that there would never be a carbon tax under a government she leads shamelessly, disturbingly and utterly ignored. There is a real concern that the same will happen when it comes to school funding. On 20 August 2001 the Prime Minister said: This government, for its funding for private schools, has adopted a flawed index, the so-called SES model, which does not deliver on the basis of need. We know that model is flawed …            …            …            … The debate is leaving this government behind: as it is left defending its flawed SES index, we know that there is research, becoming available in Australia to the community that cares about education, which is challenging us to move on in terms of how we define need, and challenging us to realise that in fact using a socioeconomic status may in itself be a flawed idea. On 4 September 2000 she said: The last objection to the SES model is more philosophical, that the model makes no allowance for the amassed resources of any particular school. As we are all aware, over the years many prestige schools have amassed wealth—wealth in terms of buildings and facilities, wealth in terms of the equipment available, wealth in terms of alumni fundraising, trust funds, endowment funds and the like … it must follow as a matter of logic that the economic capacity of a school is affected by both its income generation potential—from the current class of parents whose kids are enrolled in the school—and the assets of the school. The SES funding system makes some attempt to measure the income generation potential of the parents of the kids in the school but absolutely no attempt to measure the latter, the assets of the school. This is a gaping flaw … I could go on. There are many examples of Julia Gillard saying she does not like the SES funding model. That is why what is happening with the MySchool website is so disturbing. We have received packs telling us how wonderful the MySchool website is going to be and how wonderful the Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage is as a base tool for the website. We have been told that ICSEA was created by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, ACARA, specifically to enable fair and meaningful comparisons of Australian schools. We have also been given a guide to understanding it. It is a long guide printed on lovely glossy paper. I am sure it would have cost the education department a lot of money to produce this. But in none of this do we get the true facts about ICSEA. A report in the Age last month stated: PARENTS in the top income-earning occupations are not taken into account by the My School website when it calculates which schools are the most advantaged, prompting allegations it is producing grossly unfair results. That is very true. The member for Herbert would not believe it, but it is true. The article continued: They say it has led to bizarre anomalies, such as Douglas Daly Primary, a one-teacher school in remote Northern Territory, which was ranked the most advantaged in the nation according to the index used to calculate parental wealth, education and occupation. 96430 Jones, Ewen, MP Mr Ewen Jones —Those lucky Territorians! 210911 Tehan, Dan, MP Mr TEHAN —Yes, those lucky Territorians. That one-teacher school was ranked as being more advantaged than the elite schools in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. The member for Murray is here and I am sure she would be happy to comment on the Goulburn Valley Grammar School, which is also in the same area on the index as the elite schools in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Perth. EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr Stone interjecting— 210911 Tehan, Dan, MP Mr TEHAN —They will be shot once the Prime Minister gets her way because she wants to use this funding model to cut funding to independent and Catholic schools. There is no doubt about it—that is her long-term agenda. I declare I have an interest in this because I have some children at the Hamilton and Alexandra College in Hamilton in western Victoria. That school has also been indexed the same as the elite schools. When the principal of that school wrote and asked about the flawed funding index he was bullied. He was told, ‘Tell us what your problems are.’ Did he get a response when he detailed all the problems he had with it? No. He was told, ‘Either you sign up and agree with what we are doing or you will suffer the consequences.’ There was no detailed consultation. Sadly, in our local newspapers we are getting headlines such as ‘Schools at risk’. This rural school in Hamilton that offers a very good education is all of a sudden at risk because of what this government is doing. Sadly, this is the agenda of this Prime Minister. She does not believe in properly funding our private, independent and Catholic schools. She wants to get the indexation changed so she can rip the guts out of them. We on this side will not let it happen. We will be dubious about the MySchool website. Debate interrupted. 2254 Statements by Members 2254 2254 13:45:00 Jones, Ewen, MP 96430 Herbert LP 0 0 Mr EWEN JONES —I rise today to speak on something that I am very passionate about, and on which I will also declare an interest: Football Federation Australia has pulled the licence for the North Queensland Fury FC. My son is a nine-year-old natural left-footer and goal-scoring machine for the Saints Sandcrabs. He fully intended to spend his winters playing for the North Queensland Cowboys and his summers playing for the North Queensland Fury. That dream has been dashed by the callous actions of Football Federation Australia. This team has only been in existence for two years and was launched with much fanfare by Football Federation Australia. But they did not come to the launch in North Queensland, they were too busy going across and sucking up to those Kiwis in Wellington. They came up and said, ‘There you go—away you go,’ and that is where the support stopped. We had Robbie Fowler in our first season, and I was lucky enough to meet a lot of these guys, but since that very first season our playing ranks have been absolutely pillaged and raped because the Football Federation will not support football in North Queensland. Every Saturday at Murray Sports Complex and at sporting fields all around North Queensland you see people running around. My son’s favourite player in the world is David Williams from the North Queensland Fury. That says that we should be in North Queensland and it is a shame on FFA for doing this. No wonder they only got one vote for the World Cup. (Time expired) 2255 2255 13:46:00 Brodtmann, Gai, MP 30540 Canberra ALP 1 0 Ms BRODTMANN —I rise to draw the House’s attention to the upcoming 98th birthday of Canberra on 12 March. On that day 98 years ago the foundation stones were formally laid to proclaim the site of a new national capital city for our newly federated nation. On that day, Prime Minister Andrew Fisher said: Here on this spot, in the near future, and, I hope the distant future too, the best thoughts of Australia will be given expression to … I hope this City will be the seat of learning as well as of politics, and it will be also the home of art. This city, Canberra, will turn 100 years in 2013. Then we will celebrate a century of being home to this nation’s parliament, government and capital. It is here in Canberra that the threads that bind this nation are brought together, and we should be proud of our national capital’s history and what it represents for this country. The plans to celebrate our centenary are well underway. The legendary Robyn Archer has been appointed to lead the planning for the centenary, and she has come up with an exciting and innovative program. In the lead-up to the centenary, the planning team has introduced the Canberra Diaspora website, where people who have lived, visited, worked, lectured or studied here and have now dispersed throughout the world tell their stories about Canberra. I encourage any former Canberrans to take part and all Canberrans to take a look. I would like to wish Canberra a happy 98th birthday, and look forward to working with members to make sure this city has a centenary celebration worthy of its national and community role. (Time expired) 2255 2255 13:48:00 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 0 Dr STONE —We are going to see the celebration of the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day very soon, and the United Nations has responded to this century of concern about women by forming UN Women. This draws together a number of the special previous organisations which dealt with women’s issues. UN Women will, in particular, be established to be a new entity for gender equality and the empowerment of women. It will draw together the four other agencies which previously covered the issues of things such as the plight of women in war, reproductive health issues and women and poverty. The main roles of UN Women are to support intergovernmental bodies in their formulation of policies, global standards and norms, to help member states to implement these standards and then to hold the UN system accountable to the commitments. The problem is that the Pacific and Australasia are not on the board of UN Women, so some of our most needy communities with the greatest gender discrimination, poverty and difficulty in the Pacific and in Papua New Guinea—which Australia and New Zealand ably try to support—have no place on the board of UN Women. They have been ignored and neglected, and I am very concerned as to why. I do not know why the Australian government did not manage to insist that the Pacific was one of the regions on the board, along with all the rest. (Time expired) 2255 2255 13:49:00 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 1 0 Ms BURKE —I also want to rise today to celebrate 100 years of International Women’s Day and to place on record the proud achievement of my previous union, the Finance Sector Union, in this space. 00AMU Mirabella, Sophie, MP Mrs Mirabella interjecting— 83S Burke, Anna, MP Ms BURKE —The member for Indi can roll her eyes all she likes, but International Women’s Day was created as part of the International Socialist Women’s Movement and we should be proud of those achievements. We should actually hail them. Tragically, as the member opposite pointed out, we are still in a space 100 years on where there is still inequality for women in this day and age. International Women’s Day has striven for a long time to ensure that there is equality. But we still see differential pay rates, we still see differences between males and females and we still see female oppression across our globe. Even in our own homes, it is still women who do the majority of housework. Until the day comes when there is an equal share of housework in the home, women will have no equality. The FSU’s first women joined in 1939. In 1956 the FSU’s women’s committee was formed. In 1963 there was the first woman on the FSU federal executive, in 1969 there was the equal pay for equal work case and in 1972 the equal pay for work of equal value case. In 1975 male and female bank worker rates were abandoned—it took until 1975 to do that. In 1976 the first woman was elected secretary of an FSU division and in 1985 FSU set affirmative action goals. In 1997 the first woman was elected FSU national president—I worked with her extensively and she was a terrific woman. On and on it goes, but there is still more to do, so everyone should proudly celebrate 100 years next week. (Time expired) 2256 2256 13:51:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP 0 0 Mr BILLSON —In the electorate of Dunkley I try to encapsulate my advocacy as positive, passionate and persistent. I am afraid that we need all of those characteristics when tackling some of the enduring issues of the Dunkley electorate. How many times do we have to raise the noise problems associated with the construction of EastLink where it intersects with the Frankston Freeway, and get VicRoads to do something to let those residents have a decent night’s sleep? I have raised this issue many times over a number of years, and we still see no activity. I was optimistic that the state Labor member may have been able to take this seriously and get some action under either the Brumby or Bracks governments, but, alas, nothing happened. Now we have a change of government in Victoria, and I am optimistic that the new Baillieu government will take these noise concerns quite seriously. When you look at this intersection, there has been an additional lane built adjacent to these people’s homes. But somehow it has been designated as if there has been no new work carried out. This issue about new work matters because there are different noise tolerance levels for existing freeways compared to newly constructed freeways. And in the Peterson Street area of the Frankston Freeway, one of the things that frustrates them is that there have been noise readings taken that have exceeded noise levels for both existing freeways and newly constructed freeways, but alas no sound barriers. Why? Apparently the wind was blowing the wrong way. So the noise was going into their homes because the wind was blowing the wrong way, but still no action. We need to give people living adjacent to the freeway the chance to have a decent night’s sleep, and I will keep working at that objective. 2256 2256 13:53:00 Lyons, Geoff, MP M38 Bass ALP 1 0 Mr LYONS —I rise to congratulate the Launceston General Hospital on being recognised for the excellent quality of care that it provides. The LGH is my old hospital; I worked there for 17 years. It is a fantastic place. The Launceston General Hospital has been awarded Australian Council on Healthcare Standards’ ongoing accreditation until 2015. The ACHS is the nation’s leading independent authority on health care. The survey of the LGH has been completed and it has been granted the four-year accreditation. Some of the areas that the Launceston General Hospital was given excellent achievement ratings for were work pressure management—a fantastic job, set up by Clarissa Young; blood transfusion services; safety systems; medical imaging; food services, which is run by Dale Anderson, a fantastic manager of that area; building services; building supplies; equipment; security service; and waste management. Waste management at the Launceston General Hospital has been reduced by 52 per cent in the past year. I congratulate John Kirwan, the CEO, and all of his staff for the fantastic effort of a wonderful hospital, the Launceston General Hospital. 2257 2257 13:54:00 O’Dwyer, Kelly, MP LKU Higgins LP 1 0 Ms O’DWYER —Sport and athletics hold a special place in Australian society. Participation in sport and the fostering of sporting ability in our children is something we pride ourselves on. All of our sporting heroes, from cricket to AFL, to our Olympic athletes, have succeeded because they have access to world-class facilities from a young age. Open space is at a premium in my electorate of Higgins. Open space and great sporting facilities go hand in hand. Unfortunately, there are no significant athletics facilities available in the Stonnington and Boroondara areas for local sporting groups and schools to hold athletic meets and competitions. The Camberwell Malvern Little Athletics Centre, under John Michelmore’s leadership, has been advocating for a synthetic athletics track for its 400 club members and for the 80 or so schools in the area. The club has argued that the region is losing young athletes because they are forced to travel to more appropriate training facilities a long way from where the club is based. With no appropriate training facilities nearby, schools and sporting clubs are forced to hold athletics carnivals and training at purpose-built tracks at Box Hill, Doncaster, Nunawading, Collingwood and Olympic Park. The closest athletics track to the Ashburton, Prahran and Malvern areas is the St Stephens Harriers Athletic Club in Mount Waverley and Olympic Park in Melbourne. The Camberwell Malvern Little Athletics Club uses the Nunawading Little Athletics Centre off the Burwood Highway in Burwood East. Next week I am launching a petition on my website to address this local issue. I encourage the people of Higgins to have their say. 2257 2257 13:56:00 O’Neill, Deborah, MP 140651 Robertson ALP 0 0 Ms O’NEILL —I want to second the words of the member for Chisholm, and acknowledged the importance of International Women’s Day, but as the Secretary of the Ireland Parliamentary Friends Group and a person of proud Irish heritage, I rise today to pay tribute to a great and historic victory for the Irish people over an old enemy. I am referring of course to Ireland’s magnificent three-wicket win over England at the cricket World Cup in Bangalore. The names Kevin O’Brien, Alex Cusack and John Mooney may not quite be up there alongside Ricky Ponting, Michael Clarke and others yet. They will, however, go down in history next to the great Irish heroes and patriots of yore for their courageous victory. Enda Kenny, who will become Ireland’s new Taoiseach next week, has paid a fitting tribute. Mr Kenny described the Irish team as having: … exemplified all the best qualities of our nation, playing with courage and pride and showing that seemingly insurmountable odds can be overcome. As a competitive person of Irish roots I know how true that is! I would like to concur with those comments by Mr Kenny, and take the liberty of—on behalf of this House—passing on our warmest congratulations to those wonderful Irish cricketers. St Patrick’s Day has come two weeks early, to be sure, and the green beer will taste even better this year. I acknowledge and applaud the spirit of the Irish cricket team. 2258 2258 13:57:00 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 0 0 Mrs MIRABELLA —I rise to note that more than 200 beekeepers descended on Parliament House on Wednesday to highlight the dangers of the Asian honey bee. Spearheading that campaign was campaign organiser from Indi Jodie Goldsworthy. If only the government gave enough attention and care to the needs and concerns of business campaign organisers as well as union organisers, perhaps the honey bee industry would not be in the plight it is now. Joining Jodie were honey bee keepers from all over Australia, including Linton Briggs. The Labor Party ceases a mere $5 million eradication program. While they reinstate hundreds of millions of dollars of programs at the request of the Greens, waste more than $10 million on advertising a health system that never even came into existence, what do they do for a very important industry that has ramifications for food security in Australia and poses significant threats to local agriculture, not only in the north-east, but all over Australia? Nothing! It falls on silent ears. The Asian honey bee is a great danger to our domestic industry. It is a natural host of the varroa mite, a major threat to Australia’s honey bee industry. If this government care at all about biosecurity and have any interest in it, they will reinstate the funding and listen to the local industry. 2258 2258 13:59:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 0 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —I want to congratulate the Penguin Sustainable Living Centre, which on Sunday, through the Get Communities Working fund, received something like $60,000 in support. I also congratulate this government on its Get Communities Working fund, from which $900,000 has come to my electorate of Braddon. Some 22 projects have already been undertaken and are going very well. I would like to particularly thank the O group for the work they have done in administering this program. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Members’ statements are interrupted in accordance with the standing orders. 2258 Ministerial Arrangements 2258 14:00:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Ms GILLARD —I inform the House that the Attorney-General will be absent from question time today to participate in the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in Wellington before heading to Christchurch to thank the hundreds of Australians helping the city recover from last week’s devastating earthquake. I have asked the Attorney-General to restate the Australian government’s continuing offer of support to the New Zealand government as they deal with this crisis. In his absence, the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Justice will take questions in his behalf. 2258 14:00:00 Questions Without Notice 2258 14:00:00 2259 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr ABBOTT —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the following statement, which I quote: ‘There is no point in imposing a carbon price domestically which results in emissions and production transferring internationally for no environmental gain.’ I ask the Prime Minister: does she agree with that statement? 2259 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —We will wait for the inevitable ‘Aha!’ moment in the supplementary question. Let me be very clear with the Leader of the Opposition about my view. My view is that Australia should not lead the world but we should not be left behind either. We have a high-emissions economy. We cannot afford to be stranded with that high-emissions economy while other nations change and the world changes. There are other nations that are changing; there are other parts of the world changing. Thirty-two other nations have got emissions trading schemes; 10 US states have got emissions trading schemes. The world is changing. Because we are, by the standards of the developed world, the biggest per capita emitters of carbon pollution, we have got a lot of changing to do. What that means is that we cannot afford to be left behind the world, and to make the amount of change we need is a major transformation and a major amount of change. That means we need to get started, which is why I have determined we will price carbon from 1 July 2012. To the Leader of the Opposition I say: of course the challenge of climate change is a global challenge; of course it involves more than Australia in meeting this global challenge; and of course we will continue to press in the councils of the world for the world to act on climate change. But at every point we should act in Australia’s national interest. Australia’s national interest demands that we do not get left behind with a high-pollution economy and that we transform our economy in a measured and sensible way. Pricing carbon from 1 July 2012 will mean we can start that major journey of transformation in a measured and sensible way; whereas, if we leave our high carbon polluting economy unreformed and then the world moves, and then we are left behind, it will be a dramatic shock for the Australian economy to then transform. My prism is Australia’s national interest. My prism is Australian jobs. My prism is making sure our economy is a clean energy economy of the future. And my confidence is we have seen major economic reforms in this country in the past. They have been opposed at the time, but, when we look at the track record of what those major reforms have achieved, they have given us the prosperous economy we have today. The nation is up to this, the government is up to this and we will get it done. 2259 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 Mr ABBOTT —My supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition has the call. 849 Sidebottom, Sid, MP Mr Sidebottom —You better see my punch coming. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Braddon is warned! EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —Why didn’t the Prime Minister agree with her former climate change minister, Senator Wong, that a carbon tax will see Australian jobs transferred overseas? Why is she frog-marching Australians prematurely into a big, new tax that will raise prices and cost jobs? 2259 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —I think—I am not sure, but I think—the Leader of the Opposition is— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Sturt will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a). The member for Sturt then left the chamber. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I remind members that there are limitations on what can be said. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I am not quite sure, but I think the Leader of the Opposition is attempting to put to me the proposition that Senator Wong was opposed to pricing carbon because she was worried about Australian jobs. I say to anybody who has ever listened to Senator Wong when she held the climate change portfolio, or indeed since she has held the portfolio of minister for finance: in Senator Wong you find someone with a deep understanding about the need to price carbon, a deep understanding about the benefits for the Australian economy and a deep understanding about the benefits for Australian jobs. I will check the quote used by the Leader of the Opposition, but my experience this week has been that, when quotes are produced by the opposition, the sentence is clipped to give a misleading impression. A direct question to me from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had that flaw, and it goes as part of a misleading campaign. On the premise of the Leader of the Opposition’s question about rising prices: it was he in this parliament yesterday who was chiding the government for not giving sufficient information so that you could work out what price rises were going to be. So let us not have any of this hypocrisy from the Leader of the Opposition. Out of his own mouth yesterday, he said to this parliament he was critical of the government because he did not have enough information to know what price rises were going to be, and now, a short 24 hours later, he is back to making figures up and asserting price rises. I say to the Leader of the Opposition— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will direct her remarks to the question. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —get to grips with the fundamentals of this debate, and the fundamentals of this debate are: climate change is real; it is caused by human activity; we need to reduce carbon pollution. The best way of doing that is to price carbon and where we want to get to is a market emissions based trading system where the price of carbon is set by the market and where the economy has a cap on the amount of pollution it can generate. That is the way forward. The member for Wentworth is very perceptive about these things and the Leader of the Opposition should listen to his advice and the advice of economists around the world. That is the right thing to do. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the speech of the former climate change minister when she said, ‘Don’t try to lead the world on it.’ Leave not granted. 2260 Distinguished Visitors 2260 14:08:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the Legislative Council of the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 2260 Questions Without Notice 2260 2260 14:09:00 Leigh, Andrew, MP BU8 Fraser ALP 1 Dr LEIGH —Terima kasih, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Australian government commemorating the service of our men and women in the lead-up to the 100th anniversary of the First World War and the centenary of Anzac? 2261 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for Fraser for his question. He joined me, with the member for Canberra, Senator Kate Lundy and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, at the War Memorial this morning to make an important announcement. I was at the War Memorial last week when the new Hall of Valour was opened. It was a very great privilege to be there with our VC holders—three very gallant Australians. It was a very great privilege to be there and to have the opportunity to speak. I described the traditions of the War Memorial and I recalled John Curtin’s famous words that it is the ‘sanctuary of Australia’s traditions’. I endorse those words today, as I did when I spoke at the opening of the Hall of Valour last week. I believe all members in this place, indeed all Australians, want to see the War Memorial properly resourced and maintaining its fantastic reputation as sacred ground for Australians and a place they can go to reflect on the costs and consequences of war and to admire the acts of courage, bravery and mateship that our forces have engaged in in every conflict that they have been involved in. In the course of last year, I became concerned about the long-term funding arrangements of the War Memorial. I wanted to see the War Memorial on a sustainable footing for the future. I also wanted to make sure that when we celebrate the centenary of Anzac in 2015—it is preparation time as such a significant national and international event is not far away—the War Memorial has available to it the resources to do the job. Consequently, late last year I asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation to do the job properly, to work with the War Memorial, to work with the department and to make some decisions about long-term sustainable funding. I did not want to see a result which was worked out on the back of an envelope. I wanted proper advice and a proper and thorough look at the funding of the Australian War Memorial. In line with that review undertaken by the minister for finance and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, I today announced that we will add $8 million per year to the funding of the War Memorial. This will join the $38 million already allocated to the War Memorial and will be indexed for the future. This is important for sustainability over time. But we also now need to be making appropriate preparations and arrangements for the centenary of Anzac commemorations in 2015. In addition, today I announce that I am appointing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs as a minister assisting me with the preparation of the centenary of Anzac commemorations and that we will allocate an extra $1.7 million to the War Memorial to enable it to revamp its exhibition of the First World War. As we move towards the centenary, more and more Australians will want to see that exhibition. I want it to be in first-class shape, and I know that the Australian War Memorial staff will do an excellent job with preparing that exhibition for 2015. 2261 14:13:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr ABBOTT —Mr Speaker, on indulgence: may I congratulate the Prime Minister for her somewhat belated response to the question she was asked last week and suggest that there are a few other opposition policies she might adopt as well. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will use his indulgence with care. 2261 2261 14:14:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS 0 Mr TRUSS —My question is to the Prime Minister. Does she agree with her Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism, who said on 19 June 2007 that a $30 carbon tax would kill the Australian aviation industry both domestically and internationally? 2262 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —I will show my usual caution when it comes to the opposition and the use of quotes because we know that as recently as 48 hours ago the Deputy Leader of the Opposition— Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I will show the usual caution because not 48 hours ago the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was in here misquoting by cutting a sentence in half, deliberately only quoting a section of a sentence and thereby giving the Australian people and this House of Representatives a misleading impression. So what we know from performances just 48 hours ago is you cannot trust the opposition with much and you certainly cannot trust them to quote accurately. On the question of the views of the Minister for Resources and Energy and Tourism, I thank the shadow Treasurer for pointing out he has a very fine head of hair, and that very fine head of hair is on top of a head with a very fine mind inside it. The minister, using that very fine mind, is working with me and the government to price carbon because he knows, as I do, that our high carbon pollution economy needs to be transformed and we need to be using the clean energy sources of the future. If anybody wants a lecture on clean energy sources for the future, I would recommend to them spending eight to 10 to 12 hours with the minister, because he will be able to lecture for that amount of time because he has thought deeply about our need for renewable energy sources, he has thought deeply about our need to transform the Australian economy so it is a low-pollution, clean energy economy for the future. I thank the opposition for giving me the opportunity because the minister does take questions in this House but, given we have only been running at three or four for question time, he has not had an opportunity this week to explain himself, his vision for carbon pricing—the same as mine—his vision for a clean energy future, and to explain to the House his deep expertise in renewable sources of energy. 2262 Distinguished Visitors 2262 14:17:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the President of the Autonomous Bougainville Government, Chief John Momis, and his delegation. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 2262 Questions Without Notice GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the statement from the minister, in which— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the Nationals will resume his seat. Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —There are five or six members of the frontbench on my left that want to have a chat together. I could arrange for them to leave the chamber to have it over a cup of coffee, but there is other business before the House. 2262 2262 14:18:00 D’Ath, Yvette, MP HVN Petrie ALP 1 Mrs D’ATH —My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the importance of the government’s plans to rebuild disaster affected communities? IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr Briggs interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Mayo should be very careful interjecting out of his place and also about those things that he is mentioning in interjections. 2262 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —Today we have received the very important news that the Senate will support the temporary flood and cyclone reconstruction levy. I know it is strongly supported by all members on this side of the House and of course the Independents and minor parties in this House, and it will be supported by the Independents and minor parties in the Senate. What we have seen is terrible floods, terrible fires, and of course a terrible cyclone in Far North Queensland. We have seen devastation and we have seen very great need in our communities. That is why the government has worked with the Independents, the Greens and the minor parties to get support in place so we can get the reconstruction going. Today in data from the Bureau of Statistics we have further evidence of the damage that has been done in Queensland. Both the trade figures today and the building approvals figures today show the size of the challenge that we face—in particular in rebuilding in Queensland. The damage has been great—damage of private property and personal possessions, and also public infrastructure. Under the disaster arrangements the Commonwealth is up for something like 75 per cent of most of the critical infrastructure, and we have come to this task with good faith, understanding the damage that has been done in North Queensland, in Far North Queensland, in Central Queensland, in western Queensland, in South-East Queensland, in Victoria, and by the fires in Western Australia. So the passage of this legislation is absolutely essential—because the government understands that we have to pay as we go. We do have to pay as we go; there is no free way of doing this. Those opposite simply do not understand the challenge of the economic task before us, nor do they understand the urgent need to rebuild in Queensland. What we have had with the Leader of the Opposition is all opposition and no leadership. Not only is he saying no to the rebuilding of Queensland and other parts of Australia through the flood levy—just like he said no during the global financial crisis, just like he says no to the NBN—what we have is all opposition and no leadership. We have an opposition leader that becomes more extreme by the day, playing the politics of race, playing the politics of religion— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will come back to the question. If the Treasurer has not concluded, he will refer his remarks directly to the question. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —Everyone on this side of the House is proud to support a temporary levy to rebuild parts of Australia that have been damaged very badly by cyclone and flood. And what has been the opposition to that? It has been extremism from that side of the House, where they are taking their policies from One Nation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will go back to the question. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —You do not know whether it is Tony Hanson or Pauline Abbott sitting in that seat! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Treasurer has the call; nobody else has the call. The Treasurer has the call; I have invited him to be directly relevant to the question or conclude his answer. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I say to the member for Menzies—there must be something about that position on the bench!—that if he could just be a little quieter it would be a lot more helpful. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —The government and the minor parties and the Independents support this legislation because it is good for Australia. It is helping Australians in need. It is the positive approach we need to governing Australia. 2263 2264 14:23:00 Tehan, Dan, MP 210911 Wannon LP 0 Mr TEHAN —My question is to the Prime Minister. Portland Aluminium, located in my electorate of Wannon, directly employs 600 people. Across the country there are 60,000 jobs dependent on the aluminium industry. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that there will be no job losses in the aluminium industry as a result of the carbon tax? 2264 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for this question. Of course I am aware of the aluminium industry in Victoria, which he refers to. I am sure that he would freely acknowledge that it is there in Victoria because of the work of Labor Premier John Cain. His administration ensured that regional Victoria had the benefit of those jobs. I am sure the member acknowledges to his constituency every day the leading role of former Labor Premier John Cain! What I would say to the member who has asked the question is that I am all about Australian jobs. That requires us not to freeze our economy in time, not to look to the past, but to build for the future. I say to the member who has asked me the question: presumably he could have got up in this parliament many long years ago, if he had been here under the Hawke government, and he could have asked a similarly phrased question about an industry that was having its tariffs reduced. He could have asked the Prime Minister then, ‘Will you guarantee no job losses?’ What is the history of tariff reform, economic reform, floating the dollar, and trade liberalisation in this country? All of these reforms have built our modern economy. The legacy of those reforms is the prosperous economy we have today. If we had said, in the 1970s, 1980s or even the 1990s that we were going to freeze our economy in time we would be poorer today than we are now. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will resume his seat. 96430 Jones, Ewen, MP Mr Ewen Jones interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Did I say ‘his seat’? The Prime Minister will resume her seat. For once I thank the member for Herbert for his interjection! 210911 Tehan, Dan, MP Mr Tehan —I rise on a point of order. The question was about guaranteeing that there will be no job losses as a result of the carbon tax. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister is responding to the question. She knows that she is required to be directly relevant. Up to now I believe that she has been. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —What I was saying to the member is that during any of the waves of economic reform and transformation of our economy there are people who raise fears about job losses but economic reform and economic transformation, on every occasion, have left us stronger and more prosperous than we were before, and far stronger and far more prosperous than we would have been had we tried to freeze our economy in time. The future will be owned by those nations who are able to be nimble and adapt to a low-carbon future. I am for this nation being nimble and adapting to a low-carbon future. The course of freezing our economy in time is actually a course towards a poorer nation. It is a course towards fewer job opportunities for the constituents that the member represents in this place. If the member does not want to trust me on these propositions then he should turn to former Prime Minister John Howard, who was honest enough to say to the Australian people that we needed to transform our economy through an emissions trading scheme. I am being as honest as he was with the Australian people. We need to transform our economy. We need to price carbon. Former Prime Minister John Howard went to the 2007 election promising that, and the commitments I have made in this place and to the Australian nation are comparable commitments. We must price carbon. We must transform our economy. We must embrace the challenges of the future, not try and run away. So, do not be led down that path by the Leader of the Opposition. Play a role in shaping the future; work with the government to price carbon. 