Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (16:00): As a former volunteer firefighter with a 12-year badge, I know the importance of the Australian Fire Services Medal. A local long-serving member of the Korumburra fire brigade was recognised on the Queen's Birthday Honours List. Billy, as he is known, was presented with the Australian Fire Services Medal. The medal recognises distinguished service by members of Australian fire services, especially volunteers. The AFSM, as it is known, award citation for Bill Rodda read:

Mr Rodda has given exemplary service to the Country Fire Authority … after joining the Korumburra Fire Brigade in 1974. His outstanding dedication and commitment are exemplified by his contribution to the safety and welfare of the community, by his leadership and support of the volunteer culture in general through his involvement as the leader of the Korumburra Brigade over a considerable period of time, and by his active representation of volunteers at the state level as a member of the governing body of the (then) Victorian Urban Fire Brigades Association, now known as the Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria.

Mr Bill Rodda has served the fire brigade in Korumburra for 37 years. Mr Rodda is a Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria district 9 president, and captain of his local brigade for 25 years. When told of his award, he commented, 'I am very honoured and shocked. I did not know that I would be considered good enough. For someone like myself, when you retire the CFA is great because there is lots to learn still, which keeps the grey matter kicking over. Socially it is great; I have met heaps of fantastic people through the CFA.'

At a recent joint presentation dinner on 7 May, operations manager Mark Jones presented 755 years worth of service awards to volunteers. He recognised the members and the employers who supported those volunteers as well as the members who are self-employed and the partners of those volunteers—and Maureen Rodda is one of those amazing women who support the Bill Roddas of this world. Bill was as surprised as several other members present that night when he presented two life memberships to two very surprised members of his local brigade: one to Don Allan, district group officer with the Leongatha Korumburra group, and one to Don Landry from Leongatha South. As I noticed Don Allan DGO with the Leongatha Korumburra group, I remembered the night of the Ash Wednesday bushfires. When we were thrown into the heat of the battle I called one of my very important leaders 'DOG' rather than 'DGO'. He has never forgiven me.

Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:03): One of the most enjoyable elements of my job is being asked to take part in the many ceremonies and openings in my electorate, and I especially enjoy those where small children are involved. It is always a privilege and an honour to attend these events and I end up learning so much about my community and the excellent work being done by so many Canberrans. One such event I had the privilege to attend was the recent official opening by the ACT Minister for Community Services, Joy Burch, of upgrades to the Chinese Australian Early Childhood Centre in Mawson. The upgrades were funded from a generous $180,000 grant by the ACT government which provided much-needed office and reception space for the expanding centre.

The centre provides long day care for up to 46 children under the age of six. As the name suggests, it also has a focus on bilingual education in Mandarin, helping to develop a proficiency in and appreciation for the Chinese language and culture from an early age. To my knowledge, this centre is unique in Canberra if not Australia for offering Mandarin language education at such a young age. It was also interesting to note that many of the staff there are native Mandarin speakers and had been teaching at the school for over a decade. This work at the centre dovetails with the language programs at Mawson Primary School, which is co-located with the childcare centre. The centre has been running for over 25 years, thanks to the fine work of the Association for Learning Mandarin in Australia. It was obvious from the conversations I had with the parents and staff that, apart from the great teaching of Mandarin, it was also a great childcare centre. Every one of the parents I spoke to at the opening mentioned the dedication of staff to their work and the sense of community that has been generated as a result.

I believe that there are now plans well underway to expand the model of this centre to another location in Canberra. In fact, I am told that just this morning the President of the Association for Learning Mandarin in Australia is in conversation with University of Canberra to locate the childcare centre there. I would like to congratulate Ian McLean and Dr Mandy Scott from the Association for Learning Mandarin in Australia and the rest of their team for the promotion of the Mandarin language. I would also like to thank the school staff, especially director Judy Kuzma, Laura Cai and Yongmei Uksi, for organising a wonderful singing concert of the children on the day of the launch. It was really lovely. Finally, I would like to thank Sam Wong for his continued advocacy of and dedication to multiculturalism and the local Canberra Chinese community.

Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (16:05): I would like to make some remarks today about my concerns about crime within the suburbs of Perth, within my electorate of Cowan. There have been some disturbing reports lately on the number of clandestine drug laboratories that have been established around Perth. Whilst I am grateful that not a huge number have been discovered or detected within Cowan , there is a great concern that these drug labs are becoming more and more prevalent. Back in 2008 there were just 24 discovered within Perth. In 2009 there were 125 and in 2010 there were 133. Sadly, in 2011, there are 87 so far. This is very disturbing.

I have always had a great interest in crime prevention within Cowan. I have always promoted to people in my constituency, whether they are primary school children or adults, the feeling that they have the power to be involved in the process of making our community a better place, particularly when we see more and more of these clandestine drug laboratories being discovered. I believe that a lot of that is because of the greater awareness amongst the people of Perth that this insidious trade, this insidious criminal activity, is taking place. People are more aware of it. I encourage people to continue to report it because it is not just the responsibility of the police; it is about every person in our community saying, 'I've had enough. I don't want that sort of stuff. We don't want people selling drugs. We don't want people making drugs in our area. We want those people in jail. We want them dealt with properly by the courts.' It is only through maximum community involvement that we are going to see these numbers reduced, more people brought to account for their crimes and the number of drug laboratories reduced—not because they are not being detected because they no longer exist. I certainly encourage everyone to no longer tolerate any suspicion of these sorts of crimes, with maximum reporting of crime within the community. I take my hat off to all those people who are prepared not only to report but to go the distance to do what needs to be done, to go to court and give evidence against these criminals. That is the way to say that we will tolerate it no longer and fight to the end for a drug-free Australia.

Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (16:08): If you are under the age of 35, every year of your life will have been hotter than the 20th century average and every decade will have been hotter than the previous one. The climate is changing. The world is warming, leading to more extreme events such as record heatwaves, intense fires and drought, heavy storms and deadly floods. Higher land and sea surface temperatures do and will contribute to more intense rainfall and severe cyclones, but a hotter climate will also dry the soil more quickly, change rainfall patterns and create new deserts.

Global warming is caused by pollution, creating a warm-up blanket of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere around our planet. This blanket holds in more heat and to limit the damage we must act. Thirty-five countries have already acted by introducing or are currently introducing carbon trading schemes or taxes. I know some people in my community do not believe we should act. Their arguments against action are constantly changing. A few years ago the principal argument was that the world was not warning at all. It was hard then to argue that. The argument moved on to, 'It's a natural occurrence' and now the argument is, 'There's nothing we can do about it, Australia's too small,' or, 'The cost will be too high.' My concern overwhelmingly is that it will cost our children dearly if we do not act and will cost our economy through the effects of changing climate itself or the risk that a fearful Australia will not develop new technology and will be left behind and punished for it.

There is an argument that we should not lead the way. However, when it comes to pollution, we do lead the way. Australia is the world's second highest emitter per head of population, higher than the USA and China, and beaten only by the United Arab Emirates. By volume we are in the top 20 emitters in the world, coming in as the 15th worst polluting nation out of 195 countries. When it comes to the problem we are leading the world, but we are not leading the world in answers and that is where our attention should be. We should be leading the way in developing technologies in the wind, solar and wave energy and ways to do things with fewer emissions. Our economy is built on the old and we must now transition to the new. The most effective way to do that is to put a price on pollution, requiring the big polluters to pay and compensating low- and middle-income households for any impact on household budgets, but the main purpose of an emissions trading scheme is to drive innovation, to put business throughout the economy to work to transition from old economies to new answers.

Countries such as Germany and China are already reaping the rewards of being early starters in the new energy industries. We need to be clever and take industry with us through the transition, to ensure that our scientists, researchers, manufacturers and innovative businesses find a place for Australia in the world of clean technology. As the world tackles climate change, we need to make sure we are leading the way in answers or we risk being well and truly left behind.

Mr VASTA (Bonner) (16:10): I rise today to highlight the risk this government is taking with its proposed carbon tax on jobs in my electorate of Bonner. Recently the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, the shadow minister for innovation industry and science, Sophie Mirabella, and I visited the Visy recycling centre in Murarrie, Brisbane. Visy is one of Australia's largest recycling companies, collecting more than 1.6 million tonnes of paper and cardboard, more than 450,000 tonnes of glass, over 58,000 tonnes of plastics and more than 26,000 tonnes of metals. The Brisbane Visy plant undertakes very important work and for every tonne of carbon emissions this plant produces it saves 1.6 tonnes. Although this planet does emit carbon, net emissions are reduced because of its work, but Visy gets no recognition for the highly significant contribution it makes to landfill methane avoidance.

Despite its highly significant contribution to reducing carbon emissions, the Brisbane Visy plant will become one of the many victims of this government's perverse environmental policy. By taxing this plant, emissions will not decrease, but will severely strain this company financially. In doing so, this tax will no doubt place jobs in my electorate in jeopardy and Visy Brisbane employs around 200 people. Visy is of the view that there is the opportunity to increase paper waste recycling even further beyond the current levels attained. In order to do so, the right carbon incentives need to exist to drive further investment. At the moment, energy and other costs are rising rapidly and even with energy efficiency and reductions in energy footprint, margins in paper remanufacture do not currently justify new investment. Government policy should be to encourage the expansion of recycling operations and not hinder the good work that plants like this do in reducing emissions. There is no doubt this carbon tax is bad policy.

I remind the House that even the government thinks that the carbon tax is a bad policy. As Penny Wong, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, said, 'A carbon tax does not guarantee emissions reductions.' This carbon tax will not clean the environment but it will harm jobs and it will clean up the wallets of everyday Australians.

Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (16:14): I rise today to acknowledge and affirm my respect for the Tamil population living in my electorate of Greenway and to mention a number of very important issues surrounding the Australian Tamil community. The electorate of Greenway is an extremely diverse and vibrant place and one that I am very privileged to represent. A large part of this diversity is the some 3,000 strong Tamil community. I say '3,000' but—as I have been told by Tamil community leaders, and I have no doubt as to this—this number is, in fact, far higher in reality. The Tamil population in Greenway is one of the largest in the country and one that is a great contributor to the multicultural fabric of our wider community. In recent times, the Tamil people have come into the consciousness of the Western world due to the end of the civil war in Sri Lanka. This conflict has been documented in great depth and is now beginning to receive the real acknowledgement it deserves around the world.

People in this place were afforded the opportunity last week to visit the Sound of Silence photo exhibition, which I was privileged to host, thanks to the Australian Tamil Congress. This exhibit displayed a collection of photographs taken by Melbourne documentary photographer Shelly Morris during her visit to the northern parts of Sri Lanka in late 2010. This powerful and shocking exhibit allowed a rare insight into the human face of the civil war in Sri Lanka, and I thank members from all sides for taking the time out of their busy schedules in this place to visit this exhibit, including the Special Minister of State.

Recently, the UK's Channel 4 News continued this awareness raising regarding the Sri Lankan civil war when it screened extended footage of executions of Tamils by the Sri Lankan military and other crimes against humanity. This footage was shown during the most recent United Nations Human Rights Council session with the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, Christof Heyns, announcing that the evidence in the footage amounted to 'definitive war crimes'. In light of this we must look to move Tamil relations—and justice for Tamils—forward in a constructive and meaningful way. The federal government has consistently maintained that accountability will be a crucial part of reconciliation and lasting peace in Sri Lanka. While the Sri Lankan government has commenced some initiatives to improve conditions in parts of the country, there must be an external examination of atrocities committed by military forces on both sides. Australia must now join other Western nations in pushing for an international independent investigation into war crimes in Sri Lanka. With the persecution of people in Sri Lanka causing thousands of people to flock to Australia in search of asylum, peace and stability in the island of Sri Lanka will also benefit Australia.

I would like to commend the work of individuals such as Ms Varuni Balachandar of the Australian Tamil Congress and Dr Mano Mohan and Mr P Sivasubramaniam of the Australian Tamil Electoral Lobby for their hard work and dedication to achieving and ensuring a peaceful outcome for all Sri Lankan people. I particularly acknowledge their ongoing volunteer work within my community of Greenway.

Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (16:17): I rise today to talk about the Zig Zag scenic drive in the Shire of Kalamunda. Situated in the Gooseberry Hill National Park, the Zig Zag offers great views of the Perth metropolitan area and is a popular tourist drive. Tens of thousands of people use this road every year. The area of the Zig Zag is historic and scenic. It attracts many families who live alongside it and helps to preserve the rich history that the area has to offer. There are also organised motor enthusiast and racing events held along the Zig Zag annually.

The tranquillity and beauty of the Zig Zag is unfortunately spoilt by extreme cases of antisocial behaviour. I have received over 100 emails, calls and letters from residents who are fed up with hooning along this major tourist drive. Hoons are the not the only issue. There are broken glass, syringes, empty cans and bottles and other rubbish found along the road and throughout the bushland and car parks.

Earlier this month, I organised a meeting of more than 40 local residents with myself, the WA state member for Kalamunda and the WA Minister for Planning, Culture, the Arts and Environment, the Hon. John Day, to talk through possible solutions to the problem. It is a critical one. Recently, a young man wrapped his car around a tree and nearly died while drag-racing along the Zig Zag. Concerned residents are fed up with the lack of action on the issue and came together to demand action from their local representatives. I will take up that fight for them. They and their children deserve to be safe in their own homes and when they drive along the Zig Zag track. John Day and I are committed to working with the people of Kalamunda and local stakeholders to find a solution to this problem. I find it hard to believe that in 2011 we are unable to preserve a beautiful tourist attraction whilst limiting drug taking, hooning and antisocial behaviour taking place in the evening. The same issue was picked up by the local newspaper and featured on their front page.

I will continue to fight alongside the residents of the area to ensure that the Zig Zag becomes a safer area and road for tourists and residents. It is a beautiful track and it is based on the historic railway track that came down the Darling Scarp, hence the zig-zag factor. What I suppose disappoints me is that a scenic area of our state and a very rich area in terms of its views and fauna and flora is not respected by those who choose to demonstrate antisocial behaviour, which is not only a reflection on themselves but also a disappointment to those who value the area in which they live. I will continue to work with them to achieve a suitable solution that is beneficial for all.

Mr MARLES (Corio—Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs) (16:20): Each year, as winter arrives, we are reminded that many people find life a daily struggle to make ends meet. Appeals like last week's CEO Sleepout help focus the national spotlight on the homeless and the vulnerable. These appeals also demonstrate the preparedness of the community to help out in times of need. We do not like to see people going hungry or unable to provide their children the comforts that others enjoy.

In Geelong, a grassroots campaign—the Feed Geelong campaign—run by our local newspaper, the Geelong Advertiser, and food charity FairShare has focused our local attention on this issue. In particular, it highlights the tremendous amount of good food that goes to waste. There are some fantastic agencies that help distribute this surplus food to local charities, which in turn provide meals and food parcels to people in need. But it all costs money, especially when there are fridges, freezers and food transport vehicles needed for the safe storage of fresh food. In a few short weeks, the Feed Geelong campaign has raised close to $12,000 from donations. A charity auction this Thursday night supported by a Yarra Street business, the Groove Train, will no doubt see the tally climb further. I am told most donations have been from individuals, not corporations or businesses, which shows the incredible willingness of people in our community to look after one another.

In the context of the Feed Geelong campaign, I am very proud to highlight the efforts of the Gillard government in addressing the needs of some of Geelong's most vulnerable, including the provision of emergency food relief. The new financial year's round of funding, to commence from 1 July, of the Emergency Relief and Commonwealth Financial Counselling Services will see nearly $1.9 million over three years provided to four of our local organisations: the Salvation Army, Uniting Care, Barwon Health and Diversitat. It is a significant amount of money because we recognise that many people right now are doing it tough. UnitingCare have been allocated nearly $850,000 for three years. They say that 2011 has been a particularly tough year with more people finding it hard to pay rent, gas and electricity bills and that many more families who are working but are on a limited income are having trouble making ends meet. Last financial year, with support provided by our government, UnitingCare was able to help 12,500 people with food, clothing, budgeting advice and small loans. That is 6,500 local families, 1,000 of which have never accessed UnitingCare emergency relief before.

The Salvos will receive nearly $243,000 a year to provide food and emergency relief to people in Geelong. Again, the need is great. Last year the Salvos distributed more than 7,000 food and emergency relief vouchers in addition to nearly 8,000 parcels of non-perishable food and a constant and ever-changing supply of fresh food which is available for free from their Bellarine Street premises.

Importantly, both the Salvos and UnitingCare also focus on helping families improve their financial management in the long term. Their work along with the Feed Geelong campaign are wonderful examples of community spirit in action. I also congratulate the Geelong Advertiser for their initiative and thank all those who have supported this campaign.

Mr IRONS (Swan) (16:23): I rise to talk about junior football in my electorate. I see the honourable member for Corio in the chamber and, knowing his passion for the Geelong Football Club and that they are undefeated at the moment, I am sure we will hear more about the club later in the year from the member for Corio. Last Saturday I attended the Belmont Bombers Junior Football Club Auskick Gala Day, which was an inaugural event held at Peet Park in Kewdale in my electorate. The Belmont Junior Football Club caters for boys and girls aged between 15 and 17, and it has a long history in the local area as a club steeped in tradition. From the success of the gala day it looks as though the event will become another tradition for the football club.

The event has been held at the Gosnells Junior Football Club for many years, but the district decided to split the event between Gosnells and Belmont this year. This was done to help with numbers and also to assist in reducing travel time for many of the club's players and parents. Other clubs that attended were Redcliffe, Lynwood/Ferndale, Manning Rippers, Victoria Park and Queens Park. Before the games started the clubs had a parade where the boys and girls marched past the parents and volunteers and sang their respective club songs.

There was a prize awarded to the best presented club, which I had the honour of selecting, and the winner was the Queens Park Bulldogs. The reason they were chosen was not because they had the largest number of kids—that was Belmont—but because they sang their club song the loudest and longest and with great passion all the way around the parade. The Redcliffe Football Club, which have traditional colours of gold and blue, came a very close second, with three of their club girls wearing bright pink football guernseys. Redcliffe have started a group for young girls to play Auskick, called the Eaglettes, in a bright pink strip. I know the member for Curtin supports this initiative, because Ms Bishop launched the Eaglettes in her office earlier this year.

At the start of the day the senior coach from the Perth Football Club, Damien McMahon, and about 15 of the senior players attended the day and encouraged the Auskick players and parents. The Perth Football Club players also signed autographs and kicked footballs around with the young players. Over 400 players with their supportive parents and families attended on the day. The rain, unfortunately, did not hold off and the morning was peppered with showers and plenty of umbrella raising and lowering. On the day, 64 games of two 10-minute halves were played and the enthusiasm and joy of participating on the players' faces was testament to the success of the day.