2265 2265 14:28:00 Bandt, Adam, MP M3C Melbourne AG 0 Mr BANDT —My question is to the Treasurer. The consumer watchdog Choice has today released a report demonstrating that consumers do not think it is fair that they are slugged for balance inquiries at ATMs. Does the Treasurer agree that people should not be charged for simply finding out how much money is in their accounts? If so, will the government guarantee that it will outlaw charges for onscreen balance inquiries at all ATMs once the current review of ATMs fees is complete in June? 2265 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the member for Melbourne for his very important question. I think that he, like everyone on this side of the House, is absolutely intent on making sure, for families and businesses, that we have the most competitive banking system we can get—a system that delivers the best value to Australian families and businesses in this country. Can I say that we do look forward to working with the cross-benchers and the minor parties both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate in the passage of our very important reforms to the banking system to make it much more competitive. To that end I met with the consumer group Choice this morning to discuss their reaction to a number of the very positive proposals that we are progressing. An example is the abolition of mortgage exit fees on new home loans—a very important reform—so that if people are unhappy with their banks they can go down the road. But of course those opposite are intent on opposing that. They are standing up for mortgage exit fees on new home loans as high as $7,000. That is the stance they have. We are looking forward to working with Choice and other community organisations and all the members from this side of the House on making sure that we do everything we can to progress account portability. This is very difficult and it is the case that no country in the world has yet achieved full account portability. But we have got Bernie Fraser working on this task and he will come back to the government with a report on that. This is a very important part of our financial system. Any changes have to be made in a methodical and careful way. So we do look forward to the report from Bernie Fraser. We also have the Treasury working with the Reserve Bank when it comes to ATM fees and charges and the question about account inquiries. Those two bodies will take that into account in their current deliberations. For our part, on this side of the House we are absolutely committed to a competitive banking system, unlike those opposite who just stand for high mortgage exit fees. 2265 2265 14:30:00 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 1 Mr MELHAM —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House of the state of Australia’s relations with the United States and of her visit to Washington next week? 2265 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for Banks for his question. I trust that all members of the House are able at this point to unite and say that our alliance with the United States has had bipartisan support for 60 years. Indeed we are celebrating the 60th year and that is a great celebration. There has been bipartisan support from the days when John Curtin said to this nation that we should look to America. There has been bipartisan support as we have made our way in the world in times of war and in times of peace. I have described the relationship between our two countries as being ‘great mates’. I have had the opportunity to meet with President Obama at the G20, at the APEC meeting, and at the NATO meeting discussing the further strategy in Afghanistan. When I met with President Obama at the APEC meeting he invited me to visit Washington early this year, and I will be accepting that invitation and travelling to America this weekend to meet with President Obama. In America when meeting with President Obama I intend to pursue discussions on a broad range of fronts for Australia. First and foremost, we will be discussing the way in which the globe is emerging from the global financial crisis. There are still challenges to the global economy. Australia has emerged very strong indeed, but I think we are all aware that there continue to be challenges in the global economy that need to be worked through and discussed, and I look forward to those discussions with President Obama. Secondly, we will be discussing our joint mission in Afghanistan. This was part of what was discussed at the NATO meeting in ISAF format, which I attended late last year with the endorsement of the strategy put forward by General Petraeus, the strategy that informed the statement I made to this House about our future strategy in Afghanistan as we move to transition. Of course I will be pursuing discussion on Afghanistan and the way ahead. I will be talking to President Obama about our region and the importance of the emerging new regional architecture including the East Asia Summit in which the US and China will participate— 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —No, no—Russia! 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Thank you to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, if I could just finish my answer without her catcalling, that would be very useful. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will ignore the interjections and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. You do not want to trust her with a quote either. The emerging regional architecture involving the US sitting at the table, bringing the US to the table with China and with the other major economies of our region and with Russia at the table, is a very important development. And of course we will be talking about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. President Obama made it very clear at APEC that he has an aspiration to see the Trans-Pacific Partnership concluded with an interim result in Honolulu when he leads APEC at the end of this year. I also will have the very great honour of addressing a joint sitting of congress in the US. I view this as an honour for our nation and I am very much looking forward to the opportunity. I will update the House when it next sits on my discussions in the United States. 2266 2266 14:35:00 Ramsey, Rowan, MP HWS Grey LP 0 Mr RAMSEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the comments of the CEO of BlueScope Steel, Paul O’Malley, on radio this morning. He said: When Australian manufacturing is doing it tough … the last thing you would expect to happen is for the Government to kick you while you are down … the policy is really an incentive to move steel manufacturing overseas rather than to lower carbon. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that jobs at Australian steel manufacturers BlueScope and OneSteel will not be exported overseas as a result of your carbon tax? 2267 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for his question. I would say to the member, of course people are going to put a variety of views in this debate, but in terms of what the business community is saying to this nation, I would refer him to the fact that the following major businesses have said that they are in favour of carbon pricing. Opposition members interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I have got to disagree with the members’ interjections. There are more businesses in this country than just the ones referred to. There is a business called BHP, for example, and BHP is in favour of pricing carbon. There is a business called Telstra which is in favour of pricing carbon. Xstrata Coal, TRU Energy, AGL Energy, Santos— 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr Hartsuyker —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would ask you to draw the Prime Minister back to the question. This is about the steel industry. Telstra does not make steel, the last time I looked. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister is aware of her responsibility to make her response directly relevant to the question and I am sure that she will relate her material in that way. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I was asked about jobs; I was asked about manufacturing. Consequently, I am giving the view of a number of businesses who would care about jobs. On businesses that deal with manufacturing I would point the member who asked the question in the direction of General Motors Holden. They are a manufacturer and they are in favour of pricing carbon. The member might want to think: why do these very big businesses, including a major manufacturing business, want to price carbon? It is because they know that the world economy is going to change. They know that our economy needs to change. They have prospered so far by innovating, by changing, by making sure that they are in front of world trends. We would not have Holden in this country if it had not been capable of innovating. If it were still making the cars of yesterday, it would be out of business. Telstra would not be a business in this country if it had not innovated. If it had said when the information technology revolution came along, ‘I know what we’ll do, we’ll stick with the fixed line network and we’ll give all of that new technology to someone else,’ Telstra would not be a big business in this country. Businesses in this country prosper because they look at the future, they respond and they innovate and that is what putting a price on carbon pollution is about: driving innovation. I am an incredible optimist about the dynamism and strength of our business community. I am an incredible optimist about the ability of our nation’s economy to adapt to this challenge. Every lesson from history teaches me that we should be optimistic. The death of Australian manufacturing has been predicted from the days that Bob Hawke as Prime Minister determined to reduce tariffs. Everybody said, ‘That’s it, manufacturing—gone.’ Earlier this week I drove the new Holden Cruze off the production line. Claims about the death of manufacturing were wrong then and they are wrong now. Of course, as we move to this low-pollution, clean energy economy there will be businesses that need assistance in the transition. I understand that and, as we work through the policy of pricing carbon, we will obviously be looking at the needs of Australian businesses. An opposition member—What is a car made of? 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —The member is helpfully interjecting, ‘What is a car made of?’ I happen to know and I was driving a new car off the Holden production line this week, a business that has innovated. I say to him: stop trying to generate fear, stop underestimating Australian industry, stop talking Australian manufacturing down. They are smart, they are agile, they will keep up, they will innovate and they will prosper for the future. 2268 2268 14:40:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 Ms SAFFIN —My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, how is the government working in the national interest and why is it vital to have responsible debate on the challenges facing Australia? 2268 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for Page for her question. We have spent a number of parliamentary weeks now and as parliament has sat it has become clearer and clearer that, whilst the government pursues day after day the national interest, we are seeing the opposition day after day pursue its political interest. We are seeing once again a day of a fear campaign. Today’s theme is a fear campaign about Australian jobs. Yesterday’s campaign was a fear campaign about not enough information. Curiously, two days before we had a fear campaign about price rises, which they said at that stage they could put a dollar figure on, so the inconsistency in these fear campaigns might cause some to pause and reflect. But it is a fear campaign. Where have we heard these fear campaigns before? Let’s just think back on the short number of parliamentary weeks since the start of this year. We had a fear campaign about the flood levy. For a while the opposition thought that it was onto a winner. I announced the $5.6 billion package to rebuild Queensland, to rebuild the nation, and the opposition was straight out of the blocks saying: ‘Australians will never accept this. This will break the government. It won’t get through the parliament. People will never accept this. They’ll never take it. People should ring talkback. People should complain.’ Of course the opposition was squealing with delight. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews —Mr Speaker, on a point of order, the honourable member for Page asked the Prime Minister to respond to the challenges facing Australia. She has been speaking for almost a minute and a half now and she has not identified one challenge facing Australia. All she is doing is using this as an opportunity to attack the opposition. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Menzies will resume his seat. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I was asked about the national interest and I do consider rebuilding from the most expensive natural disaster in the nation’s history as a challenge. It is a challenge we are up to and a challenge that we have allocated $5.6 billion for and that is before we made the allocation for the damage stemming from the cyclone. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —That of course has been a challenge the government has stepped up to in the face of an opposition fear campaign. I ask members of this parliament and the public to reflect today: where is that fear campaign? The parliament has indicated that it will pass the flood levy legislation—where is that fear campaign? Like all fear campaigns, when it was really held up to the light it just fell away. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Of course we have seen fear campaigns in other areas. We have seen fear campaigns about health. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will resume her seat. The member for Menzies is now warned. But by way of response to his interjections, listen to the whole question; do not approach the dispatch box quoting only half the question. The Prime Minister is responding to the question and, I repeat, the member for Menzies is warned and I remind the House that a warning can also be a precursor to a naming. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Of course, we saw fear campaigns and criticism about our health package—condemned out of the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition before it was announced. But the government will deliver that health package because we need to reform health for the future. We have had opposition criticisms of our education reforms, but we will deliver those reforms, including MySchool 2.0 tomorrow, another step in transforming Australian education. We have heard opposition fear campaigns about the National Broadband Network, but we will build the National Broadband Network so that Australians have access to the jobs and services of the future. There is a theme here. It is: who is up to acting in the national interest, dealing with the challenges of the future? Who is it that always looks to the short-term, narrow political interest and always says no? Australians want to see positive leadership for this nation’s future and we will continue to provide that positive leadership. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: there will come a day when Australians will look at him and say, ‘Why is he incapable of saying yes to any positive proposition for the nation’s future?’ 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will come back to the question. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —National interest versus political interest—that is the divide in this parliament. 2269 2269 14:46:00 Robb, Andrew, MP FU4 Goldstein LP 0 Mr ROBB —My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I refer to reports today that consumers will be forced to pay even more in GST, stamp duty, capital gains tax and even council rates as your carbon tax feeds into the price of almost every consumable item. Prime Minister, how much more will consumers have to pay in these extra taxes? Isn’t it true that there is no way to quarantine these impacts because the carbon tax applies and compounds at every stage of production? 2269 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the—is it the finance minister? Whatever portfolio the member for Goldstein has today, I thank him for his question. Can I say to the member for Goldstein and, more broadly, to the opposition: I anticipate that we will be back here for the next sitting week and they will be saying: ‘Christmas will be cancelled! Children will not get Easter eggs! The tooth fairy will never come!’ This is where we will get to in the next few sitting weeks—absurd proposition on absurd proposition. These people cower in the face of the challenges of the future. These people cower and they ask the Australian nation to cower with them. They ask the Australian nation to say to itself— 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr Hartsuyker —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Once again, the Prime Minister is not being directly relevant to the question, which asked about the impact of the carbon tax on other taxes, such as GST and stamp duty. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I thank the member for Cowper for approaching the dispatch box and making a point of order without any additions. I say to the Prime Minister that she must make her material directly relevant to the question. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Thank you very much. This is another part of the opposition’s fear campaign. On this fear campaign we say to Australians: ‘Don’t fall for it. They are asking you to cower in the face of the future.’ They are asking Australians to believe that they are incapable of change. Australians are smart, competent people. They are up to this. They will get it done and they will leave the opposition stranded as history marches past them. 2270 Motions 2270 2270 14:49:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr ABBOTT —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Warringah moving immediately— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We now have this every day at 10 to three so that the Leader of the Opposition can get on television before Play School at five past three. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I thank members on my left for their advice. Like when it is done on my right, what you have now done is save the Leader of the House from a warning. If you do not think that I can deal with things by myself and if you continue to interject for the whole 50 minutes, I will not—I will not—have no reaction to that. The Leader of the House knows that that was not a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition has the call. The House might indicate that it takes these matters seriously by sitting there quietly. The Leader of the Opposition has the call. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —Thanks, Mr Speaker— 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr Stephen Smith —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The capacity to move for the suspension of standing orders during question time is afforded under the standing orders. The practice has been, for a very long period of time, that it is moved in exceptional or rare circumstances, not every day. To move the motion, as the Leader of the Opposition has done, every day this week at a particular time, is an abuse— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Minister for Defence— 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr Stephen Smith —I am making a point of order, Mr Speaker. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —No. The Minister for Defence will resume his seat. I simply say that the action is permissible under the standing orders. There may be some vague strain in precedent that indicates and supports what has been put to me, but I have not actually read it. The Leader of the Opposition has the call. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —Mr Speaker, could I suggest that the clock might start again at 10 minutes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition has the call. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Warringah moving immediately—That this House censure the Prime Minister: and the Government for recklessly introducing a carbon tax that will damage the economy, slug everyday Australians with cost increases they can’t afford and drive manufacturing jobs offshore; and the Government for recklessly introducing a new carbon tax without a mandate from the people; for vacating the highest elected office in the land and handing control to Bob Brown and the Greens; and and the Government for gross ineptitude in introducing yet another policy that hasn’t been thought through, that hasn’t been consulted, that risks jobs, that hurts everyday people and that isn’t in Australia’s national interest. This Prime Minister is committed to a tax that she cannot explain and she will not defend. This Prime Minister and this government are committed to a tax which is explicitly designed to raise Australians’ cost of living and which is explicitly designed to drive manufacturing jobs offshore. This tax has to close down the coal industry because the coal industry is an emitter. This tax has to close down industries which are high-emissions industries. That is the whole point and purpose of the tax—only she is not closing down the coal industry overseas, she is not closing down manufacturing industry overseas; her tax is closing down the coal industry here and the manufacturing industry here. That is why it is such a bad tax and that is why this Prime Minister and this government should be censured by the House. The very purpose of this tax is to make every single Australian’s life more expensive when he or she turns on the light or when he or she gets into a motor car. That is the whole point of this tax. What has happened here is that the Greens have kick-started this great big new tax. They hijacked the Prime Minister’s courtyard on Thursday of last week. They took over the Prime Minister’s press conference on Thursday of last week. They have commandeered the government’s climate change policy, as they have commandeered the policies on so much else. Whether it is climate change or gay marriage, the Greens are in charge and Bob Brown is the real Prime Minister of this country. Labor is in office but the Greens are in power. Julia Gillard might be in the Lodge but Bob Brown is calling the shots and he now seems to be running the government. I know members opposite have been described by one of their own number as lobotomised zombies, but even the zombies are noticing what has gone on. Notwithstanding the lobotomy, they have worked out that the Greens are in charge because that is why we had the three wise men— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I read from page 333 of House of Representatives Practice: A Member debating a motion to suspend standing orders may not dwell on the subject matter which is the object of the suspension. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to debate the question as to why the suspension of standing orders should occur at this time. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —Mr Speaker, I take that point. It is very important that we should suspend standing orders so that the people of Australia might understand exactly what this government is doing. The three wise men of the Labor Party have woken up to the fact that the government has been hijacked by the Greens. That is why they were in the Prime Minister’s office yesterday at 10.30 demanding that she change her position. What have we got here? This is why it is so important to suspend standing orders. We have got yet another big new tax on top of the mining tax and on top of the flood tax. This is the third new tax that this government wants to introduce this year. We have got a government that has no mandate whatsoever. In fact, if anything, it has a mandate not to introduce a carbon tax. Now we have deliberate disruption from members opposite. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, on a point of order that goes directly to relevance: the Leader of the Opposition must speak to the suspension motion, not to the substance of the motion. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will refer to the reasons requiring a suspension of standing orders and not go to the matters that are canvassed in the reason for the suspension. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —It is absolutely urgent that this Prime Minister come into the House and explain exactly why it is that her government has been hijacked by the Greens and exactly why it is that she has breached her pre-election commitments to the Australian people. This Prime Minister needs an honesty transplant, but she looks behind her and she cannot find a single donor on the Labor Party benches. Oh, you are volunteering, are you? 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr Stephen Smith —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: how can a phrase such as ‘honesty transplant’ be relevant as to the reasons why standing orders should be suspended? If it is not a point of order, Mr Speaker, the words were offensive and should be withdrawn. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Minister for Defence will resume his seat. Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! This should be a robust debating chamber where it is a contest of ideas and not name-calling, but from time to time things are said that are very robust. I would suggest to the House that they sit quietly and listen to all contributions to this debate—quietly. The Leader of the Opposition. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —It is important to have this suspension because, as the member for new England said in his local paper, ‘This is a debate worth having and it’s not all downside.’ Why are members opposite so keen to shut down this debate when even the member for New England said, ‘This is a debate worth having,’ because we should not destroy jobs and raise our cost of living in advance of— (Time expired) 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? 2272 15:00:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 0 Mr HOCKEY —I second the motion. We move this motion out of a sense of frustration that the Prime Minister will not answer questions on the most basic aspects of a new tax that she has announced. Last Thursday, the Prime Minister went with the Leader of the Greens into the Prime Minister’s courtyard, they were asked questions on the details of the new carbon tax and they refused to answer those questions. Since then, we have had new evidence, from a Roy Morgan consumer confidence survey, that consumer confidence has dropped dramatically in the past week directly following that announcement. We came into this place to ask some questions and— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, on a point of order going to relevance: the shadow Treasurer must speak to the suspension and why standing orders should be— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The member for North Sydney is aware of his responsibilities. The member for North Sydney has the call. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —So, each day during question time, we have moved to suspend standing orders to bring on a debate about the carbon tax. After frustrated attempts by this government to close down proper debate; after the government has failed to explain to the Australian people how much the tax will raise, how it will be applied, what industries will be left behind, what industries will grow; after the Treasurer yesterday talked about specific job figures and then refused to acknowledge that they were calculated based on a carbon price of $45 a tonne, we are seeking to suspend standing orders so the Australian people can get some answers. The Australian people want to know exactly what this new tax is going to do to them and how they are going to pay their bills. Every time we come into this place seeking answers to simple questions, as my colleague sought a simple answer to a question about steel jobs— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, on a point of order on relevance: if they want answers, they should ask questions— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —They have shut down question time— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the House will resume his seat— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —and now— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —and he is now warned! The member for North Sydney will relate his remarks to the suspension. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —Because we cannot get simple, straightforward, honest answers from the government about a tax that they have announced, here in question time we have asked them question after question about the impact of their new tax, and the government refuse to answer. Instead, the sole approach of this government is to attack others—to attack the Leader of the Opposition, to attack others on this side of the House, to attack critics like Paul O’Malley from BlueScope Steel. That is their response to every question requesting information about the tax they have announced. That is why we are seeking to suspend the debate. That is why we want to bring on a proper debate about the carbon tax. If we do not get answers, we have to continue to do this, because if the government does not answer questions in the House of Representatives then there is no choice for the opposition other than to come into this place and suspend standing orders so that we can have a proper debate. But this Prime Minister does not want to have a proper debate. If the Prime Minister wanted to be open and honest when announcing a new tax, she would have told the Australian people how much that tax would be and whom it would apply to. Instead, the Prime Minister excluded the agricultural industry but would not comment on other industries, and that has created a climate of uncertainty right across the economy. And that is in a period when that uncertainty was reflected by the Treasurer in his own answer on building approvals today—a dramatic drop in building approvals following the events in Queensland—but the response of the government is two new taxes. We on this side of the House say the Australian people want some answers. They want a Prime Minister with courage. They want a Prime Minister who is prepared to explain in detail how Australians’ cost of living is going to rise with yet another Labor tax—yet another Labor tax. Prime Minister, don’t run away from the debate; give us the answers. 2273 15:05:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Ms GILLARD —The House is being asked to suspend standing orders to hear a debate led by the Leader of the Opposition. Well, frankly, Mr Speaker, why would we do that? The dogs are barking, but the caravan has moved on. I would say that to the bitter, shallow, hollow people on the front bench of the opposition. They are realising, day after day—and you can see it written on the faces of the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer; these Work Choices refugees—that they will never sit on the government front bench again. Let us go through the misrepresentations of today’s debate. This— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I ask the Prime Minister to keep to the debate topic. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will be debating the suspension of standing and sessional orders. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —We are asked to suspend standing orders because the opposition, in part, says that it wants to reflect views from the business community. Mr Speaker, let me just take you to today’s misrepresentations to show how the call for this debate is based on untruths, as every other claim they have made in this parliament this week has been. Let me take you to the words of the Alcoa managing director, going to the question raised with me— SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister is addressing this debate from the negative. She tells us they will not agree to the suspension of standing orders and, therefore, she has to tell us why that is the case. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. The Prime Minister has the call. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —This debate would be a waste of time because it would come from the party of the past and it would include more misrepresentations. Let me take you to today’s misrepresentations. In question time the member for Wannon raised a question about the aluminium jobs in his electorate. I refer him to the words of Alcoa’s Managing Director, Alan Cransberg. Alcoa is the head company of the jobs he talked about. This is the truth, not a misrepresentation that has been brought into this parliament. He said: A carefully designed carbon price can achieve both imperatives—an effective economic response to climate change that provides incentives and improvements while preserving the international competitiveness of important Australian industries—we believe this is what parliament should seek to achieve. Why would we have a debate to listen to more misrepresentations, given that misrepresentation in question time? 00AMV Hunt, Gregory, MP Mr Hunt interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Flinders is warned! 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —The misrepresentations go on. 217266 Prentice, Jane, MP Mrs Prentice —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister is answering a question that she could not answer before instead of debating the motion. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Ryan will resume her seat. The Prime Minister has the call. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —The opposition would only continue the misrepresentations if we had this debate. There has been the misrepresentation in the debate so far of the position of Mr Paul O’Malley, the CEO of BlueScope Steel, who actually said on Inside Business— Opposition members interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —They are not interested in actual words, because it stops their fear campaign. Listen to his actual words. This is what he said: In relation to energy, there is absolutely an argument that says there needs to be a carbon price so we can have natural gas base load generation in Australia … So I think a carbon tax around energy is a really good thing to do at the moment and will have a big effect in reducing carbon. The party of misrepresentation are asking for a debate so they can continue their misrepresentations. We should learn from these two misrepresentations that the Liberal Party is incapable of telling the truth on climate change, is incapable of telling the truth on carbon pricing and is incapable of doing anything under its current leadership—the embittered, leftover leadership of the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer. They are the embittered leadership, the sour people, who cannot accept the result of the last election and the fact that we are in government. The only thing they have left—they have not got any ideas, because they get their ideas from One Nation emails; they have no other source of ideas except what One Nation sends to them—is a fear campaign. They are in a shambles. Mr Speaker, look at the shambles that they are in. They are trying to get a backbencher to take a point of order. Here we have the fear campaign. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I put it to you that during the contributions of both the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer you routinely brought them back to the suspension of standing orders. I put it to you that the Prime Minister is speaking not even closely to the suspension of standing orders. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The same rules apply to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will relate her remarks to the suspension of the standing and sessional orders. If people listen, they might understand how that is being achieved. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —This suspension should not be carried because the participants in this debate from the Liberal Party have nothing to say. They just have a fear campaign, and their fear campaign is not based on fact. Today’s fear campaign was condemned out of the mouths of the businesspeople they were trying to rely on. Let us go across the fear campaigns of this week. They misrepresented the position of BlueScope Steel today. They misrepresented the position of the aluminium industry today. Yesterday they said that the government should be condemned because it had not given out enough information. The day before they were trying to persuade people that they would pay $1,500 extra for electricity and 6.5c extra for petrol. Every day these people will make something up to continue their fear campaign. Every day they come into this parliament and misquote others. Every day they intend to mislead the Australian people. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt should be very careful. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I say to the opposition: the Australian people are far better than you are. They are confident people who are rejecting your race baiting. They are confident people who are rejecting you playing the politics of grief. They are confident people who are rejecting your One Nation policy agenda. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will refer her remarks through the chair and she will be relevant to the suspension of the standing orders. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister accused members on this side of the House of a deeply offensive and untrue political tactic, and she should withdraw. Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I did not honestly hear exactly what the Prime Minister said. I did invite her to return to the debate. I think that, on the basis of the hubbub in the chamber, I will leave it at that, because I am not fully aware of what was said. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, I would prefer not to sully the chamber by repeating it, but she accused— Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —For your benefit, Mr Speaker, it was a low and contemptible charge—that of race baiting—and she must withdraw it. Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The House is not assisting at all. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —If it assists the House, I withdraw it. The opposition should reject the political tactics of Cory Bernardi, they should reject the politics that their shadow minister wanted to play with grief, they should reject the One Nation emails that lead their economic policy— EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order— Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! 0J4 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr Ruddock —You are out of your depth—you’ve lost it! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I hardly think the member for Berowra is in a position to control the chamber by interjection. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, on the point of order: she has compounded the offence. She should withdraw the charge of race baiting, and she should apologise for making it in the first place. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The original expression was withdrawn and, really, I think that the remarks then made after the withdrawal are in the nature of the robustness of debate. I have concluded this incident in my own mind. There are other actions people may like to take but I am not taking any further points of order. Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for the debate has expired. Question put: That the motion (Mr Abbott’s) be agreed to. 15:21:00 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. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Buchholz, S. Chester, D. Christensen, G. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Coulton, M. * Dutton, P.C. Entsch, W. Fletcher, P. Forrest, J.A. Frydenberg, J. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Griggs, N. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hockey, J.B. Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Jones, E. 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. 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. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Tehan, D. Truss, W.E. Tudge, A. Turnbull, M. Van Manen, B. Vasta, R. Washer, M.J. Wyatt, K. 72 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. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Husic, E. Jones, S. Kelly, M.J. King, C.F. Leigh, A. Livermore, K.F. Lyons, G. Macklin, J.L. Marles, R.D. Melham, D. Mitchell, R. 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. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Smyth, L. Snowdon, W.E. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, A. Windsor, A.H.C. Zappia, A. 3 Schultz, A. Rudd, K.M. Keenan, M. Murphy, J. Randall, D.J. McClelland, R.B. * denotes teller Question negatived. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 2277 Questions to the Speaker 2277 2277 15:22:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 1 Mr ALBANESE —Mr Speaker, I have a question to you. An opposition member—The member for Wannon is seeking the call. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the House has the call. Now you have alerted me to the member for Wannon, I will get to him when there is no business before me. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —I have a question to you, Mr Speaker, and it goes to the conduct of question time, which is provided for in the standing orders to occur between 2 pm and 3.30 pm each day. Given that for the past five question times in a row that has not occurred, and question time has been concluded with a motion of suspension moved by the Leader of the Opposition, I ask the Speaker what precedents are there in order to ensure that question time can occur. Indeed, are there any occurrences whereby the ability to move a suspension of standing orders has itself been suspended by the government of the day in order to ensure that government business and the schedule can occur? Mr Speaker, as Leader of the House I certainly have received a number of complaints about question time being disrupted. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the House has the call! R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is my view that people do expect question time to take place and for the timetable to be not determined by the schedule of Play School at five past three on ABC TV. 2277 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —As the Leader of the House is aware, it has not been my practice to take questions on procedural matters. I will continue with that, and I am sure that the Chamber Research Office—while they might not be delighted that I am referring you to the Chamber Research Office—will have that information at their fingertips. 2277 2277 15:26:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 Mr PYNE —Mr Speaker, I have a question to you. Can you advise the House what mechanisms are available to you as the Speaker to ensure that the government does have question time until half past three each day, because every day for the past five days they have cut question time off at quarter past three or earlier. 2277 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —It is this same response, except I am not referring the Manager of Opposition Business to the Chamber Research Office. 2277 Personal Explanations 2277 15:26:00 Tehan, Dan, MP 210911 Wannon LP 0 0 Mr TEHAN —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? 210911 Tehan, Dan, MP Mr TEHAN —Grievously. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. 210911 Tehan, Dan, MP Mr TEHAN —In question time today I asked the Prime Minister a very simple question about guaranteeing jobs at Portland Aluminium in my electorate. I did not seek to put words into the mouth of the company or its executive, as she alluded to in the censure motion. I asked her quite simply to guarantee the 600 jobs in my electorate, and she would not do it. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member has shown where he believes he has been misrepresented. 2278 Committees 2278 2278 2278 15:27:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I present the Selection Committee’s report No. 17 relating to the consideration of bills. The report will be printed in today’s Hansard. Copies of the report have been placed on the table. The report read as follows— Report relating to the consideration of bills introduced from 24 February 2011 The committee met in private session on 2 and 3 March 2011. The committee determined that it would not refer to committees any of the bills introduced from 24 February 2011 to 2 March 2011 and that it would refer the National Health Reform Amendment (National Health Performance Authority) Bill 2011 introduced on 3 March 2011 to the House Standing Committee on Health and Ageing for inquiry and report. 2278 Documents Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 15:27:00 —Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. 2278 Miscellaneous 2278 15:27:00 Ellis, Kate, MP DZU Adelaide ALP Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare and Minister for the Status of Women 1 0 Ms KATE ELLIS —Mr Speaker, on indulgence. I take this opportunity on behalf of the government to acknowledge that next week we will celebrate the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day and that there will be events taking place right around Australia—indeed, right around the world—to celebrate the achievements of women, the great advances that have been made, the heroes that have fought so hard, but also of course to look at the challenges which still exist. As members get out and celebrate this anniversary in their own communities, this is also a perfect opportunity for us as members of the House to think about how this parliament can continue to endeavour to progress the position of Australian women, and women right around the world. 2278 15:28:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —Mr Speaker, on indulgence. I join with the government in congratulating UN Women and UN Women Australia on arranging a number of celebrations to mark the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day on 8 March. It is appropriate in a year that we have our first female Prime Minister that we should recognise the achievements of those women who came before us in the House and in the other chamber. Dame Enid Lyons, who was the first woman to hold cabinet rank; Dame Annabelle Rankin, the first woman to administer a government department; Margaret Guilfoyle, the first woman to hold a cabinet position as a minister; and Margaret Reid, the first woman to hold the position of President of the Senate. We on this side of the House are very proud of the achievements of coalition women. I take this opportunity to wish all those involved in International Women’s Day celebrations a most successful day, as we reflect on the achievements in all fields of women in Australia as well as internationally. 2279 Bills R4516 2279 Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) 15:30:00 —by leave—I move: That the bill be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration. Question agreed to. 2279 Bills R4492 2279 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 2279 Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) 15:31:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 2279 Matters of Public Importance 2279 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Indi proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The impact of a carbon tax on jobs 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— 2279 15:32:00 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 0 0 Mrs MIRABELLA —There is one job that this carbon tax is intended to save, and that is the Prime Minister’s job. What price will we pay? Thousands of Australian jobs will be exported overseas and thousands of Australian businesses will go to the wall. For what reason? For the reason that this is a desperate minority government and a Prime Minister who will do ‘whatever it takes’, in the words of Graham Richardson, to grease up to the Greens and give them what they want so she can hold onto that mantle of power. The more desperate the minority government becomes, the more desperate the Prime Minister becomes in trying to save her job, the greater the lack of judgment we see. We see scores of members on the other side wondering: why when making this announcement did she allow the Greens to colonise the Prime Minister’s courtyard and effectively show the Australian people the reality of the desperation of this minority government? There is one thing I can guarantee you: the more desperate this Prime Minister becomes, the more she will fail in her judgment and the more, unfortunately, Australians will suffer. We heard her speak before about people being misleading. Let me tell you: the person who has more front than a mall full of shops is this Prime Minister. The mother of all untruths in the whole of political history has to be the one she told on the eve of an election. She was a woman desperate, a woman being leaked against, a woman being knifed with a former Prime Minister out to get her, and she was saying anything—in the words of Graham Richardson, ‘Whatever it takes.’ She said whatever she thought she needed to say: ‘There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.’ She also said, ‘There is a great divide in this parliament.’ Yes, there is. On that side they are interested in one job: the top job; the PM’s job. On this side of the House we are inundated by calls from communities desperate for financial security, desperate to make ends meet and desperate to hold onto their jobs and businesses. We know there are small and medium-sized businesses that do not have the clout of big unions or the entree into the government, and they have told us they are hurting. They cannot afford another cost to seriously jeopardise their already thin margins. That is the big divide: there is one job that is important on that side—the job of the Prime Minister, which will allow the Labor Party to hold onto power. They are desperate because they are about to lose power in New South Wales. They are about to lose the heart of the Labor Party, and it is going to hurt them, big time. So they need to hold onto this one job. We hear the Prime Minister quoting this CEO and that CEO. Behind the scenes, when people talk about what they really think, manufacturing and businesses are not happy at all. But the Prime Minister, of course, with her very tricky words, would like us all to enter the fantasy land she lives in on top of the faraway tree, where everyone out there in business wants this carbon tax and that it is the answer to all the problems. We know that is not true. She arrogantly dismisses the concerns of BlueScope Steel and she told us during question time, ‘They’ll just get on with it; they’ll just find something else to do’—effectively she said, ‘Tough: you’ll just have to put up with all the pathetic decisions we make, every decision that drives up cost and every decision that makes Australian businesses uncompetitive in the face of imports.’ We have seen their mining tax. We have seen them go back on all sorts of promises, whether it was cash for clunkers and the Green Car Innovation Fund or securing our borders. But the mother of all deceptions was the promise not to introduce a carbon tax. She will keep her job for a short time, but during that time what will it cost Australians and what will it cost the Australian economy? She has reversed the public good. Usually we ask people to sacrifice a little of themselves for the greater good; on this occasion it is Prime Minister Gillard and the Labor Party asking thousands of everyday Australians to sacrifice their livelihoods and their standard of living for her job. What an arrogant Prime Minister. What an out-of-touch Prime Minister. What an absolutely delusional Prime Minister. As the shadow minister for industry, it is my solemn duty to inform the House that this backflip is on the back of so many reversals and contradictions that have had an extraordinarily bad impact on Australian businesses. I note from some of the Prime Minister’s statements that she thinks the implementation of this job-destroying new tax is going to result in businesses using less energy. But what she does not acknowledge is that in many cases the lights are going to get switched off forever and that this will be the industrial sunset for much of Australian manufacturing. Already in the past three years Labor has presided over sustained contractions in Australian manufacturing that have been the worst ever recorded by the AiG and the PricewaterhouseCoopers index. More than 87,000 jobs have been lost in Australian manufacturing during that time. And just to add to this depressing picture, insolvencies across Australian businesses have hit record levels in each and every one of the years of the Rudd-Gillard government. We have been lurching backwards in a period when manufacturing has been consistently expanding in places like the US, Italy, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands. So much for trying to help working families or even the newly unemployed families and so much for moving forward. Not content with crippling a sector to which they have made all sorts of promises and whispered all sorts of sweet nothings just to get elected, the government now want to tax Australian manufacturing out of existence. As the shadow industry minister, I am constantly impressed by the resilience, the determination and the innovation of Australian manufacturers, but at the same time I hear the constant refrain from them—from one end of the country to the other—that they cannot afford to stay in business if they are forced to compete with imports that do not have the cost of a carbon tax placed on them. Already, they have to compete against imports which have been manufactured by countries with cheaper wages but which do not the same environmental occupational health and safety laws as we have. This one additional cost is going to drive many to the wall. We have not heard from the government what they are going to do with government procurement. Are they going to say when they put out a government contract that they will put an extra tax, the carbon tax, on those who tender from overseas or are this government going to continue the practice of favouring foreign companies that are not subjected to the same laws, regulations and costs as those in Australia? Are they going to say that they will favour cheap tenders and give Australian taxpayers’ dollars to foreign companies that are not subjected to a carbon tax? I bet you that is what is in their plan because that would be utterly consistent with their secret plans, like the secret plan to send Army camouflage fabric to China. If they can get away with it, the government will. Is it any wonder in this current environment that we have Managing Director and CEO of BlueScope Steel, Paul O’Malley, saying that this government is engaged in economic vandalism, that it has an anti-manufacturing focus and that it displays complete ignorance? There is no shortage of industry leaders and bodies lining up behind him to make the same points. If the Prime Minister thinks that industry and workers out there want this tax, she is utterly and thoroughly deluded. She would stand there and say black is white until she was blue in the face just to keep her job. She will say and do anything. Everyone knows, even the people who sit behind her, this Prime Minister has worked all her life to get to the top job and she will do anything, sell anyone and sacrifice as many Australian jobs as possible if it means that she keeps her job. This carbon tax will make our industries less competitive against imports and will not only export Australian jobs overseas but also export carbon overseas to countries that use more energy and put more emissions into the atmosphere by making the same things that we do. As long as they have a competitive advantage over us and no carbon tax, the incentive will be for them to produce more, to make more, whilst they retain that competitive advantage. It is not only a policy that will destroy Australian jobs and send them offshore but also a policy that will result in even greater emissions. In an act of trademark Labor stupidity, it is helping to increase the amount of carbon in the world’s atmosphere, but that breathtaking stupidity means nothing if it means that the Prime Minister will hold onto her job. I realise that the Greens are hell-bent on taking us back to a pre-industrial era, and we see the Labor Party complicit in all of that, but it is no surprise when they have a Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research such as Kim Carr who has rightly filled the business community with dread, given that his close to two decades in parliament have produced barely a whimper of economic literacy and only resulted, in government, in disastrous policies that have threatened to remove the incentives to innovation. The Prime Minister stood there in question time and said ‘Oh, manufacturing will be fine; they will just innovate.’ So what have they done? In government they are trying to rip out the most important incentive to innovation, the R&D tax incentive. The Prime Minister is all talk. She also talks about looking into the future and transforming the Australian economy. Industry and workers know that the future under a carbon tax means almost no manufacturing. The future under a carbon tax is tens of thousands of people unemployed. The future under a carbon tax is the single greatest disruption to the Australian economy and the destruction of Australian jobs that we have seen. If you do not believe me, Prime Minister, instead of just speaking to the big end of town, why do you not go out there to small- and medium-sized businesses who invite you to go and speak to them, small- and medium-sized businesses who have mortgaged their house and taken the risk to compete out there in the marketplace, who are as efficient as they can possibly be, who are working on very small margins? Why don’t you have the guts, be woman enough, to go and speak to them, look them in the eye and tell them this carbon tax is good for their business? Tell them that this carbon tax is going to create more jobs and then you will see—from real people who have spent real money and made real sacrifices to carve out a living, to get some independence in their lives—the incandescent anger right around Australia. If this Prime Minister cannot see how angry people are, if she does not understand that they are being pushed to the wall with the ever-increasing cost of living and the insecurity about whether or not they are going to keep their jobs, then she is truly the most delusional person who has ever occupied the position of Prime Minister. As much as Labor might— HVW Bradbury, David, MP Mr Bradbury interjecting— 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—Order! The honourable member for Lindsay will have his say shortly, I suspect. 00AMU Mirabella, Sophie, MP Mrs MIRABELLA —As much as the Prime Minister might want to believe her own words, the truth out in the real world is very different. The last thing industry and businesses need is an arrogant, interfering government—not to mention the Greens; a gaggle of Greens—who do not care about Australian jobs. I am sure the Greens would want a lot of jobs to disappear and a lot of Australians to go and live somewhere else, so they could get rid of those smokestacks and big factories that create jobs. But on this side of the House— HVW Bradbury, David, MP Mr Bradbury interjecting— 00AMU Mirabella, Sophie, MP Mrs MIRABELLA —There is a big divide. On this side of the House we want Australian industry to grow, to be competitive. We do not favour foreign companies at the expense of Australian companies. We do not want to say to Australian manufacturers: ‘We will put a carbon tax on you, and you know what? We’re still going to buy from overseas companies. As an Australian government we will favour foreign companies.’ This Prime Minister will destroy Australian jobs in every single corner she travels to in Australia. As her marginal seat members will tell her, there is that great concern. People are afraid. Forget about the faceless men; the faceless men are starting to look pretty attractive compared to the Greens. The Greens have taken over and now, with the faceless men losing their power base in New South Wales, they are going to be very sad indeed. This Prime Minister will import not just products and manufacturing but jobs, and should be seriously condemned from every corner of Australia. (Time expired) 2283 15:47:00 Clare, Jason, MP HWL Blaxland ALP Minister for Defence Materiel 1 0 Mr CLARE —I welcome the opportunity to have this debate about jobs, the most important thing in Australia. This is a debate about jobs, and every time we have a debate in this place about jobs the opposition get it wrong. We had debates in this place in 2008 and 2009 about jobs, about what it would take to make sure the economy did not go into recession and to protect Australian jobs. We took the action that was necessary to stop a recession and to protect Australian jobs. The opposition took the opposite position. They decided to oppose the stimulus package, which would, if we had accepted the opposition’s advice, have cost 200,000 Australians their jobs—that is two Olympic stadiums full of people, or two electorates represented in this parliament. In that debate, back in April 2009, the member for North Sydney, the shadow Treasurer, said: … 300,000 Australians are going to lose their job in its— the government’s— first term. What happened? Because of the action that the government took, faced with the greatest economic crisis in 75 years, more than 700,000 more Australians have a job today than when the government took office just over three years ago—despite the GFC. They have made the same mistakes when it comes to the mineral resource rent tax. The scare campaign has been running now for close to 12 months. We keep hearing the story about how miners are going to lose their jobs. Since the government has announced the mineral resource rent tax, employment in mining has already grown by 10.3 per cent. Despite the Liberal scare campaign, companies are still investing in mining because they know it has a strong future. There are 18,690 more mining jobs today than before that tax was announced. If you want to go into history to have a look at how the Liberal Party performs when you have great economic structural debates about how to improve the economy, you need go no further than the debate that this parliament had in the early nineties about compulsory superannuation. I went back and looked at those debates to see what the Liberal Party said then. HWS Ramsey, Rowan, MP Mr Ramsey interjecting— IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr Briggs —What about the GST, Jason? HWL Clare, Jason, MP Mr CLARE —This is what some of your comrades said back in the nineties. David Connolly MP said compulsory superannuation was ‘absolutely abhorrent’. He said, ‘Australia does not need, and cannot afford, these proposals at this time.’ That sounds similar to what we are hearing now. Wilson Tuckey—well missed!—said that superannuation was ‘stupid and dishonest’. Senator Alston said it would ‘be little short of lunacy to introduce a massive new cost burden on employers’. Remember Senator Panizza? This is a good one: The worst case scenario is the loss of 100,000 jobs … …            …            … Businesses and organisations will simply not be able to afford it … …            …            … Small businesses will be closed down … …            …            … … 100,000 jobs are on the line … …            …            … I can see those 100,000 jobs quite easily going out the door within a very few years. Senator Watson said there would ‘be rising unemployment as a result of this levy’. Senator Crichton-Browne said compulsory superannuation was yet another threat to Australia’s future economic prosperity. Allan Rocher said it would ‘have a disastrous impact on business’ and it was ‘a tax on jobs’. 230531 Buchholz, Scott, MP Mr Buchholz interjecting— 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—The honourable member for Wright will return to his seat or remain silent. HWL Clare, Jason, MP Mr CLARE —What happened—did compulsory superannuation destroy the Australian economy? No, people did not get sacked. New businesses and new jobs were created and it proved to be one of the most important economic reforms of the last century. It created new industries, and it now funds more than a trillion dollars worth of funds under management, making Australia’s superannuation savings the fourth-largest capital pool in the world. It created new jobs and more jobs. A report that was released in 2009 by the Association of Superannuation Funds estimated that 60,000 people are now directly employed in the superannuation industry. That is structural reform of the economy, creating new jobs. The same scare campaign that we heard then, in the early nineties, is back and running again on climate change. The member for Indi, in her contribution to the debate, started with, ‘1,000 Australian jobs exposed overseas’. Then she ramped up the tempo and said that there would be no manufacturing left. But that was not good enough; as she got towards the end of her contribution she said that 10,000 Australians would be unemployed. Then, just before the end— 00AMU Mirabella, Sophie, MP Mrs Mirabella —I rise on a point of order. Perhaps the member should check Hansard before inaccurately— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Indi will resume her seat. HWL Clare, Jason, MP Mr CLARE —I am sure Hansard will prove this quote is correct. You went on to talk about the biggest destroyer of jobs in Australian history. Forget the Great Depression! That is right up there with comments about Gaddafi. Absolutely ridiculous! 00AMU Mirabella, Sophie, MP Mrs Mirabella —You should speak to Australian businesses. HWL Clare, Jason, MP Mr CLARE —Is that right? The contribution was about the biggest destroyer of jobs in Australian history. You just have to go back to quotes from previous debates to see how ludicrous those comments were in the past and how ludicrous these comments are today. They should be dealt with with the derision they deserve. Economic reforms—structural changes to our economy—create new industries and new jobs. That was the lesson of the eighties and the nineties. Remember the fear campaigns about tariff reductions and other reforms of the Hawke and Keating governments. It was said that those governments were selling out, that industries would be destroyed, that jobs would be destroyed and that businesses would close. What did those reforms do? They did the reverse. Big economic reforms in the eighties and nineties made Australian businesses more competitive by forcing them to innovate. The lesson for us here, when we are contemplating these reforms, is that economic reform and structural reform create new jobs. The Hawke and Keating reforms set the Australian economy up for this century, to compete in new markets like China and East Asia, to make sure that we did not become the poor white trash of Asia. Creating new jobs is all about identifying the challenges of the future and acting upon them to give businesses the certainty they need. This reform is not easy; we do not say that it is. It is going to require a lot of hard work by all of us, but the longer we wait the more this will cost. If carbon pollution is going to be capped in the future businesses want to know what the rules are as soon as possible. They want certainty. The sooner that we set the rules the sooner they can make long-term investment decisions that will create the jobs of the future. If we fail here the cost of our indifference will be paid by our children and our grandchildren in their jobs, because the longer we take the more it will cost and the harder it will be to cut emissions and transform our economy to a low-carbon economy. The cheapest and most effective way to do that is by putting a price on carbon. That is what the member for Wentworth has said on many occasions. He has tried to convince his party of that. That is what John Howard, the former Prime Minister said on many occasions, and tried to convince his party of. That is what the member for Flinders said when he was at university. In his honours thesis he said: … a pollution tax is both desirable, and, in some form, is inevitable … He said: … even if some of the Liberal’s constituents do respond negatively, a pollution tax does need to be introduced to properly serve the public interest. 00AMU Mirabella, Sophie, MP Mrs Mirabella —Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the state of the House. The bells having been rung— M3E Mitchell, Rob, MP Mr Mitchell interjecting— 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention to offensive statements made just then by a member who is out of his seat. I ask that you ask him to withdraw that offensive statement. 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—What were the offensive statements? 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —I am not of a mind to repeat them but they related to the member for Indi. I think they are out of order. I took offence and he should withdraw them. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I did not hear the remarks. If I am not told what the remarks are obviously I cannot have them withdrawn. If the member did make an offensive comment I would ask him to assist the House but unless I actually know what was alleged to have been said I cannot take any action under the standing orders. I thought I was listening to him. He certainly should not have been interjecting from outside his seat but I did not hear anything that was unparliamentary. (Quorum formed) HWL Clare, Jason, MP Mr CLARE —As you will recall, I was just quoting from the thesis of the member for Flinders. It says that a pollution tax is desirable and that even if Liberals respond to it negatively a pollution tax needs to be introduced to properly serve the public interest. I think that if he were true to himself he would admit that today. Unfortunately, because of the extremists that have been involved in getting rid of the member for Wentworth and taking over the Liberal Party, he has now got to put together another plan, which will cost taxpayers $10 billion, and to be effective would cost $30 billion. It would mean that the taxpayers that we represent would end up paying an extra $720 a year on their bills because of an ineffective, badly designed, carbon pricing mechanism. What is clear—and you only need to see what the member for Wentworth said on Q&A the other night—is that no-one supports the opposition’s plan on carbon pricing. He was asked if there were any economists that support it and he could not mention any of them. No wonder economists do not support the opposition’s plan, because it is a carbon plan designed by One Nation. The same people who sent the emails to the Liberal MPs about the flood levy and Indonesian schools are from the same One Nation that sent emails to try to scare the pants off the Liberal Party to get rid of the member for Wentworth. If you go to the One Nation website and you hear them talk about times when Greenland was ice free and now you can grow melons in England and in the 1600s London’s Thames River froze over, and then you go to 2009 and you see Tony Abbott saying the same things, what is clear is that they are now more One Nation than they are one Liberal Party. That is why when they were interviewed by Phil Coorey they were saying that they were now being run by One Nation. Another member said that they were in the thrall of right-wing nut jobs. That is what they are saying about their own side to the journalists. Robert Menzies would not recognise this party if he were alive today, and one thing you can be sure of, Malcolm Fraser would not vote for it. It is a party so right wing now that it makes John Howard look like Che Guevara. John Howard did a lot of things but he never took advice from Pauline Hanson. 00AMU Mirabella, Sophie, MP Mrs Mirabella —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, on relevance. 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—There is no point of order. 00AMU Mirabella, Sophie, MP Mrs Mirabella —He has not mentioned— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Indi will resume her seat. This is a wide-ranging debate. 00AMU Mirabella, Sophie, MP Mrs Mirabella interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Indi! HWL Clare, Jason, MP Mr CLARE —They do not like it. They can hand it out but they cannot take it, can they? The truth hurts. They are more One Nation than one Liberal Party. As your own colleagues say, you are now run by a band of lunatics and right-wing nut jobs. (Time expired) 2286 16:02:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP 0 0 Mr BILLSON —What a revelation we have just had. You must really feel for the hundreds of thousands of Australians that are worried about their jobs and the households worrying about how they are going to pay for the increased cost of everything when they get what is nothing more than a rant. This is supposed to be a matter of public importance about the impact of Labor’s carbon tax on jobs. Did we hear a word about that from the melodious member who just spoke? No. We heard lots of volume but no content, a completely vacuous contribution about something that goes to the heart of the living standards and the opportunity for people in this country to secure a livelihood through employment, and the reckless way in which the government, to hang onto power, is pandering to a Greens agenda to introduce a carbon tax it cannot explain, an impact it does not understand, consequences for households it cannot even articulate, and a concern of business and for employment it does not even bother to talk about. What is going on here? We have heard all of these stories from those opposite and a complete inability to address what is going to be one of the most fundamental impacts on people’s existence in this country, and they cannot even bring themselves to talk about it. This is a tax that does not just land once. This carbon tax will land over and over and over and over again on every stage of production, on every part of activity, on every element of what is consumed in this country and then, on top of that, there will be a GST. The consequences of that are clear. This carbon tax risks visiting carnage on small businesses across this country. And do you know what is most concerning? The small business community have had to sit by and listen to Labor talk about how clever they are while 300,000 jobs have been lost in small business since the election of Labor. If that atrophy within small business and the economic strength that small business brings to the economy is not enough, those people in small business have to cope with this apathy, this indifference, this complete disinterest in what should be the engine room of our economy. When the Howard government was last in office, 53 per cent of Australians in the private sector got their job in small business. It is now down to 48 per cent and diminishing—300,000 fewer jobs—and here we have a poorly conceived plan and a change that the government cannot even articulate. It comes in here with a couple of agreed bullet points that have been workshopped with the Greens, and then argues that it is some blueprint for enormous reform within the Australian economy. When we ask about consequences, we get no answers. When we ask about the level of the tax, we get no answers. We ask about the compensation package and we get no answers. And the small business community gets no interest. They are never mentioned. They are not involved even in these workshopped slogans that masquerade as some kind of considered argument about a carbon tax. They do not even crack it for a mention. It is as though the small business community does not matter. It is the same dismissive, disinterested attitude we got under Prime Minister Rudd’s CPRS. Everyone was queuing up for compensation, and you know who got none? Small business. And what were they told? Suck it up! Suck up the extra costs or pass them on to consumers. That is what the small business community was told. This again illustrates how this Labor government does not understand what is going on in the economy. It comes in here and boasts about growth at the big end of town and in big mining and big minerals, but it does not see the harm and the hardship its policies are causing small businesses right across this country. If this economy is patchwork, it is threadbare for the small business community. There are no sloppy margins. There are no easy profits. There is no optimism that the government is even remotely interested in their circumstances or the tens of thousands of people in every community around the country who get their employment in small business. What have we got here? A carbon tax that is going to hit every stage of every piece of activity of every part of production on every input because cost of living pressures in the household represent cost input pressures in business and they just cannot pass them on. They cannot pass them on because Australian consumers are anxious, nervous and frightened about what is going to come next from this government. They are looking for bargains. They are worrying about balancing their own books. They have got rising costs everywhere they turn and they are also concerned about the impact of this carbon tax on their jobs, their livelihood, let alone their ability to balance their own budgets. They are not mirroring this government that does not seem to care about paying its way. Households do care, they live within their means; they have to. But small businesses do not have these great, sloppy profit margins to be able to say, ‘Suck up this extra charge.’ This is a charge that will go on and on building at every stage of activity. Wherever there is energy consumed, wherever there is fuel being used, this carbon tax will be embedded in those input costs and they will cascade through and snowball, and add to the cost of those goods and services, and then the government gets a large lick at the end of the day from larger GST revenue. They just love it. Do you think that this government cares? Of course they do not. They could not bring themselves to talk about this very issue. The surveys are quite interesting. There have been some surveys out there where having heard the Prime Minister say, ‘There will not be a carbon tax under the government I lead’—you know small business people, they take people as they find them—they thought, ‘The Prime Minister of this country said that, we might be able to believe it.’ Do you know, 80 per cent of small businesses in a recent survey said they had made no provision for a carbon tax because they took the Prime Minister at her word? Such is the democratic deficit we now face today. They are now thinking: ‘What is this? Is this Guatemala or something where these undertakings from civic leaders just do not count?’ You are going to run your own show and when things get tough, you just tell everybody, ‘You’re happy, you’re happy, this will be good for you.’ Everyone will go, ‘Yes, that’s right, is it, Leader?’ It does not work like that in Australia. If political parties make commitments, they should stick to them—that is what honourable people do. There is little wonder as you travel around this country that you see the nation’s leading cartoonists have familiar themes. You have the Prime Minister sitting there as Bob Brown’s puppet and the Prime Minister interestingly is characterised as Pinocchio. You know what is really interesting, though? Where would Geppetto be? Would Geppetto be manufacturing these Pinocchio puppets in Australia? No, he would be pushed offshore. If he were manufacturing these Pinocchio-like puppets mimicking our Prime Minister, he would have to go offshore because all of the energy costs would be embedded, all the costs of getting the timber to his workshop would have carbon tax loaded into every part of that transport task. The energy that he would use, even the machinery that he would use, would have your carbon tax in there, so he would be buying in these puppets from offshore. I wonder what the likeness would be like. Is that what is really going on here? Is manufacturing so non-bourgeois that you do not want it in this country? Why on earth would you burden our competitive industries that day after day have to be world class and take on competitors right around the globe with a carbon tax that builds up, snowballs and adds lead in the saddlebag every step of the way when their competitors do not have to worry about it? What a cunning plan not to have to worry about small business—wipe them out. When you ask this government to explain the impact on business, who do they revert to? 00AMU Mirabella, Sophie, MP Mrs Mirabella —Bob Brown. 1K6 Billson, Bruce, MP Mr BILLSON —They revert to the big companies. They might get their economic advice from Bob Brown because we saw yesterday that the Treasurer has NFI—no fiscal idea—at all about what is going on, none whatsoever. The keeper of Australia’s taxes was asked about the impact of this tax and he could not even answer the question. Then he referred to a document where the carbon price was $45 a tonne. For people listening, that is not a $300 a year increase in your energy prices, that is $600 a year. Then you look at what is going on over in the UK where they surveyed some of these funky things that the government wants to facilitate that will create jobs and you find they cost 3.17 jobs for every job created in Australia. Something has to happen here. Labor has to take small business seriously. It cannot keep treating them like some second-class productive trash in this economy. Small business used to provide more than half of the workforce opportunities in Australia—it is now diminishing as days go by. They do not factor in your policy and decision making; your minister is the Marcel Marceau of the frontbench. Who knows what the small business minister does? Even at COAG do you know what got cut the other day? It was the Small Business Council. You do not even care to have a chat about it now. Come on, guys, you have got to lift your game. You have got to be interested in the impact of this tax, you cannot describe the impacts you dare not utter and the consequences for our economy and jobs without factoring in the very real concerns of small business. Small business will find their voice, believe me. They were inspired by your ignorance about the impact of the paid parental leave pay clerk role. They will find their voice. I just wonder whether there is anyone listening because Labor just does not seem to care that this carbon tax is going to damage employment in the engine room of our economy. The men and women of small business deserve better, they create wealth, they create opportunities— (Time expired) 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—Before I call the honourable member for Page, I consider it is skating dangerously close to reflecting on the chair for the member for Dunkley to refer to my ignorance in the process of his debate. He ought to direct his remarks through the chair. 2289 16:13:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 0 Ms SAFFIN —I am pleased to be able to speak about jobs in this debate because that is what the government is on about. That is what a Labor government is always on about—jobs, jobs and jobs—creating jobs and protecting jobs. If the coalition want to talk about jobs they should start with the Leader of the Opposition. He was looking after his own personal, political interest and blew up a bipartisan agreed approach to introducing an emissions trading scheme so that he could get his current job. So in talking about jobs, the coalition ought to have a look at what they have done first. We on this side care about jobs. We want to make sure, not just in one year, in two years, in three years, in five years, but in 10 years, in 20 years, that we have an economy that keeps nurturing, adapts and transforms and makes sure that we have jobs for the future—so jobs for the day and jobs for the future. I listened to the member for Wannon earlier, in question time and beyond, talking about wanting to protect jobs in his electorate in the steel industry. I say to him that he can join us and do the right thing. He can support the price on carbon. He can support moving to an emissions trading scheme. That way, he will actually protect the jobs in his electorate. The approach that is being taken by the coalition, by the opposition, is irresponsible. It is reckless. It is set to scare people. It is not about jobs. It is about their jobs as they see them—their own personal jobs—but not about the jobs that we want for people in regional New South Wales in particular. I draw your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, to a report that came out this week from the Climate Institute. I will quote a little bit from it. It starts off by saying: Australia is in the early stages of a clean energy boom, with tens of billions of dollars set to be invested in renewable energy in regional areas over the coming decades. I care about regional areas because that is where I live; that is where I come from. A lot of members care about regional areas. We in the Labor government do and we want more jobs there. We also know that the national 20 per cent renewable energy target that was introduced by the Labor government—by this government—is expected to drive investments of around $19 billion, projecting out to 2030. That is what we are looking at: transitioning the economy to a clean energy future. That is where we are heading. That is where we will go. Since I have been in this place, I have heard every fear campaign. I have heard every scare from the coalition. When we were protecting the economy in the global financial crisis— (Quorum formed) Debate interrupted. 2290 Adjournment 2290 16:19:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Leader of the House 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —I move: That the House do now adjourn. I require the question to be put immediately, under standing orders. Question put. 16:23:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins) 69 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. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Husic, E. Jones, S. Kelly, M.J. King, C.F. Leigh, A. Livermore, K.F. Lyons, G. Macklin, J.L. Marles, R.D. Melham, D. Mitchell, R. 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. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Smyth, L. Snowdon, W.E. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, A. Zappia, A. 65 Alexander, J. Andrews, K. Andrews, K.J. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Buchholz, S. Chester, D. Christensen, G. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Coulton, M. * Dutton, P.C. Entsch, W. Fletcher, P. Forrest, J.A. Frydenberg, J. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Griggs, N. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Jones, E. Kelly, C. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. McCormack, M. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Neville, P.C. O’Dowd, K. O’Dwyer, K Oakeshott, R.J.M. Prentice, J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. 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. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Tehan, D. Truss, W.E. Tudge, A. Van Manen, B. Vasta, R. Washer, M.J. Windsor, A.H.C. Wyatt, K. 3 Rudd, K.M. Schultz, A. Murphy, J. Keenan, M. McClelland, R.B. Randall, D.J. * denotes teller Question agreed to. 2291 16:29:00 House adjourned at 4.29 pm 2291 Notices The following notice was given: R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese to move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended for the remainder of this period of sittings, to prevent any motion being moved during Question Time other than a motion moved by a Minister. 2011-03-03 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper) took the chair at 9.39 am. 2292 Constituency Statements 2292 2292 09:39:00 Frydenberg, Josh, MP FKL Kooyong LP 0 0 Mr FRYDENBERG —The resilience of those hit by the devastating natural disasters earlier this year and the spirit of those who have committed themselves to the clean-up and rebuilding program demonstrates what the people and communities throughout our nation can achieve when united. So, too, on a local level in my electorate of Kooyong, the Australian spirit of volunteerism is alive and well, as displayed by those recently awarded 2011 Citizenship of the Year Awards by the council of Boroondara. The title of Boroondara Citizen of the Year went to Norman Gale. Boroondara’s Young Citizen of the Year is Daniel Cronin and the Outstanding Community Service award winner is Robert Pettit. Norman Gale is an active, well-known and respected leader within the Boroondara area and is currently the Community Services Director at the Camberwell branch of the Salvation Army. The Camberwell branch does much good work in our community, particularly with our youth, and I acknowledge its significant contribution. With a commitment to and passion for helping those less fortunate, Norman has developed and participated in an extensive range of community programs and projects, including SecondBite, which provides food for those who would otherwise be without, and numerous Camcare programs, whose new facility, located on St Johns Ave, Camberwell, I visited on its official opening on 10 November last year. Daniel Cronin is a terrific young Australian. Daniel is the co-founder and Chief Executive of the not-for-profit organisation Step Back Think, which aims to reduce alcohol fuelled violence among adolescents and young adults. Daniel witnessed firsthand the trauma and suffering inflicted through alcohol fuelled violence when his close friend James McCready-Bryan was the victim of a brutal and violent alcohol fuelled attack in 2006. James was knocked to the ground with a single punch. With James’s head making contact with the pavement, the resulting medical diagnosis was significant brain damage from which James will never fully recover. Daniel’s passionate advocacy in working to reduce alcohol fuelled violence has seen him take part in education and peer awareness campaigns discussing the implications of youth participation in violent behaviour induced by the consumption of alcohol. I have got to know Daniel well over the last few years and have the utmost admiration for his commitment to helping his fellow citizens. Robert Pettit is a passionate coach and committee member at Ashburton United Soccer Club. While the soccer club’s home ground sits just outside my electorate, many members of the Kooyong community play at and support Robert’s club. Although Robert has been a long-term soccer enthusiast, he first became involved with the club when his children joined. I congratulate all three participants on being recognised for their significant contributions to our Boroondara community. I also acknowledge the support of the Boroondara council and the mayor, Nicholas Tragas, as well as our local paper, the Progress Leader, for publicising these awards. The winners follow in the footsteps of many distinguished former recipients. (Time expired) 2293 2293 09:43:00 Marles, Richard, MP HWQ Corio ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs 1 0 Mr MARLES —I would like to talk to the House today about what is a vitally important issue, an issue which is about an act of goodwill, pure and simple, that saves lives and which every one of us has the potential to participate in. That issue is organ donation. In Australia, at any one time around 1,700 people are on the organ and tissue transplant waiting list waiting for what is, for them, the gift of life. We can be justifiably proud of our transplant success rate in Australia, but unfortunately we also have one of the lowest donation rates in the world. So, in that context, I was particularly pleased to learn that in my community of Geelong the rate of registered donors is very high. In fact, according to the Australian Organ Donor Register, the City of Greater Geelong has the highest number of registered organ donors of any local government area in Victoria. Greater Geelong is home to 44,323 registered organ donors, which is more than a quarter of the local population and well above the number of registered donors in other local government areas. The next closest are Mornington Peninsula, with 29,500 registered donors, and Yarra Ranges, with just under 27,000 registered donors. These figures show that Geelong families are generous in spirit and happy to help others in need—in this case, the many hundreds of people waiting for life-saving surgery and the chance to lead a happy and healthy life. I did not know this, but one organ donor can save up to 10 lives. Of course, organ donation is not an easy subject to discuss and the decision to register as a donor is not made lightly. But, for a family dealing with the traumatic experience of a sudden and unexpected death in the family, there can be greater comfort in knowing that their loved one has made this decision for them. In highlighting the wonderful response from those people living in the city of greater Geelong, this is also a good opportunity to urge other people who have not registered as organ donors to consider adding their own names to the list. We know, for example, men in blue-collar jobs are the most common Australian organ donors. The median age of donors is 48. Nearly half the deaths of organ donors are from heart failure. Road trauma accounts for 13 per cent of donor deaths. There is enormous tragedy in the death of an organ donor, but through the act of organ donation there can be a small but wonderful other side to that tragedy, and that of course is the gift of life. I am pleased to say that so many people in the city of Geelong have given this issue some thought and made a very conscious decision to give this very generous gift of life. 2293 2293 09:45:00 Markus, Louise, MP E07 Macquarie LP 0 0 Mrs MARKUS —Today I rise to acknowledge the deeds of our local Rural Fire Service brigades in the electorate of Macquarie who, through their diligence and hard work, prevented what could have been another natural disaster earlier this year. On Saturday, 5 February, a fire broke out on a private property in the Megalong Valley region of the Blue Mountains. That particular Saturday entered the history books, courtesy of a week-long heatwave that saw temperatures in the greater Western Sydney pass 40 degrees Celsius. The unseasonably wet start to summer had prevented the traditional back-burning of key bushlands and, when combined with the high humidity, created a dangerous level of ‘natural fuel’ for potential fires. At Narrow Neck, some 15 kilometres south of Katoomba, Anthony Hardy was on duty in the fire tower. At approximately 11.35 am, Anthony Hardy raised the alarm that a fire had broken out in the Megalong Valley. The significance of Anthony Hardy’s actions on the morning of 5 February is that it was approximately another 15 minutes before triple zero had received a call alerting authorities to the fire and the related dangers. The extra 15 minutes, together with the expeditiousness of the local rural fire brigades, prevented a potential catastrophe as the heatwave conditions of that week had created a dangerous environment of natural fuel, which potentially could have seen the fire quickly spread from the valley to the escarpment, destroying hundreds of hectares of World Heritage listed Blue Mountains and threatening the lives and property of people living in the region. On behalf of the people of Macquarie, I offer our sincere thanks for the alertness and actions of Anthony Hardy and the efforts of the men and women of the Rural Fire Service brigades who brought the fire under control. Those brigades deserve a special mention: the Megalong Valley, Shipley, Blackheath, Katoomba-Leura, Medlow Bath and South Katoomba brigades. I would also like to mention the brigades from Hartley and Kanimbla, who assisted in bringing the fire under control. The circumstances surrounding the fire are still under investigation by authorities, but I can advise that Rod Walker, Operations Support Officer and Acting Inspector for the Blue Mountains District Rural Fire Service, and Inspector Paul McGrath, their support team and the brigades involved did an outstanding job, limiting the damages to four hectares, with no loss of personal property and, most importantly, no loss of life. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the efforts of all involved saved the residents of the Blue Mountains from, potentially, a natural disaster. On their behalf, I say a huge thankyou. 2294 2294 09:48:00 Smyth, Laura, MP 172770 La Trobe ALP 0 0 Ms SMYTH —I am very fortunate to have much of the Dandenong Ranges in my electorate—from Upwey to Mount Dandenong, from Sassafras to Menzies Creek, from Belgrave to Nangana, through Emerald, Cockatoo and Gembrook, and into the foothills. It really is a delightful place. It is an area of rich environmental value which requires ongoing assistance to ensure that its biodiversity can be preserved. It needs support to ensure that existing species of wildlife and vegetation are able to flourish. The federal government’s Caring for our Country initiative has recently provided funding for five local community groups in La Trobe to support conservation of our local landscape. Those have included the Knox Environment Society; Friends of Glenfern Valley Bushlands; the VFF Farm, Tree and Landcare Association, in Emerald and Pakenham; and Cardinia Catchment Landcare Group. A number of those grants will enable the better preservation of parts of the Dandenong Ranges and the surrounding foothills. Having caught up with several landcare groups recently, I certainly know that those grants were very well received indeed. I also appreciate that there is still much more that needs to be done in order to preserve the environmental value of the Dandenongs. The health of the Australian landscape depends in large part on the work of volunteers and community groups carrying out revegetation and weed removal, controlling pest animals, carrying out extensive tree planning and monitoring those local indicator species that reflect the health of our environment. I also know that the single most significant thing that we can do to preserve our environment and that I as a representative in this place can do is take meaningful and quick action to cut national carbon emissions and address the effects of climate change. The Dandenong Ranges are exposed to the risks of extreme weather events, and bushfire risks are foremost in the minds of all of us in the region. The science of climate change tells us that we can expect a greater incidence of extreme weather events if we do not take meaningful and swift action to curb carbon emissions. I accept the findings of that science. I accept the reality of climate change and that unchecked carbon pollution will create extraordinary risks and have a deleterious impact on our environment and our way of life. I believe that any party which has designs on being the government cannot ignore that science. We need to act now. The consequences of a failure to act are not only a matter of national interest; they are of very particular local interest to those who live in an especially vulnerable part of my own electorate. 2295 2295 09:51:00 Fletcher, Paul, MP L6B Bradfield LP 1 0 Mr FLETCHER —I rise to speak about the matter of Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Hospital, which is the major public hospital in my electorate of Bradfield. For many years, Hornsby hospital has been grievously neglected by the New South Wales state Labor government. This is a major hospital serving a large part of the northern area of Sydney, but it is in very poor physical condition. I have had the opportunity to visit the hospital on a number of occasions and I have seen for myself the operating theatres which have very inadequate electrical wiring that is not suitable for modern equipment. I have seen for myself the open passageways running between wards and the operating theatres through which patients have to be wheeled at any time of the day or night, no matter how cold it may be. I have seen for myself the evidence of damage from possums and I have seen for myself the poor state of the wards. It is an inadequate physical facility in which the doctors, the nurses and the staff do a terrific job. It is widely accepted that Hornsby hospital needs to be rebuilt but, for 15 years there has been very little good news on this front. I am therefore particularly pleased to be able to congratulate the New South Wales shadow minister for health, Jillian Skinner, and the Liberal candidate for the state seat of Hornsby, Matt Kean, on the recent announcement that an incoming O’Farrell government would commit to spending $50 million towards the upgrade of Hornsby hospital. This will not finish the job but it will be a very important start on the project of rebuilding Hornsby hospital. I want to congratulate and acknowledge Dr Richard Harris, the chair of the medical staff council, and his colleague Dr Pip Middleton, amongst others, who have been advocates for improving the physical condition of Hornsby hospital for many years. For 15 years we have seen a sorry tale of neglect of the needs of Hornsby hospital by the New South Wales state Labor government, but it is very pleasing indeed that there is now a clear commitment by an incoming O’Farrell government to spend $50 million to improve Hornsby hospital. I am particularly pleased to note the words of the shadow minister for health, Jillian Skinner, that this would be part of a staged redevelopment. Let me congratulate the Liberal candidate for Hornsby, Mr Matt Kean, on his work in securing this important commitment of $50 million for Hornsby hospital. 2295 2295 09:54:00 Rowland, Michelle, MP 159771 Greenway ALP 0 0 Ms ROWLAND —Today I rise to talk about the very important Clean Up Australia Day campaign that will be operating throughout Australia—and, of course, my electorate—on 6 March. This community event is a fantastic opportunity for all people to get outside and do their bit for the environment. Whilst being the perfect occasion on which to contribute to keeping our local areas looking beautiful, it is also a great time to get outdoors and interact with our communities. Over its 21-year history, volunteers have transformed the nation on Clean Up Australia Day. In total, they have devoted more than 24 million hours to helping the environment by removing over 237,500 tonnes of rubbish. With almost 7,000 sites registered for this Sunday, I am sure Clean Up Australia Day will continue to be a great day of environmental action. In my electorate of Greenway, there are scores of Clean Up Australia Day sites at which people can join in and help the clean-up effort. This Sunday, I have the pleasure of rolling up my sleeves with two very important community groups in my electorate. In the morning I will be joining the Glenwood Community Association in cleaning up a site in Glenwood. I am extremely grateful for the valuable contribution this association makes to the Greenway community, and I am looking forward to helping them keep Glenwood beautiful. Through its hard work and that of its president, Bob McKay, this association does a great job in advocating for its residents and the many local volunteers who are helping to make my home suburb a better place to live and raise a family. I also wish to acknowledge Blacktown City Council, which has also been acknowledged by the president for its role in ensuring that Clean Up Australia Day will be a great success in Glenwood this year. In the afternoon I will be joining the Australian Tamil Association in cleaning up Best Road Reserve in Seven Hills. This is another great opportunity to catch up with some of my friends from the Tamil community and lend a hand in my home town. This is the second year the Australian Tamil Association has taken part on the day. It is another great example of their community spirit and untiring hard work. I wish to particularly thank the president of the Australian Tamil Association, Thiru Arumugam, who is very focused on his association taking an active role in such community events. The success of Clean Up Australia Day has relied on a unique and simple idea: that individual Australians can make a difference and can contribute to improving the Australian environment by working together as a community, and I have no doubt that the community in Greenway will come together to do the same this year. It is a great environmental initiative and one that has reaped enormous benefits for Australians. It is a display of environmental action but also, very importantly, a display of the power of volunteering. This country has a proud history of volunteering and the day is a fantastic advertisement of that. As this year marks the 10th anniversary of the International Year of the Volunteer, Clean Up Australia Day is a perfect time to mark that occasion. Earlier this year, a report released by the Minister for Social Inclusion found that volunteering was increasingly trending towards young people, and I would love to see that trend reflected during Clean Up Australia Day this year. 2296 2296 09:57:00 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 0 Mr CIOBO —I rise to speak about an issue of significant concern to local constituents in my electorate of Moncrieff and more broadly across the Gold Coast. In particular, I am talking about the water charges that are being now levied upon Gold Coasters by Allconnex. Allconnex is of course the new monolith that has been created by the Queensland state Labor government. This Labor government completely stuffed South-East Queensland’s water supply as a result of many long years of Labor being in power and not planning adequately. We had a period of drought, to which the Labor Party responded with the ill-conceived, knee-jerk reaction of building a billion-dollar desalination plant. Then we had, unfortunately, all that terrible rain in January which—whilst it was amazingly good rain for the region—was, frankly, a little too much, and we unfortunately also saw the loss of life. To now compound the problem, we have Allconnex, established by the state Labor government, which has foisted upon the people of my constituency and more broadly the Gold Coast an increase in their water charges of some 20 per cent. The reason that this is of particular concern to me is not only that this is a creature of the state Labor government but also because this highlights, because of who Allconnex’s shareholders are, the inherent problem with the structure. Allconnex’s current shareholders are the respective city councils and councils in the South-East Queensland area—Gold Coast city councillors among them. What we see now is that there is a record grab from Allconnex, going back, in the form of a dividend, to those council shareholders. This concerns me because it goes to the core of one of the fundamental problems with the Gold Coast City Council. There are some councillors who stand up very strongly for their ratepayers and have been arguing that these charges have been too high. But it is my very fervent belief that, unless the Gold Coast City Council is politicised, unless we have, effectively, a government and an opposition within the council, and unless there are councillors who are willing to hold the government of the day accountable within the Gold Coast City Council, we will see this kind of outrageous rorting and ripping off of ratepayers by Allconnex which is allowed to go through unimpeded because it is effectively being done by a state government utility. Now, the funds all go back to the council, and it is high time that councils realised that slugging people an extra 20 per cent for their water at this point in time—when people are already feeling the stress and strain of the very high unemployment rate on the Gold Coast and rapidly escalating cost of living, with increasing prices, from fresh fruit to other things, for a whole bunch of reasons—is the last thing, frankly, that our city needs, and that is why it should not be happening. (Time expired) 2297 2297 10:00:00 Symon, Mike, MP HW8 Deakin ALP 1 0 Mr SYMON —Today, I would like to tell the House about the official opening of the $2½ million Primary Schools for the 21st Century project at St James Primary School in the suburb of Vermont, on 20 February this year. St James is located within the new boundaries of Deakin, following last year’s Victorian redistribution by the Australian Electoral Commission. It was my first opportunity to visit the school, which is located just south of Canterbury Road. Late last year, I also opened a new two-storey classroom refurbishment at St James’s sister school—that is, St John the Evangelist School in Mitcham. It is great to see both these local Catholic primary schools having major upgrades and new buildings delivered under the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program and under the National School Pride Program as well. I was given a tour of the new projects by the principal, Andrew Mullaly, and the school captains, Stephanie Prigg, Jamila Wynn, Joshua Drake and Thomas Arrowsmith. Father Mark Reynolds accompanied us and blessed the new buildings as well. Under the funding programs, both part of the Building the Education Revolution, the school built a new multipurpose community centre and new learning spaces. Under the National School Pride Program, the school refurbished three classrooms; installed new interactive whiteboards in all their classrooms—except for a couple, but they went and raised a few dollars for them and they now have them in all; upgraded their toilet facilities; provided a new, external covered learning area; and repainted lots of the internal parts of the school. The new library and resource centre and multimedia lab with computers was also delivered under the National School Pride Program. It is a nice, modern-looking space in what was quite an old building. All up, between the P21 and National School Pride programs, $2.65 million has been invested in the school, and the projects are a truly great addition to the school community. The school has been on site since 1970 and was well in need of an update, so it is great to see it now has that. I thank the Catholic Education Office for overseeing the federal funds and delivering a great result, along with the architects, Crosier Scott, Circon Constructions and all the subcontractors and other people involved in the job. This particular project at various times employed up to 130 people in the local area, which is a great thing for Melbourne, especially for those who are involved in the construction industry. St James Primary is a growing school, with over 300 students attending this year and many more waiting to come, as the area is growing. It is an area that families move to, and we are getting more and more children at all our primary schools. That is a fantastic result compared to what was happening only a decade ago, when many schools in the area were closing due to a lack of numbers. I congratulate the school community at St James on turning great plans into a reality for the students of today and the future. (Time expired) 2298 2298 10:03:00 Alexander, John, MP M3M Bennelong LP 0 0 Mr ALEXANDER —Last night, I was delighted to attend Medicines Australia’s parliamentary dinner. Medicines Australia are a peak industry group representing Australia’s innovative medicine sector. Their membership includes over 80 per cent of the prescription pharmaceuticals market and has a specific focus on research and development leading to the manufacture and supply of a huge range of prescription medicines. More than half of our nation’s pharmaceutical companies are located at Macquarie business park, colloquially known as ‘Pill Hill’, in the electorate of Bennelong that I represent. The pharmaceutical industry is a major player in Australia, selling over $11 billion worth of medicines domestically and approximately $4 billion in exports. Medicines Australia’s member companies provide direct employment to over 14,000 people in Australia. As a result, the health of this industry is strongly integrated into the health of our nation’s economy. Despite this, the primary focus of last night’s event was the essential role that Medicines Australia plays in the health of the people, as without our health no other endeavour or personal goal is of major significance. Last night’s event was hosted by CEO Brendan Shaw and Chairman Will Delaat, who spoke in detail of some of the challenges facing this industry. The guest speaker was Dr Francis Gurry, Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organisation and the most senior Australian working in the United Nations. Dr Gurry spoke with clarity and insight about the strong bridge between pharmaceuticals, research and development, and intellectual property. This matter is directly relevant to us here in federal parliament as we assess the Patent Amendment (Human Genes and Biological Materials) Bill 2010. Ninety-eight submissions have been received by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which is investigating this private member’s bill. As the federal representative of the majority of Medicine Australia’s member companies, I am glad this bill is receiving a full, transparent analysis and I look forward to the committee’s response in June. I also must register my strong discontent with the Gillard government’s unprecedented cabinet decision to overrule recommendations by the pharmaceutical benefits advisory board. The established approval process provides certainty and stability in this important industry, and the government’s decision has caused significant damage and uncertainty. I wish to congratulate Will, Brendan and those at Medicines Australia for hosting an informative and impressive evening, which is a strong reflection of the quality job they do in representing their member companies. As the federal member for Bennelong, covering ‘Pill Hill’, I believe that Medicines Australia is well aware of my commitment to providing strong representation for this industry. (Time expired) 2299 2299 10:06:00 Lyons, Geoff, MP M38 Bass ALP 1 0 Mr LYONS —I rise today to speak of the wonderful new and refurbished facilities that I have in my electorate of Bass, all because of the Labor government’s investment in school infrastructure through the Building the Education Revolution program. The Labor government has committed to the biggest investment in our schools in Australian history. Every school across the nation has benefited from this long-overdue infrastructure investment. The aim of Building of the Education Revolution was to save jobs, and provide infrastructure for our future and for our children, during the global financial crisis. This program is delivering vital infrastructure to school communities and is supporting communities by providing employment. A number of end-of-school assemblies and functions I attended were in lovely new halls and buildings, courtesy of the Building the Education Revolution program and other Labor government programs. These programs have benefited students and also wider communities. The new infrastructure provides a venue that can be used both inside and outside school buildings. When I was on the Parents and Friends at Riverside Primary School, we built a small hall that was never able to cater for the entire population of the school. Now they have a new school hall which is fantastic. Since becoming the member for Bass I have visited and witnessed firsthand a number of new facilities, and the look of delight on students’ and parents’ faces when they enter these buildings is fantastic. Some of these schools have not had any money spent on them for decades, and they are thrilled to now have the infrastructure they deserve. Schools that I have visited since becoming the federal member for Bass and that have received funding include: Ravenswood Heights Primary School, over $2 million; Ringarooma Primary School, and the Launceston Christian School, over $3 million; Port Dalrymple School, over $2 million; and Mowbray Heights Primary School, $3.2 million. The John Calvin School and the Trevallyn Primary School have now created inspirational learning spaces. I am also going to attend facility openings at Newstead College, Queechy High School, Brooks High School, St Leonards Primary School, Norwood Primary School, St Patrick’s College and Scottsdale High School. The most important thing is not the bricks and mortar; it is what happens inside these facilities that counts. These facilities are assisting in giving our children, as every child should have, the rights to a good education and to reach their full potential. Those opposite me have for many years neglected school infrastructure, and yet they had the nerve to vote against and oppose every step of the way the program that has allowed these schools to have the infrastructure that students and school communities so richly deserve. They should be ashamed of themselves. I would like to express my strong support for the Building the Education Revolution program. The results say it all: it is an investment in our future and the future of our children and our children’s children. 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members’ constituency statements has concluded. 2300 Bills R4492 2300 Debate resumed from 17 November 2010, on motion by Mr Garrett: That this bill be now read a second time. 2300 10:09:00 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 0 0 Mrs MIRABELLA —I rise to indicate that the coalition will be supporting the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2010. This is a bill to amend the ARC Act to alter its administered funding arrangements. Given that this is the pretext for this debate, we are happy to accept and support the government’s actions in bringing these amendments to the House. We acknowledge and respect that this bill is not about changing the substance of the act itself. The Australian Research Council has played a long and central role in helping to ensure the excellence of our country’s research, including at a global level. The coalition has long recognised the value and importance of government funding for that very high quality research, including by providing the ARC with significant increases in funding during the life of the Howard government, especially through the $5.3 billion Backing Australia’s Ability package. So the government is correct on this occasion in introducing this legislation— HVZ Thomson, Craig, MP Mr Craig Thomson interjecting— 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall interjecting— 00AMU Mirabella, Sophie, MP Mrs MIRABELLA —I am glad to see that there is furious agreement from the other side—to ensure that the ARC continues to receive an appropriate level of administered funding to support its activities. I commend the bill to the House. 2300 10:11:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 0 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —It is almost unique in this parliament to speak to a bill that is actually being supported by the opposition. We are used to the no, no, no from the other side, the negative rants that come out of there. I am shocked—we have a bill, the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2010, which they are actually supporting! Gosh, this is a red letter day. What makes it even more of a red letter day is that it is about investing in education. The former government had an abysmal record in relation to education, both higher education and school education. The best thing the opposition did when they were in government, the big issue that they are very proud of, was putting flagpoles in schools. That is the crowning glory in their contribution to education over 13 years in government. Opposition members interjecting— HVZ Thomson, Craig, MP Mr CRAIG THOMSON —You should hang your heads in shame in relation to what you did to education. What we saw under your government was that investment in tertiary education went backwards. 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—The member for Dobell will direct his remarks through the chair. HVZ Thomson, Craig, MP Mr CRAIG THOMSON —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. What we saw under the previous government was a decline in investment in education. We were ranked last in the OECD in terms of the investments in education that occurred during the Howard government. They have a very, very sorry track record. That is what makes today such a red letter day. They have decided at last—and let us hope they do this in relation to the NBN and the carbon tax, because they do not have policies; I hope this is a change—to get out of the way and let us get on and do the job that governments do. I am very, very pleased that this bill is being supported. The bill updates the special appropriation fund cap administered by the Australian Research Council to include indexation adjustments and an additional forward estimate for existing schemes within the National Competitive Grants Program. Indexation adjustments and adding of forward estimates are part of the standard budget process and are administrative in nature. The bill only alters or creates appropriations. The Australian Research Council Act 2001 is the source for administered funding which enables the Australian Research Council to provide funding to underpin high-quality Australian research, which is both fundamental and critical to the Australian national innovation system. All universities, including the Central Coast campus of the University of Newcastle—which is in my region, a region that I share with the member for Shortland, who is here—are eligible to apply for funding under the National Competitive Grants Program. We would not have a university campus on the Central Coast if it were not for a Labor government. The former member for Dobell, Michael Lee, was successful in securing funding so that kids on the Central Coast would not have to travel up to Newcastle or down to Sydney for their higher education because we would have that campus. It is a wonderful campus that is expanding in size every year. It is one of the most successful and innovative campuses in Australia. In fact, the Bradley report came out and there were recommendations in relation to the way higher education should be done, being integrated with TAFE and community colleges, and that is precisely the model that we have on the Central Coast. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor who looks after the Central Coast, Professor Stephen Crump, should be congratulated for the development of that campus and the role that he has played in terms of that. University campuses and investments in education are very important to the people on the Central Coast because they have not always had these resources. It has only ever been Labor governments that have turned their minds to looking after the people on the Central Coast. We still have some problems in education and need continuing investment in what is there. Less than 40 per cent of the kids on the Central Coast actually complete year 12. We are talking about raising national benchmarks to 90 per cent. We are still at half the current national benchmarks of 80 per cent. So you can see that it is a region that, at the high school level, needs particular investment. It also needs it at the university level. We have this great campus that is now attracting more and more kids and fewer of them have to go to Sydney. One of the problems with going to Sydney is that they often drop out because of the difficulties with the four-hour round trip every day. In my electorate we still have the second lowest number of people who go on to get degrees. We have difficulties in retention at year 12 and in terms of people going on to get their degrees. The Central Coast campus of the University of Newcastle has terrific programs, including Next Steps, which is a program for kids who did not quite have the marks to get into university. They can come to the campus and do courses. If they are successful in doing that, those courses are converted to their first year of university. That has been a great bridge in an area that has struggled to have these facilities for children to go through and get the training they need to get jobs. These programs have been absolutely fantastic. The Ourimbah Campus has a new exercise science building, which is a fantastic project that this government has funded. It will provide three special teaching spaces and laboratories for exercise and sports programs. The Central Coast has a very strong sporting culture. We are home to the Central Coast Mariners. I take this opportunity to wish them all the best in their game on Saturday. I am sure it will not be their last game of the year. I am sure that they will have some success over the member for Moncrieff’s team, Gold Coast United, and go on to meet Brisbane Roar in the grand final. I think it is only fitting that that actually happens. We have a very strong sporting culture. The university, as part of that culture, has developed specialist expertise in exercise science, which plays a great role for us on the Central Coast. That is one of the areas that they work on. Work is well underway on extensions to the campus library. It will soon be bigger and will be a great facility for students, staff and lecturers. It is worth mentioning, while we are talking about the Central Coast campus of the University of Newcastle, that the fine member for Robertson was a lecturer at this esteemed campus until she won the election last year. This is an area that is close to all three federal MPs who come from the Central Coast. The project to open up the library to the quadrangle will promote greater activity in the area. It will relocate the information common area and that will mean it is more accessible. There will also be a boost to the campus’s research capabilities, which is important. The investment needs to continue in one of the fastest growing campuses in Australia. We know Australia is a clever country and now, thanks to this Labor government and the Excellence in Research for Australia initiative, for the first time we can see exactly how our country’s research efforts compare to the rest of the world. The first full ERA evaluation, its 2010 national report, showed us that we have a large number of research strengths and that we should be proud of this. It showed that our performance in areas like history, immunology and quantum physics is truly outstanding. The Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Kim Carr, observed: … when it comes to funding quality research it is important the Australian Government fully understands Australia’s strengths and weaknesses. The Australian Government invests billions of dollars in research each year. ERA gives the Australian taxpayer assurance that their money is being invested wisely and gives the Government a clear idea of the research areas we need to focus on for improvement and continued excellence. The report also showed that we need to do better in some areas. The evidence the ERA evaluation gave us is helping us to find ways to improve. Earlier this month the government announced the establishment of the Gillard Labor government’s Australian Research Integrity Committee. Australian taxpayers can now be more confident that the research activities that they fund meet the highest ethical and moral standards. The establishment of the committee reinforces the importance of upholding Australia’s science and research reputation in ensuring public research funding is used appropriately. The government recognises that Australian researchers and research institutes are among the best and most respected in the world. We proudly invest billions of dollars in research each year. However, the government’s reputation must be protected and our investment must be ethical. That is why the government takes allegations of misconduct very seriously. We expect all allegations to be investigated thoroughly. The taxpayer deserves nothing less. The committee can be asked to investigate if it believes an institute has not taken appropriate action in their internal investigations into alleged research misconduct. This bill will apply indexation to existing appropriation amounts in the act and add an additional out year for the financial forward estimates. Indexation adjustments and adding a forward estimate are part of the standard budget process and are administrative in nature. In the time that I have available I would like to talk a bit about the grants program. The Australian Research Council Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2010 provides additional funding for the council as part of the standard budget process. This is important legislation to ensure the ARC can continue to support high-quality research in Australia. Through the National Competitive Grants Program, the Australian Research Council supports the highest quality fundamental and applied research training through national competition. The ARC funds research and researchers under the National Competitive Grants Program. As part of its commitment to nurturing creative abilities and skills of Australia’s most promising researchers, the NCGP provides support for the highest quality research leading to the discovery of new ideas and the advancement of knowledge; financial assistance towards facilities and equipment that researchers need to be internationally competitive in; support for the training and skill development of the next generation of researchers; and incentives for Australia’s most talented researchers to work in partnership with leading researchers throughout national innovation systems and internationally and to form alliances with Australian businesses. The NCGP comprises two main elements: Discovery and Linkage, under which the ARC funds a range of complementary schemes to support researchers at different stages of their careers, build Australia’s research capability, expand and enhance research networks and collaborations, and develop centres of research excellence. A major component of Linkage is the ARC Centres scheme, which brings together leading researchers from around the world to work collaboratively on specific research problems. The ARC Centre’s scheme is administered independently of the other components of Discovery and Linkage. As I noted at the start of my contribution, this is an important bill. It is a great pleasure that we at last have a bill that is supported by the opposition. We are hoping that this is a change in trend and that we are now going to see a more positive opposition—though I am not holding my breath. It has been a very unusual feature to see them make any positive contributions to any national infrastructure issues or national policies that further develop Australia’s interests. Given their extremely poor record in government in relation to education it is somewhat of a surprise that we find them supporting any government legislation. But we do welcome this support—it is something that should be given bipartisan support. Let us hope that they can come to the party in relation to the other big issues that we are also debating in terms of carbon tax, the future of our planet, and the NBN—some of the big, major infrastructure issues. We need to be able to take a bipartisan view in relation to these issues so that the Australian people get the best they can out of this parliament rather than the continual negative ‘No, no, no’ that we see every day from the opposition. It was refreshing today to hear the opposition support our bill. I commend this bill to the House. 