The event coordinator and also Belmont Junior Football Club President, Mark Romeo, did a fantastic job along with his committee, the junior Auskick coordinator and the many volunteers who worked tirelessly in preparation for and on the day. The day was also attended by the chairman of the junior council, Neil Darby, as well as Scott Faulkner, the district manager, and Anthony Balcombe, the Perth Football Club Development Officer.

It was an event that had great community spirit and saw teams from various suburbs within the electorate of Swan attend and come together. Once again I congratulate the Belmont Bombers for a great community day and event.

Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (16:26): On Saturday, 26 March I attended the official opening of the BER project at Tyndale Christian School at Salisbury East. Also in attendance were my parliamentary colleague Minister Mark Butler, state member for Wright Jennifer Rankine, and South Australian Legislative Council member Jing Lee. Other guests included principals of nearby Christian schools, the project builders, Christian and independent school representatives and the Tyndale Christian School community of students, family members, board members and staff.

The Tyndale school community wanted to ensure the official opening of their BER project reflected the significance of the unique project that Tyndale had committed to. It was unique because Tyndale had used their $3.2 million of federal funding to build a visionary special needs education centre. The 1,000 square metre building will provide high-quality, accessible support for up to 200 students who have a diagnosed learning need or disability. The support includes the provision of six special education teaching staff, seven support staff, two main centres for students with learning needs or disabilities, a reception to year 1 early intervention unit, a high disability unit which includes special support programs including speech therapy, psychology and occupational therapy, sensory rooms and a new arrivals support area. In addition the centre houses the school's new healthcare facility, which provides a holistic approach to the health care of students at Tyndale.

I was impressed with the enthusiasm and attitude of the staff who will be working with the children, from the school teachers to the speech pathologist, registered nurse and psychologist. The school has an outstanding track record of acknowledging the individual needs and unique ability of every child and has already in place a range of vocational education pathways including hospitality, child care and construction.

The new special education centre takes the school's commitment to providing every child with a positive educational outcome to another level, because children with a disability also have extraordinary ability. Through early intervention and appropriate support, disabilities can be overcome as can barriers which prevent children from focusing on their abilities. It is an investment in our children where the returns justify every dollar spent. For those children and their families, the new facilities at Tyndale bring hope and peace of mind. Parents of a child with a disability also hope for the best for their children. Interest about the new special education centre at Tyndale has already come from right across Adelaide and I have no doubt that a long waiting list will quickly develop.

On the day I spoke with Garry Le Duff, Executive Director of the Association of Independent Schools of South Australia. Garry asked me to convey to the government the gratitude of all the independent schools, which he represents, for the BER funding provided. He also expressed the very clear view that all of the independent schools he represented had ensured that each of their projects had resulted in value for money and that public funds had not been wasted. Subsequently, on 18 March I accompanied Minister Garrett on a visit to the Tyndale school's special needs education centre. Whilst we can always do more for these schools, I know that the school was very appreciative of the additional $200 million allocated in this year's budget. I commend Principal Mike Potter and the Tyndale school community for their commitment to children with special needs.

Mr JOHN COBB ( Calare ) ( 18:31): I rise to speak in support of the live export industry through the motion before the House. I have been a beef producer who has bred, raised and cared for cattle most of my working life. I believe I know that beef producers, perhaps even more than the rest of the Australian public, were horrified by the cruelty showed recently on television. I fully supported the government's initial action in banning the supply of animals to those abattoirs such as the ones that were shown on TV processing cattle inhumanely, and to implement an urgent review of the abattoirs system in Indonesia. However, the subsequent caving in to a very vocal group—admittedly a minority of voters—advocating a full suspension of live-shipping trade to Indonesia has been a massive overreaction from a government that has lost all credibility with the general public in dealing with difficult issues, who acts first and thinks later.

I understand the outcry from people who were shocked at the senseless cruelty that they witnessed, as we all were. However, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of families doing the right thing, that are being penalised. It is not just beef producers. This will be felt all across Northern Australia, through real estate, finance, insurance, transport, the trucking and helicopter industries and fuel industries, export yards, shipping and stevedores, veterinarians, animal health, Indigenous employment and training, stock agencies, hay producers, feed producers, processors and nutrition supplement manufacturers, rural contractors, local town suppliers, government department jobs—right across Northern Australia, the whole social fabric.

And it is not just the beef producers in Northern Australia. This has impacted on the beef producers across the country with prices dropping around 25c. For the uninitiated, for a well-conditioned cow, that is $150 a cow. That is a lot of money. Do not get your hopes up that this will reduce the retail price of meat, because even if we could trust the processors and supermarkets to pass on the $150 to $200 per beast to the consumer, the meat supplied impact is mostly on grinding meat for the US market, the hamburger market, so it will have little impact on our retail price for meat in supermarkets and butchers.

We have made our position on live exports clear. We support the suspension of the trade of cattle to abattoirs that are not processing cattle humanely. But we should not be penalising those who are doing the right thing. Being a player in the market and only supplying those that are doing the right thing is the best tool available for animal welfare reform in developing countries. There are a number of abattoirs in Indonesia that have state-of-the-art processing facilities with stunning facilities, and if we have the infrastructure already in Australia to track these cattle with the National Livestock Identification System, the only true cattle tracking system in the world. Every animal that gets on a boat has a tracking device and these cattle have to be checked off as arriving at compliant abattoirs. We use plenty of handheld devices for reading the tags at saleyards in Australia, which can immediately deploy to accredited abattoirs.

The fact is that industry has combined to provide the way forward, the mechanisms to ensure that Australian cattle are now always slaughtered humanely in Indonesian abattoirs. It just remains for the Gillard government and Minister Ludwig to fix the politics and to talk to Indonesia and to fix relations both in industry and in government there.

I am concerned for those Australians that oppose this industry that they are being led by misinformation from agenda-driven groups who do not even want us to eat meat at all. Have Australians become so disconnected from the social, economic and agricultural basis on which this country was built and from the farmers who built it? Farmers are the most determined to stop cruelty, but it seems that most Australians have no idea anymore how food is actually produced. Do people truly think that like an episode of The Goodies a happy cow goes in one end of a machine and sausages magically come out the other? Primitive man hunted animals and so do we, and for the same reasons, and we do it far less cruelly and wastefully than primitive man did it. Yet those who believe we should not now touch them have no problem with that.

A national school survey by the Kondinin group found that 88 per cent of children had never visited a farm and 73 per cent did not know a farmer. Let us take a quick history lesson. The Northern Territory industry really struggled in Australia until the introduction of the Zebu or Bos indicus cattle—most of you would know them as Brahman—in the 1930s. Since the 1970s these cattle have revolutionised the industry and taken it from near bankruptcy to an efficient and profitable enterprise that contributes hundreds of millions of dollars annually towards the economy, supports the whole social fabric of Northern Australia and brings in export dollars, apart from anything else. These cattle are drought resistant, great foragers and descendants of four breeds of Indian cattle. They are bred to not only survive but thrive in the tropical climate. However, the main reason for the breed's success is their resistance to cattle tick, which certainly broke early pioneers with European cattle. Traditional European breeds could not overcome the ticks and were in poor condition and susceptible to diseases carried by the ticks.

So from the onset of live exports Northern Australia has flourished. This major economic industry that has been developed has been very important to the local economy, especially for Aboriginal or Indigenous employment. It has been reported that there are some 80 large Indigenous cattle stations, employing around 700 Aboriginal stockmen, plus many other non-Aboriginal run stations. Those 80 Aboriginal stations turn off around 200,000 cattle a year.

The Indonesian market alone takes over half a million cattle, mostly from Northern Australia, worth over $340 million directly and contributes about $1 billion to the overall economic activity. The meat from these animals is different from traditional European breeds. If it comes down south, as I said earlier, it is not going to end up on our plates, because we consume a different type of animal down here. It is going to have an awful effect upon the whole beef industry in Australia. The double standards that abound are rather outrageous. We continue to have stricter standards imposed on our farmers with regard to OH&S, chemical use and care for animals by a conscientious Australian public; however, when they go to the supermarket they seem quite happy to buy the cheap imports that have not been required to abide by the same standards.

Many people believe the answer is simple: just set up an export abattoir in Northern Australia. Many have tried. Failed abattoirs in Broome and Innisfail are a testament to that. It is not as simple as saying: 'Let us put abattoirs in Northern Australia. We can send everything off in boxes chilled.' It is not like that. There is a very small window of opportunity to operate in Northern Australia. You need skilled people who are not going to put their hand up for four or five months work a year and come back in eight months time when they can work in mines for far more. It does not work like that. On the other side of the equation boxed meat will not replace live exports to Indonesia any time in the near future. Many of the places that have been provided with our cattle are rural and regional villages that have little access to electricity let alone refrigeration.

This motion provides a simple way forward that can get the trade restarted immediately. I urge the government to adopt this rational and sensible approach. All of us, particularly those who breed cattle, only want humane slaughter of cattle. It can be done. This is Australia. These are traditional Australians doing this, traditional Australians in every sense of the word. They have shown they will overcome anything and do anything that needs to be fixed. Gillard and the Labor government must proceed to get this going as soon as possible.

Ms SAFFIN (Page) (18:41): I rise to speak on the issue of live exports that is facing the country and the industry at the moment. The honourable member for Calare said that it is simple. It is not that simple. If it were that simple, it could be fixed overnight. Part of the problem is you get some people saying you have to fix it straightaway and you get other people saying take the time. The fact is that it will take time. I will focus on what we are dealing with now—the cessation of the export of live cattle to Indonesia.

There are a few things I want to focus on tonight. I want to start by putting on the record what some of the people in the industry are saying. Some people in the industry feel very frustrated as well. They want to get this right so that when it restarts it starts in the right way. They have had a long time to get this right and they have not. I read in all the media coverage that major cattle producers, the Consolidated Pastoral Company, Heytesbury Holdings, the Australia live export council, AAco, RSPCA Australia and other bodies that care about animal welfare all support mandatory stunning before the slaughter of Australian cattle in Indonesia. Before that can happen we have to know that that will happen. We have to know the supply chain and that it will happen. I know there has been talk about the different standards—the OIE and Australian standards—but the fact is that the Australian community and the industry have said clearly that, whatever the legal policy practice framework is, this is what they want to happen and this is what they expect. That is the first thing.

There has also been a lot of talk about what practices are appropriate and inappropriate culturally. The fact is that stunning is not contrary to halal. That is very clear. The evidence is there. That is another debate that we do not need to have, because the evidence is absolutely clear. So stunning can happen.

I want to talk about the MLA. The Land was interesting reading this week. It is one of my regular newspapers. There is a whole debate going on in the Land. It is interesting because farmers and people on the land write to the Land. Overwhelmingly, they are saying they are appalled by what they saw on the ABC Four Corners program and they are appalled that the industry bodies did not have this in order, among other things. I would like to quote Mal Peters in The Land on Thursday, 16 June on page 30. Among other things, he says:

Equally importantly Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) needs to start explaining why its name was all over one of these atrocious practices.

He is talking about the cruelty that we witnessed on TV.

I am particularly pleased to donate about $4000 in a year in levies to a mob that has just decimated our export trade by their sheer bloody ineptitude.

If stopping animal cruelty was the goal what the hell are the knocking boxes MLA has supplied to Indonesia abattoirs meant to do?

Any reasonable observer could see they would never fix the problem.

Some heads need to roll for what is clearly a monumental stuff up.

Mal always says it as it is. He calls it how he sees it, and he has there. He has said other things, but I want to focus on what he said directly about the MLA. I also went onto a National Party website to look at something they have put out which says: 'Blanket ban on live exports sends wrong message'. What hypocrisy! Then you read that they have said:

We support the live cattle trade ban on facilities that fail to comply with acceptable animal welfare practices …

It is just a whole lot of gobbledygook which is really aimed at maximising political support, not fixing the industry. That is what is about. It would be so nice if we could come here, actually have a sane debate and discussion and chart a way forward where people are not seeking to maximise political gain and advantage and going into the traditional 'divide and rule', which happens. The website also says:

There is a better way to handle the issue.

If there was, they could have done it. They did have 12 years in government. They did introduce self-regulation. The Nationals have also said:

We know from experience that when live exports are halted—such as the ban on cattle to Egypt or sheep to Saudi Arabia—demand for boxed meat does not rise.

Yet if you have a look at the facts and figures on the industry websites you will find:

In Egypt, the one scenario where live export was stopped, there was a remarkable growth in the exportation of meat processed in Australia. Egyptian imports of Australian processed sheep meat rose by 300 per cent between 2002-03 and 2005-06, when Australian live sheep imports were stopped.

There is so much hypocrisy around this debate and all sorts of comments that just do not stand up to scrutiny. The best article in TheLand on Thursday, 16 June was written by John Carter and is on page 31. The heading is 'Meat structure stinks of failure.' He says:

In 1997, when John Anderson announced the new meat structure, I wrote a scathing Counterpoint on its impracticality.

I am on the record in this place talking about that issue as well. He goes on:

Now, 14 years on, with $1.7 billion of our money gone, the lowest cattle prices in the developed world and a drop of more than 20 per cent in domestic consumption the hopelessness of the structure has been painfully illustrated.

Australia's beef industry has its worst crisis in 25 years.

The Red Meat Advisory Council (RMAC) is meant to advise the minister.

He goes on to talk about the MLA and he questions whether the producers have any confidence in the MLA to fix the problem. But the problem is: they are there. I have no confidence in the MLA to help fix the problem, but the fact is that they are there and we have to deal with them for the moment.

When I looked at the MLA website—as the honourable member for Kennedy said, taking everything advisedly—on 10 June 2011, in relation to one of the claims that cattle sale prices are plummeting as a result of the suspension announced, it said:

… the suspension of the live cattle trade to Indonesia will neither result in a rush of cattle into Australian processors, nor a surge of beef in coming weeks and months. Cattle placed on ships to Indonesia are typically Brahmans of light weight (less than 350kg lwt). These cattle will require much longer periods on feed to reach suitable slaughter weights for either the Australian, or more particularly, export markets.

When that cattle weight was introduced because of Indonesia's requirements and because they are moving to self-sufficiency for 2014, it had an immediate impact on the Australian live export market. The figures that I have read are a drop of between 34 and 40 per cent in exports of cattle to Indonesia. So that was happening anyway. The MLA finish by saying:

Therefore, the most impact for the entire beef industry will be felt in the medium term if the situation is not resolved quickly, as heavier cattle move through to slaughter in 6-18 months time.

There are all these claims, but we have to look at them. I know a lot of people in the industry say they would like a judicial inquiry into the MLA and I think that shows the absolute frustration with a body that they all pay levies to.

Mr HAASE (Durack) (18:51): I rise to second, and speak on, the motion. This is a very serious debate, and the decision that the government has taken is very severely and adversely impacting on the lives of struggling Australians now. Northern Australian pastoral leases have one sustainable economic purpose, and that is the breeding of beef cattle for export. There is no abattoir in the area. There is no abattoir from Harvey in Western Australia right around the coast to Rockhampton. There is not one operating abattoir that handles beef cattle for export licence. The argument that this industry should have been shut down on the whim of a number of impressionable Labor members adds weight to the argument that this government has lost its way and no longer represents ordinary hardworking Australians.

We have had so much pap fed to us in this place today by the member for Page that it is almost intolerable, because it proves without doubt the level of her ignorance. It proves without doubt that she is not concerned about animal welfare; she is consumed for union members' welfare.

Ms Saffin: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The honourable member's use of—

Mr HAASE: I hope so.

Ms Saffin: That is just plain rude. It shows what a rude pig you are.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Sidebottom ): Thank you, Member for Page; your point is noted. You can use other practices in the House to raise your point.

Mr HAASE: And when one realises that the concern here is with union members and voters in an electorate and not for the welfare of animals, it puts a level of hypocrisy into this debate that is absolutely intolerable. We have people on properties whose whole livelihood is being destroyed by a decision based on, primarily, ignorance. Some of the impacts of the decision are that kids are being ripped out of school. Families will not be able to pay their mortgage. They made their last payment on it more than 12 months ago because of the extended wet. We have truck owners who will not be able to make payments on their prime mover, which they purchased solely for the purpose of moving live export cattle across Northern Australia. We have helicopter pilots in debt to the bank for repayments on choppers that are there specifically for the muster season in Northern Australia. This decision has far deeper, more meaningful ramifications than appeasing a few members of the union. If you go around abattoirs in Australia, you will find that most of the employees are working on 457 visas anyhow. So this nonsense about taking jobs away from Australia is just that—absolute nonsense.

If people in this nation truly want over time to achieve some improvement in the welfare of animals at slaughter in Indonesia—I underline the fact that it is necessary to slaughter animals before you eat them; it is a prime requisite, which comes as a shock to many people in suburban Australia—and if the suburban Australian population are truly concerned about improving the conditions of those animals going to slaughter, they would send bouquets to the MLA and to the livestock industry, because more has been achieved for the welfare of animals being slaughtered in Indonesia in the last 15 years by the MLA than any other institution—more than the RSPCA, more than PETA, more than Pew and more than Animals Australia. If the ignorami of Australia realised this, they would work with MLA and they would start to achieve more than just five abattoirs being convinced to use stun guns. We would start to work on the greatest majority of the 700-plus abattoirs. How members of this place can believe that 3,000 years of culture could be overturned by— (Time expired)

Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (18:56): I oppose this motion. It is another example of the pressure being put on the government by Liberal and National Party MPs to resume live cattle exports to Indonesia. I do not want the suspension to be lifted. I fear that, if we lift the suspension, the pressure which is now on the industry to lift its game will melt away. The suspension is doing a power of good. We are now seeing a flurry of activity on the part of the Indonesian government and the industry, which is a good thing, taking us towards an end to the cruel practices which were exposed by the Four Corners program.

I believe the Australian people do not want the suspension to be lifted. I see the opposition leader has discovered the idea of holding plebiscites. How about we hold a plebiscite on whether we export live cattle abroad and the opposition agrees to abide by that? Failing that, I urge all concerned Australians to contact members of parliament, particularly their own member of parliament, to tell them that they do not want live cattle exports to Indonesia to resume any time soon. Every MP's and every senator's view matters, but, in particular, tell those Liberal and National MPs who are putting on the pressure to resume live exports that this is a bad idea. Send the emails, ring their offices and go and see them. Tell them the jig is up in relation to live exports. It is time to move to domestic processing. That is the future of the meat industry.

They may well raise various objections to the live cattle exports ban, but these objections are not valid. They may claim that the animals will starve and that there will be an environmental disaster. This is not correct. There are animal welfare standards in this country. People are not allowed to starve their animals or just turn them into the bush. They may claim that the industry will collapse and that people will lose their jobs—not true either. There are abattoirs around Australia, including Townsville, Mackay and Rockhampton, which have spare capacity. Animals can be fattened up and sent to those abattoirs. There are industry plans for an abattoir in Darwin. The Northern Territory government and the industry should focus their efforts on making that happen.

The truth about jobs is that jobs have been lost as a result of the industry focus on live exports to the detriment of domestic processing. In the past 30 years, 150 abattoirs have closed and 40,000 jobs have been lost. It is still going on. Last year 1,000 jobs were lost. They may claim that Indonesia will go elsewhere and we will lose the market. It seems unlikely to me. Indonesia has put out feelers to New Zealand. New Zealand, which, to its credit, has a ban on live animal exports, said no. Last year, global beef production declined. In 2006, the Howard government suspended the live cattle trade to Egypt as a result of media revelations of animal cruelty. The trade was not resumed for three years. The sky did not fall in. The Egyptians bought chilled beef killed here in Australia instead. They may claim that this action will annoy Indonesia and damage our relationship with that country. There is no evidence of that. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has ordered his health minister and his agriculture minister to personally inspect Indonesian abattoirs to improve their animal welfare standards. This is a good thing.

The advice I have received is that there is nothing inconsistent between humane animal welfare standards and halal killing. In any event, religious convictions do not give anyone a licence to depart from basic standards of decency and humanity. You cannot get out of observing basic animal welfare standards by claiming it is against your religion. The great philosopher Immanuel Kant said:

We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.

He was right.

They may claim that domestic processing is not as profitable as live exports, that there are extra costs, but overall I have no doubt that the meat processing industry will be better off. A study by ACIL Tasman concerning live sheep exports showed a 20 per cent increase in the economic value of domestic processing compared with live exports. Some things are more important than money. We should not seek to make a profit on the back of the torture, misery and suffering of powerless animals. We rejected this argument way back in 1791 when William Wilberforce introduced his anti-slavery bill. We rejected it 220 years ago; we should reject it again today.

Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (19:01): I am pleased that the member for Wills spoke long enough to say something that I did agree with. What I do agree with is that the mistreatment of animals cannot be accepted at any price. What I cannot agree with is the way that this government has handled this issue.

The member for Wills believes that we should stop this trade and the people of Australia should demand that. I would like it to be a prerequisite that, for every email that his constituents send around the country, they donate one year's salary with that email because that is what they are asking the people of Northern Australia to do—to donate one year's salary. As for this email flood, I am getting a lot of emails in my office too, but they all have the same words. They are all coming from my constituents at 3 o'clock and 5 o'clock in the morning. I think an investigation into GetUp! finding out how that email list is being put around would also bear not much scrutiny.

I am rather disappointed in the member for Page, who represents one of the finest beef-producing areas in New South Wales. The fact that the member for Page had a motion on banning exports on the books of this parliament for some months—

Ms Saffin interjecting—

Mr COULTON: It is about saving face within the left side of the Labor Party. The reality is that the cattle that are leaving Australia now will not be killed for 90 to 100 days. That leaves plenty of time to put the required changes in place. These cattle are not house bricks. They cannot be stacked up until we build an abattoir in five year's time. The wet season starts by Christmas time. Where will they go then? What is going to happen to these cattle? Are they going to go to a farm where they are going to live out their old age? This is a nonsense.

We can get this trade going. We can ban the delivery of cattle to the abattoirs that are not up to standard. But nowhere in that Four Corners report was there any question that the cattle were mistreated on the trip to the wharf. Was there any question that they were mistreated on the boat? Was there any question that they were mistreated in the feed line?

I was a cattle producer for 35 years and I have great admiration for anyone that can fatten a Brahman. Anyone who saw that Four Corners show saw that those cattle in those feedlots were in prime condition. The issue here—to the member for Wills, the member for Page and others who want to speak on this—is in the last five minutes of that animal's life. We are banning a whole trade and putting the economy of Northern Australia and the welfare of 520,000 animals at risk, and the member for Page has the hide to say that some website said that the cattle market was not going to be impacted by this. If she wants to go to the saleyards in my electorate, it is already 30c to 40c a kilo. I have to say the bottom has fallen out of the sheep market as well on the strength of the rumours that there is another Four Corners show coming on sheep.

Ms Saffin interjecting—

Mr COULTON: The idea that the member for Page can go on to some website and be reassured that the cattle market is hunky-dory is nonsense. Quite frankly, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have had it up to here with people in this place taking the high moral ground with other people's welfare. We have people with full wallets and full stomachs wanting to affect the livelihoods not only of individual families and companies but also of entire communities. The party on the other side is supposed to be the great carer for the Aboriginal people. What about the 700 Aboriginal people that are employed in this industry? What about the 70 to 80 stations that are owned by the Aboriginal corporations in the Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia? What about their livelihoods?

We have just had it up to here with the hypocrisy in this place. We need to fix up the welfare of these cattle. We need to be over there doing it. I take my hat off to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—I think he was rolled in the first place. He has gone over to Indonesia to sort this out three weeks or probably six weeks too late from when he would have known about this. This has been a disaster at a diplomatic level and an implementation level. I want to know what is going to happen to those cattle that are stranded in Australia: where they are going to go and how the members opposite think they are going to restore some of economic balance— (Time expired)

Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (19:06): It is now some three weeks since the footage of horrendous treatment of Australian cattle in Indonesian slaughterhouses aired on Four Corners. While acknowledging the difficulties faced by producers as a result of the government's suspension of the live trade to Indonesia, it must be said that the abject failure of the industry representative bodies to ensure the most basic animal welfare standards left the minister no other choice. It is critical that, during any discussions related to the reopening of the trade with Indonesia, we do not forget the scale of the brutality we witnessed in the Indonesian slaughterhouses and that, currently, there is no enforcement of laws to prevent such treatment from recurring on a nightly basis. Indeed, I understand that no Australian officials are being allowed into Indonesian slaughterhouses at present, so there is no way of knowing what is happening inside.

Indonesian animal welfare groups have expressed the view that a majority of the 6.5 million Australian cattle exported to Indonesia over the past 18 years would have been subjected to some form of appalling and inhumane treatment. A recent report in the Jakarta Post quoted a slaughterhouse worker talking openly about routinely slashing the leg tendons to bring down cattle for the throat cut in a major Jakarta abattoir. In no way was he ashamed to admit this; it was just part of the business of slaughtering cattle—as is their traditional method of roping slaughter,which isa standard practice throughout Indonesia except in a small number of privately operated abattoirs.

It is apparent that the willingness of Australia's live export industry to supply cattle has reinforced local beliefs that such cruel practices are acceptable, and we now know that the restraint boxes Meat and Livestock Australia provided in fact facilitated the inhumane roping slaughter method. We know that, on viewing the operation of MLA's boxes, the world's leading slaughter expert, Professor Temple Grandin, was appalled and said, 'I think it is just disgusting that Meat and Livestock Australia is actually helping facilitate something like this' and that the mark 1 box 'violated every humane standard anywhere in the world'.

In the past week, another internationally renowned slaughter expert, Dr Mohan Raj, of Bristol University in the United Kingdom, wrote to Prime Minister Gillard in support of Professor Grandin's findings that the mark 1 box is inhumane and should never be used. Dr Mohan Raj is an expert adviser to the European Commission and on the working groups of the OIE, the World Organisation for Animal Health. In his letter to the Prime Minister, Dr Raj concluded that the slaughterhouses documented in the Animals Australia footage are 'in breach of even the minimum standards of animal welfare adopted by the 174 OIE member countries' and, further, that it is worth noting that the 'OIE codes are not intended as auditable standards or as best practice but as basic minimum standards for developing countries'.

It is these OIE codes that are being proposed as the basis for 'acceptable standards' for the reopening of the trade with Indonesia, and this is where I take issue with the motion moved by the member for Calare. OIE standards do not exclude the terrible roping slaughter techniques that we witnessed on Four Corners and they do not require the stunning of animals prior to slaughter. Cutting the throat of conscious cattle is brutal and barbaric and subjects them to unacceptable trauma and suffering. The entire live cattle trade to Egypt was stopped by the Australian government on the basis of the cutting of leg tendons of conscious animals. Why would we consider the cutting of the throat of a live animal any more acceptable?

Religious authorities in Indonesia accept pre-slaughter stunning of animals as part of halal slaughter. This is a significant breakthrough, and it begs the question of why we would undermine Indonesian attempts to improve the welfare of livestock during the slaughter process by setting a lesser standard, especially when stunning is the ethical and legal standard required by the Australian community for the slaughter of Australian cattle. What is more, I am informed by Paul Holmes a Court that major cattle producers, including AACO, Consolidated Pastoral Holdings and Heytesbury Holdings, as well as exporters Elders and Wellard and the Australia Live Export Council, all support mandatory stunning and independent monitoring in Indonesian slaughterhouses. Why would we not support the industry in its efforts to ensure sustainability and certainty?

The remarks of Jim Anderton, former New Zealand agriculture minister and former deputy prime minister, on ABC radio last Saturday are instructive. He said that New Zealand's decision to ban live exports in 2007 was a 'combination of concern for animal welfare and concern for the economic backlash that would occur if New Zealand's reputation was harmed by evidence of mistreatment'. It would be a mistake to think that the horrors of the Four Cornersreport will fade in the mind of the Australian community. Many Australians already want the live trade to end, so they will certainly not accept the trade reopening with Indonesia without confirmation that Australian cattle will be stunned while appropriately and humanely restrained in an upright position or without assurance that abattoirs will be regularly and independently audited and that a fully accountable and traceable system is in place. (Time expired)

Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt—Chief Opposition Whip) (19:11): I rise to speak on this motion. There is much in what the member for Fremantle has said that I agree with. I am somebody who has had quite considerable experience in the cattle industry and I still have an interest in it. I agree that stunning is the most appropriate way of processing and slaughtering these animals. I too was absolutely gobsmacked when I saw the types of killing boxes that were shown on that program. To me, they are totally inappropriate and, given the technology that is readily available, even on my place, where I restrain cattle with a compression crush and what have you, it beggars belief that that has not been implemented over there. So those sorts of questions need to be answered. However, there are already seven abattoirs that I am aware of in Indonesia that have all of those facilities—stand-up slaughter, stunning and the whole lot—and they process a very significant number of cattle.

It is this knee-jerk reaction. As I have said before, I have no issue with the first decision made by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in stopping these animals going into abattoirs that do not comply, but the next step is the major issue in that we now have thousands and thousands of animals stranded in stock export yards, with nowhere to go. We have to address this quickly.

I note that some of those who are arguing for the closure of the live export trade have said, 'Why don't we just slaughter them, freeze them and send them away?' For anybody who has no understanding of the industry I suppose that is a logical argument to put up. But the reality is that we have only two export-processing abattoirs in northern Australia, from the Kimberleys right through to the east coast, and the types of animals they slaughter there certainly would not meet that criteria. We would love to have more. It would certainly value-add to the jobs and create jobs in our region. However, I suppose it is that middle-class thinking on the type of consumption of beef that would be happening in these destinations in Indonesia. The reality is that it is not just the electricity issue concerning chilled beef; you also have to understand that a lot of the people that access product from these cattle do not have the capacity to enjoy what I call the middle-class cuts—and, unlike in Australia, over there they eat everything from the hoofs to the horns. There is very little that is wasted. A lot of the product that is consumed from these animals over there is stuff that for us ends up in the pits and is turned into fertiliser, but it is the only product that these people can afford. The value of that animal is much greater in relation to what is needed in that community. It is impossible to contemplate any prospect of our cutting these animals up and sending them over as chilled.

There are abattoirs over there now that are fully accredited and that comply with Australian standards, which in fact are much greater than any of the international standards, so there is no reason why we cannot start this trade again tomorrow. There are cattle sitting there that need to go somewhere. There are animal health issues in those cattle that have now been confined for several weeks. There are ships there that comply in all aspects; we have feedlots over there that comply; and we have abattoirs over there that comply with Australian standards. There is no reason why trade cannot resume tomorrow. Those abattoirs that wish to process Australian cattle—or any cattle for that matter, because I think we should be out there trying to prevent any sort of inhumane treatment—need to be upgraded before they can access them. We have an NLIS tag tracking system that is very effective in Australia and that could easily be put into place so that those animals can be traced from the paddock right through to the plate. Any suggestion that it cannot is an absolute nonsense. The government is constantly changing its position; it has destroyed the authority of the minister and has left Northern Australians asking whether or not there is anybody in the Labor government who will ever stand up for them. I think it is absolutely appalling.

Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon) (19:17): I do not think the position of the previous speaker, the member for Leichhardt, is very far different from where the government stands at the moment. Coming from the very southern part of this nation, I fully appreciate the importance of the live meat export trade to northern Australia. I have just looked at some of the figures for Northern Australia. The cattle industry is worth around $200 million a year—absolutely vital to the economy of the north. It directly supports more than 1,800 jobs—very important. It supports hundreds of Territory families who manage in excess of 220 pastoral leases. Pastoral properties in the north are almost totally reliant on the live export trade. There are 80 Indigenous land corporation properties across the Top End, including the Kimberley, who have a vital interest in the continuation of the trade.

I share the sentiments of the member for Leichhardt, whom I heard in this place last week, of how he along with Northern Territory cattlemen and most people in this country were appalled by those pictures we saw on the Four Corners program, and I heard the member for Leichhardt quite rightly condemn those. We have a situation where we have a significant trade which is important to many families in Australia, and the end result of that trade is that we cannot guarantee the welfare of the animals that we send—indeed, that we breed, we feed and we send—to Indonesia. That is at the nub of this whole issue. I join with the member for Leichhardt in saying I want this resolved as quickly as possible so we can do something about that. So does the minister. The minister has said that several times and is in Indonesia now trying to do something about it. He joins the industry and most people in Australia who want something done about it straightaway.

How did we get to this situation? The member for Leichhardt spoke about this earlier. I remember back to the time when we had live export trade of sheep and cattle to the Middle East that had to be suspended because of the cruelty to the animals involved and because Australia could not guarantee what happened to the welfare of those animals when they arrived there. That is at the nub of what is going on here. I can sit here and shout—as some others shouted earlier today—and call others hypocrites, but that gets us nowhere. For instance, I know that the member for Page, who is very passionate about this, raised this issue in March, talking about the welfare of the animals. The member for Leichhardt might disagree with the member for Page in terms of the extent that they would go to to do something about it, but the member was raising the question of the welfare of those animals in March, and the parliament went about its business, as did the industry and all those involved, knowing that this would come to a head.

There has been criticism of this government on its decision to suspend the trade without giving a firm timeline about how we could resume it. I draw the attention of members in the chamber to the Land of Thursday, 16 June 2011 and an article by Mal Peters—no great supporter of our cause. Mal went on to send one in to the government, as those opposite and others may want to, but he also had some very serious words to say about Meat and Livestock Australia and its inability to take responsibility for its side of the chain of supply and what happens both from here and into Indonesia. I could sit here and rant and rave and cite that, but that gets us nowhere.

I noticed today an update on the industry animal welfare plan in Indonesia from Meat and Livestock Australia which talks about increasing stunning. The member for Leichhardt quite rightly said: 'That is what we should be doing; that is what we should insist on.' It does not in any way make halal suspect. That is what we should be doing: improved infrastructure, OIE compliance assurance programs and also traceability of cattle within Indonesia. I can tell you one thing: most people in the industry and most people in Australia want this traceability worked out now. They want it worked out as quickly as possible so we can get on with this. There is no easy solution except to say that we need to communicate this much better. (Time expired)

Ms MARINO (Forrest—Opposition Whip) (19:22): Australian farmers take great pride in breeding and raising healthy, quality, well-cared-for animals, and they were appalled by the footage of the mistreatment in some Indonesian abattoirs. But they also know that in Indonesia there are at least seven A-grade facilities right now and a further 18 B-grade facilities that could be accredited and could be processing animals. By working government to government and putting as many departmental and industry officials on the ground as it takes to bring these up to accredited standards as soon as possible, the decision could be made to recommence live exports to these accredited abattoirs. This is a time-critical decision that cannot wait six months. Limiting trade to only those that meet our animal welfare expectations will have flow-on effects in other abattoirs through training, traceability and processing.

The first ban was the right decision, but this second, total ban has been referred to as one of the most severe trade restrictions imposed by government on local industry in living memory. The government either ignored or certainly did not plan for the broader effects of their live export ban, and they did not even inform the Indonesian government or the livestock industry here. How many people were out of work the minute the ban was announced, and how many people are now in very dire financial circumstances as a result? This is not only an agriculture and biosecurity issue but an economic issue and a foreign affairs and trade issue, and we have offended our neighbours in Indonesia. It is a regional development and sustainability issue. It is an Indigenous employment issue and it is an issue for the thousands of families, individuals, contractors, and small and large businesses that are directly and indirectly affected both here and in Indonesia. Farmers right across Australia know that this decision has or will impact on them no matter where they sell their animals.

I went to the Boyanup store sale on Friday in my electorate. Farmers there were not only disgusted with the government's knee jerk total blanket ban; they are shaking their heads. They are also worried that meat processors will drop prices locally as a result. One farmer said to me, 'You know, if we had a problem in an abattoir in Australia, we would fix the problem, not ban the lot.' Unfortunately, the Labor government did exactly that and this decision resonates to many electorates right around the nation.

The member for Bennelong, who gave his speaking opportunity to me—and I thank him for doing so—asked me to raise the following points on his behalf. Australian live exports comprise approximately 10 per cent of the cattle slaughtered in Indonesia. The most humanitarian policy response on this issue would care for the slaughtering methods employed on all cattle in Indonesia, not just Australia's 10 per cent. Argentina and Uruguay are enthusiastic in their attempts to take Australia's place in the live export market. Neither of these nations have strong records on animal welfare. The long-haul shipping of live cattle from South America to Indonesia would only exacerbate the trauma, leading to significantly more animal cruelty compared with the short-haul trip from Northern Australia to our Asian neighbours. Argentina and Uruguay have considerable problems with foot-and-mouth disease, with Argentina currently vaccinating approximately 50 million cattle twice a year. Refrigeration facilities are rare in many regional areas of Indonesia, so the local slaughtering of cattle for same-day sale is the only option available to much of the population. Australian aid efforts were central to the eradication of FMD from Indonesia for more than 20 years as a buffer to protect our own high quarantine standards. The reintroduction of South American cattle will threaten Australia's biosecurity, potentially harming millions of Australian cattle. We provide $558 million in aid funding to Indonesia. The member for Bennelong suggests that a proportion of this aid should be redirected for the purchase and installation of stunning equipment, and halal and other slaughtering equipment. This is a long-term remedy to satisfy all parties. We have practical experience of the use of licensing arrangements for the transportation of meat to insure ethical standards have been utilised. These are the words from the member for Bennelong.