2304 10:25:00 Prentice, Jane, MP 217266 Ryan LP 0 0 Mrs PRENTICE —Research is of fundamental importance to society. In particular, Australia has a proud history of delivering world-leading innovations, inventions and cutting-edge technology. From the Hills hoist, Victa lawnmower and Cochlear implant to the black box, Australian research has set high standards in improving lives all over the world. Our researchers are of exceptional calibre, and change lives for the better. By providing the government with advice on research matters, and administering programs such as the National Competitive Grants Program and the Excellence in Research for Australia initiative, the Australian Research Council plays a vital role in the development of research in Australia. The ARC also provides Australian researchers across all disciplines with international benchmarks with which to measure themselves, promoting excellence in research through providing both domestic and international standards for comparison. My electorate of Ryan is home to the University of Queensland, one of Australia’s Group of Eight research intensive universities. The University of Queensland consistently ranks well above world standards across the board with respect to research. The University of Queensland is host to the Diamantina Institute, directed by Professor Ian Frazer. As we all know, Professor Frazer, a local resident, was Australian of the Year in 2006 for creating the world’s first preventative cancer vaccine—the HPV vaccine against cervical cancer. The HPV vaccine began to be administered in Australia in 2006 under the common name of Gardasil. It has changed the lives of girls and women around the world, and indeed changed the future of the Australian health industry with the virtual elimination of an entire strain of cancer. This development, which will not only achieve huge savings for the health industry in Australia but also, importantly, prevent the pain and stress families may have otherwise suffered through a fight against cervical cancer, is truly invaluable. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate Professor Frazer on his recent appointment as chief executive of the new $345 million Translational Research Institute, which will be the only one of its kind in the Southern Hemisphere, able to research, trial treatments, and manufacture drugs all in the one location. Professor Frazer’s work on the HPV vaccine dates back to 1989—almost 20 years before it was widely administered. This in itself shows the importance of continued funding of research. Ensuring that funding of the Australian Research Council is, at the very least, indexed in accordance with inflation is an important part of ensuring that our Australian research community is not short-changed. These projects take time—years and decades—but they change lives forever. Another researcher in my electorate who is changing lives is Professor Mark Kendall. Professor Kendall is a researcher with the Australian Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology, also based at the University of Queensland. Professor Kendall and the AIBN are currently developing a needle-free vaccination, focusing on the delivery of biomolecular stimuli to cells in the skin using physical methods. On a recent tour of the institute, researchers showed me a device the size of a fingernail that has the power to administer vaccinations without the use of a syringe. The device—a micronanoprojection array patch—is a patch with thousands of tiny projections, invisible to the naked eye, that are covered in biomolecules. When placed against the skin, these projections deliver the biomolecules precisely through to the target cells. How remarkable is that! Imagine the difference such a breakthrough will have in developing countries. Tragically, at the moment 14 million people around the world die annually from infectious diseases, many of which can be prevented by vaccination. With the development of a micro-nanoprojection array patch so many current barriers to mass vaccination could be simply eliminated. Barriers such as climate control, transportation, fragility of the syringes, the simple size of a vaccination device, needle-stick injuries, ease of administration and even needle phobia could all be eliminated. Imagine a world where, if a swine flu epidemic breaks out, health administrators can send a vaccination out in the post. This world is not too far away as a result of world leading research in Australia, indeed in Ryan. To achieve this world, researchers need access to generous funding and funding needs to be managed. That is the Australian Research Council’s role. I am also privileged to have living in my electorate the President-elect of the Australian Society for Medical Research, Dr Paul Dawson. The Australian Society for Medical Research is one of the nation’s peak professional bodies, representing approximately 160,000 researchers around Australia. I recently met with Dr Dawson to discuss the issues that he regarded as most important to his industry. Funding was his top priority. As Dr Dawson rightly pointed out, Australia is faced with an ageing population. With an ageing population comes increased costs and burdens on our health industry that this government and state Labor governments around the country are clearly already struggling to manage. Continued support for research is as vital as it is valuable. The Australian Society for Medical Research estimates that for every dollar invested in research and development, an average of $2.17 of health benefits is returned—more than double—with a minimum of 57c and a maximum of up to $6. It would also be remiss of me whilst discussing the Australian Research Council not to mention the outstanding result achieved by the University of Queensland in the recent Excellence in Research for Australia initiative. The University of Queensland has recorded above world standard results across the board in every field assessed. This has placed the University of Queensland third amongst Australian universities and is clearly a reflection of the outstanding dedication, commitment and hard work being conducted by both those on campus and the specialised research institutes encompassed by the University of Queensland. Additionally, UQ has been confirmed as Australia’s most comprehensive university, being active in 24 out of a possible 25 fields of research. As well as the University of Queensland’s outstanding ERA results, the findings show that Australian universities across the board are achieving significant feats in research. Whilst all of our Group of Eight universities ranked above world standard, it was heartening to note that our younger universities are also making inroads into a wide range of disciplines, giving the sector an important layer of diversity. The success of these younger institutions is reflective of the success of their young researchers and lecturers. As noted in the Australian last week, selection committees that hire new lecturers are being impressed by both the quantity and the quality of publications coming from the applicants. As the paper simply puts it: … most lecturers in Australia are more highly accomplished in terms of publications than their forebears … Whilst this is heartening news for the sector and the motion before us today is an important step, in light of the up-and-coming nature of our researchers the question must always be: can we do more? We face a challenge to ensure that future funding streams are sufficient to maintain the momentum behind research institutions which create social and economic dividends for taxpayers, industry partners and investors. These examples are just part of Australian research, yet they alone achieve so much and provide so much positive change in people’s lives around the world. The continued funding of the Australian Research Council, indexed for inflation and forward estimates, is a vital component in Australia continuing to be a world leader in research. I support this amendment. 2306 10:34:00 Symon, Mike, MP HW8 Deakin ALP 1 0 Mr SYMON —I speak in support of the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2010. The purpose of this bill before the House is to index funding for the Australian Research Council over the next four financial years. It results in additional spending of just over $824 million over those years by adding an additional out year to the forward estimates and by updating the indexation rates. The ARC is a statutory authority within the Australian government’s Innovation, Industry, Science and Research portfolio. Its mission is to deliver policy and programs that advance Australian research and innovation globally and benefit the Australian community as a whole. We all know that research is critical to Australia’s future prosperity. It drives our economic productivity, delivers new solutions to environmental challenges, attracts global investment and improves our social wellbeing. The ARC builds Australia’s research capabilities by advising the government on research matters and managing the National Competitive Grants Program and has responsibility for the Excellence in Research for Australia Initiative. In the last parliament, I was privileged to be a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Innovation. That committee undertook a report into the sector as part of its work in the 42nd Parliament. The report was titled Building Australia’s research capacity. It followed an inquiry into that area examining key issues to deal with or happening in Australia’s research fields. I believe the work that was done by the standing committee has fed into government policy and new initiatives. It is a good thing for any member of the House involved with a committee to see the work that has been done over a number of months turned into reality, coming through the legislation in this place. The inquiry into research training and research workforce issues examined the needs of researchers at different stages of their careers. The final report identified the clear need for the government to do more to support researchers’ career development. I am pleased to note that many of the recommendations we made at the time have come into being, although there are many more that are still waiting their turn. The ARC has a series of fellowships to support researchers at different stages of their careers, including the Australian Laureate Fellowships, Future Fellowships and Super Science Fellowships. The ARC fellowships help support researchers. As an example of the research supported by the ARC fellowships, I would like to talk about a research project at the University of Melbourne. Associate Professor William Shieh, from the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, was granted a Future Fellowship to investigate ultrahigh-speed optical transport for sustaining the growth of the internet. This research aims to study novel transport technologies to construct optical backbone networks supporting internet traffic, and the project will help keep Australia at the leading edge of the exciting terabit technologies that are coming up as well as create commercial opportunities within Australia. This Future Fellowship is one example of how we in government have acted to support the careers of Australia’s researchers. Encouraging and supporting research has been a theme of this government since we were elected. Innovative research feeds into the wider economy, delivers highly skilled jobs and supports our local industries. As well as overseeing the fellowship programs, the ARC manages the National Competitive Grants Program, which includes schemes to encourage individual and collaborative research, research infrastructure, equipment and facilities. The National Competitive Grants Program directly funds research programs from around Australia. The ARC manages linkage projects which encourage and develop long-term strategic research alliances between higher education organisations and other organisations, including with industry, in order to apply advanced knowledge to problems that have been identified. The ARC supports centres of excellence, special research centres, co-funded centres and special research initiatives. ARC centres of excellence are hubs of expertise through which high-quality researchers maintain and develop Australia’s international standing in research areas of national priority. As an example of a funded centre of excellence, the ARC Centre of Excellence for Ultrahigh Bandwidth Devices for Optical Systems is based at the University of Sydney. This centre will receive $23.8 million over seven years to conduct its cutting-edge research. Another example is the ARC Centre of Excellence for Quantum Computation and Communication Technology, based at the University of New South Wales, which will receive $24.5 million over seven years to continue research. These are just two of the 13 ARC centres of excellence funded by the government. In addition to the ARC centres of excellence, the ARC funds special research centres. These are funded by the ARC on the basis of research excellence and their potential to contribute to the economic, social and cultural development of Australia. Subject to satisfactory performance, the special research centres have been funded for nine years. Currently there are 15 special research centres covering areas as diverse as particulate fluids processing, the subatomic structure of matter and tectonics. The ARC Special Research Initiatives scheme identifies new or emerging areas of research and provides funding for them. In 2009 the Australian Research Council funded a new collaborative research initiative to develop a functional bionic eye. In government, Labor committed $50 million over four years to fund this research. In 2011 the Australian Research Council will fund a new collaborative research initiative under the Special Research Initiatives scheme to support stem cell science. The Australian government has committed funding of to $21 million for a period of up to seven years. The Special Research Initiative in Stem Cell Science will fund one or more proposals to deliver a program of activity supporting stem cell research. This is just a snapshot of the initiatives of the ARC and how these initiatives support Australia’s research output. The ARC’s strategic plan for 2010-11 to 2012-13 was released in October last year and provides insight into the direction of the ARC and, therefore, where Australia’s research efforts are heading. Over the period of this strategic plan the ARC will further improve its fellowship schemes by providing more opportunities for female and early career researchers. The ARC will award two additional research fellowships specifically for women to its funding schemes. The two additional fellowships will be awarded each year under the competitive ARC Australian Laureate Fellowships scheme. This scheme aims to attract and retain outstanding researchers and world-class research leaders. The additional fellowships will bring the total to be awarded each year to 17. The ARC will also deliver the new Linkage Research Training Awards scheme during the period 2010-11 to 2012-13. As part of the government’s Clean 21 initiative, the Linkage Research Training Awards scheme will not only create opportunities for our early career researchers but also target a range of industry sectors, with priority given to green industries and new strategies to enable the greening of existing industries. This research will help develop the new and clean industries of the 21st century that Australia needs and put us at the forefront of global efforts. Also during the period 2010-11 to 2012-13 the ARC will identify and promote Australia’s research strengths following the first full Excellence in Research for Australia evaluation. For the first time, the government and all Australians will be able to identify the disciplines within Australian universities that are internationally competitive, as well as the emerging areas where there are opportunities for development and further investment. This will help Australia map out its research specialities and help focus its resources. The ARC continues its responsibility for the National Competitive Grants Program, which is a significant component of Australia’s investment in research and development. This bill will expand the total funding of the ARC and by 2012-13 the funding for the ARC’s various programs will reach $817 million. The dispersal of this spending reveals the extent of the programs and innovation supported by the ARC. Discovery projects will receive nearly $312 million in 2012-13 and this funding will support individual and team research projects in Australia. As part of this funding, the ARC will introduce the new Discovery Early Career Researcher Award in 2012. This scheme will provide more focused support for researchers and create more opportunities for early career researchers in teaching and research positions and in research-only positions. It is anticipated that up to 200 three-year awards of up to $125,000 per annum will be awarded under this scheme. The ARC will also invest substantial funds to support the careers of researchers through its fellowship programs. The Federation and Australian Laureate fellowships will receive $44½ million, $157-odd million will go to Future Fellowships and the Super Science Fellowship will receive just under $7 million. The Future Fellowships scheme offers four-year fellowships of up to $143,000 a year to 1,000 outstanding Australian and international researchers in the middle of their careers. The Super Science Fellowship scheme will offer three-year fellowships of up to $72½ thousand a year plus 28 per cent of on-costs to 100 outstanding Australian and international early career researchers. Funding for Linkage Projects will reach $145.9 million in 2012-13. Linkage Projects is the main ARC funding scheme to advance research collaborations with end users. This funding includes: $30 million for infrastructure, equipment and facilities; $94½ million for research centres; and $24½ million for special research initiatives. The ARC plays a central role in building Australia’s research capacity. This increase in funding for ARC activities will fund new initiatives and continue to build on Australia’s research capacity. I commend this bill to the House. 2309 10:45:00 Brodtmann, Gai, MP 30540 Canberra ALP 1 0 Ms BRODTMANN —The Australian Research Council Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2010 is an appropriation bill to support the ongoing and incredibly valuable research and work of the Australian Research Council. This bill applies indexation against existing schemes and adds the last year to forward estimates. This will add an additional $824 million over four financial years. That said, this bill does not alter the substance of the act or increase departmental funds. The ARC is a statutory authority existing under the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. Its mission is to deliver policy and programs that advance Australian research and innovation globally and to benefit the Australian community. To achieve its mission the ARC advises the government on research matters and manages the National Competitive Grants Program, which constitutes a significant component of government investment in Australian research and innovation. Many in this chamber will also be aware of the ARC’s role in monitoring the quality of Australian research and ensuring it is hitting the mark internationally. The ARC achieves this through the Excellence in Research for Australia initiative. The ARC has a long history in this country, beginning in 1946 with the establishment of the Commonwealth Universities Research Grants Committee to advise government on the allocation of research grants. Initially, this was an interdepartmental committee under the Department of Education. In 1965 it was more formally established to advise government on the allocation of the Australian Research Grants Scheme, the predecessor of today’s Discovery Grants scheme. In 1966, almost $4 million was received by 406 successful applicants to the scheme. That was a significant amount of money in 1966 terms. In 1988, under the Dawkins reforms of the Keating government, the ARC was established under its current name. In 2001 it was created as a statutory authority and given broader advisory functions and full responsibility for the assessment of grant applications. The grants awarded by the ARC play an essential part in ensuring that Australia develops and attracts the highest quality of research talent from our own country and overseas. It also plays a vitally important role in retaining researchers in Australian institutions. This is particularly important. In addition, the ARC plays a crucial role in supporting the research and innovation that makes Australia the clever country. It is through this funding that Australia has been able to develop key innovations that have a direct impact on the lives of Australians and people across the globe. Innovations such as the bionic ear have their origins in ARC funding. There are many types of grants that the ARC manages. Each type is designed to foster a different kind of outcome and broadly fall under the categories of Discovery Grants and Linkage grants. There are many layers to the onion, as I have discovered in doing the research for this speech. Discovery Grants scheme recognises the importance of fundamental research. The scheme recognises that a strong capability in fundamental research will result in the development of new ideas, the creation of jobs, economic growth and an enhanced quality of life for all Australians. Funding under the discovery schemes goes towards developing early career researchers to make sure that Australia has a high-quality and ready pool of local research talent. It also goes to those researchers with a proven track record of results in research. The Future Fellowships scheme under the discovery program promotes research in areas that have been identified as being of critical national importance. This program aims to attract the best mid-career researchers with a proven track record to work on problems important to us all. The Linkage program, as the name suggests, aims to encourage collaborative approaches to research between researchers, business, industry and community organisations. As someone who has been involved in business and also actively involved in industry associations, I can say that I really appreciate this kind of effort. It is really good to get research ideas realised through business and industry. Linkage grants support the transfer of skills and knowledge to provide direct and tangible benefits to Australian society. The ARC awards grants through the Linkage, Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities scheme. This scheme ensures Australian researchers have the latest and best equipment to further their projects. Institutions in my own community have been successful in achieving some of these grants. The Australian National University, University of Canberra and the CSIRO have all been successful in gaining funding in 2011. Some of the projects that have been funded include over $196,000 for a project at the University of Canberra to investigate how DNA can be better used to identify physical traits and solve crime—very CSI. University of Canberra researchers also received $105,000 to investigate how mistletoe can be used in the treatment of cancer. A further $80,000 went to the University of Canberra to investigate the social and economic impacts of Fragile X syndrome and the benefits of early diagnosis. The Australian National University has also been a significant contributor to the nation’s knowledge bank through the ARC. In 2011, $556,000 has been granted to researchers at the ANU to develop materials for a more efficient solar cell. This is an important aim given our current climate challenge, which some opposite deny. The ANU has also been given $330,000 to look at how recent reforms to the Community Development Employment Program have affected the livelihoods of Indigenous Australians. In all, $40 million has been invested in ACT institutions to fund 111 projects to improve our knowledge of the world. This is a significant investment and I commend the ARC for making that investment in Canberra. As I stated earlier, the ARC recently completed its Excellence in Research for Australia 2010 national report. The report was the first comprehensive review of research conducted at Australian institutions. It was an incredibly large and comprehensive piece of work. This review covered 333,000 unique research outputs and 55,000 researchers across eight disciplines. It showed that Australia has many areas of strength where we are the very forefront of global research. In particular, we excelled in the fields of history, immunology, and quantum physics. These were all standout areas. The report also identified gaps and areas where we need to improve. That is the beauty of reports of this nature, of these transparency measures. They highlight our strengths, but they also highlight our weaknesses. The government has undertaken a project to address the identified gaps because of our continued commitment to innovation. It has become cliche to attack academics and researchers as being aloof and distant from the problems of the real world. By extension, it is often easy to question government research grants. However, Australia is a small nation and we are a nation that runs a first world economy on what some would call a third world climate. The only way we have been able to survive as a nation is through our investment in research—research into resilient wheat, for example, and a whole range of other things to deal with the climate challenges we face. Our research holds the key to meeting the challenges that we face today from climate change. Our research also holds the key to growing and developing our economy, to healing our sick, to educating our children, to ensuring we all have jobs and a roof over our heads and, particularly, to ensuring we are prosperous in the future. Far from being divorced from the real world, I know from my time at the University of Canberra that academics are serious people, committed people, who are deeply concerned with answering the real and large key questions that lie before us. While I may not always understand their work, I appreciate the results of their work and I commend this bill to the House. I would like to add that International Women’s Day is coming up next week and I am looking forward to celebrating the achievements of 100 years of International Women’s Day with the sisters. I am also looking forward to working out ways we can continue to fight against the barriers that women face, particularly in achieving equal rights and equal opportunities. One of the areas I would like the ARC to consider looking at is the barriers to women achieving their goals in postdoctoral work. In speaking on this bill, I would like to ask the ARC to examine the introduction of a protected funding pool for female grant applicants. I welcome the initiatives they have had to date, but I wonder if there is more they can do. I would also like them to consider increasing the duration of part-time postdoctoral grants from four to six years and to examine the introduction of female postdoctoral advocates for each grant area. I would like the ARC to look at developing leadership career coaching and network-building programs for postdoctoral women and, finally, to explore possible sources of implicit bias, particularly in the science arena. Again, I commend this bill to the House. 2311 10:56:00 Cheeseman, Darren, MP HW7 Corangamite ALP 1 0 Mr CHEESEMAN —Today I rise to speak on the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2010. I must commend the previous speaker, the member for Canberra, for the very well thought through contribution that she made today. This bill makes a special appropriation funding cap that is administered by the Australian Research Council. The Australian Research Council is a statutory authority within the Australian government’s Innovation, Industry, Science and Research portfolio. Its mission is to deliver policy and programs that advance Australian research and innovation. The ARC provides advice to the government on research matters and manages the National Competitive Grants Program. This is a major part of Australian investment in research and development. The National Competitive Grants Program supports the highest quality fundamental and applied research, and research training, through competitive selection processes across all disciplines. The ARC is a major funding source for research and innovation and investor driven research. I think they are lofty and important aims. The funding will help higher education providers do research in all areas of science and academia. ARC funding has been a big success for regional institutions. Of course, this is very good for my electorate of Corangamite and I certainly look forward to working very closely with Deakin University to ensure that it can access these competitive grants to give the university every opportunity to participate in research and innovation. This funding for the ARC is also very important for the future research of our higher education system. Since 2007 the ARC has delivered some 1,000 Future Fellowships. This was an election commitment that we took to the Australian people prior to the 2007 election. The federal government will be providing $844 million over the next five years as a part of this. This will fund some 1,000 mid-career research fellowships, which is very important for providing academics every opportunity to contribute to this nation’s knowledge. In 2008 the federal government announced that the ARC Advisory Council would enhance the ARC’s independence, and I think that is a very lofty and important aspiration. This will include indexation adjustments and additional forward estimates for existing schemes within the National Competitive Grants Program. The federal government will also provide $239 million over five years. This will be used for 75 laureate fellowships. This is an important reform for this nation. Institutes will be able to apply for funding under the National Competitive Grants Program. It is pleasing to note that this non-controversial bill, as I understand it, has the support of both sides of the parliament. It is not often that the federal government has been able to rely upon the support of the coalition, and I am very pleased that we have been able to do so on this very important matter. This bill will allow the ARC to continue to support high-quality research in Australia, and that is good news for Australia. This government has put in place many very important educational reforms, and I believe the ARC will play a very important role in the future of this nation’s educational research. We also know that the National Competitive Grants Program is an important part of this, and it will apply to a diverse area of research training through national competition. I want to put on record again my great support for Deakin University. Deakin University continues to play a very important role in my electorate of Corangamite and right throughout the Geelong community. Indeed, Deakin University is our largest employer and plays a fundamental role in assisting the Geelong economy to diversify and in providing opportunities for bright people to contribute to this nation’s future. It is with pleasure that I commend the bill to the House. 2312 11:01:00 Ellis, Kate, MP DZU Adelaide ALP Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare and Minister for the Status of Women 1 0 Ms KATE ELLIS —in reply—It is my great pleasure to sum up this important piece of legislation and thank all members who have participated in the debate on the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2010. As we have heard, this bill will support the ongoing operations of the Australian Research Council and three specific initiatives that will build Australia’s research capacity and promote excellence in our research. The bill updates the special appropriation amount administered by the Australian Research Council to include new funding for research in bionic vision science and technology, new funding for the Super Science Fellowships scheme, continued funding for National ICT Australia and an additional out-year and indexation of existing appropriation amounts in the Australian Research Council Act 2001. The invention of a bionic eye will not only give and restore sight to tens of thousands of people around the world; it will also generate know-how that can be applied in many other areas. The 100 three-year Super Science Fellowships will support the next generation of researchers in our country. They will also complement our Australian Laureate Fellowships for established researchers, future fellowships for mid-career researchers and continued funding for National ICT Australia, the largest information and communications technology research organisation in Australia. This is absolutely essential to ensuring that Australia maintains its first-class reputation for research, training and commercialisation in this vital area. Importantly this bill will see spending increase by approximately $889.6 million over the next four years. The proposed amendments change only the administered special appropriation; they do not alter the substance of the act or increase departmental funds. This is important legislation which will support the research our country needs to remain at the forefront of tackling global problems and also maintain Australian living standards. I commend the legislation to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. 2313 Bills R4402 Consideration resumed from 21 February. 2313 2313 11:05:00 Ellis, Kate, MP DZU Adelaide ALP Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare and Minister for the Status of Women 1 0 Ms KATE ELLIS —I present the explanatory memorandum and move: That this bill be now read a second time. During the height of concerns confronting the international education sector in 2009 the Prime Minister, in her then role as the Minister for Education, asked the Hon. Bruce Baird AM to conduct a review of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and associated legislation. At that time she also introduced a number of amendments to the ESOS Act to strengthen registration requirements and enable re-registration of all providers by the end of 2010. This interim step was necessary to reinforce the integrity and quality of Australia’s international education sector. When those amendments were passed in February she gave an undertaking to come back with further amendments at the earliest opportunity following the finalisation of the Baird review. This amendment bill is delivering on that commitment. The Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, or the ESOS Act, protects Australia’s reputation for delivering quality education services. It does this by establishing a regulatory regime for the provision of international education and training services and looks to the interests of overseas students through the establishment of minimum standards and providing tuition assurance. The ESOS Act also complements Australia’s migration laws by ensuring providers collect and report information relevant to the administration of the law relating to student visas. Since it was first written in 2000 the ESOS Act has been amended several times to keep pace with change, and it is widely recognised as one of the best legislative frameworks for international education in the world. However, unprecedented growth in recent years has created new pressure points in the sector which continue to play out. Following extensive consultation with the sector, Mr Baird reported back to the government in February 2010 with 19 recommendations for making the ESOS Act stronger, simpler and smarter. Key messages have been that there needs to be a clearer focus on the interests of students and that, given the size and diversity of the international education sector now, a one-size-fits-all approach to regulation will no longer suffice. In general the recommendations from Mr Baird are about strengthening the registration process, supporting more effective monitoring and enforcement, empowering students with information and improved complaints-handling, encouraging the ethical recruitment of students and introducing a simpler, more robust consumer protection regime. The government released the final report of the ESOS review on 9 March 2010 and at that time indicated a staged approach to the government’s response starting immediately with a number of the recommendations that build on recent changes to the act. Consistent with this staged approach, the government’s response to the remaining recommendations will be considered in a second tranche in the coming months. The Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment Bill which I am introducing today is the first round of changes to the ESOS Act recommended by the review and will make adjustments to the ESOS Act as well as the Ombudsman Act 1976 and the Privacy Act 1988. The dual focus of this bill is risk management and more effective enforcement. The bill introduces provisions to further strengthen the registration process for approved providers of international education. An amendment is proposed to make it clearer that providers will have to demonstrate that they have access to the financial resources to meet the objectives of the ESOS Act, that they have a sustainable business model and that they have the capability, governance structures and management to deliver education of a satisfactory standard. Recent college closures have highlighted that greater upfront scrutiny of these matters can help identify providers which are at greater risk of not meeting their legislated obligations. This amendment will raise the bar of entry into the international education sector and is consistent with proposed changes to the Australian Quality Training Framework, announced by COAG in December 2009 and taking effect from July 2010, to strengthen the gateway for all registered training organisations. Building on the risk managed approach developed for the re-registration process currently underway, this bill will extend a risk management approach to all registrations both at the point of registration and throughout the registration period. The purpose is to better identify risk and ensure a consistent assessment of risk by all regulators and, in time, the national regulators being established for the vocational education and training and higher education sectors. Together with the strengthened registration criteria, this amendment aims to reduce the number of high-risk providers entering the international education sector and set appropriate conditions on providers’ registration, including for ongoing monitoring to better manage risk. This will enable better targeting and reduced duplication of compliance efforts and will shift the regulatory burden to those providers that present the greatest risk to the student experience and the reputation of the sector as a whole. While registration criteria will apply to all providers, higher-risk providers may have new Commonwealth imposed conditions placed on their registration, such as a cap on enrolments, annual financial statements or restrictions on the fees that can be collected in advance, as well as more frequent and detailed auditing. This, in turn, will create incentives for providers to reduce their risk by rewarding low-risk providers with less onerous monitoring regimes. As part of this measure, consistent with common practice, when registering a provider, the regulator will assess the provider’s risk profile and set a period of review and any conditions to ensure appropriate levels of scrutiny are applied to the provider’s operations. The Commonwealth will also be able to assess risk and apply risk based conditions at any time, rather than only as a result of compliance activity. As with re-registration, the details of the risk management approach, such as the broad indicators of risk and type of conditions that should apply, will be further developed in consultation with states and territories through ministerial council processes, and with the sector, prior to implementation. The risk management approach will be supported by limiting a provider’s registration period on the Commonwealth Register for Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students to no more than five years. This will also help introduce consistency into the registration regime by allowing the ESOS Act to formally recognise and align with limited periods of registration for each provider set by the states under domestic quality assurance frameworks. Amendments are introduced to strengthen the ability to take effective enforcement action by introducing financial penalties for a broader range of non-compliant behaviour and to enable regular publishing of targets and information on regulatory activities undertaken by the Commonwealth. A perception raised during the Baird review consultations is that, while the ESOS legislation is sound, it is not adequately enforced. Financial penalties are a tangible immediate action against providers for compliance breaches, reducing the need to go through lengthy court processes or potentially compromising a provider’s ability to continue operating. There is existing scope for financial penalties to be extended for a range of breaches of the national code by making amendments to regulations. The government looks forward to the second tranche of legislative change and implementing our response to the remaining Baird recommendations. I commend this bill to the House. 2315 11:13:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 0 Ms LEY —I rise to speak in support of the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. The bill seeks to amend the Education for Overseas Students Act 2000, the ESOS Act, to strengthen the registration criteria for providers of education services to overseas students. It introduced a risk management approach for the regulation of these providers. These measures have been introduced by the government to restore confidence in the international education sector and are steps which the coalition broadly supports. The international education industry is our fourth major export industry, worth an estimated $18.5 billion. An Access Economics report into education in April 2009 found that it creates an extra $12.6 billion contribution for our economy through employment such as teaching and through services such as food and accommodation for international students. These figures combined mean that the international student market contributes more than $30 billion to our economy. Of course, the contribution international students make to Australia is not just financial; having international students study in Australia contributes to the student experience for Australian students as well. Students from all parts of the world are brought together, and this brings them the opportunity to understand and learn from each other about other cultures and perspectives. Supporting cross-cultural dialogue at the university and vocational education and training sector level plays a key role in our international diplomatic efforts. A strong international education industry assists Australia to build and maintain good relationships around the world. We are lucky in Australia to have a very welcoming and multicultural society. Students do want to come here to experience our culture and lifestyle. I note that Universities Australia recently released the findings of a new benchmark survey. The survey involved 34 of Australia’s universities and covered the expectations and experiences of international students pursuing higher education in Australia. The results indicate that overall 86 per cent of the 36,308 international students who responded to the survey are satisfied with their education experience. There is obviously room for improvement, but the Universities Australia research tells us that, on the whole, students find studying in Australia a positive experience. This is heartening news, particularly in the light of recent events in the international student sector. It is well known that the international education sector went through a period of rapid growth over the last decade. Unfortunately, the downside to such accelerated growth in the overseas student market is that it has attracted some unscrupulous education providers to the system. We saw reports emerge in 2009 that some education providers appeared to be operating only to provide a pathway for students to gain residency in Australia rather than for the primary goal of providing a quality education service. These shonky operators preyed on students, taking thousands of dollars to supposedly guarantee results in the English language exam required for skilled migration. Some students fell victim to such rorts. Other disturbing reports of unethical behaviour towards students also emerged. We have witnessed under-regulated private colleges close. These events, compounded with some violence towards some international students, particularly Indian students, have impacted on our international reputation and led to a decline in enrolments in Australia. The council of higher education providers estimated last year that universities may see a possible downturn of 10 per cent or more in enrolments in 2011. Australia will have to work very hard to reverse the damage to this important industry to remain competitive in the global environment. The Education Services for Overseas Students Act works in conjunction with immigration requirements to ensure that education providers collect and provide information relating to student visas and to regulate minimum standards, financial assurance and tuition. It is about making sure international students receive a quality education and also meet the conditions of their student visa. Improving the current regulatory framework is a complex issue, but it is essential if we want to maintain the reputation of our industry in the long term. To work through some of the matters that I have raised, the government appointed the Hon. Bruce Baird to review the Education Services for Overseas Students Act in August 2009. Mr Baird provided a report back to government suggesting changes to ensure that Australia continues to offer world-class quality in international education. The report, titled Stronger, simpler, smarter ESOS: supporting international students, suggested some requirements which now appear in this bill. This includes that approved providers be able to demonstrate their ability to access financial resources to meet the requirements under the ESOS Act 2000 and have a sustainable business model with the capability, governance structures and management to deliver education of a satisfactory standard. This new measure will add to the requirements in the original ESOS Act as well as the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Re-registration of Providers and Other Measures) Act, which passed in 2010. Included in this bill is also a new strategy for managing risk in the private education sector. Registration periods for approved providers will be limited to five years. Additional conditions will be able to be placed on a provider’s registration when the provider is first registered or at any time throughout the registration period. The bill also provides for the Commonwealth to take steps without referral from state or territory regulators to introduce financial penalties for a broader range of behaviour, including unethical recruitment and services and failure to comply with the proper maintenance of student records. The Commonwealth will also, upon the passage of this bill, be able to publish any enforcement action taken against education providers. I note one last measure in this bill: that is, the amendment to the Ombudsman Act 1976 to establish an Overseas Students Ombudsman within the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Its function will be to provide advice to private education providers on complaint-handling processes and possibly report on other issues across the international education sector. Reforms to education services for overseas students do not end with this bill. The measures in this legislation are important steps to strengthen the current arrangements to be of support to international students. The coalition hopes these measures help the services to provide and deliver quality education qualifications while being effectively regulated to ensure sustainability. I understand that the Baird review has many other recommendations that we could consider to improve current arrangements in the sector. While the coalition supports the measures in this bill, we would hope that the government continues to take action to rebuild this industry. As this bill before the House goes some way to doing this, I commend it to the House. 2317 11:21:00 Brodtmann, Gai, MP 30540 Canberra ALP 1 0 Ms BRODTMANN —I rise today to speak in favour of the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. We are blessed in this city to have at our disposal five providers of tertiary or technical education. As a result, technical and tertiary education form a significant part of the local economy here in Canberra. The education sector represents the second largest contributor to the local economy behind government. International education is a significant part of this contribution and it would be remiss of me not to speak today towards any measure that strengthens this vital part of the Canberra economy. I also have a strong interest in the welfare of students in higher education, particularly vocational and technical education, from my days as president of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology Student Union. At that time the RMIT was the biggest campus in the Southern Hemisphere and it had a mix of vocational, TAFE and higher education courses. We had everything from mechanics and chefs to engineers, journalists and movie makers. We also had the largest mix of part-time and full-time students, and a large proportion of those students were international students. So I am deeply committed to the welfare of students, having that imbued in me from a very young age as a result of looking after about 25,000 students at RMIT at that stage—it was a very large institution, and the oldest workers’ college in the world. As a tutor at the University of Canberra, I also taught undergraduate and postgraduate students from China, Malaysia, Vietnam and Indonesia. These students face enough challenges being here on their own to study, trying to get used to our culture and our food, being away from their families and trying to make new friends in a new land. When I moved up here from Melbourne when I was 18 to study at the ANU and lived in at Burgmann College, I found it very, very hard being away from my family. So not just being away from their family but also being in a new land would be a challenge for these students—and it is a challenge, I know, from speaking to them. That is why I have been deeply shocked and dismayed by the stories that have emerged in recent years concerning some education providers and their seemingly unscrupulous actions. Maybe I should not have been but, nonetheless, it was a great concern to me that some of these operators existed—operators such as the catering colleges with no kitchens and the pilot training schools that would not let students fly planes. These types of fly-by-night operations place at risk not only the students who unwittingly enrol in the courses but also the entire international education sector and the reputation of education in Australia and here in Canberra. Given this threat to such a large contributor to the Australian economy, and to the ACT economy, I am very pleased that the Gillard government has taken on some of the recommendations of the Baird review. The Education Services for Overseas Students Act, better known as ESOS, ensures that students who come to this country receive the quality education promised to them—that is not too much to ask. The ESOS Act also complements Australia’s migration law by ensuring the providers collect and report information relevant to the administration of student visas. The bill follows on from the Prime Minister’s commission of a review into the ESOS Act when she was Minister for Education. The review considers four areas of enhancement for the ESOS framework: supporting the interests of students, delivery quality as the cornerstone of Australian education, effective regulation and sustainability of the international sector. When the report was handed down in March 2011, it contained 19 recommendations covering better consumer protection mechanisms, more support for international students and improved regulation of education providers. The report’s conclusions follow an extensive consultation process with those in the sector—most importantly, the student groups, the education unions, international students and diplomatic missions. The recommendations from the Baird review are being implemented in two main stages, with those recommendations which can be implemented immediately being put first to ensure they are not held up by those requiring more detailed analysis. The bill continues the work from previous amendments and seeks to introduce provisions to strengthen the registration process for approved providers. The bill will require providers to demonstrate, as part of the registration process, that they have the financial resources to meet the objectives of the ESOS Act, that they have a sustainable business model and the capability, governance structures and management to deliver the education to a suitable standard. The bill will strengthen the work already done in this area which aims to ensure a repeat of past incidents does not occur in future. These provisions will go a long way to ensuring the viability of providers. Certainly, it is my hope that with these provisions we will never see a repeat of the times when the viability of a provider is limited to the current provisions of the Migration Act. I am glad of this because I was particularly struck by the comments made by SUPRA, the Sydney University Postgraduate Representative Association, to the Baird review. The association stated: It is apparent that the closure of an education provider has a markedly negative impact on the welfare of students. The association went on to say that, from its experience, students felt significant anxiety—as one would—as a result of dodgy providers. The bill complements the risk management approach agreed between all states concerning CRICOS re-registration and better focuses resources on those in the sector who are at high risk. The bill also addresses noncompliant behaviour by providers by extending the use of financial penalties to a broader range of noncompliant activities. I am pleased that this bill will extend the coverage of the Commonwealth Ombudsman to include students in private providers, such as the flight schools which would not allow students to fly aeroplanes—extraordinary! As it stands, while the ESOS Act requires providers to have access to an external complaints mechanism, this is not always easily identifiable. Students enrolled in a state or territory statutory provider such as a university or TAFE have access to the state ombudsman. This is a more difficult prospect for those enrolled in private institutions. The bill will provide that the Commonwealth Ombudsman is able to investigate complaints made by students and ensure appropriate action is taken in those private institutions. The Commonwealth Ombudsman will also work with providers to make sure their systems are rigorous, further improving standards. I am similarly pleased that this bill also delivers on the recommendation to publish the targets and regular reporting of all regulatory activities. Moreover, while providers can appeal against enforcement action, this is no bar to the publication of their reporting data. I spoke previously about the need for transparency and how it highlights strengths and weaknesses. This is another example of the benefits of transparency. I welcome any move that makes our education providers more accountable and transparent to their students, customers, the broader Australian community and the global community. Education and international education are far too important to Australia’s economy and reputation—and to Canberra’s reputation and economy—to be taken lightly. We cannot assume that the complaints from students are isolated, rare or from malcontent individuals. They must be treated seriously and this gives them the vehicle to do that. We must work hard to stamp out the providers who, through their negligence, incompetence or just plain money grabbing, place at risk a valuable industry for Australia and for Canberra. This bill focuses on financial and business viability and is essential to ensuring a repeat of the past does not occur. I commend the bill to the House. 2319 11:30:00 Prentice, Jane, MP 217266 Ryan LP 0 0 Mrs PRENTICE —International students bring huge benefit to the Australian economy, both socially and economically. That is why the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 is of such importance. It will enable the Commonwealth Ombudsman to establish an independent body for overseas students to make complaints against private registered providers, offer advice and training to private institutions to facilitate best practice complaint handling, and review and investigate complaint handling and report on systemic issues. Whilst I do not generally support simply applying another layer of bureaucracy to try to fix an issue, I believe that these amendments will provide much needed transparency and reassurance to international students in Australia who are currently feeling threatened by the Gillard government’s recent actions. Education services are Australia’s third largest export earner, second only to coal and iron ore. For a relatively small country, Australia hosts a high portion of the world’s international students. In 2006, there were almost 2.8 million tertiary students studying abroad, with just over 207,000 studying in Australia—7.5 per cent. Additionally, international students study not only at our universities but also through business schools, English language study institutions, through the VET sector, on study tours, and through foundation courses to prepare them for further study. In doing so, they contribute to a wide and diverse range of sectors even within the education industry, and the benefit of this becomes clear when looking at their contribution to the overall economy. Access Economics reports that each international student contributes approximately $29,000 per annum, on average, value added to our economy. This means that overall, including associated visits from their friends and family, international students contribute $12.3 billion value added. While students spend about 46 per cent of their expenditure—$6.4 billion—directly on their education, they also spend money on other items such as food, accommodation and travel. Again, based on an average $14.3 billion value added, it is estimated that for every dollar an international student spends on their education, there is a flow-on effect. This in turn, of course, generates jobs for Australians. Tourism Research Australia suggests that, for every two formal students, one friend or relative visited Australia throughout the duration of their studies. These travellers contribute an estimated $314.7 million to the economy. It is clear that international students contribute enormously to Australia as a whole, but the effects are also clear when broken down to a state-by-state level. In Queensland, international students and their friends and visitors contribute approximately $1.7 billion in value added to the state’s economy. Comparing this to the gross state product of $214 billion, international student flow-on effects account for 0.81 per cent of GSP. Of this, $1.2 billion is in the direct form of employee wages, with the remainder representing return to capital owners. International student activity in Queensland contributes close to 17,500 full-time equivalent workers, including almost 14,000 jobs in my home town of Brisbane alone. This equates to $970.4 million in direct wages, and $416.8 million as returns to capital owners, with the sector contributing $4.15 billion to Brisbane’s economy. When broken down to a local level, the contribution and importance of international students becomes particularly clear. These amendments are a positive step towards supporting our international students. However, I do have grave concerns about the management of this sector under the Gillard Labor government. Changes to the Skilled Occupation List made in July last year saw international students across the country reach the end of their degrees without the certainty they thought they had throughout the duration of their course. Whilst the changes may have been necessary, the transitional arrangements for these students were inadequate, undermining international confidence in studying in Australia. This is not good for our international reputation and relationships. On top of this, the government’s attempt at reintroducing compulsory student amenities fees would see international students studying at our universities hit with yet another upfront cost for services that are optional. The negative effects of this government’s mismanagement of the international student sector are clear. As reported in the Australian in May last year, the sector saw a 40 per cent decrease in overseas student applications in one month alone. At the time, Stephen Connelly of the International Education Association of Australia cautioned that, should this decline continue, the sector could lose up to 35,000 jobs by the end of 2011. These statistics have not improved. On 12 February, Dan Harrison of the Sydney Morning Herald reported that the number of international students choosing Australia for their degree had continued to fall, with student visa applications from outside Australia decreasing 32 per cent over the past six months of 2010, compared with 2009, which had already fallen 22 per cent compared to the same period in 2008. This drop must seriously concern universities, which have an increased reliance on the funds paid by international students given that the real value of government funding to universities has declined. The cumulative effect of this Labor government’s mishandling of the implementation of these changes has caused uncertainty and decline. Indeed, last year Monash University, Australia’s largest, announced that it would lay off 300 staff to cover the budget shortfall caused by the decline in the number of international students at their institution. Estimates by Access Economics also show the impact of a five per cent increase or decrease in international student activity. The effects of a five per cent decrease are significant, reducing total value-added contributions by more than half a billion dollars. As seen through the Monash example, however, the most telling effect of a decline in international students is its effect on employment rates, with a five per cent decrease resulting in an employment drop of more than 6,000 full-time-equivalent workers. Clearly, something needs to be done to regain Australia’s standing within the international education sector. Our universities and education institutions are world class, and I am sure that honourable members would agree that we are yet to find a country that offers greater safety, better natural attractions or, indeed, a better lifestyle than Australia. It is little wonder that Australia has been so competitive in this sector in the past. I have already noted the huge benefits that a thriving international education sector and international students bring to the economy. These are benefits we cannot afford to lose. This bill goes some way to providing international students with a reassurance that they are valued and that they do have a voice whilst they are here. History has shown that students who enjoy their education experience in Australia become friends for life. 2321 11:38:00 Jones, Stephen, MP A9B Throsby ALP 1 0 Mr STEPHEN JONES —It is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. This bill touches on a sector of the economy which is incredibly important for my electorate of Throsby on the South Coast of New South Wales. We have a great regional university and a number of schools, particularly in the southern highlands, which have successfully tapped into the demand for high-quality education services. I am very pleased to say that the demand for the education services provided by places like the University of Wollongong and St Paul’s International College in my electorate has grown and has not been hit like other institutions have throughout the period of the GFC. International education services are now the third largest income earner in the region. A region that once relied upon manufacturing and mining is now diversifying because of the benefits of overseas education services. I was interested to hear the contribution earlier by the member for Ryan. I am pleased to see that there is some bipartisan support for the implementation of the Baird review findings. I do part company with the member for Ryan on some of her observations. Yes, it is true that international student applications and applications for international student visas have declined over the last three years. But if you listened to the contribution from the member for Ryan you could be forgiven for thinking that we have not been through a global financial crisis, which has had a significant impact on the demand for overseas education services, or that we have not had a high Australian dollar, which has had a big impact on the capacity of many Australian institutions to compete with other countries not only in our region but also around the world in what is now a global market. We also inherited a lack of quality control in a sector that grew like Topsy over a decade under the watch of the previous government. As a result we saw a number of institutions that have been described by previous speakers as nothing more than shonky operations. They have also been described by many commentators as nothing more than visa factories. It was with an eye to the need to implement some quality control in this critical sector of our economy that the government acted. Yes, more refinements to the regulations of this sector are needed, and I will have something more to say about that shortly, but we did exactly what was necessary to ensure that we had some quality control in this sector. Every year, thousands of young people from around the world travel to Australia to enrol in a variety of educational institutions, including schools, TAFEs, universities and English language schools. As previous speakers have noted, our reputation as a safe, multicultural country ensures that we are one of the largest providers of education services for overseas students. It is critical that we in this place do nothing to damage the reputation we have as an open, welcoming country that values multiculturalism and the contribution that our overseas students make not only to our economy but also to our cultural life. We note that the current Australian dollar is impacting on many of our export industries, and the education sector is no exception. Despite this, I am very pleased to say that the education services sector will continue to grow and be a part of Australia’s economy. In my own region the high Australian dollar, thankfully, has not yet had an impact on enrolments and the demand for future enrolments, particularly in the tertiary education sector. I met yesterday with representatives from the University of Wollongong and they advised me that demand was still very strong. That is good news indeed. The principal act regulating this area is the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000—the ESOS Act—which protects the interests of students and Australia’s reputation for delivering quality education services by establishing a regulatory regime and standards for the provision of international education and training services, and by providing tuition and financial assurance. The ESOS Act also complements Australia’s migration laws by ensuring providers collect and report information relevant to the administration of the law relating to student visas. In August 2009 the Prime Minister in her then capacity as Minister for Education asked Bruce Baird AM to review the ESOS Act and its associated instruments and to recommend actions for ensuring Australia continued to offer world-class international education services. Ahead of the Baird review, the ESOS Amendment Act 2010 required the re-registration of all existing Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students providers and the introduction of two new registration criteria, and required providers to publicly list the names of all of their education agents. This went to the problem that has been identified by many speakers: unscrupulous activity by a small number of institutions and their education agents. The Baird review was tasked to consider the need for enhancements to the ESOS legal framework in four key areas, as set out in the terms of reference. They included supporting the interests of students, delivering quality as the cornerstone of Australian education, and effective regulation and sustainability of the international education sector. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11.46 am to 12.03 pm A9B Jones, Stephen, MP Mr STEPHEN JONES —Continuing my speech, Mr Baird released his report Stronger, simpler, smarter ESOS: supporting international students in March 2010. The report contained 19 recommendations, including, firstly, more support for international students and improved information, secondly, stronger consumer protection mechanisms to ensure students are protected from unscrupulous operators, thirdly, improved regulation of Australia’s international education sector and, fourthly and finally, improved support for those who study and live in Australia, including having somewhere to go when problems arise. During debate in the Senate on amendments to the ESOS Act in 2010, the then Deputy Prime Minister committed to introducing an amendment bill for the Baird ESOS review recommendations. The initial changes proposed to be implemented in this bill will build on recent amendments to the ESOS Act and the re-registration measure to raise the bar for entry into the international education sector and give regulators greater flexibility to effectively manage risk and enforce compliance with legislation. This bill before the House today contains provisions that will, firstly, ensure that only those providers that have a capacity to offer quality education are permitted entry into the sector. Secondly, it will protect the interests of students in strengthening and simplifying the regulatory framework to ensure it can respond to the pressures international education faces now as well as those that it will face into the future. Third, it will ensure resources are better targeted towards high-risk providers and release and reduce the regulatory burden for low-risk providers. It will complement the risk based approach agreed with states and territories for CRICOS re-registration. It will address non-compliant provider behaviour by extending the use of financial penalties to a broader range of non-compliance. It will allow the Commonwealth to publish targets and regular reporting on all regulatory activities taken under part 6 and part 7. Finally, it will extend the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Ombudsman to include students of private registered providers. Taken together, these amendments to strengthen ESOS will result in a more sustainable international education sector through better protection of international students and an ongoing commitment to continual quality improvement. These measures are important to protect the integrity of Australia’s education services sector, which is, as I said, of great value to our economy, including the economy in my electorate of Throsby. There is no doubt that in the past there have been issues with the integrity of the international education sector, and these measures in the bill today are a response to that. There have been allegations of immigration rorts, shonky providers, poor quality education services, college closures and exploitation of students. This legislation is a positive development to ensure that Australia’s international reputation is protected and these practices are stamped out. In 2009-10 student visas were granted to 269,000 applicants. It is also relevant to note that new measures have been put in place to address integrity issues about some parts of the student visa program, including an increased number of interviews for offshore applicants, increased financial requirements and changes to the way in which course packages are assessed. In December 2010 the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations and the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship announced a strategic review of the student visa program. This strategic review of student visas complements the work being done in responding to the Baird ESOS review. The review of student visas is being done because the government recognises that there have been adverse impacts on the Australian international education sector as a result of the rising value of the Australian dollar, together with the ongoing impact of the global financial crisis on countries and the growing competition from alternative providers in countries such as the United States, New Zealand and Canada for international students. As I mentioned, there are a number of international education providers in my electorate and I have had representations from a number of them, including St Paul’s International College in Moss Vale. This college in the Southern Highlands of New South Wales is a leading international school, providing services in education services, particularly to mainland China. I know that schools like St Paul’s have been struggling with the impacts of some aspects of these regulatory changes and the high Australian dollar in this highly competitive market. I have made representations on behalf of the school to the minister, and he is sympathetic to the situation facing schools in my electorate. We are hopeful that, as a result of the review, these issues will be brought forth and we will have a comprehensive response to the problems being faced by these providers. It is important that schools like St Paul’s continue to remain financially viable. I am assured that it is this government’s intention to find the right balance between our economic interests and the importance of an education and immigration system that are based on sound regulatory principles. In conclusion, the goal of the Gillard Labor government is to invest in education and to build the best education system in the world. The ESOS amendment bill before the chamber today protects the interests of students and Australia’s reputation for delivering quality education services, and for these reasons I commend the bill to the House. 2324 12:10:00 Alexander, John, MP M3M Bennelong LP 0 0 Mr ALEXANDER —The Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 is an important bill both for the electorate of Bennelong and for the nation in general. I support the bill but add reservations that further amendments are required to achieve a better balance between the needs of higher education providers and the legitimate expectations of students. The changes to this bill arise out of the review, chaired by the Hon. Bruce Baird, delivering the report titled Stronger, simpler, smarter ESOS: supporting international students. This bill implements some of the Baird recommendations, adding some further strength and flexibility to the original ESOS Act 2000, as well as the ESOS Amendment Act 2010. The primary purpose of this bill is to: bolster the existing standards for the registration of an education provider; improve the manner in which the industry manages risk; provide the government with the authority to penalise providers financially if they engage in practices considered inappropriate or unethical; and allow a wider scope for the Commonwealth Ombudsman to investigate complaints about education providers. It is my contention that these measures need to be expanded to include enhancement of the student experience, with flow-on benefits to all sectors of the economy—a concept I refer to as ‘edu-tourism.’ Macquarie University is based in the Bennelong suburb of Marsfield and recently ranked ninth in the Australian Education Network’s ranking of Australian universities. Like many higher education providers, Macquarie University’s financial viability is inextricably linked to the health of our overseas student market, which is responsible for a large proportion of their tuition income. Australia is one of the largest providers of education services for overseas students. Education is our nation’s largest services export industry and is currently our fourth largest export earner overall, following coal, iron ore and gold. In 2008-09, education contributed more than $17 billion to our national export earnings and it is linked to the employment of approximately 120,000 people. The total value-add generated by international higher education students was $9.3 billion. On average, each international higher education student studying in Australia contributes over $50,000 to our economy each year. Two-thirds of this amount is spent on goods and services, injecting vital income into the economy and generating more jobs. Many overseas students will remain in Australia, contributing to our nation in a variety of economic and cultural ways. Others will return home and share their affection for their second home as a legitimate business, study and tourist destination. In short, government inaction or poor policy can have massive repercussions on our nation’s economic wellbeing, on each education provider’s financial viability and on the costs of tertiary study for our own citizens, thereby impacting on the professional and intellectual capacity of our future generations. Over the past few years we have observed a sharp decline in commencement numbers of international students. In 2009-10, the number of visas granted for the higher education sector dropped by 11.5 per cent, compared to the previous year. A John Curtin Institute of Public Policy report, dated August 2010, found that overseas enrolments in higher education could slide by up to 100,000 places by 2015, costing up to $7 billion in fees and risking up to 8,800 university jobs. This serious issue has been widely linked to a variety of factors, including the global financial crisis; competition from improved domestic networks, specifically those choosing to use English as the language of tuition; recent changes to the General Skilled Migration Program; the increasing strength of the Australian dollar; the collapses of local providers found to be dodgy through improved checking mechanisms; and incidents of violence perpetrated on overseas students, which attained sensational press in their home markets. I agree that these factors, many of which are out of our control as policymakers, have been largely influenced by global events. Any efforts we can implement to right the ship and improve our position will be of great benefit. But these efforts should not be limited to just trying to take things back to how they were prior to the GFC. A key reason for the current situation is the increased competition we face from other countries, particularly the United States, Canada and the UK, who offer international students the package experience of studying in a foreign country. This is the idea that education institutions provide a holistic experience which includes not only a high quality of teaching from the provider but also the living and cultural elements associated with the national experience. In countries such as the UK and Canada, it is normal practice to accommodate first-year students, as a minimum, within the university’s portfolio of accommodation. Almost all US colleges and universities provide their students with the option to live in campus residences or dormitories. Australia must compete with these countries by taking a more proactive role in securing student accommodation and ownership of the broader student experience and development. At the very least, larger education providers should take responsibility for finding first-year foreign students suitable accommodation, preferably on campus but possibly in private accommodation. In addition, Australia must ensure that we give foreign students a holistic experience of life in Australia by ensuring that they have access to affordable public transport and to the social aspects of life on campus which make studying in another country so enjoyable. We must nurture these individuals so that they either remain in Australia as skilled workers and contribute to our society or return to their home country with genuine praise and affection for our country. We need to be creative. We need to fully utilise the opportunities available to us to improve the overall student experience. We need to move away from just viewing overseas students as purely economic assets. We need to take a wider perspective on the overall impact of this industry on our local community as well as our broader economy. Macquarie University is a very large provider of education services to overseas students. As the local MP I have witnessed firsthand the impact that an inadequate system can have on the local community. As I mentioned in my maiden speech to the House, since my very first day of campaigning for this position over a year ago I have observed and participated in the protest actions of a community group called MARS—Marsfield Against Residential Suffocation. Coincidentally, I will be addressing a MARS rally this coming Sunday afternoon in Dunbar Park. MARS was formed by residents neighbouring the university who have witnessed a sharp escalation in the number of illegal boarding houses providing cheap and substandard accommodation options to overseas students. Some reports have up to 15 students sharing a three-bedroom unit, leading to a degree of physical and psychological abuse by those choosing to prey on the students’ ignorance of the Australian way of life. The flow-on impact on infrastructure, services and detriment to the quality of life of the community cannot be overstated. Some of this matter relates to powers administered by the state government, particularly those relating to tenancy laws. My New South Wales state colleague Victor Dominello, the member for Ryde, introduced a private member’s bill late last year to impose significantly increased sanctions on operators of these illegal boarding houses and to set a cap on student numbers per room permitted under the legislation. Unfortunately this private member’s bill did not proceed through the Legislative Assembly prior to the New South Wales parliament being prorogued. I am very grateful to Mr Dominello and hopeful that he will serve as a government MP later this month and that this bill will becomes part of the new government’s legislative agenda. Under the federal government’s authority, as exemplified by the bill we are debating, it has become increasingly clear that action is not being taken to protect one of our greatest industries—one that has every potential for sustainable growth. We are in the early stages of suffering a syndrome that those of us in Sydney’s north-western suburbs know only too well whereby appropriate action is not taken in a timely manner in the form of infrastructure investment to provide dividends for generations to come. Several weeks ago I inspected the clever yet simple prefabricated budget student accommodation buildings constructed over the past few years at the Australian National University. ANU has taken proactive measures to provide real options to the overseas student market and has markedly reduced the rental pressure on the surrounding residential neighbourhoods in the process. It gave me no surprise to learn that the ANU is ranked as the No. 1 university in Australia on the ranking guide mentioned earlier. I also note that several days ago the University of Canberra announced their intention to follow the lead set by ANU and convert a block of offices in neighbouring Belconnen into student accommodation. Aside from the obvious and immediate assistance this would provide to the university’s standing in the overseas student market, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Canberra, Professor Stephen Parker, was quoted by ABC News as saying: In many way it’s the big issue for Canberra about Tertiary education and for the community, because if you’ve got students out there renting houses that aren’t really suitable for them, then they’re making housing less available, less affordable for members of the community. It is imperative that a program is commenced to provide high-standard budget student accommodation with a unique Australian experience for our overseas students. This will serve to broaden their educational experience and create a distinct point of difference and superiority to the conditions and services offered by other countries in an increasingly competitive overseas student market. This opportunity should not be missed. I understand this bill is the first of two amendment bills on the legislation which will be debated in this House over the coming months and that the next bill also has correlation to the issues I am addressing today. I will be working to ensure that preliminary negotiations on the future legislation include discussions on a university’s duty of care to their overseas students, including access to budget accommodation options of sufficient quality. Incorporation of these standards can assist in the development and improvement of the ranking or grading system of universities to include the quality of the students’ overall university experience, thereby assisting those providers to promote their services in international markets. The focus of our parliament must not be to promote unnecessary regulation or bureaucracy and other burdens which weigh down the strong performers. Instead, we must motivate our great schools of learning to be proactive in attracting the best young minds of the world, giving them the standard of support they deserve and assisting them to reach their full potential. The flow-on benefits to our country will be significant. The measures covered in this bill will go a small way towards addressing these numerous issues. With the key role that Macquarie University plays in Bennelong, and the important position that the industry holds in our national economy, I will be working towards implementation of greater and further reaching reforms into the future. I commend this bill to the House. 