I am very concerned, but I am not surprised, that the Labor government made such a city-centric decision. There is not one member of the ministry who lives in or represents regional Australia—not one who genuinely understands the challenges faced by regional communities and families and the people in this room every single day of their lives. The government does not understand. Western Australia supplies nearly 65 per cent of the live cattle sent to Indonesia and is hardest hit—from $47 million to $60 million directly, and the multiplier effect makes it $98 million to $125 million, just in Western Australia. This is a very serious issue that needs immediate action.

Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (19:27): This is an issue I have spoken on before in this parliament, and it is an issue that has engaged an enormous number of Australians. In the last speech I made on this issue before this parliament, I quoted Mahatma Gandhi: 'The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals.' The first part of this motion states that it deplores the inhuman treatment of cattle at some abattoirs in Indonesia, and it noted that it was unacceptable. In the entire time I have been a member of parliament, and that is nearly 13 years, there has never been an issue that people within my electorate and throughout Australia have engaged with me on more. When the Four Corners program finished, within 30 seconds I had three emails from people within my electorate. This just demonstrates how the people of Australia—because I do not think the Shortland electorate is any different from anywhere else in Australia—believe that this is an issue that we as a nation have to resolve.

I think it is also important to state that this resolution that we have before us was introduced in the Senate and was voted down in the Senate. The reason it was voted down, and the reason that it is so important that we address the issues, is that, if we allow live export to recommence to Indonesia at this stage, there are no guarantees in place that the same thing will not happen.

I think it is really important to note that Paul Holmes a Court backs ban on live exports. He has put out a media release. It is also important to note that he is one of the biggest cattle exporters to Indonesia in Australia. He states that there is no way that this live export should start until the issues that were identified in that Four Corners program have been dealt with. He points out that there needs to be a much tighter surveillance system. He also points out that Australian producers currently cannot guarantee that the standards that the industry and Australians would like to see will be met. He also says that the ban should only be lifted—I emphasise that—once we have an independent, auditable system which can allow that to happen. And that does not exist. He says that there needs to be an improved surveillance system to the extent that the National Livestock Identification System can be put in place to track animals in Indonesia.

These are very tangible things that need to happen before the live export of Australian cattle can ever be thought of. Currently we are in a situation where that cannot be guaranteed. Australians demand that animals that leave Australia be treated humanely, and that Four Corners program demonstrated very graphically that Australian cattle were being mistreated. We cannot support that. The motion we have before us today wants that trade to commence immediately to identified abattoirs; but, as I have already pointed out, the tracking system for the safety of the animals cannot be guaranteed. (Time expired)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms K Livermore ): Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Ms PARKE ( Fremantle ) ( 19 : 31 ): It makes me very proud to speak to this motion that marks and celebrates World Refugee Day and occurs in the same year as the 60th anniversary of the refugee convention. On this important day I want to make a plea for a more reasoned and compassionate consideration of refugees and asylum seekers in Australia—a consideration based on the facts and on simple humanity.

I know from my experience of working with the UN with refugees in Kosovo and Gaza that people have a powerful attachment to their homes. I will never forget that bitterly cold winter of 1999-2000 and seeing hundreds of thousands of Kosovar refugees returning from neighbouring countries to their burnt out homes to spend the winter in UNHCR tents—or the millions of Palestinian refugees throughout the Middle East waiting in limbo for decades in UNRWA refugee camps for their internationally recognised right to return home to finally be realised.

My experience tells me that people do not leave or stay away from their homes without very good reasons. In 2001, President Vaira Vike-Freiberga of Latvia, who had fled her country as a child after the Second World War, made this statement at a meeting of parties to the refugee convention:

No one leaves their home willingly or gladly. When people leave en masse the place of their birth, the place where they live it means there is something very deeply wrong with the circumstances in that country and we should never take lightly these flights of refugees fleeing across borders. They are a sign, they are a symptom, they are proof that something is very wrong somewhere on the international scene. When the moment comes to leave your home, it is a painful moment.

…    …    …

It can be a costly choice. Three weeks and three days after my family left the shores of Latvia, my little sister died. We buried her by the roadside, we were never able to return or put a flower on her grave.

And I like to think that I stand here today as a survivor who speaks for all those who died by the roadside, some buried by their families and others not and for all those millions across the world today who do not have a voice who cannot be heard but they are also human beings, they also suffer, they also have their hopes, their dreams and their aspirations. Most of all they dream of a normal life.

…    …    …

I entreat you ladies and gentlemen when you think about the problems of refugees, think of them not in the abstract think of them no t in the bureaucratic language of decisions and declarations, and priorities in a sense that you normally think of things. I entreat you think of the human beings who are touched by your decisions, think of the lives who wait on your help.

Refugees are ordinary people fleeing from extraordinary circumstances. As a country, Australia has been deeply enriched by people who have come here as refugees. This is reflected in an email that I received a week ago from a young man in South Australia. He wrote:

I am a refugee. I arrived in 1981 at the age of three with my parents, having escaped Vietnam on a boat. We spent three days and three nights on an overcrowded vessel before landing in Malaysia. We then spent approximately nine months there before being granted a place in Adelaide. We had only the clothes on our backs and could not speak a word of English when we arrived. My father was a highly qualified teacher in Vietnam. He spent years going to university at night to regain his degrees and spent the days working as a postie to put myself and my brothers and sisters through school. I can still remember him leaving at five in the morning and not returning until late at night for several years.

I recall fondly the Australian battler friends we would have over to share in our family's milestones and being told by my parents not to copy their colourful language. 'Bloody hell' was something I learnt very early on! We were and are grateful to the Australian government and people for their support in those early years. We did need your support. We stayed at the Pennington hostel before living in housing trust homes until the mid-1980s. My father worked hard, and we bought our first Australian dream in the mid-1980s. He finally gained work with hard work—a full-time teaching position in the early nineties—and helped establish the Vietnamese curriculum in South Australia at that time.

And where am I now? I am a qualified thoracic medicine physician. I am in the final year of completing a PhD studying lung, head and neck cancer. And, yes, I could not speak a word of English when I started school at the age of five. I was 'one of them' on those boats, but luckily one of those who was given an opportunity to make a future here in Australia.

As this email shows, refugees are profoundly committed to peace and tend to pursue lives imbued with a sense of purpose, community and good fortune. The email also points to an era before mandatory detention. According to UNHCR's recent report, there is no basis in international law or practice for this policy aside from brief detention for initial identity, security and health checks. It is also expensive both in terms of cost to the taxpayer and in terms of damage to the mental health of people who have already suffered a great deal. I welcome the forthcoming parliamentary inquiry into mandatory detention.

Our first response to the term 'refugee' should be to understand that no-one willingly chooses to be one. Our second response as Australians should be to recognise that our share of the world's refugee crisis is actually a very small one and that, in fact, Australia is lucky to have its tapestry enriched with refugees. (Time expired)

Mr MORRISON (Cook) (19:37): I rise to also recognise World Refugee Day. In November last year I gave a speech to the Lowy Institute where I made a very simple point, and that is that we focus on the few at the great expense of the many. The many are the 99 per cent who will never see a resettlement outcome in another country in their lifetime. While some at this point will pause and reflect and think about the less than one per cent who may seek to come to Australia and claim asylum here, whether they come by boat or by any other method, the vast majority of refugees will never see that opportunity. They will never see a resettlement outcome. They will languish in camps for their entire lives or for generations, and one day they might be able to go home.

The Australian government and the Australian people run the most generous refugee resettlement program per capita of any country in the world. It is something that as a country we should be extraordinarily proud of, it is something that we should continue and it is something that we should uphold the integrity of. So we believe very strongly that it is important that we run a humanitarian program that has integrity; that is not held hostage to the people smugglers who would seek to undermine the integrity of that system; and that will enable the Australian people, through their government, to hand out what is probably the most precious gift on offer to a refugee—and that is resettlement, because, as the motion notes, less than one per cent will end up getting a resettlement outcome in a third country. We should continue this program and we should be proud of it, but we should hold steadfastly to protecting the integrity of that program so that at all times we are in a position to decide who will get that great life chance of resettlement in a country—in particular, in Australia.

The motion points to the fact that there are not queues. Well, there simply are queues. There were 47,000 people in the queue to be part of our offshore applied humanitarian program in Australia last year: 9,577 of them were Afghans and 7,532 of them were Iraqis. Of the Iraqis who applied offshore 1,688 were able to receive a visa, and of the Afghans who applied only 951 were. So one in 10 Afghans who applied offshore got that opportunity for a resettlement place in Australia, and over the same period more than nine out of 10 or thereabouts of those that had arrived by boat took that opportunity by presenting on our shores.

It is important that we have a program that has integrity. In the speech that I gave to the Lowy Institute last year, I called on an international focus to ensure that the UNHCR put its first priority on countries of first asylum—ensuring that the conditions in those camps in the countries of first asylum are of a standard that enables the vast majority who will live their lives in those camps, and often see their grandchildren live and be raised up in those camps, to be given at least some opportunity in life—and also that all of our efforts internationally are focused on ensuring that people can get home safely. That is what our soldiers are doing in Afghanistan today: to provide the opportunity for a safe country where people can go home and live their lives in peace and in freedom. That is our goal for the world's refugee problem: that people can go home safely.

There is a call in this motion for there to be a bipartisan position that recognises that it is possible to protect Australia's borders while also treating asylum seekers fairly, humanely and in accordance with international law. We had that arrangement. We had it in 2007, when there were just four people in our detention network who had arrived by boat, and this government departed from that. I am all for bipartisanship, but not at the expense of bad policy. I am all for bipartisanship that enables us to pursue policy that is in the best interests of this country, but when we have policies such as those pursued by this government—which have led to around 11,500 people taking that treacherous voyage to force claims on a country rather than enable those claims to be assessed along with the offshore applications that would enable an equal opportunity for those who are applying offshore—when we see over 6,500 people in detention, spending three times as long there as they were just two years ago, and when we see the costs balloon and the misery continue, you can draw only one conclusion: that this is failed policy.

So the coalition will continue our strong support for our refugee and humanitarian program, but we will stand up for the integrity of that program. We are concerned about its integrity under this government, and we want to see that restored. That is why we believe the more cost-effective, more humane and more effective and proven solution is to reintroduce processing on Nauru and to reintroduce temporary protection visas, because that is what stopped the boats and, at the end of the day, supported the rights of refugees. (Time expired)

Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (19:42): I want to begin by thanking the member for Fremantle for putting forward this motion. The member for Fremantle has a record of work and advocacy for the rights of refugees, and I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion this evening. Today, as has already been mentioned, is World Refugee Day, and as such we have an opportunity to recognise and reflect on the plight of people who are forced through a myriad of circumstances to flee their homes in search of refuge and asylum. The conditions and circumstances of some 10 million refugees can often shake the strongest of human resolve. Yet, despite being amongst the world's most vulnerable people, refugees have time and time again displayed a level of courage and resilience that is testament to the extraordinary human capacity to endure and survive amidst dislocation and displacement which strike at the very heart of human life and dignity.

The rights of each and every individual are sacred, and this year's theme, 'One refugee without hope is one too many,' recognises this. Refugees do not choose their circumstances, and the purpose of seeking asylum is an article of faith in itself. It is placing faith in a common humanity—a faith that others around the world can restore hope through a compassionate and humanitarian approach. It is a faith in international law and the mechanisms which guide it. Yet, unfortunately, there are those amongst us who choose to play politics with this issue and who, for cynical reasons, prefer to fan the flames of fear and anxiety. As a result, they lose sight of their common humanity.

World Refugee Day serves to remind us that, as a society, Australia can stand and has stood tall in meeting its responsibilities to refugees. Historically, we have offered asylum to hundreds of thousands who have sought safety and refuge in this country. We will continue to do so because it is morally and legally the right thing to do, but we also need to reflect on the fact that refugees have made a positive and profound contribution to this country. My electorate is home to many refugees, initially from war-torn Europe, from Africa, from the Middle East and from Asia. These are wonderful people, grateful for the refuge they were given, eager to make a contribution and eager to build a new life for themselves and their families. More recently we have welcomed thousands of Chaldeans from Iraq, settling in our region, becoming Australian citizens and eager to be a part of what they call a democratic, multicultural community. Part of the fear campaign waged in this country goes to the perception that we are being swamped by illegal arrivals, or boat people. It is so easy to peddle fear, but we need to put things into perspective. The reality is that Australia receives an extremely small number of people seeking asylum when measured on a global scale. We need to note this here today. Our current refugee situation is a pathetically minute issue in comparison to, let us say, what is going on in Europe—in particular, to what is going on in countries like Greece, which, for example, has about 400,000 refugees—or to what is going on in our neighbour Malaysia, which has about 94,000. These countries are much smaller and poorer than ours and they are countries with porous borders. The motion calls for a return to bipartisanship in support of a reasoned, principled and fact based approach to this issue. Bipartisanship is essential to developing policies and strategies that uphold our legal, moral and humanitarian responsibilities.

I want to reflect on the political debate on refugees that we are currently having, a debate that must surely shame us. I say 'shame' because in the last decade, in particular since the Howard government broke bipartisanship on refugees, we have been caught up in a self-indulgent political narrative that seeks to politicise the issue of asylum seekers and refugees through a campaign of fear and political opportunism. It is a narrative that has distorted the intentions of government and blurred the truth when it comes to reporting facts. We can bear discussions and differences of opinion, but what this House must not tolerate is the hypocrisy and political point-scoring that drives the debate at the moment. It does not serve our national interest.

Refugees and asylum seekers do not seek charity; they seek life—a right which is natural, inalienable and self-evident. Let us remember that this is a complex global issue which needs a sensible and measured approach. Political parties and politicians have a responsibility to inform public debate, not to misinform it. Some of us may never imagine being forced to face life-threatening risks, but here in Australia we live amongst people who have been refugees, who have made the perilous journey and who, proudly calling Australia home, have joined us in our safe haven. I pay tribute to them and to the many in my electorate I proudly represent and to their resolve to be some of our most outstanding citizens.

Mrs MOYLAN (Pearce) (19:47): Sixty years ago, Australia was the sixth country in the world to sign the United Nations refugee convention. Since the convention came into force, 750,000 refugees have made Australia their home. As this motion says, refugees have contributed to every aspect of Australian life, bringing with them unique cultures, skills and values which have enriched our culture, economy, social fabric and governance. I strongly support this motion and I thank the member for Fremantle for bringing to the attention of the House the celebration today of World Refugee Day.

For me, however, the day is one that comes with deep sadness and a sense of shame, knowing that the Australian government will implement the so-called Malaysian solution. For those fleeing persecution, war and ethnic cleansing, there are few options but to flee their homeland. We are dealing with the worst of human conditions and, as a parliament, we must resolve to craft a durable, humane and regionally based response that is proportionate to the dimensions of the problem. I particularly endorse the call in this motion for a return to bipartisan support so that this debate is both reasoned and principled.

As it stands, the current approach is both a human and a diplomatic disaster. Do we not stop to consider how our approach may look to neighbouring countries? Malaysia, for example, has registered 93,000 refugees. Yet our political rhetoric is that we are being swamped by refugees—in fact some have even called it a tsunami. As this motion points out, Australia took in 8,250 asylum seekers in 2010 compared to the 358,000 people seeking asylum in 44 major industrialised countries in 2010. Do we not stop to consider what might happen to this very important convention if every other country in the world were to seek to shift their responsibility onto states which are not signatories to the convention and which are less well-equipped to manage the resettlement of refugees than we are in this country? We whip up fear and fervour with the use of slippery slogans and puerile prose, such as being 'swamped' and 'tsunamis of refugees', along with 'queue jumpers' and 'illegals'. Such language is unbecoming of our leadership and should be banished from our lexicon.

The spectacle of a mother, with her young child, having arrived on Christmas Island seeking refuge, being threatened with separation from her husband and the father of the child and with being sent to Malaysia is cruel beyond belief. The action demonstrates a yawning moral and legal deficiency in our policy approach to refugees. This case was widely reported over the weekend.

In my view, it is time to return to the foundation principles that should be the hallmark of all policymaking—the robust defence of human life and human dignity. Neither the Malaysia nor the Nauru solutions fit the criteria and both should be immediately abandoned, as should the cruel practice of arbitrary, indefinite mandatory detention. It is still a matter of grave concern to me that several years—in fact, it is about five and a half years—after having negotiated with the Howard government to make sure that families with children were removed from detention centres, we still have hundreds of children in detention in this country. We had an agreement with the Prime Minister at that time, which was enshrined in legislation, to only put children into detention centres—and let us be honest here; we call them detention centres, but they are really prisons, and in some of those prisons there are people awaiting deportation for murder, for rape, for violent crimes—as an absolute last resort, yet we still have children locked up in these centres. From my point of view, I think it is time to honour the commitments made by both governments to only detain children as an absolute last resort. Let us get those children out of detention centres and let us, for once, join together to put an end to arbitrary, indefinite mandatory detention.

Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (19:51): What do all these great Australians—researcher Gustav Nossal, entrepreneur Frank Lowy, scientist Karl Kruszelnicki, academic Eva Cox, commentator Les Murray, comedian Ahn Do; sportsman Majak Daw, television presenter Yalda Hakim, the late businessman Richard Pratt and Justice James Spiegelman—have in common? They were all refugees. World Refugee Day is a day to reflect on the generosity of Australia. We are a big country with a big heart This is something we should be proud of. Since 1945, over three-quarters of a million people have resettled in Australia. Those who have sought refuge in our country have made significant social, economic and cultural contributions to the nation we are today and to the nation we will be tomorrow.

Today, along with the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, I attended the Canberra Refugee Support scholarship ceremony. For the past six years the Canberra Refugee Support scholarship program has brought together the ACT government, local businesses, community organisations and individual citizens in helping refugees overcome hardship and persecution through the benefits of education and vocational opportunities. Today 22 refugees from Burma, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iran and Ethiopia were awarded scholarships to assist and acknowledge their determination and resilience in achieving their dreams.