2327 12:22:00 Tehan, Dan, MP 210911 Wannon LP 0 0 Mr TEHAN —I rise today to give my support, with conditions also, to the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. This bill aims to ensure that all providers of education services to overseas students are financially stable, have a solid business model and have the right management practices in place to ensure they deliver education that is of a suitable standard. In Australia we have a fine record in educating students from overseas and, given that we are one of the world’s largest providers of overseas education and a market leader, it is imperative that we constantly seek to set high standards in education. The fallout from the global financial crisis, combined with the rise in the Australian dollar and, unfortunately, the sledgehammer approach to the issuing of visas, means that gaining an education in Australia has become more expensive and more difficult for students from overseas. This has put considerable pressure on the industry and has resulted in 11,544 fewer students in 2010 than in 2009. Therefore, it is important that we ensure the standard of the education we offer is high, giving an additional incentive so that we can limit the impact of the high dollar and continue to attract students from overseas. We also have to ensure that students have a seamless approach in applying to access our tertiary education, because such approaches are being offered in competing countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom. I feel that if this bill works towards this aim it will provide greater certainty for overseas students that the product they are paying for is of a suitable standard. With the establishment of the Overseas Students Ombudsman, there will also be an avenue for complaint resolution of any issues that students may have with their provider. This is certainly a welcome move and may uncover any problems with providers before they reach crisis point. Recent collapses of educational providers and issues with overseas student integration have also damaged our standing as a desirable education destination, and we do need to act to ensure that this does not happen again. While our capital cities accommodate the majority of overseas students, these students are increasingly important for our rural and regional educational facilities. The right balance of local and overseas students results in a viable and diverse educational facility. This is especially important in more remote areas with lower population densities, where international student numbers can support a provider whose facility may not be viable if accessed only by local students. This has great advantages for local rural and regional students because a local facility is available and helps to create greater cultural diversity in our regional areas. As we see in our university residences, students mix and live in a truly global environment which adequately prepares them for the challenges of today’s workforce. Most young students now aim to live and work overseas for a period of time, and the contacts made while studying with students from other countries are extremely valuable. Many students form lifelong friendships with people from another country, and many make vital future business contacts. In Wannon, we have campuses of both the Deakin and RMIT universities and, as an example, the training for doctors is especially popular and considered superior to some city based options, due to the variety of experience students get when working in a regional area. This influx of students leads to a greater chance of them choosing to stay and gain employment in rural and regional areas, helping considerably to fill some gaps that exist for skilled professionals, especially in the area of health. This in turn benefits our local communities. Many of our doctor and other health professional shortages are filled by overseas trained immigrants in regional areas. Encouraging overseas students to train in rural and regional areas can encourage those people to consider applying for permanent residency in the area and further assist in providing essential services to local towns. Overseas students who have been trained in regional Australia are already up to date with our standards and are more likely to stay in regional areas to work if they have a connection with the area formed while studying. Students who do return to their country of birth take home with them a better understanding of Australia and the Australian culture, assisting Australia’s standing in any future business dealings that they may have throughout their career. A good example of the importance of international students to educational facilities in Wannon is the Hamilton and Alexandra College. When most people think of overseas students, they assume that they are mostly in our universities, but there is a growing trend for secondary schools to be actively attracting overseas students as well. The Hamilton and Alexandra College, an independent school educational leader in south-western Victoria—which, I might add, some of my children attend—fosters a relationship with China and our other Asian neighbours which results in strong overseas student numbers at the college. As this is a relatively small school, the component of overseas students at the Hamilton and Alexandra College means that the college is still able to support a boarding facility. This, in turn, benefits Australian-resident country families who might otherwise have to send their children to a city boarding school. All students learn Chinese, and the year 9 group undertakes a ‘China Experience’ in which they attend school in China for approximately two months. The students at the college benefit from forming friendships with students from other countries at an influential age. It produces more worldly and tolerant young adults who are prepared for the demands of our modern, multicultural society. I am glad to see that with this bill the government is acting to address the decline in overseas students that occurred last year and the negative publicity that occurred as a result of the collapse of some educational providers. However, I am severely disappointed that the government will not acknowledge and act on the growing disadvantage our Australian resident country students face in gaining a tertiary qualification when compared to their city counterparts. While I support the aims of this bill, I hope that continual improvements will be made. (Extension of time granted) High-quality, world-class educational opportunities are a reflection internationally of Australia. Our international students go forth into the global community and we need to ensure that they have wonderful, positive and beneficial experiences to tell the world about. Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned. 2329 Adjournment Mr MELHAM (Banks) 12:30:00 —I move: That the Main Committee do now adjourn. 2329 2329 12:30:00 Forrest, John, MP NV5 Mallee NATS 0 0 Mr FORREST —The lifting of exceptional circumstances last Friday by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Ludwig, has caused enormous uncertainty across my entire electorate. The north-west of Victoria has been in EC for the last five or six years on the basis of severe drought. It has been a substantial drought, not all of it consistently for that long period. In fact, today there is only one small area in the south-west corner, in the West Wimmera Shire, that is not included in EC but the rest is and we are talking about a significant region of Victoria—a third of the state which is now in a state of complete uncertainty because of this announcement. EC due to drought has provided significant household support and interest rate subsidies which have been keeping primary producers—and all the associated businesses—out there in isolated rural Victoria going and has been instrumental in keeping the social and economic fabric of north-west Victoria together as we wait for more prosperous times to return. Yes, we had thought these more prosperous times had returned with the good spring rains. Back in 2010 the future for grain crops looked very positive and constructive and that created some expectations of much better returns. However, as history has proved time and time again, when a drought breaks the skies open. Unprecedented rainfall since September 2010 has now demonstrated an outcome of exceptional circumstances of the opposite kind to drought, equally debilitating but not drought. I believe the timing of this announcement is completely inappropriate when cyclonic meteorological outcomes of a like never seen in living memory in the arid Mallee region of Victoria are leaving people staggering. We have seen TV scenes and images comparable with those we have seen of tropical Queensland. Who would have credited that an area with a notional average annual rainfall of 250 millimetres per annum would have three times that since September? In fact, on one occasion, on 4 February, the average annual rainfall fell on the Mildura region in less than 12 hours. The resulting financial and economic strain as a result of crop damage and infrastructure damage is enormous and, to be frank, I am struggling to give moral support to my communities to keep them together. So the announcement of this withdrawal of EC support has the most abominable timing. It sends a very bad message to my constituents that they are not important when they see Queenslanders getting so much attention—and, rightly so, they should because they have had to cope with significant climatic change’s dramatic outcomes but so have the people in north-west Victoria. So I am pleading with the minister and the state government of Victoria to find an alternative way so that, in 28 days, at least 2,000 of my desperate families do not find themselves in a position where their household support is stopped. We have time—we have four weeks—to lodge a new application, whether it is called exceptional circumstances or national disaster relief assistance. No matter what is called, to be frank, it is time my constituents were sent a moral message that this House does care: it cares about their future wellbeing, it appreciates the contribution they make to the nation’s prosperity and GDP and it appreciates that they are very real families who are dealing with real uncertainty. They need an approach from us that shows we understand that their preciousness is important to us. I make an appeal to the Victorian state government to work with the federal government to come up with a program through national disaster relief that leaves that ongoing support in place and does not leave my constituents in some sort of hiatus where they have incredible uncertainty about their future. I thank you and I hope my message gets heard by the relevant minister. 2330 2330 12:36:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —I want to place on the record of this House the importance of the National Broadband Network to the people that I represent in this parliament. The Shortland electorate falls partly in Lake Macquarie and partly on the Central Coast. Regional Development Australia (Central Coast and Hunter) have worked together to promote a wider Hunter and Central Coast region as a priority area for the NBN rollout. This initiative has been supported by 13 councils and I note that the two councils that the Shortland electorate falls in have passed motions supporting the NBN rollout in their area. A statement of intent was forwarded to the government stating that the Hunter and Central Coast were NBN capable and that they had the capacity and the commitment to be involved as a priority area for the rollout of the NBN. Some areas of the Shortland electorate are quite isolated. The electorate has fairly high unemployment, particularly the Central Coast part of the electorate. Wyong Shire has an 8.8 per cent unemployment rate and that is higher than the New South Wales and Australian averages. A large portion of that area of high unemployment is in the northern part of the Central Coast which is more isolated. The NBN would be of so much benefit to those people living in the northern part of the Central Coast. It would allow them to work from home rather than having to travel either to Sydney or to Newcastle as practically all of them need to do to access employment. Yesterday the Central Coast members of parliament—Craig Thomson, Deb O’Neill and I—along with Gosford and Wyong councils, Regional Development Australia Central Coast and industry consultant Dave Abrahams, met with Minister Conroy and Minister Crean to emphasise the importance of the NBN to the Central Coast. That covers the Lake Macquarie area that I also represent. The ministers were able to recognise that this is an area of high need. They were exceptionally impressed with the prospectus that had been put together. They were cognisant of the fact that this proposal has the support of all sectors of the community, and they could see that the Central Coast community was ready and that the region would provide an attractive return for NBN Co. The rollout will help the region to provide: sound community and business support, support for commuting workers through demonstrating the value of the NBN in reducing unnecessary travelling time, linking of schools, and a balance between work and home with all those people needing to travel to get to work. There are implications of the NBN for health and the fact that the Central Coast is a water authority and is prepared to work very cooperatively with NBN in the rollout. The most important thing to note about the Central Coast and the Hunter is that there is support throughout the community for the NBN. The business sector particularly is behind NBN being rolled out to the Central Coast and the Hunter. One of the things that we were able to present to the ministers yesterday is that the Central Coast is within the Hunter-Central Coast proposal that is being put forward as well as the proposal that is being put forward by Southern Cross University for a spur down eastern Australia. I strongly put on the record my support for the NBN being rolled out in the Central Coast and Lake Macquarie. (Time expired) 2331 2331 12:41:00 Briggs, Jamie, MP IYU Mayo LP 0 0 Mr BRIGGS —I rise today to speak on a very important topic. The historic reshaping of several Middle Eastern powers in the last couple of weeks and the ongoing issues in that part of the world are timely reminders of the significance of this region to our lives. There is no doubt that the events still occurring in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and potentially other countries in the Middle East and North Africa are historic. The events remind us of the innate desire for freedom that drives us all and the willingness of people to sacrifice for that freedom. As a member of this great institution, our own symbol of freedom, I commend those who seek to establish their own version of democracy in their own countries. We should do what we can to support these people in their fight. However, when significant change occurs we must remind ourselves that we need vigilance. The uprisings in this region will have short- and long-term repercussions that we as policy makers must consciously consider. For instance, there will be a short-term impact on petrol prices that will be felt throughout our economy. But it is the potential longer term consequences to which I believe we must turn our attention. One of the most important stabilisers in the Middle East in recent years was the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. It has been and remains a vital element in ensuring that large-scale conflict has been avoided in this region. It is an agreement that we must ensure survives the recent upheaval in Egypt—because its survival is not assured. In 1979, a popular revolt in Iran overthrew an autocrat, but of course the popular revolt was eventually hijacked by extremists. The same extremists continue to threaten world security today. There is no doubt that there are some in Egypt, backed by the silent hand of Tehran, who wish to bring the same type of Islamic extremism to power in that country. We must ensure that this does not happen. While it is unlikely that an Iranian-backed extremist will gain control in Egypt, we must be vigilant. Australia is a great friend of Israel, and it should remain a great friend of Israel. While there are some on the far left in Australian politics who will continue to seek to demonise the people of Israel, I will stand with our friends to support their right to exist in peace and their right to have the security that we often take for granted. Ultimately we must remember that we shared the battle against the same deranged strain of Islamic extremism that has killed Australians in Bali, in Afghanistan and in other parts of the world. Indeed, many of our young Australians continue to fight against some of these people in Afghanistan today. It is Iran’s stated policy aim to push Israel into the sea. Iran is led by a regime which, even in the face of united, concerted, international opposition, continues to pursue an aggressive nuclear program. If their pursuit of this nuclear program is successful, it will bring massive instability to this region and to our world. It will undoubtedly have an impact on us. It is a program that I believe must never come to fruition. The risk that Iran continues to present underlines why it is essential that modern Egypt and other Middle Eastern powers do not fall into the hands of these extremists. This is not just a threat to our friends Israel; it is a threat to our free world. I believe Australian policy must maintain consistency and strong support for Israel. It concerns me when senior members of the government float ideas that suggest our support for our friends in Israel is not rock-solid. While some on the lunatic Left fringe, like the Greens-controlled Marrickville Council, will continue their campaign against Israel, it is vital that the bipartisan support for Israel does not waver. I support democracy in the Middle East. Any movement towards free and open democracy is to be supported. But we must be vigilant against the risks of extremists hijacking these movements. We must continue to show our strong resolve and our support for our friends in Israel, because their fight with extremists is our fight with extremists. I urge the House to maintain the necessary resolve to ensure our ongoing security. 2333 2333 12:46:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 0 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —I am very happy to talk about a move to turn around the health and wellbeing of my patch on the north-west coast of Tassie. Unfortunately my region does not have good health indicators. Indeed, a Tasmanian population health survey of 2009 revealed that 56.5 per cent of the people in my region were overweight or obese. Despite having some fantastic local produce, which you have heard me talk about in this place many times before, some 89 per cent of people in Braddon do not eat enough vegetables and nearly 51 per cent do not eat enough fruit. We are also above the state average for smoking, risky alcohol consumption, heart disease and so forth. That is why the Healthy Communities Initiative of this Labor government has been so welcome in my neck of the woods—and some 24 projects are now underway. I would like to congratulate the Cradle Coast Authority, particularly Bev Hayhurst, a dynamic organiser in this program, for being successful in getting $410,000 in pilot project funding to put into effect the Healthy Communities Initiative on the coast. I would like to share some details of these projects. At Latrobe, they set up a project involving exercise and dance classes for residents in an aged-care facility, some six weeks prior holding a major dance on St Patrick’s Day. This not only gave them a range of activities but has also become a major fundraiser. The funds raised have been used to buy equipment and to put in raised beds for a community garden at the facility, which will have its own benefits for the residents. In Circular Head, at the western end of the electorate, through a Job Services Australia provider, a small group of long-term unemployed people were part of a 10-week course of two-hour sessions on nutrition. They cooked healthy meals on a budget, developed basic health literacy and did community gardening and exercise. With each of the cooking components, they did half an hour’s exercise as well. They have now set up a walking group under the Heart Foundation banner. So that is fantastic. They also kicked off the ‘Balance Your Life’ project, which signed up more than 300 people to a program of community exercise events subsidised by the fantastic council there. At nearby Wynyard a group of families have been part of what they call ‘Wheelin’ Wynyard’, a school holiday project to get people out on their bikes and riding together. One local man with a talent for bicycle repairs has been part of the project, and it looks like he may establish a small business. A number of other adults have had assistance to get out on their bikes, often with their kids, for the very first time. At the lovely little town of Waratah, a small former mining town, the project has organised regular exercise sessions for the region, which also include workshops on nutrition and eating on a budget in a remote community. The City of Burnie is working towards the Burnie Challenge and has enlisted the help of Commando Steve, from the Biggest Loser television program, to stage an obstacle course competition. Local personal trainers are part of the lead-up to the event in April and have been offering free cross-training to those in the target group. Further to the east, in Devonport, they are looking for a fresh start with its events, which are part of the Healthy Living Expo and will combine low-impact physical activity, health awareness and cost-effective healthy cooking. They are also planning ‘From Garden to the Plate’, which will develop a small group program for up to 16 people to meet for about three hours over 10 weeks. They will learn a variety of skills around healthy cooking and be part of caring for a garden bed at the community garden. The people on the mighty west coast are clocking up the kilometres in ‘Swim the West Coast’, where individuals or teams are being encouraged to register and record kilometres swum at the region’s community pools. The winning team or individual with the highest combined kilometres will win a season ticket to their local pool for the coming season. The central coast is working with the North-West Environment Centre and the Penguin Sustainable Living Centre to coordinate a sustainable living festival. This will be followed by a series of workshops to teach garden skills, cooking skills and nutrition skills at the community garden. On King Island they are ‘Going for Gold or Growing Old Living Dangerously’, which involves exercise and activities for over 50s. As you can see, it is a fantastic program that is well piloted in the north-west coast of Tasmania. (Time expired) 2334 Petition: 2334 12:51:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —I rise to table a nationwide petition signed by just some of those who so strongly oppose the Labor government’s discrimination against students who, by the use of arbitrary lines by the government, have been classified as ‘inner regional’ when applying for independent youth allowance. This petition consists of thousands of signatures from people who believe that rural and regional students should have equity of access to a tertiary education or training. This Labor government made changes to youth allowance in 2009 which made it harder and, in some instances, impossible for regional students to access higher education or training. Originally I thought this may have been an unintended consequence but the continued resistance the government have shown—and as they have shown again today—to fixing this abominable legislation has unfortunately proven to me that this appears to have been a deliberately discriminatory action. I cannot assume anything else. There can be no other conclusion. The government have had two years to amend the legislation and fix the problems that they have created. Not only have the government chosen not to do so; they have blocked every move by this parliament, by the coalition, to end the discrimination and give certainty to thousands of regional and rural students around the nation. Why wouldn’t you want to do that? The will of the people is represented in this House and members of this House passed the motion to fix the problem. The Senate also conducted an inquiry where students, parents, families and organisations gave overwhelming evidence that the Labor government changes are unfair and have significant health, education and career impacts on regional and rural students. Recently the Senate passed Senator Nash’s bill to reinstate the former workplace criteria. But the Labor government have vehemently opposed every opportunity to fix the problem—which can only mean that the government are absolutely determined to continue to discriminate against inner regional students. I wonder why the government is so intent on denying regional students higher education and training. Why would you do this? The principal petitioner, Linda Brown, from my electorate of Forrest, described the changes to this legislation as ‘dumbing down regional students’. She had a daughter who was half-way through doing her gap year when the Prime Minister decided to change the criteria, which meant that her daughter was no longer eligible for a single gap year. The last thing her daughter wanted to do prior to taking on a four-year law degree was to be forced to work for another year—that is, if she can find work in the first place! Amanda Whittle’s submission to the Senate committee hearing said: We live in Bunbury—2 hours from Perth—and I feel discriminated against as my two sons live in this so-called ‘Inner Regional’ area and will have to work 30 hours per week for 18 months, whereas closer to Perth in a neighbouring town, their friends need only to earn $19,500 over 12 months. Both go to the same school and both have to live away from home to study in Perth. I urge— the Labor government— to have a fairer system for country families, which should be supporting country students and their families, not disadvantaging them. I have story after story. My office continues to receive contact over this issue. Unfortunately, young people are choosing not to take university pathways in years 11 and 12 as a result of this. That is a tragedy. This is not the education revolution the Labor government promised. For those students this is education discrimination. This issue is one of equity—equity of access to a tertiary education and a professional career. The parliament has sent clear messages to the Labor government that this legislation is flawed. I have called repeatedly for the Labor government, and those Independents who have voted against every move to end this discrimination, to stop blocking the attempts to give rural and regional students a fair go. I am really disappointed that again the Independents have sold out the interests of their young constituents. In conclusion, I would really like to take the opportunity to thank Linda Brown and thank my colleagues—the members for Farrer, Grey, Groom, Hume, Murray and Wannon—for their work and effort in collecting signatures. 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—Is my understanding correct that the honourable member for Forrest wishes to table the petition? HWP Marino, Nola, MP Ms MARINO —I certainly do, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek to incorporate the petition that has gone through the committee. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I understand, as the member points out, that the petition is approved so it will be received pursuant to standing order 207. HWP Marino, Nola, MP Ms MARINO —I am therefore pleased to present this petition. The petition read as follows— To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the deep concern students, parents and families have, throughout Australia, regarding the Labor Federal Government’s changes to Youth Allowance, In particular the exclusion of students residing In the Inner Regional zone of the Australian Standard Geographical Classification —Remoteness Area (ASGC-RA) map from Subsection ICE (a) of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2010. The exclusion of the Inner Regional zone has and will continue to disadvantage Australian students within this classification, and deter many students from obtaining a higher education. The lack of financial assistance available for students who must relocate to study is hindering the opportunities of all young people. We therefore ask the Government and the House to act on Nola Marino’s Motion which was passed 28 October 2010 to include Inner Regional students in Subsection ICE (a) of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2010. from 4,257 citizens Petition Received. 2336 2336 12:57:00 D’Ath, Yvette, MP HVN Petrie ALP 1 0 Mrs D’ATH —I rise today to talk about an important event that is happening on Sunday, 6 March across this country: Clean Up Australia Day. This is an important event, one that I am sure many, if not all, members of this parliament participate in on an annual basis. I certainly have enjoyed being part of Clean Up Australia Day in previous years. I wish we did not have to do this. I wish that our streets, beaches and parklands were clean all the time, but the reality is that is not the case. An event like this, Clean Up Australia Day, is not just a great opportunity to get that rubbish picked up. It is also a chance to lift awareness in our community about the importance of not dumping materials and about the damage that dumping actually does. I talk about it being this Sunday, but on Tuesday this week, 1 March, there was Business Clean Up Australia Day and tomorrow, Friday 4 March, there will be School Clean Up Australia Day. I know that a number of my schools are going to be out there tomorrow with a clean-up team. I was at Clontarf Beach State High School only a week ago and met some of the students who will be out there tomorrow helping to clean up our wonderful Redcliffe Peninsula. The Clean Up Australia Day Council, in their press releases and on their website, have outlined the types of rubbish that are normally found in Queensland during Clean Up Australia Days. The top five rubbish items are small paper, polystyrene pieces, cigarette butts, bottle caps and lids, and plastic bags. My electorate is surrounded by Moreton Bay, a beautiful bay in which we have dugongs and dolphins. Sometimes we have the pleasure of seeing the whales swimming north. These materials in our waters are devastating. It really is quite distressing to see some of the pictures of what they do to our turtles, fish, dolphins and dugongs. We are working hard to educate our children in the schools in the surrounding area as they are told to make sure that they put their own rubbish in the bin and that, if they happen to be walking past a plastic bag that they see on the ground—whether they put it there or not—they should pick it up and put it in the bin. They know where it could end up and the damage that it could do. In Queensland we expect to find during this Clean Up Australia Day this year—and the Clean Up Australia Day Council has noted this—different things in addition to our normal rubbish items as a consequence of the floods and what is still washing up on our beaches. Across the entire Redcliffe Peninsula our beaches are still closed. They were closed the day before Australia Day and they remain closed because of what is washing up on our shores and also because of the quality of the water. Despite it being tidal, the quality of that water is still at a level that is not healthy for people to swim in. It is going to take some time before we see those waterways improving. I have registered this year with the Redcliffe Environmental Forum, who will be cleaning up Hays Inlet, a very important area of the Redcliffe Peninsula. It includes fishery nurseries. It is a natural water treatment system in its own right. It is an air purifier. The bushland areas around Hays Inlet are very good at absorbing carbon dioxide from the air. The scenery is exquisite. Our wildlife is amazing. Because of the importance of the wading migratory birds in the area, it is listed as an internationally significant area under the Ramsar convention. So I will be out there with my children, just as they have helped me in previous years, cleaning up this very important area. You can always leave it to the children to make the point. Last year my children said to me, as we were driving away from cleaning up around the Deception Bay area with the Deception Bay Conservation Park members, ‘Why do we only do this one day a year? Why isn’t it all the time?’ We can only hope that message will get through and that Clean Up Australia Day will not be one single event each year as each day we will all play our part. (Time expired) Question agreed to. 2337 13:03:00 Main Committee adjourned at 1.03 pm 2338 Questions in Writing 1 1 13 1 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 30 September 2010: In respect of the first 36 sites for GP Super Clinics, for each Clinic: Where is the site, and in what electorate does it reside. Is it in an area (a) of high growth, (b) with poor access to GP services, or (c) with low socio-economic status. What is the Government’s financial contribution to its establishment. On what date (a) was it announced, (b) did it become operational, (c) did it become fully operational, and (d) were first patients seen. What is the total number of (a) patient visits, and (b) medical and allied health professionals providing services. What services are offered. What number of GP services are (a) billed, and (b) bulk billed to Medicare. What number of other Medicare services is available, by type. What number of existing GPs and allied health practices currently service this area, and what impact has the Clinic had on them. 1 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms Roxon —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The location of the 36 GP Super Clinics, including information on their electorate is referred to in the table attached. Note that the 36 sites were selected against the following principles, rather than the three criteria identified in this question: Poor access to health services; Poor health infrastructure; Where a GP Super Clinic could help take pressure off emergency departments; High levels of chronic disease and/or populations with high needs, such as large numbers of children or the elderly; and Areas currently experiencing, or anticipated to experience, rapid population growth. Please refer to the table attached for responses against each site, as per the criteria listed above. Data obtained from: http://www.doctorconnect.gov.au/internet/otd/Publishing.nsf/Content/locator (at time of location announcement); http://www.publichealth.gov.au; and The socioeconomic indexes for areas (SEIFA) score as per the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006 Census data. (3)   Please refer to the table attached. (4)   (a)   The original 31 locations to receive a GP Super Clinic were announced (from late August to late November 2007) as 2007 election commitments. The Government announced a further five locations in late 2009 (Cockburn WA, Gunnedah NSW, Portland, Wodonga and South Morang VIC). Dates for the announcement of Funding Agreements to establish the individual clinics are identified in the table below. (b)   (c) In a number of instances (e.g. Modbury and Noarlunga, SA and Ipswich and Brisbane Southside, QLD), the capital works projects for a GP Super Clinic involves separate stages/phases of construction. Upon completion of a stage/phase of construction, it is expected that a GP Super Clinic will commence service delivery and therefore become operational. Where a GP Super Clinic has a staged or phased implementation, all stages/phases are required to be completed before the project is deemed to have achieved ‘Practical Completion’ under the terms of the Funding Agreement. Refer to the table attached for further details. Some funding recipients have decided to offer services prior to the commencement of construction of their GP Super Clinic or while construction is underway. These clinics are deemed to be delivering ‘early services’, rather than being deemed ‘operational’, as the construction project has not been completed. Early services are being delivered at ten sites: Blue Mountains, North Central Coast, Riverina (NSW); Bendigo and Wodonga (VIC); Townsville, Cairns and Gladstone (QLD); and Modbury and Noarlunga (SA). (d)   The Department does not collect this information. (5)   (a)   Information regarding patient service numbers is confidential under the secrecy provisions (Section 130) of the Health Insurance Act 1973, as it would provide activity and billing information for individual medical practices. As the Australian Government does not own or operate GP Super Clinics, recruitment and engagement of service providers is the responsibility of the owner/operator of each clinic. (b) The number of GPs and nurses are indicated in the answers to Question 6 below. The Department of Health and Ageing (the Department) does not keep data on the number of allied health professionals, rather the range of allied services provided that address the needs of the local communication are monitored, also outlined in Question 6 below. (6)   The eight operational GP Super Clinics have advised that they offer the following services: Ballan (VIC) The clinic offers services by (3.5) General Practitioners (GPs), (1.4) practice nurses, a dentist, physiotherapist, dietician, podiatrist, occupational therapist, psychologist and a pathologist. Other services include echo cardiograms, audiology, district nursing, community health nursing, women’s clinics, chronic disease management, drug and alcohol support services, welfare support services and transport connection, and a 24 hour emergency care by the GPs but provided in the Bush Nursing Hospital. Devonport (TAS) The clinic provides access to a wide range of multidisciplinary, integrated primary care services, provided by (11.8) GPs, (5) practice nurses and allied health professionals, including: audiologist, osteopath, psychiatrist, occupational physicians, rheumatologist, orthopaedic surgeon and consultant physician. Geelong (VIC) The clinic is offering services by (7) GPs, (5) practice nurses, mental health nurse, physiologist, dietician and podiatrist. Services offered include family planning including antenatal shared care, diabetes and respiratory education, physiotherapist exercise including walking groups and resistance and agility groups. Ipswich (QLD) The clinic is offering services by (2) GPs, (2) practice nurses and services provided include an urgent care clinic, standard GP services, and a chronic and complex skin service. Palmerston (NT) The clinic is offering services by: (3.5) GPs; (1) practice nurse; dietetics; physiotherapy; psychology and outpatient services from Royal Darwin Hospital for antenatal and diabetes clinics using an Endocrinologist and a diabetes educator. The clinic offers family appointments, drop-in appointments and opportunities for longer consultations for people with complex and chronic conditions. An Urgent Care After Hours Service is available. Port Stephens (NSW) The clinic provides access to a broad range of services and specific in-house and outreach aged care services through its (4) GPs (including 2 female), (2) practice nurses; and a range of allied health practitioners including a diabetes educator, psychologist, podiatrist, pharmacists (medication review), visiting medical specialist (geriatrician) and physiotherapist. There is also a dedicated aged care service available every Tuesday and Thursday morning. Southern Lake Macquarie (NSW) The clinic offers a range of services by (4) FTE GPs and (2) part-time GPs, (5) part time Nurses and a range of allied health practitioners including podiatrists, a Dietitian, a Social Worker, a Psychologist, and an Occupational Therapist. Services include: hydrotherapy, rehabilitation services, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, pathology, psychology, dietetics, speech therapy, podiatry, visiting medical specialists (cardiology, urology