One such recipient was See Mu Paw. See Mu is 18 years old and currently in her final year at Dickson College where she is studying to attain the ACT Year 12 Certificate. Gentle and caring, she is an active member of the Refugee Bridging Program. Before moving to a refugee camp in Thailand, See Mu had spent her young life in a small village in Burma. From the camp in Thailand, See Mu and her family settled in Australia in 2009. Se Mu's teachers comment on her kindness and her willingness to support others in need. She is planning to study childcare at the Canberra Institute of Technology next year. See Mu's scholarship was sponsored by Athol Morris in memory of his mother, Helen Morris. A refugee herself, Helen came to Australia before World War II, escaping the Nazi regime in 1936. The letter she wrote to Prime Minister Joseph Lyons made its way to his office via, of all places, the CSIRO. Wanting to help people in her situation, Prime Minister Lyons granted her an entry permit.

Helen's story highlights that Australia's generosity and understanding predates our commitment to the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention and the formation of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Australia was a founding member of the 1958 UNHCR executive committee and, before that, the 1951 advisory committee. This government is committed to Australia taking more refugees and has expanded the humanitarian program to 14,750 places per year. Last year we provided $50 million in funding to the UNHCR.

In my electorate of Fraser, I am proud to work with and support the work of Canberra Refugee Support and its president, Geoff McPherson, vice president, David Cran and secretary Ben Pynt; the Canberra Multicultural Community Forum; the Dickson College Refugee Bridging Program; the senior multicultural information and learning exchange; and the Refugee Resettlement Committee with president Gabriel Blair, vice president Peter Peterson and community liaison officer Bev Purnell.

World Refugee Day celebrates the contribution of refugees to Australia and other nations. This year is the 60th anniversary of the United Nations refugee convention. Today we celebrate the diversity and richness refugees have brought to our country. But today is also a sobering day because, as far as we have come and as generous as we have been, we face the new challenges of working with our regional neighbours and the UNHCR to provide humane and respectful resettlement services while ending people smuggling. Through the contribution of those who have chosen to call Australia home, refugees to Australia have brought employment and job opportunities to thousands. (Time expired)

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (19:57): In rising to speak on this motion, I offer my recognition this World Refugee Day of the role refugees and migrants have played in the prosperity of our great nation. On this day I pause to think about the unbearable situation that many refugees go through when they are forced to flee their homes. I pause to think in particular of the life of my friend Malcolm. Mao ky—or Malcolm—came to this country in the early 1980s after surviving the killing fields of Cambodia. As a 10-year-old, he made the dangerous crossing with his family into Thailand and registered with the UNHCR. Malcolm came to Australia and worked hard on learning to speak English—his fourth language—before serving with the New South Wales Police Force for a decade and then later taking up his current role as an electoral officer in my office. Malcolm, like many who have come to Australia through legal channels, has made a great contribution to this country. I am proud to call him my friend.

It comes as a surprise that this motion was moved by the same member for Fremantle who only last week voted in support of the so called Malaysian solution. I understand the member for Fremantle to be a very principled person but Hansard will show and history will record for perpetuity that the member for Fremantle failed to condemn a policy which will see asylum seekers that reach Australia tagged like cattle and shipped off to Malaysia in a five-for-one people swap. If the coalition had even considered such an extreme and inhumane plan as the Malaysian solution there would have been riots in the streets. However, the member for Fremantle cannot cleanse her conscience by supporting the Malaysian solution one day and then moving this motion the next.

This motion calls for the return of bipartisanship in support of a reasoned, principled and facts-based approach to the issue of asylum seekers and refugees. Really? Does the member for Fremantle really think that Labor's Malaysian solution, which she supports, is a reasoned, principled and facts-based approach to the issue of asylum seekers and refugees? The coalition would be more than pleased if this government took a bipartisan approach by supporting the reopening of facilities on Nauru. If the member for Fremantle wants to take a facts-based approach, the fact is: Nauru worked.

Compare that with this government's abysmal policy on asylum seekers, with policy failure after policy failure. In opposition the Labor Party railed against the Howard government's asylum seeker laws and when they came to government they unravelled policies that were working. While this Prime Minister's policies have successfully destroyed the ceiling installation industry, and now she wants to destroy the manufacturing industry with a carbon tax, one of the few industries that is thriving under this government is the people-smuggler business. Look at the mess we are in from this government's policies. We have thousands crammed into overcrowded detention centres across the nation. We have police forced to use tear gas to break up riots. The Villawood detention centre has been set ablaze, causing $9 million worth of damage. Aerosol cans are banned after the construction of home-made bombs. We have had a blow-out in costs of over $1.7 billion from Labor's failed policies on asylum seekers.

And then we had the pre-election con job of the East Timor solution followed by the Prime Minister giving the excuse that she would not consider Nauru because Nauru was not a signatory to the UN convention. But last week the President of Nauru formally signed that convention, and this is despite Malaysia not being a signatory of that convention. The Prime Minister's excuse for not re-opening Nauru because it is not a signatory to the UN convention is in exactly the same league as her promise not to introduce a carbon tax. No wonder the electorate has stopped listening to this Prime Minister.

Now, we have a motion of appalling and shameful hypocrisy calling for bipartisanship. Personally, I would like to see an increase in the refugee quota so that Australia can welcome more refugees, especially the persecuted Christian Copts from Muslim countries in the Middle East. The Coptic Christians in Egypt are currently being murdered and kidnapped, and their churches are being burned and bombed, yet this Labor government remains silent to their plight. We should immediately be offering more places to Coptic Christians under our refugee quota. That would be the best way that we could all celebrate World Refugee Day.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Mr PYNE ( Sturt — Manager of Opposition Business ) ( 20:02 ): I move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges the Government's failure to deliver on its promise to provide a computer for every secondary school student between years 9 to12 within the original budget commitment of $1 billion;

(2) condemns the Government for promising to families that they would not have to pay for charges associated with using the laptop computers, and then for breaking that promise by authorising schools to charge fees and levies to parents to use the laptops; and

(3) calls on the Government to explain to families why it has broken its promise and why parents should be the ones to pay up to hundreds of dollars to make up the funding shortfall associated with the program, at a time when cost of living pressures are increasing.

Let us look briefly at the history that has led to the unfortunate situation of parents now having to foot the bill for the computers in schools program. The computers in schools program was once the centrepiece of Labor's education policies, but now it is another in a long list of programs where so much was promised and so little delivered. When the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and soon to be Prime Minister again, stood up at a press conference before the 2007 election, laptop in one hand and microphone in the other, and promised all Australian parents that he would provide a computer for their child, they took him at his word. Labor's original education promise was $1 million to give a computer to every student in Australia in years 9 to 12. That was approximately one million students and therefore each computer was to cost the taxpayer $1,000.

At budget time in 2008, that became a $1.2 billion program and the government started using weasel words like 'access to a computer' as if they would not be held to account to their promise of a computer on every desk. In its first year of operation under the stewardship of the former minister for education, Julia Gillard, now Prime Minister and soon not to be, computers were allocated to less than 10 per cent of public schools in Australia. Many schools that were promised computers in midyear 2008 had still not received a single computer when their students left for Christmas that year. Freedom of information applications in estimates hearings forced the government to reveal that the program was underfunded by $1 billion, because it had not occurred to the Prime Minister that giving someone a computer without software, networking or IT support is pointless.

Departmental figures released under FOI in 2008 demonstrated that in order to deliver on the election promise of one computer for every child in years 9 to 12, the whole program would cost more than $5 billion. This was based on figures showing that states were going to have to commit $3.27 for every federal dollar under the $1.2 billion program.

Minister Gillard then tried to pass these costs on to the states but the states refused to pay for her federal Labor mess. Then the New South Wales Labor government dropped a bomb. In an interview in October 2008 the New South Wales Premier, Nathan Rees, confirmed on The 7.30 Report that the government's computers in schools program was in freefall across Australia, confirming what the coalition had known all along. Responding to a question about why his government was unable to take part in the second round of the program, Mr Rees said:

Well, the most recent advice to me from some of the other jurisdictions is that they [ha d] serious reservation as well.

Shortly thereafter, New South Wales withdrew from the program altogether and others states threatened to follow suit.

The South Australian and ACT governments then said that they were going to use the funding for new computers to replace old computers rather than increase the numbers of computers in schools. The Western Australian government threatened to withdraw from the program. By late 2008 the computers in schools program was in freefall and to save it the then minister for education was forced to announce a further $807 million at a Council of Australian Governments meeting as a bandaid solution, bringing the cost to over $2 billion by the end of 2008. The government attempted to blame the global financial crisis for the budget going into deficit—when in doubt, in emergency, break glass and blame the global financial crisis! It is a change from blaming Work Choices; it the new 'in emergency, break glass and mention Work Choices'.

The reality is that cost blow-outs in programs like computers in schools are driving down the surplus. It is economic incompetence and bungling mismanagement that is leading Labor to only produce budget deficits. I cannot recall any government in history where a $1 billion budget blow-out was considered acceptable.

Mr McCormack: A Labor budget!

Mr PYNE: Exactly; another Labor budget. Since then there have been two further budget blow-outs for computers in schools. The 2009-10 and the 2011-12 budgets have added a further $400 million to the cost of the program for so-called maintenance, bringing the total cost now to $2.4 billion. That is now a $1.4 billion blow-out.

Mr McCormack: Pretty good for Labor.

Mr PYNE: That is probably cheap for Labor in comparison to what they usually do. The pink batts program was even worse. The delivery of the computers has become an impossible mission for this government. Labor promised to deliver one million computers to every student in years 9 to 12 at $1,000 a computer by December 2011 and to have all of these computers connected to fast, 100 megabits per second, fibre internet. As at 31 March 2011, less than half that number have been delivered and none of the computers have been connected to fast internet, not one. On these figures, the government will need to deliver most computers in six months—more computers in six months than they have delivered in four years—to keep even part of this promise.

I will return to the point of this motion. In early 2010 reports emerged that schools were charging parents fees and levies to access the computers in schools program. One such example was Seaford public school in South Australia. As funding was insufficient to cover the real costs associated with the program, this school was forced to charge a yearly levy of $365 in order to allow a student to take a laptop home to use after hours, on the weekends and during holidays. The children of parents who could not afford this fee would not be able to use a computer during these times. It appears that all students are not equal in the computers for schools program. At that time the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, categorically ruled out any additional charges could be applied on this program. He said:

When we are providing that level of support—

$2 billion—

to schools for computers in schools I don't see any basis for any school then subsequently charging parents for its use.

Those were the words of the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd about the centrepiece of his 2007 election campaign. Further evidence at Senate estimates hearings provided by the department of education confirmed the government policy last year was:

… the Commonwealth position was that, as is reflected in the COAG agreement, the Commonwealth is providing for the total cost of ownership of those devices for four years and that there is no justification for additional charges to be levied so that computers can be taken home; that any issues that might arise in terms of costs flowing from that, such as lost computers or damaged computers, can be handled by way of specific policies and agreements with parents on those issues; and to repeat that, in the Commonwealth’s point of view, there is no justification for parents’ levies to cover the cost of taking a computer home.

It was promised that such instances of abuse where schools were charging fees for the program that was supposed to be free would be investigated and resolved. More and more examples have emerged over the past two years of parents being charged for computers. In December 2010 in the dead of night the guidelines for the computers in schools program were changed so as to allow schools to pass on additional costs to parents. The computers in schools program is no longer free. There is a clear and undeniable broken promise by this government and we have a bundle of examples of where this is occurring, which some of my colleagues will discuss in this debate. There have been examples in Tasmania, South Australia, Queensland and New South Wales. The charges have ranged from insurance charges to take-home fees. Parents who are already struggling with cost of living pressures are rightly asking why the Rudd-Gillard government that promised them so much is now breaking another promise.

As we enter 'fundamental injustice week' and approach the anniversary of the political assassination of a Prime Minister, it is worth considering that the changes to this program were made after the member for Griffith was assassinated, because if he were still Prime Minister he would not have countenanced parents being charged under this policy that was the centrepiece of his election campaign. I want to conclude by suggesting that the coalition does not support students having access to appropriate ICT in schools to meet their needs on a cost basis charged by this government in a broken promise. The former coalition provided funding for the popular Investing in Our Schools Program. Our policy, as was reflected in the 2010 election, is to give schools the funding for ICT so that they, or in collaboration with their school system, can make the appropriate decisions as to what equipment they wish to invest in for their students. We recognise that no school is the same or has the same needs. I believe it is not acceptable to promise Australian families free computers and then pass those costs on to the states, individual schools and parents. I commend the motion to the House.

Mrs D'ATH (Petrie) (20:12): It is disappointing but not surprising that I have to stand here and respond to a motion criticising funding going to schools. We have been doing it since the day we got into government in 2007 and we continue to have to do it today. It is my responsibility today to put on the record the facts because the opposition tend to ignore the facts when they put motions like this forward. The closing statement from the member for Sturt was that the opposition do not oppose schools getting funding for computers and ICT yet they went to the last election wanting to cut more than $2.5 billion from schools. That was in August last year. The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Sturt this year proposed further education cuts of $355 million. That is $2.8 billion the Liberal Party want to cut from schools. No matter what the program is—whether it is building halls, libraries, trade training centres, science and language centres or performing arts centres or putting computers into schools—the opposition have opposed it every step of the way.

Let us get the facts on the record. With the National Secondary School Computer Fund the government committed in 2007 to $1 billion over four years to provide access to computers for every secondary school student in years 9 to 12. This is being implemented today by achieving a computer to student ratio of one to one for students in years 9 to 12 by 31 December 2011—a total of over 780,000 computers. You do not have to take just my word for it. Look at some of the school websites. I look at some of the school websites and their annual reports to see what they are saying about their computers. They are already at the two to one ratio and are talking about how they will move towards the one to one ratio by the end of the year. Some schools have already got the one to one ratio and some schools have gone beyond that and have got the one to one ratio for the earlier grades as well, so grades 8 as well as grades 9, 10, 11 and 12. In November 2008 the government also committed $807 million to supplement the original commitment so that state and territory education authorities could contribute to the legitimate oncost of installing the computers purchased through the fund. This is making sure that the schools and the students are getting the most out of this technology. The opposition do not acknowledge that computers are not just a type of word processor or are not just for downloading something but are to connect with other schools—to connect with schools interstate, to connect with schools overseas. That is what my schools are doing—they are going online through Skype and other programs. They are talking to students in Japan as part of their language lessons, in the new language centres that this Labor government built for them. So, we did commit to additional funding to ensure schools had the adequate infrastructure to make the most of these computers.

The opposition also fails to mention that from day one, beyond the initial funding to put the computers in the schools, we provided the ongoing funding to maintain these computers. What is the point of purchasing computers when four or five years down the track they are all obsolete and no-one replaces them? It was the first question the schools actually asked—what happens as these technologies age? We committed to maintaining them from day one. Those opposite are carrying on and saying there is a budget blow-out and all of a sudden there is more money going to computers in schools, but it was always part of our commitment. You actually have to read what our commitments were to understand that. We made a commitment and we are fulfilling that commitment to provide funding.

There are allegations that the government is forcing schools to charge fees and levies. The government does not support the charging of a fee or the imposition of a levy or co-contribution or bond from parents or carers for a computer provided under the National Secondary School Computer Fund. Some schools in limited circumstances are charging fees. Why are they doing that? Because schools and education authorities are required to maintain the investment in computers that they were making before the computer fund began. Many of the schools had programs in place and were already charging parents a computer levy. Of course those opposite want to attribute that levy to this government and the computers in schools program, even though it was already being charged. Some schools, in conjunction with their P&Cs or P&Fs, have chosen to provide more expensive computers, more expensive technology, and as a consequence are charging fees or requesting co-contributions. As I have already said, some schools are extending this program beyond years 9 to 12 so that more students in secondary schools can get access to this technology at younger ages. They may be charging fees, but attributing these fees to this program is just false.

The member for Sturt's 17 schools have got 3,730 computers under this program already. What are they saying? What are his school parents saying? The member for Grey has received 2,191 computers in 60 schools in his electorate. The member for Dawson has 2,422 computers at 18 schools. The schools in my electorate, who have 2,899 computers already under this program, are very pleased to have this technology. It is not technology that the previous government were willing to provide. It was not an investment that the Howard government were willing to make in our schools. They were not providing the computers; they were not providing the funding for Smart Boards. They were not providing new libraries. They were not providing hall facilities or trades training centres or new science centres or new language centres or new programs for partnering between state and private schools. They were not committing to education at all. This was not an important area for them. It is not an important area for them now.

We only need to listen to their election commitments in August last year, and we only need to listen to the member for Sturt and the Leader of the Opposition this year, to understand the sorts of cuts that they want to make in this area. They want to cut computers in schools—they made that very clear—and cut the trades training centres. Every school that has not built their new hall or library, that is it—they do not need that funding any more. They are a party that is not committed to education, that is not committed to the future of our children. Their opposition to the National Broadband Network is another prime indication that they do not understand the future of this country. They do not understand what the youth of today need to prepare them for the jobs of the future. They do not see computers as necessary in our schools. They do not see them as important. They do not see broadband and its role in relation to education as important.

I am very proud of what this government is doing in education. I am very proud of the commitment we are making not just in relation to the infrastructure, as important as that infrastructure is, but also in relation to other programs such as the extra funding for the National Partnership Agreement for Literacy and Numeracy and the extra funding that we are putting towards creating specialist teachers so we can get more science and mathematics teachers. It took this government to actually develop a national curriculum. We are finally getting a national curriculum in this country so no matter where you live, no matter where your job takes you—if you are in the defence forces and you happen to be a family that moves around a lot and moves across borders—you can guarantee that your children are being taught the same in maths, science and English in a school in New South Wales as they are in Queensland or Western Australia or Tasmania. This is what a Labor government is committed to. We are committed to education; we are committed to our young people. We take a holistic approach to education. We want to improve education and provide the best education we can for our children, for their parents and for the broader school community. We value our teachers, we value our parents and we value our students. That is what with this Labor government is about.

Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (20:22): Essentially, what we have heard from the member for Petrie in response to this motion is that, firstly, lots of schools have some computers so we should not really worry about how many do not have computers and, secondly, the Labor government have spent lots of money and are even spending more so how could we dare to criticise. Neither of those are good responses to the core of this motion, which is that we have a substantial program here which has been maladministered and has not delivered on the commitments that were made. In 2007 there was a very clear promise made by the Labor Party, in seeking government, that $1 billion would be spent so that there would be a computer for every secondary student between years 9 and 12. That has simply not been delivered upon.

When this bold, shining vision first appeared some people were sufficiently prosaic to ask: 'That is interesting. What are the arrangements going to be for maintenance and support costs? What are the arrangements going to be under which software is provided for these computers? How is the operational expenditure going to be provided for the networking that is required for these computers?' But it seemed that those were mere details which were not to impede the grand vision. So we had a promise that was made and it quickly became evident that the detailed work had not been done to substantiate that promise.

How do we know this? One very interesting indication is to look at the second, now abandoned, limb of this program under which there was to be $100 million spent to connect schools with fibre. At the time, the then shadow minister for broadband and communications, Senator Stephen Conroy, had this to say:

The fibre project is based in industry estimates. The figure of $100 million is based on lengthy discussions with a range of providers and industry suppliers, the people who actually do it.

That was all right, then—they had done the detailed planning. So, mysteriously, when you fast forward to 2011 what do you find? You find that Dr Arthur of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations appeared before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications in March 2011 to announce that none of the $100 million had been spent at all. They had done absolutely nothing in relation to the promise that was made in 2007. A little later we learned, and it was confirmed recently in estimates, that in May 2011 a decision was made to simply abandon that expenditure altogether. It seems that responsibility for the connectivity part of the program has simply been quietly shuffled onto the National Broadband Network. Therefore, we may then be waiting a very long time indeed for this connectivity to be delivered.

The question is whether Australian citizens, parents, students and communities have received what was committed to them by the incoming Labor government in 2007. When the commitment was made to deliver computers to one million students for $1 billion, could that have been achieved by the deadline of December 2011? I have to admire the touching faith of the member for Petrie. We may be at June and it may well be the case that the total number of computers delivered is so far behind the required rate that you would need to more than double the rate if you are to achieve completion of the program by December 2011, but she is keeping the faith and I have to admire that. She is holding onto her faith in the absence of any objective evidence that this rate of delivery is going to be dramatically accelerated. There is no evidence for that.

Sadly, what we have seen in every aspect of this program is that it is quite clear that what was originally committed was dreamt up probably on the back of a whiteboard. There was very little detailed planning done. The economics simply do not hold up. As the shadow minister has eloquently demonstrated, it became clear as early as 2008 and 2009 that the program was simply not able to stack up based upon its own economics. There has been a desperate attempt to throw additional cash at this to try to keep the show on the road, but the reality is that this was not planned properly from the start. There was not even a skerrick of basic managerial competence and Australian parents and students are being let down as a result.

Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (20:27): Over the last few months I have had the great pleasure to get around to a number of the schools in my electorate, both government and non-government schools, for the opening of a range of projects built under the Building the Education Revolution program. Universally, we are met with great gratitude because the teachers, students and parents of each and every one of those schools understand that this Labor government have visited upon them the greatest injection of investment into our school system since the Second World War.

Mr Danby: They go to all the openings.

Mr STEPHEN JONES: The member for Melbourne Ports is quite right. Those opposite are always there to get a photograph taken.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Sturt.

Mr STEPHEN JONES: They are heroes in their electorates and cowards in Canberra. When they come to this place they disown the openings that they have been to and do nothing but 'slag and bag', as the member for Sturt is very fond of saying.

I recently had the pleasure of attending Warrawong High School, which has been the beneficiary of around 160 new computers that have been delivered under this program. That is one of the 19 schools within the electorate of Throsby which have received a total of over 4,570 computers under this particular program. It really is quite extraordinary that the member for Sturt, and those who have lined up to support him, brings this motion before the House when, as the member for Petrie has correctly identified, there are 17 schools within the member for Sturt's electorate that have received a total of over 3,700 computers under this program. I see that the member for Dawson is about to get up and speak. There is no doubt that he will have something to say about the 18 schools within his electorate that have received a total of nearly 2½ thousand computers under this program. When you think about it, there is only one reason why the member for Sturt brings this motion before the House: they have no policy and they have a lousy record when it comes to education. The only thing that they can point to after 11 years, during which the member for Sturt struggled, scratched, crawled and begged to be elevated to the front bench but was continually overlooked—you walk past it on your way into the classroom in most of the schools in my electorate—is a flagpole. Their contribution to the Australian education system is flagpoles. Do not get me wrong: I think flagpoles are very important. I think understanding the importance of our flag in our schools is very important, but when the importance of providing working-class kids in my electorate with a laptop, with a computer that is going to help them in their education, is stacked up against walking past and saluting a flagpole, I know what most of the parents would opt for.

So there is only one reason why the member for Sturt comes in here to slag and bag a program once again, and that is that they have a lousy record and no policy in this area. Their only policy is to gut the education budget. They went to the last election promising to cut more than $2.5 billion from schools. In addition to that, the spokesperson for education, the member for Sturt, has proposed a further $355 million worth of cuts—that is right, about $2.8 billion in cuts to our school system. So it is quite clear that the real reason they have come here to slag and bag a great program, these gormless characters who have lined up to stand behind the Manager of Opposition Business in defiance of the great work that is going on in their electorates, to stand up behind the member who does nothing but slag and bag and disrupt proceedings in this place, is that they have no policy and a lousy record. The motion should be rejected.

Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (20:32): If there is one legacy this government will leave our school students it is a new definition for the word 'revolution'. Over the four years of the Rudd and Gillard Labor governments, we have come to learn that when the word 'revolution' is in the name of a program it is shorthand for bungled failure; it is shorthand for mismanagement and waste; it is shorthand for saying, 'We were in such a rush to put something together that we just grabbed a couple of words and stuck revolution on the end.' And here we find it again with the Digital Education Revolution, otherwise known as the computers in schools program.

It is a shame that the education revolution did not start with the Labor Party, because that is where basic mathematics is sadly deficient. Just about every aspect of their Digital Education Revolution promise in 2007 has been broken, and they are only a few months away from making it a complete set. The Australian people were promised a computer for every student in years 9 to 12. The Australian people were promised that the taxpayer cost for this program would be $1 billion. Australian parents were promised that there would be no additional fees or charges. They were promised that this program would be completed by the end of 2011. The clock is ticking. It has now been 3½ years in the making and there is only six months to go, and where are we up to? Last month the Prime Minister informed us that 413,000 computers had been delivered, out of the one million that were promised, achieving a student-to-computer ratio of around two to one, when one to one was promised.

They are not even halfway with their rollout and we are expected to believe that more than half a million computers will be delivered in the final six months of this program—that is, 600,000 computers in six months when it took 3½ years to roll out 400,000. No, there will not be a million computers by the end of this year and there will not be a one to one student-to-computer ratio. The sad truth is that thousands of students started secondary school after the promise was made by the government and they will leave before the promise is even halfway delivered in their school. There is a very good reason why they cannot finish the program: no-one in this government thought to add up the figures, no-one thought to think the policy through and no-one thought to even cost the delivery of a computer. Someone simply plucked the figure of $1,000 out of the air and thought, 'That'll do.'

It is the same methodology that is behind the digital television set-top box costing. Harvey Norman can deliver set-top boxes for half the amount, and they can deliver a computer for half the amount as well. The government simply have no excuse for going over budget, apart from the fact that they have no idea how to spend taxpayers' money wisely. Their answer is to simply keep throwing money around until something happens and then keep introducing taxes to keep the money supply coming. But Australian taxpayers are not an endless supply of money for the government to waste. Australian taxpayers are facing spiralling living costs precisely because of this attitude. Australian parents are struggling to pay for the essentials: electricity, water, food and school fees. The 2007 promise made when the Minister for Foreign Affairs was the Prime Minister guaranteed that parents would not have to foot the bill for this so-called Digital Education Revolution. Somewhere along the line, the policy changed. Somewhere along the line, a constituent in my electorate of Dawson was being told by the Proserpine State High School that they now had to pay a fee for their child to use a computer they got through this program.

Part of the reason behind that fee is mismanagement behind this program. Rather than deliver the student-to-computer ratio of one to one as promised, the government deducted one new computer for every existing desktop computer that the school already had on the books. They were deducting desktop PCs. I have to say that you cannot take home a desktop computer from school, and that was exactly what this scheme was promoting. Now the Proserpine State High School is delivering the one to one ratio to years 9 and 10 only, and that is a ratio of two to one for the whole school, while they are being forced to decommission out-of-date desktop computers.

This government stands condemned for breaking its promise to parents. On all aspects of this program, serious questions must be answered. Parents have the right to know why the cost has blown out to more than double. They have the right to ask why the delivery to date has been less than half. These parents know that they can purchase a brand new netbook with appropriate software for around $500. Somehow the government allocates $1,000 and then parents are asked to shell out hundreds of dollars more. Parents and students deserve better than that.

Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (20:37): I just love it when the Tories talk about teachers and teaching because they just do not get it. Since we have been in power, we have doubled the funding in education to $64 billion. That is more than double what the coalition put in. We have provided $16.2 billion in Building the Education Revolution, $109 million for 65 schools in my electorate. We have provided $2.5 billion for trade training centres. The Ipswich trade training centre is already up and running. It is located for Ipswich Grammar School, Ipswich Girls' Grammar School and St Eddies at St Edmund's College. We have provided $2.4 billion in the Digital Education Revolution. As at 31 March 2011 we have delivered 2,456 computers in 17 schools in my electorate of Blair—Ipswich and the Somerset. There are over 70,000 computers across Queensland. I say to the member for Dawson and the member for Sturt: can we have that money back? Can we have the computers back? We would love to have them back and place them in schools in my seat. Place them in Bundamba State Secondary College. We will have them in our Bundamba State Secondary College. We will have them at St Mary's in East Ipswich and Lowood State School. We will have them at Bremer State High School, Ipswich State High School and Kilcoy State High School. We will have the computers. If they do not want them, we will have them.

We know that education is not about the politics of left or right; it is about social justice; it is about increasing productivity in our economy; it is about improving small business; and it is about increasing national wealth. Those opposite have no idea about the prosperity of this country, because they disinvested in health when they were in power. They failed to invest in education when they were in power. Their policy is to strip away the trade training centre program that gives kids in working class areas in my electorate opportunities. Those opposite will take away the computers in schools. If they were in power, there would be no computers in schools.

What was their idea when they were in power with respect to investing in education? When I was elected in 2007, I went around to every single school that I could in my electorate to look at the school infrastructure. Teachers talked about the fact that they would have been lucky if they had got something from the Investing in Our Schools Program. It was one-tenth of what we have put in. Those opposite have no record with respect to education, whether it is for private schools or public schools. They have simply failed education in this country.

What did those opposite go to the last election wanting to do? Let us have a look. I want everyone to listen to this. I want everyone who is listening to parliament or who reads the Hansard—they might be a bit anal like us and read Hansard—to know this. Those opposite went into the last election promising to cut the trade training centres, which would have affected 1,800 schools and 1.2 million students across the country. There would now be 20,000 fewer apprentices commencing a trade. They wanted to scrap our apprenticeship program. They failed to deliver any reform to disadvantaged students. I went to the going-away party for Peter Davis—a wonderful principal who had served Ipswich Special School for over 20 years. The teachers who were there that night, at the Brookwater Golf Club, said how fantastic it was that we had provided $200 million for disability support initiatives for students. This is what we did in the recent federal budget. Those opposite failed to do that. Because special education means nothing to them, they failed to invest.

Those opposite opposed the BER programs. The BER halls in my electorate at Fernvale and Esk were the flood recovery and evacuation centres. I say to the member for Dawson that he knows about flooding and problems in North Queensland. He knows about the impact of cyclones up in North Queensland. Those halls provided accommodation assistance. That is where the food, clothing and everything else went. The halls are important infrastructure, and people in rural towns in my electorate know very well how important they are. But I say to all those LNP members who were in flood affected areas in Queensland: they should have a really close look at their conduct in relation to BER and infrastructure. Those opposite have failed not just in road funding; they have failed in the digital education revolution because they are a bunch of Luddites when it comes to computers. They think telecommunications involves a carrier pigeon.

Those opposite opposed the NBN. They know very well how important the NBN is in regional and rural Queensland. They opposed computers in schools. They do not support people with disability. They do not support disadvantaged youth. They always want kids from working class families to stay down because the Tory entitlement of privilege has no respect for those people from battling areas. They believe in divine right to rule. That is what you hear from those opposite: it is hard; it is brutal; it does not support education; it does not support health; it does not support the people who really need it. You hear it when they speak. It is a disgrace the way they speak in relation to education and on so many other issues. The LNP members from Queensland should hold their heads in shame.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Mrs D'ATH ( Petrie ) ( 20: 42 ): I move:

That this House:

(1) expresses:

(a) its condolences to:

(i) the family of Senior Constable Damian Leeding who was shot in the line of duty on Sunday evening, 29 May 2011; and

(ii) the colleagues of Senior Constable Leeding at Coomera CIB, Queensland Police Service; and

(b) our gratitude to men and women who serve in our police forces across Australia for the burden placed upon them and the sacrifices they make to protect others; and

(2) acknowledges:

(a) the risks associated with the work performed by our men and women in the police forces across Australia and the bravery that they display in the performance of their duty; and

(b) the husbands, wives and partners of serving police officers for their support of those who serve in our police forces.

It is not just the members of this parliament but also the Australian people who express their sadness at the death of Senior Constable Damian Leeding from Coomera CIB. I acknowledge the members speaking on this condolence motion, the members for Fowler, Riverina and Macarthur, and I thank them for that.

Damian Leeding was shot while attending an armed robbery on the Gold Coast on Sunday evening, 29 May 2011. Damian received a gunshot wound to the face. He was then placed on life support until 1 June 2011, when his wife, Sonya, and his family made the agonising decision to switch off his life support. Senior Constable Leeding was only 35 years old and was married to Sonya Leeding, also a police officer with the Queensland Police Service. They have two children, their son Hudson, who is aged two, and baby Grace.

This House wishes to express its condolences to Sonya and her children and to Damian's family members, including his parents. We hope that they take some solace from the fact that Damian died doing what he loved and what he believed in. He put his life on the line to protect others. That makes him a hero in the hearts of the Australian people.

This House also extends it condolences to Senior Constable Damian Leeding's colleagues at the Coomera CIB, Queensland Police Service, who are also grieving at this very difficult time. This House wishes to convey our gratitude to the men and women who serve in our police forces across Australia for the burdens they carry and the sacrifices that they make to protect others, and no greater sacrifice has been made than that made by Senior Constable Damian Leeding and his police officer partner, Sonya. This House acknowledges the risks associated with the work performed by our men and women in the police forces across Australia and the bravery that they display in the performance of their duty. The Australian public know that, when they need help, police are there to assist, but sometimes police officers are not shown the respect that they deserve. Maybe the public are going about their busy lives and do not stop and consider the risks that our men and women voluntarily face for the sole purpose of protecting people in our community.

I believe a renewed level of respect is being shown out of this terrible tragedy. What I ask of the people in our communities is that maybe when you are being pulled over for a speeding ticket or you are complaining about having to stop for a breath test, stop and think this is to protect you and your loved ones on the road. You should also consider the other work that those officers do—for example, walking into a domestic violence situation not knowing what they might face, finding children in the house when one spouse has taken the ultimate action and ended the life of the other parent with the children present or discovering paedophilia material when that officer has children the same age as the children that have been abused, or facing horrific traffic accidents and then telling the loved ones of that fatal accident, or being assaulted while trying to protect others.

The risk that our police officers face is evident every day and once again it is evident today. Just today it was reported by Detective Senior Sergeant Mark Proctor, officer in charge at Coomera CIB where Senior Constable Damian Leeding worked, was slashed by a glass tube during a raid on an illegal drug lab last night on the Gold Coast. Detective Senior Sergeant Proctor was a close friend of Damien Leeding. Thankfully, Mr Proctor escaped serious injury but this is just another example of the risks that our police officers face.

I would also like to acknowledge the husbands, wives and partners of serving police officers for their support of those who serve in our police forces. As Sonya Leeding said in the 60 Minutes interview last night, the knock on the door from police officers is a wife or husband's worst nightmare, especially when you know the duty that your partner performs.

Why do I move this motion tonight? I did not know Senior Constable Leeding nor do I represent the Gold Coast where he worked. I move this motion this evening because I am the wife of a police officer. I am the proud wife of a man who has served the Queensland Police Service for more than 17 years. I have had the nights worrying why my husband is not home at 3 o'clock in the morning when he was supposed to finish at midnight. I have seen him come home with bruises and blood on him. I have heard the stories of being spat on or abused when you are trying to help someone who is being assaulted. It is for this reason that I move this motion tonight. It is for this reason that I support our police forces throughout Australia and support the need for appropriate legislation and resources for them to do their job properly. We need to ensure that they have appropriate staffing levels, that they are being given the tools to protect themselves and others, and that they are treated as valuable employees and paid accordingly. I support the men and women of our police forces.

This House thanks Damian Leeding and Sonya Leeding for putting their lives on the line and our thoughts are with Sonya and her family and Damian Leeding's family as they grieve and face their future without the loving husband and father that he was. I end on the note that a fund has been set up to support Damian Leeding's family. I encourage people to support and donate to that fund and also to donate to the Police Legacy fund to support all families of fallen police officers. They are our protectors and they are our heroes.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (20:48): I endorse the member for Petrie's eloquent and moving contribution. Every day many of us kiss our loved ones goodbye with minimal thought that it could be the last time we do so. However, for some people it is a small action they hold dear and sincerely hope it will not be their last. These are usually people who spend their day protecting others, people such as Senior Constable Damian Leeding.

On Sunday 29 May, Senior Constable Damian Leeding, based on the Gold Coast, went to work as a frontline police officer of the Queensland Police Force. He was a police officer who saw policing as his calling and vowed to take the fight to the crims on their turf. An emergency call at the Pacific Pines Tavern was placed at 2.45 am after Senior Constable Leeding was shot at close range by three armed robbers. Senior Constable Leeding was rushed to hospital and underwent surgery. In the following days his family maintained an anxious bedside vigil, hoping that something, anything, would change the inevitable outcome—holding out hope for a miracle. However, he never regained consciousness and the heartbreaking decision was made to turn off life support.

Senior Constable Leeding was 35 years young. He was an admirable police officer who had just before his death been promoted to detective. He had a good life, a beautiful wife, Sonya, a two-year-old son, Hudson, and a newborn baby daughter, Grace. He had so much to live for and so much more to give. His father-in-law, Gary O'Brien, described him as: 'A great father, just a top bloke. He'd do anything for anybody.' Sonya, also a police officer, has lost her partner on and off the beat, her shining light. Her two children have lost a dad who will live on in their memories only as the description that other people tell them—great stories but sadly not stories they got to create with their dad themselves.