and gynaecology), a number of clinics and support groups and targeted services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Strathpine (QLD) The clinic offers services by (8) GPs, (9) nurses (practice, mental health and Indigenous health), and allied health professionals including a dietician/diabetes educator, physiotherapist, exercise physiologist, chiropractor, psychologist and podiatrist. X-ray, ultrasound and audiology services are also available. (7)   This information is confidential under the secrecy provisions (Section 130) of the Health Insurance Act 1973, as it would provide activity and billing information for individual medical practices. (8)   This information is confidential under the secrecy provisions (Section 130) of the Health Insurance Act 1973, as it would provide activity and billing information for individual medical practices. (9)   Release of small area data is potentially problematic as there may be issues with privacy and confidentiality under the secrecy provisions (Section 130) of the Health Insurance Act 1973. (Q1)Location (Q1)Electorate (Q2)Area (Q3)Government’s Proposed Financial Contribution (GST exclusive) (Q4) (a) announced (b) operational NSW Blue Mountains Macquarie Poor access to GP services Up to $5.0 million a 23/1/09 b Site works underway. Grafton Page Poor access to GP services Low socio-economic status Up to $5.0 million a 25/6/09 b Commenced site works. Construction commencement anticipated mid-February 2011. Gunnedah New England Poor access to GP services Low socio-economic status Up to $4.3 million a 4/3/10 b Funding recipient undertaking construction tender. North Central Coast Dobell High growth area Poor access to GP services Low socio-economic status Up to $2.5 million a 15/4/09 b Construction contractor anticipated to be selected mid-February 2011. Port Stephens Paterson Poor access to GP services High growth area Low socio-economic status $2.5 million a 3/2/09 b 17/5/10 Queanbeyan Eden Monaro High growth area Poor access to GP services Up to $5.0 million a.26/6/09 b Under construction. Riverina Riverina Poor access to GP services Low socio-economic status Up to $1.0 million a.3/8/09 b Under construction. Shellharbour Throsby Poor access to GP services Low socio-economic status Up to $2.5 million a 3/2/09 b Under construction. Southern Lake Macquarie Charlton Poor access to GP services Low socio-economic status Up to $2.5 million a 29/1/09 b 15/12/10 VIC Ballan Ballarat Poor access to GP services Low socio-economic status $1.0 million a 30/6/08 b 14/9/09 Bendigo Bendigo Poor access to GP services Low socio-economic status Up to $5.0 million a 30/6/08 b Under construction. Berwick La Trobe High growth area Up to $2.5 million a 6/11/09 b Under construction. Geelong Corangamite Corio Poor access to GP services Low socio-economic status Up to $7.0 million a 25/2/09 b 30/8/10 Portland Wannon Poor access to GP services Low socio-economic status Up to $4.9 million a 19/5/10 b Commenced site works. South Morang Scullin High growth area Poor access to GP services Up to $3.7 million a 6/5/10 b Finalising lodgement of subdivision application. Wallan McEwan High growth area Up to $3.5 million a TBA b Council planning process commenced with public input phase. Wodonga Indi Poor access to GP services Low socio-economic status Up to $6.65 million a 23/2/10 b Demolition of existing building commenced. QLD Brisbane Southside (hub and spoke model) Moreton (Annerley hub) Rankin (Logan hub) High growth area Low socio-economic status (one location) Up to $7.5 million a 5/11/09 b Opened 14 February 2011. Bundaberg Hinkler High growth area Low socio-economic status Up to $5.0 million a 8/4/10 b Local builder appointed. Construction to start late February 2011. Cairns Leichardt Kennedy High growth area Low socio-economic status Up to $5.0 million a 20/5/09 b QLD National Resources approval anticipated late Feb//early March 2011. Gladstone Flynn High growth area Up to $5 million a 12/2/10 b Development approval with Council. Ipswich Blair High growth area Low socio-economic status Up to $2.5 million a 26/6/09 b Stage 1:18/10/10 Commencement of construction for Stage 2 anticipated late Feb 2011. Mt Isa Kennedy Poor access to GP services Low socio-economic status Up to $5.0 million a 25/6/09 b Contract negotiations commencing. Redcliffe Petrie Poor access to GP services High growth area Low socio-economic status Up to $5.0 million a 27/1/09 b Under construction Strathpine Dickson High growth area $2.5 million a 16/4/09 b 11/1/10 Townsville Herbert High growth area Up to $5.0 million a 21/5/09 b Plans with Council. SA Modbury Makin Poor access to GP services Identified as a site where a GP Super clinic would help take pressure off the local emergency department. Up to $12.5 million a 29/7/09 b Stage 1 completed and offering services from 22 November 2010. Stage 2 under construction. Noarlunga Kingston High growth area Low socio-economic status Up to $12.5 million a 29/7/09 b Stage 1 completed and offering services from 6 December 2010. Stage 2 under construction. Playford North Wakefield High growth area Poor access to GP services Low socio-economic status Up to $7.5 million a 29/7/09 b Under construction. TAS Burnie Braddon Poor access to GP services Low socio-economic status Up to $2.5 million a 17/4/09 b Construction to be finalised end Feb/early March 2011. Clarence (Hobart Eastern Shores site A) Franklin Poor access to GP services Low socio-economic status Up to $5.5 million a 16/1/09 b Funding recipient selecting construction contractor. Devonport Braddon Poor access to GP services Low socio-economic status $5.0 million a 9/4/09 b 22/7/10 Sorell (Hobart Eastern Shores site B) Lyons Poor access to GP services Low socio-economic status Up to $2.5 million a 21/4/09 b Awaiting lease for land from Council. WA Cockburn Fremantle High growth area Poor access to GP services Low socio-economic status Up to $6.65 million a 19/5/10 b Site identified, planning well advanced. Midland         Hasluck High growth area Poor access to GP services Up to $5.0 million a 31/7/09 b Builder appointed. Wanneroo Cowan High growth area Poor access to GP services Up to $5.0 million a 21/4/10 b Clinic site identified, planning underway. NT Palmerston Solomon High growth area Poor access to GP services Low socio-economic status $10.0 million a 22/4/09 b 4/10/10 Data obtained from: http://www.doctorconnect.gov.au/internet/otd/Publishing.nsf/Content/locator (at time of location announcement); http://www.publichealth.gov.au; and The socioeconomic indexes for areas (SEIFA) score as per the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006 Census data; 1 1 14 1 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 30 September 2010: In respect of the 23 new GP Super Clinics which were announced in the 2010-11 Budget, for each proposed Clinic: Where is the site, and in what electorate does it reside. Is it in an area (a) of high growth, (b) with poor access to GP services, or (c) with low socio-economic status. What is the Government’s financial contribution to its establishment. On what date is it anticipated to become fully operational. What services are anticipated to be offered. What anticipated numbers of health and allied professionals will be providing services. What number of existing GPs and allied health practices currently service this area. 1 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms Roxon —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The 2010 Budget identified funding for approximately 23 GP Super Clinics. Subsequent to the election this was refined to the establishment of 28 new GP Super Clinics and the expansion of the Redcliffe GP Super Clinic. The location of the 29 GP Super Clinic projects, including information on their electorate is referred to in the table below. (c) Note that the 29 GP Super Clinics sites were identified under the following principles as identified in the GP Super Clinics National Program Guidelines 2010, rather than the three criteria underpinning this question: Poor access to health services; Poor health infrastructure; Where a GP Super Clinic could help take pressure off emergency departments; High levels of chronic disease and/or populations with high needs, such as large numbers of children or the elderly; and Areas currently experiencing, or anticipated to experience, rapid population growth. Please refer to the table below for responses against each site, as per the criteria listed above. Data obtained from: http://www.doctorconnect.gov.au/internet/otd/Publishing.nsf/Content/locator (at time of location announcement); http://www.publichealth.gov.au; and The socioeconomic indexes for areas (SEIFA) score as per the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006 Census data. Please refer to the table below. (6) These arrangements will form part of the applications received in response to the Invitation to Apply (ITA) for each GP Super Clinic. The Department commenced offering ITAs on 6 November 2010. Release of small area data is potentially problematic as there may be issues with privacy and confidentiality under the secrecy provisions (Section 130) of the Health Insurance Act 1973. (Q1)Location (Q1)Electorate (Q2) Site Criteria (Q3)Government’s Indicative Financial Contribution (GST exclusive) ACT Canberra Canberra / Fraser Poor access to health services/infrastructure Could help take pressure off emergency departments High growth Up to $15 million NSW Blacktown Chifley Greenway McMahon Could help take pressure off emergency departments High levels of chronic disease and/or populations with high needs High growth Up to $15 million Broken Hill Farrer Poor access to health services/infrastructure Could help take pressure off emergency departments High levels of chronic disease and/or populations with high needs Up to $7 million Coffs Harbour Cowper Could help take pressure off emergency departments High levels of chronic disease and/or populations with high needs High growth Up to $7 million Jindabyne Eden-Monaro Could help take pressure off emergency departments High levels of chronic disease and/or populations with high needs Up to $5 million Liverpool Hughes Fowler Werriwa Could help take pressure off emergency departments High levels of chronic disease and/or populations with high needs High growth Up to $15 million Lismore Page Could help take pressure off emergency departments High levels of chronic disease and/or populations with high needs Up to $7 million Nowra Gilmore Could help take pressure off emergency departments High levels of chronic disease and/or populations with high needs Up to $7 million Port Macquarie Lyne High levels of chronic disease and/or populations with high needs High growth Up to $7 million Raymond Terrace Paterson Poor access to health services/infrastructure High levels of chronic disease and/or populations with high needs Up to $7 million Southern Central Coast Robertson Dobell Poor access to health services/infrastructure Could help take pressure off emergency departments High levels of chronic disease and/or populations with high needs Up to $7 million Tweed Heads Richmond Could help take pressure off emergency departments High levels of chronic disease and/or populations with high needs Up to $7 million VIC Cobram Murray Could help take pressure off emergency departments High levels of chronic disease and/or populations with high needs Up to $1 million Hume City Calwell High levels of chronic disease and/or populations with high needs High growth Up to $7 million Melbourne West Gellibrand Lalor Maribyrnong Gorton Could help take pressure off emergency departments High levels of chronic disease and/or populations with high needs High growth Up to $15 million QLD Caboolture Longman Poor access to health services/infrastructure Could help take pressure off emergency departments High levels of chronic disease and/or populations with high needs High growth Up to $15 million Emerald Flynn Poor access to health services/infrastructure Could help take pressure off emergency departments High growth Up to $5 million Gold Coast Moncrieff Forde Fadden McPherson Could help take pressure off emergency departments High levels of chronic disease and/or populations with high needs High growth Up to $7 million Mackay Dawson Poor access to health services/infrastructure Could help take pressure off emergency departments High growth Up to $7 million Redcliffe Petrie Could help take pressure off emergency departments High levels of chronic disease and/or populations with high needs High growth Up to $5 million Sunshine Coast Fisher Fairfax Could help take pressure off emergency departments High levels of chronic disease and/or populations with high needs High growth Up to $15 million Townsville (Northern Beaches) Herbert Could help take pressure off emergency departments High levels of chronic disease and/or populations with high needs High growth Up to $5 million Wynnum Bonner Poor access to health services/infrastructure Could help take pressure off emergency departments High levels of chronic disease and/or populations with high needs High growth Up to $15 million SA Adelaide Adelaide Could help take pressure off emergency departments High levels of chronic disease and/or populations with high needs High growth Up to $15 million Mt Barker Mayo Could help take pressure off emergency departments High growth Up to $7 million WA Karratha Durack Poor access to health services/infrastructure Could help take pressure off emergency departments High growth Up to $7 million Northam Pearce Poor access to health services/infrastructure Could help take pressure off emergency departments High levels of chronic disease and/or populations with high needs Up to $3 million Rockingham Brand Poor access to health services/infrastructure Could help take pressure off emergency departments High levels of chronic disease and/or populations with high needs High growth Up to $7 million NT Darwin Solomon Poor access to health services/infrastructure Could help take pressure off emergency departments High levels of chronic disease and/or populations with high needs High growth Up to $5 million Data obtained from: http://www.doctorconnect.gov.au/internet/otd/Publishing.nsf/Content/locator (at time of location announcement); http://www.publichealth.gov.au; and The socioeconomic indexes for areas (SEIFA) score as per the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006 Census data; 2347 2347 18 2347 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr Morrison asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 30 September 2010: In respect of passengers of unauthorised boat arrivals detained on Christmas Island: What information is gathered by the Minister’s departmental officials on Christmas Island from detainees at their initial interview. Do these interviews include questions to ascertain an applicant’s previous country of residence, in addition to their country of birth/origin. From these interviews, how many of the detainees held on Christmas Island in the period 1 August 2008 to 30 September 2010 were residents, for more than three months prior to arriving on Christmas Island, in a country different to their country of birth/origin. For each detainee in part (3): (a) what was their country of birth/origin, (b) in which country had they been residing prior to arriving on Christmas Island, and (c) for what length of time. 2347 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS McMahon ALP Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 1 Mr Bowen —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The initial interview which is called the entry interview is conducted by departmental officers and is primarily intended to confirm biodata provided by irregular maritime arrivals (IMAs) and ascertain whether the individual IMA, prima facie, engages Australia’s protection obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (The Refugee Convention).    The entry interview is also used to collect information to ascertain their personal history, establish how and why they came to Australia, the travel routes taken to arrive in Australia and the reasons for coming to Australia.  Yes, the entry interview includes questions about the interviewee’s previous country or countries of residence, in addition to their country of birth/origin. The information held by the department does not specifically relate to the time frames in the question.  However, we can advise that approximately 45% of the IMAs who arrived in Australia from 1 August 2008 to 19 August 2010 indicated that their last country of long-term residence was outside their country of birth, or that they had spent more than three months in a single transit point en route to Australia.  Data analysis has not yet been completed for IMA clients who arrived in Australia after 19 August 2010. The country of birth of IMAs described in part (3) is as follows: Afghanistan 75.3% Iraq 9.8% Sri Lanka 6.6% Burma 3.4% Iran 2.1% Kuwait 1.4% Pakistan 0.4% Vietnam 0.3% Unknown* 0.2% Bangladesh 0.1% Somalia 0.1% Syria 0.1% Turkey   0.1% United Arab Emirates 0.1%         *Note: “Unknown” indicates insufficient information provided by the client at entry interview. *Note: “Unknown” indicates insufficient information provided by the client at entry interview. *Note: “Unknown” indicates insufficient information provided by the client at entry interview.         The length of time IMAs described in part (3) spent in the above countries is as follows: 3 - 6 months 8.5% 6 - 9 months 2.3% 9 - 12 months 0.8% 1 year or more 88.4% Note: The above tables are created from data extracted from entry interviews.  This data is collected at an early stage in the IMA process, is subject to further change by the client and therefore the credibility of the information cannot be confirmed in all cases.  2348 2348 22 2348 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 30 September 2010: Since the previous Minister’s announcement, what actions, including but not limited to, physical construction, detailed design and the procurement of construction materials, have been taken to recommission the Curtin Detention Facility. As at 30 September 2010, what was the cost of all works referred to in part (1). What will be the total capacity, including any staged development, of the recommissioned Curtin Detention Facility. What is the cost of all proposed works involved in recommissioning the Curtin Detention Facility, including the costs of the initial development and any subsequent development. Is there any requirement for the works at the Curtin Detention Facility to be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works; if so, when will it be referred. 2349 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS McMahon ALP Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 1 Mr Bowen —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Since the previous Minister’s announcement on 18 April 2010 that RAAF Base Curtin would be used to accommodate Irregular Maritime Arrivals (IMAs), the Department of Immigration and Citizenship has commenced a staged refurbishment and upgrade program at the site. The first stage was completed on 11 June 2010 to ensure the site’s suitability for the accommodation of single adult male IMAs.  This provided accommodation, covered walkways, raised decking, recreation marquees, communications, a kitchen upgrade, gym equipment, a mini soccer field and primary medical facilities. By mid-November 2010, accommodation for a further 300 people became available.  Other works completed by that time include development of a concept master plan and the installation of demountable buildings for gymnasiums, recreation rooms and religious rooms.  Work to bring the accommodation capacity of Curtin to 1200 people was completed in late December 2010.  Other ongoing work includes construction of a commercial kitchen, library, classrooms, canteen, visitor centre, a sports ground, administration areas and additional medical and interview rooms.  Upgrades to the power, water and sewer systems are also underway. As at 30 September 2010, the Department had paid or accrued invoices totalling $20.2 million.  1200 single adult males. The funding allocation for infrastructure and upgrade works to the facilities at the Curtin Detention Centre is $137.2 million. On 24 June 2010, and in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the Government obtained Parliamentary approval for the work at Curtin to proceed, without referral to the Public Works Committee. 2349 2349 23 2349 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 30 September 2010: In respect of the ten unaccompanied minors who were transferred from Christmas Island to the mainland on 2 September 2009: How many: were provided, and denied permanent protection visas; remain in some form of detention or in the care of the department; and will continue to receive assistance from the department. What is the nature of any continued assistance provided to this group by the department. 2349 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS McMahon ALP Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 1 Mr Bowen —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Of the ten unaccompanied minors who were transferred to the mainland on 2 September 2009: all ten were granted permanent protection visas; none remain in immigration detention, although the Minister remains the guardian of those clients who are still under the age of 18, and who have not yet acquired citizenship or been reunited with their parents; and all ten received services and continue to receive services if still eligible under the Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors (UHM) Program and the Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy (IHSS). The UHM Program is delivered with state child support agencies and includes: monitoring of care arrangements by a case worker and assistance with clothing, food, housing and educational requirements. Services under the UHM program continue either until the client turns 18, they become an Australian citizen, or they are re-united with their parents. Services under the IHSS continue for 6–12 months after arrival and include: initial information and orientation assistance; assistance in finding accommodation; a package of goods to help humanitarian entrants establish a household; information and assistance to access services and become part of the local community; and if required, short term torture and trauma counselling. 2350 2350 25 2350 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 30 September 2010: In respect of the Villawood and Maribyrnong Detention Centres: How many of the (a) three detainees who successfully escaped from the Villawood facility on 29 March 2010; (b) six detainees who successfully escaped from the Villawood facility on 25 May 2010; and (c) three detainees who successfully escaped from the Maribyrnong facility on the evening of 16 May 2010, have been recaptured, and on what dates. How many escaped detainees referred to in part (1) remain in the community. What action has been taken by the Government against the operator of the facility in respect of part (1) (a) and (b). How many failed escape attempts have been reported to the Government by the operator of both facilities and other mainland detention facilities in the calendar years 2009 and 2010 (to 1 June). Has the adult male detainee who escaped from the custody of Serco officials at the Melbourne Aquarium in April 2010 been recaptured; if so, when; if not, what actions are being taken to identify the location of this individual. 2350 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS McMahon ALP Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 1 Mr Bowen —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: As at 30 September 2010, none of the clients have been relocated. To the Department’s knowledge these individuals remain in the community. All are visa overstayers and do not have criminal histories. They pose no threat to the community. A review of the escapes, including a full security assessment has been completed. The Department has applied abatements against the Detention Service Provider under the detention services contract. There were 8 attempted but unsuccessful escapes by 10 clients across the detention network from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009 and 4 unsuccessful attempts by 7 clients across the detention network from 1 January 2010 to 1 June 2010. The client who absconded while on escort to the Melbourne Aquarium remains in the community. Victorian State Police and Department of Immigration and Citizenship Compliance officers continue to attempt to locate this individual. 2351 2351 28 2351 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 30 September 2010: What is the 2010-11 budgeted annual expenditure for the operation of the Curtin Immigration Detention Facility, including a breakdown of (a) Departmental, and (b) Administered, expenses in the Department’s contract with Serco. 2351 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS McMahon ALP Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 1 Mr Bowen —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The 2010-11 Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS) includes an estimate for operational costs for the Curtin Immigration Detention Facility of $98.76 million for a full year of operations in 2010-11. This $98.76 million is included in the $471.18 million estimate for Program 4.3 on page 60 of the PBS.  This estimate for the Curtin Immigration Detention facility consists of the following elements: Departmental expenditure of $9.05 million; and Administered expenditure of $89.71 million. The estimated operating costs in respect of the management of Irregular Maritime Arrivals are regularly reviewed in conjunction with the Department of Finance and Deregulation and any variations to these estimates will be included in the Department’s Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements. 2351 2351 94 2351 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 22 November 2010: What additional appropriations will be provided to his department to administer the irregular maritime arrivals that are in excess of those allowed for in the initial 2010-11 Budget Estimate. 2351 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS McMahon ALP Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 1 Mr Bowen —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The additional appropriation required for irregular maritime arrivals in the Portfolio Additional Estimates for 2010-11 amounts to $289.995 million. 2351 2351 96 2351 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 22 November 2010: In respect of the Government’s announcement in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook to expand the onshore detention centre network, what proportion of the $54.9 million capital measures for his department will be associated with the establishment of a detention facility at (a) Inverbrackie in South Australia, and (b) Northam in Western Australia, and what will be the associated operating costs of each facility in 2010-11. 2351 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS McMahon ALP Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 1 Mr Bowen —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Of the $54.9 million capital measures announced in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook to expand the onshore detention centre network, $9.65 million is for Inverbrackie and the balance of $45.25 million is allocated to Northam.  The operating costs for 2010-11 will depend on when during the year each facility becomes operational and the number of clients accommodated at each facility from that date. 2352 2352 97 2352 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 22 November 2010: In respect of his announcement on 18 October 2010 to expand the Darwin Airport Lodge, (a) will he confirm the announcement was to increase the capacity of this facility to 400 persons, (b) how many additional beds will be provided, and (c) what will be the associated operating costs for the remainder of 2010-11. 2352 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS McMahon ALP Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 1 Mr Bowen —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. 200. The operating costs for 2010-11 will depend on the actual daily population at the facility. 2352 2352 98 2352 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, 22 November 2010: In respect of his announcement on 17 September 2010 to expand the Curtin Detention Centre: What proportion of the appropriations for capital measures for his department that were announced in the 2010-11 Budget, the Economic Statement and Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, have been allocated to the expansion to accommodate 1200 persons. What sum of the appropriations in part (1) was expended as at 18 November 2010. What sum of the appropriations in part (1) is required to complete this project. How many additional buildings and beds are to be installed on the site in order to complete this project. Will further appropriations be required in 2010-11 to compete this project to the design and capacity specifications contained in the announcement; if so, why, and what sum. 2352 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS McMahon ALP Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 1 Mr Bowen —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Of the $336.07 million, $121.76 million relates to the reestablishment of Curtin to accommodate 1200 persons. As at 25 November 2010, $38.05 million of the appropriation in part (1) was expended. All funds appropriated for this project will be fully expended. There are 90 buildings to be installed on the site in order to complete this project.  This includes 38 accommodation buildings to provide an additional 300 beds. It is not anticipated that further appropriations will be required in 2010-11 to complete this project to the design and capacity specifications contained in the announcement. 2352 2352 106 2352 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 24 November 2010: As at 24 November 2010, what number of unaccompanied minors were detained in immigration detention, including alternative places of detention and ministerial residence determinations, and (a) where are these minors being detained, and (b) what is the breakdown of this group by (i) age, (ii) gender, and (iii) country of origin. For each nationality group of detainees, what is the average processing time for an accompanied minor in detention compared to that for adults of the same nationality. Where unaccompanied minors are not in possession of identification documents to verify their age, does his department undertake tests to confirm the age of detainees in all cases; if not, why not; if so, what method of age identification testing does his department use, why does it use this method in preference to any other available method(s), and how many tests have been conducted since August 2008. What are the findings of any examinations/tests that have been performed, and what medical studies does his department rely upon to confirm that the results of any medical examinations/tests are reliable. Since August 2008, how many examinations/tests undertaken have identified detainees claiming to be minors to in fact be 18 years of age or older, and what actions have been taken in respect of the detention arrangements for those detainees. What processes are in place to allow unaccompanied minors to sponsor family members to Australia. Which family members are eligible to be sponsored, and under the provisions of what stream of the migration or refugee and humanitarian program do they enter Australia. How long does it take to process the application of a family member sponsored by an unaccompanied minor; and how many family members of unaccompanied minors have been sponsored to Australia, and what visas were they issued. 2353 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS McMahon ALP Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 1 Mr Bowen —The answer to the honourable member’s question is follows: As at close of business 24 November 2010, there were a total of 443 unaccompanied minors in immigration detention. Please see the table below regarding the locations of where these minors were detained as at 24 November 2010. Due to privacy reasons, the Department is unable to provide the breakdown for these groups as requested in (i), (ii) and (iii) because this level of detail would make some individual cases identifiable. Facility Number of UAMs1 Countries of Origin Age range Construction Camp APOD 126 Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Indonesian, Burmese, Vietnamese and Stateless 12 – 17 years Phosphate Hill A & C * Iranian and Sri Lankan 8 – 17 years MITA 133 Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Stateless 13 – 17 years Darwin APOD (Botanic Gardens) * Stateless 15 years Berrimah House 10 Indonesian 12 – 17 years Darwin APOD (Asti) 45 Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Sri Lankan and Stateless 14 – 18 years Darwin APOD (Airport Lodge) 115 Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Stateless 13 – 18 years Perth IRH * Indonesian 11 – 17 years Perth CD * Afghanistan 13 years Adelaide CD * Afghanistan 15 years Britton St APOD * Afghanistan 14 – 17 years 1.     The number of UAMs column with an * indicates that the number of UAM Irregular Maritime Arrivals in this location is less than 10.  The figure cannot be reported due to privacy reasons. The number of UAMs column with an * indicates that the number of UAM Irregular Maritime Arrivals in this location is less than 10.  The figure cannot be reported due to privacy reasons. The average processing time for accompanied minors is no different to adults, as accompanied minors are processed at the same time as their parents.  Family groups from the below nationalities have the following average processing time: Afghani: 125 days Iranian: 119 days Iraqi: 171 days Kuwaiti: 174 days Palestinian: 148 days Sri Lankan: 271 days Stateless: 167 days The Department seeks to establish and/or verify the identity of persons who arrive in Australia without documentary evidence.  Age is just one aspect of identity that the Department seeks to establish in relation to undocumented clients.  Where it is not clear whether a client is over or under 18 years of age, the Department seeks to establish this by taking into account a range of information, including undertaking focused interviewing with the client, taking into account results from medical tests that the client has undertaken, and contacting family members through contact details provided by clients. The Department also works with clients to locate documentation which is relevant to establishing their identity. The Department’s approach to age determination is informed by the approach taken in the refugee assessment context internationally.  Because of the challenging nature of age determination, the Department is developing enhanced policy in this area and in that context providing more robust guidance for Departmental decision makers.  The Department is always looking for ways to strengthen policies and technologies in this area to support decision makers. The Department does not keep separate statistics on the number of cases where age determination processes have been undertaken, as establishing age is just one aspect of identity checking that the Department undertakes in relation to undocumented clients.  The issue of age determination is often complex, with many clients who arrive as Irregular Maritime Arrivals presenting with no proof of identity and often not being able to provide a date or even a year of birth.  The Department’s approach to age determination is to seek to establish whether it is more likely that a client is over or under 18 years of age, taking into account a range of information, rather than seeking to attribute a particular age to the client.     As noted above, the Department does not keep separate statistics on the number of cases where age determination processes have been undertaken, as this is just one aspect of establishing identity.  The Department can confirm that there have been some cases where, following examination of age-related claims, clients claiming to be minors have been assessed to be adults.  In such cases, clients are provided with an opportunity to comment on this finding and to provide further information in support of their age-related claims.  The Department will treat a person claiming to be a minor as an adult from the date that a determination that they are an adult is made. Unaccompanied minors can sponsor family members to Australia under the Humanitarian program or under the Migration program.  Under the Humanitarian program, a minor who has been granted a permanent Refugee and Humanitarian, Protection or Resolution of Status visa can be the proposer for a Humanitarian visa for relatives including their immediate family members (including spouses or de-facto partners; dependent children, including step and adopted children; and parents, including step and adoptive parents).  However, an application made with respect to a parent can only be granted where the proposer is under the age of 18 at both time of application and at the time of decision.  Under the Migration program, a person must generally be over the age of 18 years in order to sponsor family members under the Family stream. However, in the Remaining Relative, Carer, Parent and Partner visa classes there is a provision that allows certain other people to be the sponsor on the minor’s behalf.  Family members eligible to be sponsored or proposed under the family stream of the Migration program and under the Humanitarian Program are outline below: Program Relatives able to be sponsored or proposed Humanitarian Program Humanitarian (subclasses 200–204) Spouses, de facto partners, parents (including adoptive parents), children (including adopted children), siblings, grandparents, aunts/uncles, nieces/nephews, cousins, distant relatives and friends. Relatives include step-relatives.  Migration Program Parent (subclass 103, 804) and Contributory Parent (subclasses 143, 173, 864 and 884) Parents (including step and adoptive parents) who satisfy the Balance of Family (BoF) test. This requires them to demonstrate that at least half of their children are lawfully and permanently resident in Australia or, alternatively, that they have more children lawfully and permanently resident in Australia than in any other single country. Carer (subclasses 836 and 116) Grandparents (including step-grandparents), grandchildren (including step-grandchildren), aunts/uncles (including step-aunts/uncle), nieces/nephew (including step-nieces/nephews) in addition to spouses, de facto partners, parents (including step and adoptive parents), children (including step and adoptive children), and siblings (including step-siblings) Remaining Relative (subclasses 835 and 115) Children (including step and adoptive children), siblings and step-siblings Partner (subclasses 300, 309, 100, 820 and 801) Prospective spouse, spouse or de facto partner.                                                 It should be noted that, depending on the visa class applied for, there may additional criteria relating to the relationship between an applicant and their sponsor or proposer, which might prevent a visa being granted.  For example, in order to propose an immediate family member under the Humanitarian program, the immediate family member must have been a family member at the time that the proposer’s visa was granted (where the proposer was granted a Refugee or Humanitarian visa) or at the time that the proposer made their visa application (where the proposer was granted a Protection or Resolution of Status visa). It should be noted that, depending on the visa class applied for, there may additional criteria relating to the relationship between an applicant and their sponsor or proposer, which might prevent a visa being granted.  For example, in order to propose an immediate family member under the Humanitarian program, the immediate family member must have been a family member at the time that the proposer’s visa was granted (where the proposer was granted a Refugee or Humanitarian visa) or at the time that the proposer made their visa application (where the proposer was granted a Protection or Resolution of Status visa). Normal service standards apply to the processing of visa applications, regardless of whether the sponsor or proposer is an unaccompanied minor. The Department is unable to provide details of the number and type of visas granted to family members of unaccompanied minors as this level of detail is not captured by Departmental records.  2356 2356 147 and 148 2356 Briggs, Jamie, MP IYU Mayo LP 0 Mr Briggs asked the Minister for Resources and Energy and the Minister for Tourism, in writing, on 25 November 2010: How many (a) mobile phones, (b) blackberries and (c) I-Pads are currently allocated to the (i) Minister, and (ii) the Minister’s ministerial staff. In respect of mobile phone usage between (a) 3 December 2007 and 24 November 2010, and (b) 24 June 2010 and 24 November 2010, what was the total cost for (a) the Minister, and (b) the Minister’s ministerial staff. For each month since December 2007, what was the cost of mobile phone usage for each mobile phone account allocated to the (a) Minister, and (b) Minister’s ministerial staff. 2356 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism 1 Mr Martin Ferguson —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Minister has 1 mobile phone, 1 blackberry and no I-Pads issued by the Department. (ii) The Minister’s ministerial staff has 4 mobile phones, 7 blackberries and no I-Pads issued by the Department. The Minister’s costs to the Department for the period 3 December 2007 to 24 November 2010 was $20,919.45 for the Minister and $61,754.18 for the Minister’s ministerial staff. (b) The Minister’s costs to the Department for the period 24 June 2010 to 24 November 2010 was $3,014.19 for the Minister and $4,047.44 for the Minister’s ministerial staff. See table below for monthly breakdown Minister Ministerial Staff Minister and Ministerial Staff Dec-07 - - 432.77 Jan-08 - - 3422.02 Feb-08 - - 1704.38 Mar-08 - - 1704.38 Apr-08 - - - May-08 399.66 1750.25 - Jun-08 1295.60 960.13 - Jul-08 757.57 859.57 - Aug-08 592.38 3410.27 - Sep-08 344.42 796.34 - Oct-08 571.34 4601.90 - Nov-08 705.58 2232.59 - Dec-08 481310 635.66 - Jan-09 875.56 1295.49 - Feb-09 868.20 921.87 - Mar-09 896.61 406.77 - Apr-09 470.74 1502.53 - May-09 1019.10 2436.72 - Jun-09 738.16 4355.91 - Jul-09 486.84 2947.89 - Aug-09 841.25 785.13 - Sep-09 791.76 1922.68 - Oct-09 780.16 1256.70 - Nov-09 502.87 3477.11 - Dec-09 389.25 3022.95 - Jan-10 752.42 643.86 - Feb-10 400.27 1799.93 - Mar-10 717.17 2902.26 - Apr-10 538.90 1554.92 - May-10 1019.10 1879.46 - Jun-10 670.06 2084.60 - Jul-10 643.22 996.55 - Aug-10 820.51 237.38 - Sep-10 947.31 770.13 - Oct-10 305.61 1290.40 - Nov-10 297.54 752.98 - Total 20919.45 54490.63 7263.55 NB Information on the split between the Minster and his Ministerial Office staff is unavailable prior to May 2008.