Australia has lost a remarkable man and police officer in Senior Constable Leeding. He was willing to put his wellbeing in the line of fire to ensure a better and safer society, as all police do each and every day. Thank goodness for their goodness, their commitment, their duty. The public outcry at the death of Senior Constable Leeding has been extraordinary. At Coomera Police Station flowers flooded in from complete strangers, bikies and even ex-cons, at the realisation one of the good guys lost. From all around Australia to his own suburban street has come a renewed appreciation for police. Homes around the country have tied blue ribbons as a mark of respect for a man who was trying to make the streets safer not only for his family but also for families nationwide.

Blue ribbons are used around Australia as a way to commemorate fallen police officers. Police Remembrance Day is 29 September and it is a significant day of commemoration when police officers and the public can reflect on and remember those officers killed while helping to make Australia a safer society. Appropriately, 29 September has been chosen as Remembrance Day as it marks the Feast of St Michael who was always fighting evil.

New South Wales Minister for Police, Michael Gallacher, stood in state parliament last Thursday to remind the government of the risk these men and women take every day and the stark reminder of how many officers have lost their lives in the line of duty. I am pleased to say that the O'Farrell-Stoner coalition government is committed to ensuring that the police force is involved in fewer situations which place police officers in a position which results in the loss of life. The Nationals and Liberals have long said that they want to know where our police are, where they need to be and how best to use them to protect and serve the community whilst not endangering these brave men and women. We are determined to give the police the powers, resources and the backing they need to keep themselves and their communities safe, as are the people on the opposite side in their state parliaments.

An audit being conducted currently throughout New South Wales will cover three key areas including police numbers and current allocations, authorised strength and alternative measurements including full-time equivalents and operational staff. The audit will also examine police stations, their operating hours, stations listed for closure and the effectiveness of the current local area command structure, especially in regional areas. I hope the other states will follow this procedure through as well.

I would like to finish with the words of Detective Senior Constable Leeding's widow, Sonya, who maintains that despite everything she will return to her job. Let us hope that from her husband's death her profession will be safer and better resourced. She said: 'The job we do is unique. This last week I have seen just everybody stand up and be counted and still get up and go to work and put their firearms on and know that they are going to perhaps encounter something similar. But at the end of the day—and I have always maintained this—it is our job. Everybody has their own job. We were both very proud to be a part of the job and even now everyone says, "You don't have to come back and you can do whatever you want." Well, I can't. This is what I do. It's who I am and it's who all of us are.'

Damian Leeding, man of courage, of honour, of sacrifice, is gone but his spirit will live on. His duty is done. May he now rest in peace.

Mr HAYES (Fowler—Government Whip) (20:53): I am proud to speak today in support of the motion of the member for Petrie. This motion expresses our deepest condolences to the family of Detective Senior Constable Damian Leeding, who was shot in the line of duty on Saturday, 29 May 2011. He left behind his wife, Sonya, who is also a serving police officer; his two-year-old son, Hudson; and his three-month-old daughter, Grace. He also leaves behind his colleagues at Coomera CIB, colleagues in the broader Queensland police force and in fact the whole Australian policing community.

It is always a great loss when we lose a serving police officer while they are carrying out their duties. In this instance Detective Senior Constable Leeding was serving with great courage, integrity and honour. He was doing what he was passionate about. He was making a difference. He was out there protecting the community. Detective Senior Constable Leeding was called out to an armed robbery on the Gold Coast. Like many times before, he did not hesitate in taking on that task, risking his life for the safety of his community. This is a commitment which is shown by police officers across Australia. When the ultimate sacrifice is made it is a deep tragedy for our entire community.

The shocking events of 29 May highlight again just how difficult and dangerous police work is and why we should always honour the work that they do. All the loved ones of police officers know the dangers of the work they do and that moment that Sonya Leeding received the dreaded news shortly after that fateful shooting. The member for Petrie, being the wife of a police officer, George D'Ath—who I know does a sterling job in the Queensland police force—indicated the physical and emotional effect when a police officer does not come home at the time you expect. This motion acknowledges that police work across the nation is dangerous but is essential and it extends our gratitude not just to the police officers but also to the families—to the husbands, the wives, the partners and the children of serving police. On behalf of a very grateful community I would like to thank all of them for the support they show day in day out to our police officers.

I would also like to especially acknowledge today the sacrifice and bravery of Detective Senior Constable Leeding's wife, who is herself a police officer. The strength and the courage that she has shown during this very difficult time are amazing. Sonya has recently confirmed that she will continue to serve in the Queensland police force, an act of unspeakable courage which epitomises the commitment that police officers all across the nation make in their respective jurisdictions.

I have long been committed to supporting the police. I had a long association with police of all state and territory jurisdictions prior to coming to this place and I acknowledge Mr Ian Leavers, the President of the Queensland Police Union, who is sitting in the gallery tonight. He and his organisation do a fantastic job looking after the industrial and professional interests of police officers.

A tragic event such as this reminds us all of the work that police officers do. It should also remind us that as legislators we must do all that we can to ensure that our police have the tools they need as well as the legislative support to undertake the work that we expect of them—that is, to protect our community. I know the police associations have long used the term 'the thin blue line'. Quite frankly, it is a very thin blue line that protects our community from anarchy—these men and women are special types of people and possess a special type of courage to wear the police uniform. Their sole motivation is to make a difference for the better in the community they serve. Having grown up in a police family, I know the stresses and strains that that poses on a family. I am in awe of the courage of the men and women who take the oath of office and stand ready to protect our community.

Once again I extend my deepest condolences to the family of Detective Senior Constable Damian Leeding and to the Queensland police community and I congratulate all police officers on the courage they show and what they achieve in the protection of our community.

Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (20:58): I would like to pay tribute to Detective Senior Constable Damian Leeding and offer my condolences to his wife, Sonia, his son, Hudson, and his daughter, Grace. Detective Senior Constable Leeding has been described by his family and peers as a great father, a top bloke, a larrikin, a quiet achiever, a hero, a mate who would do anything for anybody. He was only 35 years old and was shot last month after responding to an armed robbery and a hostage situation at the Pacific Pines Tavern on the Gold Coast. His death has demonstrated the dangers that members of the police force put themselves into every day to keep the community safe.

According to his colleagues, Damian was a hardworking officer with a distinct dislike for anyone dealing in drugs. He would drag a drug dealer off the street and into the police station on a daily basis. His workmates have promised to honour Damian by remaining strong and keeping his community safe. I am sure his colleagues, friends and family will make sure that his death will not be in vain.

I felt compelled to speak here today because I was a police officer for 25 years and have seen firsthand the heartache felt by families, the police force and the community when a police officer is killed on duty. I can imagine the desperation, fear and anguish Damian's workmates felt as they fought to keep him alive until paramedics arrived. There is no telling how many police officers all over Australia will be affected by his death. There will obviously be a ripple effect across the nation. I am sure many will reconsider the risks they take every day just going to work and the family members they would leave behind if something were to go wrong.

Damian's son Hudson is only two years old and his daughter Grace is just three months old, too young to lose a loving and devoted father. Having two beautiful daughters myself, I am well aware of the sacrifices made by police officers and their families every day. Like any member of the emergency services would know, it takes a great deal of courage to leave your own family behind to protect those who you have sometimes never met on a daily basis. These men and women take great risks every time they go to work, and they deserve the utmost respect by the community for risking their lives to protect others. They join the job to make a difference, and sometimes this can be a thankless job.

I feel for Damian's wife, Sonya, who had to make the heartbreaking decision to turn off his life support. I cannot think of a more devastating and traumatic decision to make. I am sure that she is now surrounded by loving friends and family. Sonya is also a police officer and has said that she will return to work—great courage. This will take a lot of courage but the police community is a tight one. They treat each other like family, and I am sure she will be supported by her fellow officers when she returns. That is our way.

It is not just Damian and his family that will suffer as a result of this tragedy. His colleagues and friends in the Gold Coast community will all grieve alongside them for a long time to come. As a police officer, I experienced this widespread grief first hand in 2001 when Senior Constable Jim Affleck, a highway patrol officer in my electorate, was run down during a police pursuit along the F5. He was laying road spikes to stop a stolen vehicle when he was run down at high speed. I remember that day like it was yesterday, as would many others in Macarthur. After his death, Jim was awarded the Commissioner's Valour Award for his exceptional bravery. I believe this would also be a fitting tribute for Senior Constable Damian Leeding. The Jim Affleck Bridge on the F5 in Campbelltown is now a solemn reminder of the brave and dedicated police officer we lost that day.

Like Damien Leeding, Jim Affleck was well respected and loved by his colleagues. Jim was a dedicated and professional police officer, and his death shocked not only the police force but also the entire Campbelltown community in which he served. He is in our thoughts every day and a memorial service is held each year in his honour. The 10th anniversary of his death was marked in January this year with a service next to the garden dedicated to his life at Campbelltown Police Station. Even though it has been 10 years since he was killed, more than 100 people attended the service, which shows the widespread and devastating impact the death of a police officer can have on your local community.

I am sure the Gold Coast community will also continue to honour Damian Leeding in this way to ensure that his memory will live on. After his death Jim Affleck was placed on the police honour roll which commemorates those members of the New South Wales Police Force who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the execution of their duty. This will also be the case with Senior Constable Leeding—a sad but fitting tribute to those brave police officers.

I join many people in the Macarthur electorate who have the utmost respect and admiration for members of the police force. It takes a person of great integrity and character to carry on through the many tragic and heartbreaking situations that they encounter. Both Damian Leeding, Jim Affleck and their families have paid the ultimate sacrifice, and the heartache will stay with their families, colleagues and the community for many years to come.

To the families of these fine police officers and all those who have been killed in the line of duty, I offer my heartfelt condolences. I am sure they will share with me the hope that one day society will understand and respect the great undertaking that is required to serve as a police officer. Until then, the fine members of the police force will continue to protect the safety of communities across Australia, despite the dangers they will face and the harsh reality that some may not return to their families. Today my heart goes out to the loved ones of all our fallen comrades, including Damian Leeding and Jim Affleck. May they all rest in peace.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Brodtmann ): Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (21:03): I rise tonight to raise a grievance on behalf of the people of Paterson. Their will has been ignored by the current Labor government. My constituents do not want a carbon tax, and they deserve at the very least a plebiscite to make it clear to the Labor government that refuses to listen to what ordinary Australians want. I turned on the radio last week and the top national news story was a piece about seven eminent Australians who supported the carbon tax. It made me furious. Why? Not because eminent Australians do not deserve to have a point of view or to express it—of course they do. As a matter of fact, I welcome it. What made me furious was that the residents of Paterson have never been at the top of the news bulletin, yet their views matter every bit as much as any prominent Australian's. I am not talking about seven Paterson residents who do not support a carbon tax; I am talking about the seven or so people that are calling or emailing my office every single hour of every single day. The number of people who have contacted me to oppose the carbon tax is in the thousands.

I would like to read a couple of emails that I have received from my constituents. First, a bit of a tongue-in-cheek email from Peter and Janet regarding recent carbon tax advertising:

We were so pleased to see the advertisement on TV last night asking us to say yes to a carbon tax as finally the government is asking us to decide. Can you please keep us informed as to the date set for either the referendum or the election? We cannot wait to cast our vote on this incompetent and lying government.

Judy wrote to me:

Please let Julia Gillard know we do not believe in a carbon tax. As far as I am concerned this will just be another tax, and as a self-funded retiree we certainly cannot afford any more taxes as the standard of living for older Australians is being eroded every day.

Then there is Colin:

We contribute 1.4 per cent of the world's carbon emissions. The aim of the carbon tax is to reduce our emissions by five per cent. So that means we are going to disrupt and damage our economy, put many people out of work and increase our inflation by five to 10 per cent just to save seven parts in 10,000 of the world's emissions. What a great idea.

Lastly there is Kevin, who wrote:

If the Prime Minister believes she has a mandate to introduce a carbon tax, she should be prepared to do the following: to every enrolled voter in Australia she sends a simple question to the voters with a reply paid envelope: do you support the introduction of a carbon tax, yes or no. The result then would be to support or dismiss her policy. On a personal note, she lied and misled the public on this matter.

These people might not get a spot on the news but they have a voice here in this parliament, and I will ensure that it is heard by the Prime Minister.

People in my electorate not only do not want this tax; they simply cannot afford it. This time last year in the Hunter, electricity prices rose between 17 and 13 per cent, gas prices went up by 13 per cent, water bills went up by five per cent, council rates went up by 2.6 per cent and taxi fares went up by 3 per cent—and that is without the rise in petrol, grocery and rent bills that have occurred across New South Wales. Now Labor wants to add $860 a year to the household budget with a $30 per tonne carbon price, and that is just the start. The Greens want a price of $100 per tonne, and there is no telling how far Labor will go to keep de facto prime minister Bob Brown happy. But what exactly is the point of putting a tax on carbon, you might ask. How will extra expense help the environment? Labor says that adding the extra cost will stop people using things, reducing energy consumption and therefore reducing emissions. But you cannot cut back on essentials, and power, groceries and fuel are essentials. You only have to look at history to see that the Labor government's theory is flawed. Between 2000 and 2008 the cost of electricity in Australia rose by 55.9 per cent. Yet over that same period, consumption rose by 10 per cent, from 10,194 kilowatt-hours per capita to 11,217 kilowatt-hours per capita. I repeat: you cannot cut back on essentials and this insidious Labor tax grab will not reduce emissions; it will only reduce the affordability for average Australians.

It is not just the household budget that will take a hit from a carbon tax. Costs for industry will also skyrocket and those costs will either be passed on to consumers, absorbed in job cuts or indeed both. In the Hunter region, thousands rely on the mining and aluminium industries for their work. That includes 1,070 permanent staff and 250 contractors at Tomago Aluminium, the 395 staff and 16 apprentices at Port Waratah Coal Services, the 540 permanent and 38 casual staff at Four Jacks, and the 537 workers at the Hydro Aluminium Kurri Kurri, to name but a few. That is not even mentioning the indirect jobs that those businesses generate, which number in the tens of thousands. Whichever way you look at it, Labor's carbon tax will cost jobs. It is going to put a huge financial strain on the companies that provide work for my constituents.

The Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Tony Abbott, visited one of these companies just this weekend, the Drayton Mine at Muswellbrook. I note that local federal member, Joel Fitzgibbon, was absent. It is not the first time he has failed to show to such meetings. His Hunter colleagues, Jill Hall, Sharon Grierson, Greg Combet and, further north, Rob Oakeshott have all been surprisingly quiet on this issue in the local area. I fear it is because they have decided to toe the party line on the carbon tax rather than represent their constituents. It is probably because they have heard the figures. AngloCoal, for example, which owns the Drayton Mine, would invest $3.4 billion over the next decade, creating 3,000 new jobs, in the absence of a carbon tax. Those jobs would support families who would spend on local goods and services, in turn boosting the local economy and providing more jobs. Labor does not understand the flow-on affect nor the multipliers of investment. Yet despite all this, Labor wants to put a huge tax on the companies that invest in Australia. It not only wants to tax big businesses, its tax will cripple small, family-run businesses too. If power bills go up thousands of dollars a year, small businesses already struggling to cope will have no choice but to pass on the cost. Jodie who runs the Donut King in my electorate says that if power bills skyrocket with a carbon tax she will have no choice but to put up the cost of a cup of coffee or cut back staff hours. She cannot cut her electricity use any further.

Local Labor members are willing to sell out their workers and send our emissions overseas to less efficient producers, all to appease the Greens. Talk about a government that has lost its way. I want to make this clear: this debate is not about whether we should do something about the environment. It is not about cutting emissions by five per cent by 2020 because we all agree: coalition, Labor, Greens, Independents alike. That is something that needs to be done to reduce our CO2 output. In fact, the government and the coalition have the same target of five per cent reduction by 2020. This debate is about the best way to achieve that aim. A tax that will force emissions and jobs offshore is not the way.

If Prime Minister Gillard, Labor, the Greens and the Independents were convinced that the Australian people wanted a carbon tax they should put it to a vote. The people of Paterson and Australia deserve to have their say. That is why the coalition and I call on this government to hold a plebiscite because it is just too scared to call an election. A plebiscite will give our people the power to say yes or no to a carbon tax that will increase the price of just about every good and service in this nation. It would be the chance we never got before the election. If Prime Minister Gillard had been honest with the people back in August, the public would have had the chance to decide whether it would support a carbon tax. Instead, the Prime Minister stared into the camera five days prior to the polls and ruled out a tax with that famous quote, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' Former Prime Minister Rudd said that addressing climate change through tax was the greatest moral challenge this country faces. I put it to the current Prime Minister: the greatest moral challenge now is to be honest with the people she purports to represent. This government needs to call an election or at the very least hold a plebiscite to get a mandate from the Australian people for its carbon tax. To do otherwise would leave this moribund government with a moral dilemma: after all, it was the Prime Minister who said there would be no carbon tax under the government she led. Therefore, in closing, I call on the Gillard Labor government to take its tax to the people for a decisive answer.

Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (21:12): Soon after the beginning of July in the Australian Senate we will have an increased number of representatives of the Australian Greens, a political party which is supporting the current government on the important issue of carbon tax. But the Greens have views on a wide number of other issues which many members of the government, including the Prime Minister, the Minister for Resources and Energy and the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, have all quite responsibly sought to differentiate themselves from. The Prime Minister, during her inaugural Whitlam Institute oration in Sydney said:

The differences between Labor and the Greens take many forms but at the bottom of it are two vital ones.

The Greens wrongly reject the moral imperative to a strong economy.

The Greens have some worthy ideas and many of their supporters sincerely want a better politics in our country. They have good intentions but fail to understand the centrepiece of our big picture—the people Labor strives to represent need work.

The Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson, also made it clear that the Greens' extreme views are not what the Australian Labor Party, the government, supports. He said:

You know we can all sit under the tree and weave baskets with no jobs if that's what some people in the NGOs and the Greens want…

The lack of coherent, pragmatic policy from the Australian Greens, and particularly its watermelon faction, the dominant faction in New South Wales, was summed up by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Anthony Albanese, who worked tirelessly with Carmel Tebbutt to defeat the Greens in that most important election in Marrickville, during the New South Wales state election. In an article in the Australian, Albanese argued that the Greens 'tend to be a grab-bag of issues and tend not to have a coherent policy that adds up', and do not try to represent the majority of the Australian people. So we have these extreme policies, and when people have a close look at them—and that has not been the case; there has not been that scrutiny—I think people will turn away from them. On TV on the weekend, I was citing some of their policies, quoting an excellent article by Mr Alan Gold in the Spectator Australia, which dealt with the Greens' opposition to skilled migration and their support for a 30 per cent death duties tax. All of these are policies that I believe the great majority of the Australian people do not share. In particular, Alan Gold says of the Greens political party:

On the question of taxation, they want less from the GST counterbalanced by higher income taxes, raising the top income tax rate to 50 per cent … based on a Green’s central planning model, something which world governments … have abandoned.

On immigration, the Greens want to restrict the numbers of skilled and educated migrants … The Greens see no votes from the business sector, which is desperate for skilled and educated migrants.

In particular, the arrival here soon of Senator-elect Lee Rhiannon is something that I want to reflect on. In the recent New South Wales election, the Greens candidate Fiona Byrne was defeated after an extremist campaign of the NSW Greens that focused on the international Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions group. This policy was supported by Senator-elect Rhiannon, who, after the defeat of the Greens in Marrickville, made the astonishing claim that it was because they had not argued hard enough that the Greens lost that particular election. Let me remind people that in Marrickville the Greens recorded a swing of six per cent; the swing against Labor in every seat in the rest of the state was double that, a reflection of the extremist policies of that particular candidate and her mentor, Senator-elect Rhiannon.

Today we have a Kafkaesque situation reported in the Sydney Morning Herald: one of the other watermelons is going to participate in a flotilla to Gaza. Even the hard men of the Turkish Islamist group the IHH have said that local circumstances mean that they are not going to participate in the flotilla. What they mean by 'local circumstances' is exactly what my friend Sandy Gutman—'Austen Tayshus'—identified on Q&A: there are 1,200 people who have been killed in Syria, and no flotilla, no watermelon faction and no Greens from New South Wales are going there. I have never heard these people speak up on all of the issues of international human rights which I and other people in the government and indeed in the opposition speak up on. I have never heard them speak up on the issues of the murder of 300,000 African Muslims in Darfur or the 300,000 people who are held in the gulag in North Korea. The hypocrisy and absurdity, particularly of Senator-elect Rhiannon and her watermelon faction, are astonishing.

Her past itself is revealing, and Mark Aarons points this out in the May edition of the Monthly in an article entitled 'The Greens and fundamentalism'. He points out that Rhiannon was a member of the Socialist Party of Australia. The Socialist Party of Australia was the faction that split from the Australian Communist Party because the Communist Party were insufficiently pro-Moscow—extraordinary! As Aarons, her former close confederate in the Communist Party, explained:

This would be simply history if Rhiannon had admitted her youthful errors and moved on. But, in a lengthy blog posted last August, she defended her parents’ and her own political records …

All of the crimes of the former Soviet Union are not issues that people in Australia should pay no attention to. We have hundreds of thousands of people, great Australians—people like Frank Lowy, who fled Hungary; people from Ukraine and elsewhere in the former Soviet Union; people from Poland—all of whom were victims of this terrible system of communism, the other half of the coin of fascism. These people all suffered. There are never any denunciations by Lee Rhiannon of the infamous Serbsky institute of forensic medicine. When I was a student leader organising demonstrations against the former Soviet Union, we always knew that the Lee Rhiannons of this world would be on the other side. I also want to focus on the fact that I find it very strange that in Mr Aarons's article he cites a seminar commemorating the founding of the Communist Party of Australia and quotes Lee Rhiannon, saying that she:

… argued that a broad-based left movement is being built already, and argued that the Greens is closest to the best of the CPA’s politics and methods.

That is a verbatim quote from her speech.

The Australian Greens have many great people in their ranks—people who are concerned for the environment. Senator Brown is a person of principle on the issue of Tibet, and on environmental policy people can disagree with him but they know where he and most of the Greens stand. But these New South Wales Greens policies are not his policies. It is little wonder that, when Senator-elect Rhiannon was standing as an upper house member in New South Wales, it was Senator Brown's current chief of staff, Mr Oquist, who was the main candidate against her and was defeated by her. It is very instructive that, during the last federal election, when she was an upper house member, Senator Brown instructed her—insisted—that she stand down, and she failed to do so, being a full-time state politician running for federal office. If that had happened in any other political party, I do not think the person would have been elected to the Australian Senate. Finally, after all of her recent extremist remarks, the very interesting reaction of Senator Brown was to say that the Australian Greens in Canberra run foreign policy, not the New South Wales Greens watermelon faction.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the grim politics of Lee Rhiannon do not impress me, as you can understand. I predict Senator-elect Rhiannon will be a divisive factor in Australian politics, in the Senate and indeed in the Australian Greens. She and her party are not the progressives that they think they are. When she stands up to make her first speech in the Australian Senate, I call on her to finally admit the historical crimes of the former Soviet Union and of Soviet communism—the terrible psychiatric institutes that they used to torture dissidents like the great Andrei Sakharov, whose wife, Yelena Bonner, just died on 18 June. I call on her to apologise for the stances of her political party for which she has never apologised—for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, for the cruel oppression in those countries of tens of thousands of people who suffered under brutal systems. There is a perfect opportunity coming in the Senate next week, and I ask her to thank those apologies.

Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (21:22): Tonight I raise in this chamber evidence of this government's gross incompetence and negligence—the latest chapter. It is the latest twist in the home insulation saga, which has cost Australian taxpayers more than $1.7 billion, in addition to destroying homes and, most horrifically, four young lives.

You will recall that I came to this place to highlight what had happened to my constituent Mr Geza Horvath as a result of insulation installed under the government's Home Insulation Program. Mr Horvath was doorknocked, like so many others, and agreed to install insulation in his roof because he was advised that it was a government program. Within eight weeks of having this insulation installed, part of Mr Horvath's bedroom ceiling collapsed while he and his wife were sleeping. He described this incident to Neil Mitchell on 3AW, and I will read you a little of what he said because he best describes it in his own words:

NEIL MITCHELL This must have given you an almighty fright, did it?

GEZA HORVATH Yeah, I thought it's an earthquake because it happened at one o'clock in the morning. We were in bed.

NEIL MITCHELL Did it come down on you?

GEZA HORVATH Not exactly on us. It's about a metre from us. It came down on the wardrobe, top of the wardrobe, and it probably slipped over to the bed or hung down right on the end of the bed.

NEIL MITCHELL Well, you're very lucky.

GEZA HORVATH We were lucky because it could have come down, the whole lot, because the weight of the concrete, this is the slab, the concrete … into the timber and then plaster closed up on the front, so it's really heavy. When we cleaned it up, it was four wheelbarrows topped up of rubbish.

NEIL MITCHELL And you're quite sure this was caused by the insulation work?

GEZA HORVATH Definitely, because the timber … where it's squeezed into the plaster, it's broken.

I contacted the minister's office to get an inspection done as a matter of urgency. This was off the back of Mr Horvath's own attempts. Again I quote from his interview with Neil Mitchell:

NEIL MITCHELL And you still haven't had a government inspector out to look at it?

GEZA HORVATH No, I couldn't cope with it because I'm on chemo, and the second chemo now, and I couldn't cope with it. But I was expecting, I got a call from Sydney about the first time I reported it, and these people they rang me up and they asked me if I have any spotlights, and I tell them I haven't got. But the crack was already there, and what he was saying is, 'Look,' he said, 'you'll be alright', and boom, he dropped the phone.

I pursued the home safety inspection with some vigour, yet it was only after Mr Horvath appeared on Neil Mitchell's program that a date and time was provided for the inspection, on Friday, 29 April. I made clear when asking for the home inspection that the key issue was to ensure the structural integrity of Mr Horvath's ceiling, given that part of the ceiling had come down. That was the whole reason for requesting the safety inspection, as was made clear in my conversations with the minister's office as well as in correspondence. I read from the letter that I sent to the minister, the Hon. Greg Combet AM, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. First I wrote:

Today I was contacted by one of my constituents, Mr Geza Horvath of Carnegie, regarding the collapse of his plaster ceiling as a result of faulty installation of insulation under your government's Home Insulation Program.

I went on to say:

I am further advised that during the installation the contractor damaged Mr Horvath's plaster ceiling, resulting in its recent collapse in the early morning. The ceiling collapsed in the bedroom in which Mr Horvath was sleeping. Thankfully Mr Horvath was not injured despite the ceiling collapsing around him.

I went on:

Minister I request you immediately send an inspector to Mr Horvath's house to assess the safety of the installation and rectify any faults or issues that are a result of the installation.

I sent a second letter to the minister after I was notified by my constituent that the minister's office had made a time for the home safety inspection with him after his interview with Neil Mitchell. I stated:

I would appreciate it if your office would keep me personally updated. My concern is that Mr Horvath's home is made safe and that he is compensated for any damage as a result of the insulation installation.

After the inspection, I spoke with Mr Horvath, who was none the wiser as to whether his home was safe. He asked about his ceiling. The inspector told him that he simply performed the inspection and provided the information to the government. I contacted the minister's office and requested the result of the inspection report, and a copy of the inspection report, so that Mr Horvath could be made aware of any ongoing safety concerns with his ceiling.

That night at around 8.45, the night of the Royal Wedding, I received a telephone call from the parliamentary secretary, Mr Mark Dreyfus, who expressed his extreme displeasure that I had been in contact with the minister's office and not with him. He went on to express his displeasure that Mr Horvath had spoken with the media. We had quite a willing exchange. I reiterated to Mr Dreyfus my concern that Mr Horvath was still none the wiser about whether or not his home was safe after the inspection in relation to the structural integrity of his ceiling. Mr Dreyfus provided me with an assurance that Mr Horvath's home was safe. I asked for a copy of the inspection report, which was supplied to me the next day by his office. The safety report concluded that the safety inspection result was 'a pass'. It also stated in the comments:

… hip insulation is safe with quality issues … old insulation batts not removed. Installer has stepped on ceiling causing a massive crack which later collapsed. Half the ceiling has fallen and broke at 1 am one morning in the hh bedroom. Hh is old and has cancer. He has been in and out of hospital the last year. The house is about 80 years old and is in immaculate condition. Hh has tried to contact installer but no one speaks to him.

So it referred to the concerns raised but was silent on the substance of them. The inspection report left the impression that the home was safe. Following on from the inspection, however, I received a letter from the parliamentary secretary. In it he refers to a safety inspection being conducted but stated in his conclusion that no electrical safety issues were identified.

Senator Simon Birmingham, shadow parliamentary secretary for the environment, questioned the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Mr Martin Bowles, during the Senate Estimates process on 22 May to try to get to the bottom of this situation about the safety inspections. Senator Birmingham asked the deputy secretary specific questions about Mr Horvath's case. Here is part of the transcript:

Senator BIRMINGHAM: Yes. Has the department looked as to whether there are structural issues related to the insulation in that regard?

Mr Bowles : As I said, a safety inspection was done on 29 April. It has been declared safe from that electrical perspective. But we have actually noted some quality issues in relation to the inspection. That is why we are helping him to talk to the insurers.

Senator BIRMINGHAM: The electrical perspective is at least one part of a peace of mind for Mr Horvath. But I think when the ceiling collapsed on him, he was probably worried about some other broader issues.

Mr Bowles : Again, Senator, that is why we sent the inspector out there on 29 April.

So, from the inspection report, the parliament secretary's assurance and the testimony of the deputy secretary it would be reasonable to conclude that the home safety inspections properly look to the issues that have been raised about safety. Yet you could come to an entirely different conclusion when you look at the correspondence from the parliamentary secretary where he only references electrical safety, which was not an issue in this case. This raises serious questions about the value of the government safety inspection program.

First, either a proper safety inspection—that is, one that went to the substance of the concern, which was the structural integrity of the ceiling as a result of the faulty insulation installation—was not conducted; or, second, if it was properly conducted, the parliamentary secretary did not communicate the outcome of this inspection in his letter. But there is a third issue here because, if the safety inspection was properly conducted, it failed in this case to identify a serious safety issue for Mr Horvath.

After the government wiped its hands of assisting Mr Horvath, my office and I stepped in to assist him in dealing with the installer and the installer's insurer. I have nothing but praise for CGU and their handling of this matter. They moved very quickly to assess the damage so that Mr Horvath could have his ceiling repaired. They understood that it is not healthy for a pensioner undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer to have a huge gaping hole in his bedroom roof. They also knew that he did not need the extra stress. So I have nothing but praise for how thoughtfully they dealt with Mr Horvath and how expeditiously. But it was in going through this process that the builder inspected the bedroom where part of the ceiling had collapsed and inspected the bedroom next door. The builder advised Mr Horvath that, in fact, the adjoining bedroom was not safe, that it too had been damaged and it was very likely that the same ceiling collapse could occur. The builder advised Mr Horvath to shut the door and not go in until the entire ceiling had been replaced—which is what he did.

How could it be that something as serious as this was missed? Either the safety inspection did not look at this structural issue, which is a damning indictment on the inspection, or it did, and was deficient. Either way, the home insulation mess just got messier. So what had to be done to Mr Horvath's place to make it safe? The ceiling of the second bedroom was entirely removed and replaced. The main bedroom was replastered. Light fittings in both rooms were replaced. The ceilings of both rooms had to be repainted, the skirting board fixed up because of the damage of the fallen ceiling and, finally, the curtains and carpet had to be cleaned.

There have been 1.2 million homes that have insulation installed under this program. There have been 205 known fires as a result of the faulty insulation to date. There have been, tragically, four deaths. The government's very own report into the program conceded that of the inspections carried out 24 per cent were found to be faulty; that is, these installations did not meet building standards. There has been fraud that has yet to be quantified because the government will not release this information. In fact, the government's response has been to refer people to the relevant consumer affairs office in their own home state. They will not take responsibility for it directly. Now, of course, as I have outlined tonight, there is a serious question about the safety inspections that are being conducted.

This government has to answer these questions. Are they conducting proper home safety inspections? Or are they leaving people with a false sense of security about the safety of their home? Are these safety inspections simply more dangerous spin by this government? Do the government stand by their safety inspections?

The home insulation scheme is but one of many examples of how this government has comprehensively failed the Australian people. One year on it is clear that the Gillard experiment is no different to the Rudd experiment. The arrogance, the spin, the waste and the incompetence that typified the Rudd reign of terror are all still there. If anything, the Greens-Labor experiment has set a new low benchmark for just how out of touch and inept a government can be.

This is not a government that cares about people. You only need to look to the treatment of Mr Horvath to see that. If this government had even a shred of integrity left, it would immediately call an election and let the people decide.

Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (21:32): I rise tonight to grieve for the public servants of New South Wales. These are the public servants who are having their rights stripped from them by a Liberal state government committed to nothing more than an ideological attack on the working people of New South Wales. Last Wednesday some 12,000 workers and their families descended on Macquarie Street in teeming rain to voice their protest against these draconian laws. By amending the Industrial Relations Act, the O'Farrell government has passed disgraceful Work Choices style laws through the New South Wales parliament which will end the independent role of the NSW Industrial Commission; cut the pay and conditions of public sector workers in NSW; undermine the ability of public sector unions to represent their members; and cut services to the community. This legislation is an affront to the hardworking people of New South Wales—the nurses, firefighters, bus drivers and train drivers who are committed to serving the community and providing for their own families.

I want to talk about the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission. For over 100 years New South Wales public servants have had access to an independent umpire. This disgraceful O'Farrell government has overturned 110 years of precedent by removing the arbitration powers of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission in relation to the setting of wages and conditions for all cases before the commission and all future cases before it. The New South Wales IRC will no longer be an independent umpire protecting workers' rights in NSW. For more than 100 years the commission has worked independently, listening to the parties, hearing evidence, conciliating and arbitrating disputes between public sector workers and their employer, the NSW government. By seeking to restrict its role, the O'Farrell government is walking away from 100 years of effective industrial relations practice.

In 2007 the New South Wales Nurses Association produced a report entitled Industrial Relations and the NSW Nurse Shortage, which found that:

… with a strong and fair Industrial Relations Commission public hospital nurses have won some valuable conditions that have improved their working lives, including:

a legally enforceable commitment to reasonable workloads;

groundbreaking 14 weeks paid maternity leave;

monetary recognition of nurses with postgraduate qualifications; and

improved union delegate rights at work.

But the Secretary of the New South Wales Nurses Association wrote earlier this month:

The O'Farrell Government's … laws would reduce the NSW Industrial Relations Commission to a rubber stamp on government wage policy.

This is simply not acceptable and the people of New South Wales do not deserve it.

Premier O'Farrell's laws will transfer the role played by the New South Wales IRC to the New South Wales government. I would not want that to happen under any government. I believe in the role of the independent umpire in industrial relations and so do the majority of workers. The devastating changes under this Liberal government will undermine the separation of powers between government and the judiciary. Instead of public sector workers having a fair and independent umpire, the changes will make the O'Farrell government the prosecutor, the judge and the jury.

In fact, Premier O'Farrell's legislation is so far reaching that it allows the government to do the following: immediately cut the wages of any public sector worker; immediately cut the employment conditions of any public sector worker, with no guarantee that they will receive a wage increase in return; and all of this can happen without workers having access to that independent umpire—because the Industrial Relations Commission will be bound to enforce the government's policy. As Unions NSW Secretary Mark Lennon put it:

"This is an unprecedented assault on the rights of public-sector workers to have their day in court to determine their wages and conditions".

I want to talk about breach of international law issues. This legislation will have an adverse impact on over 300,000 public sector workers. As I have mentioned, it will remove rights for unions to argue in front of the IRC, a move that has been deemed a 'denial of procedural fairness' by constitutional law specialist Mr Arthur Moses SC. In a media release today, the Australian Council of Trade Unions Secretary stated,

… the O'Farrell workplace laws would be a clear breach of international law and Australia's obligation to respect human rights, which include labour rights and the right to collectively bargain …

It is clear that these laws will see the executive absorb the powers of the judiciary and it is clear that these laws stand in the way of labour rights for the people of New South Wales. After being engaged by the trade union movement to look into the constitutionality of Premier O'Farrell's laws, Mr Moses found:

There is no doubt the laws would be considered repugnant to the judicial process.

What is interesting in all of this is that those opposite, including the Leader of the Opposition, have remained extremely quiet on the most dramatic changes to industrial relations in a century. Those opposite and their New South Wales state government colleagues have made a habit of purporting to be concerned about cost-of-living pressures in New South Wales, particularly in Western Sydney where my electorate of Greenway lies. But I find this very hard to believe when this is the same opposition who championed the Work Choices legislation, and the same people who wanted to rip the rights from hardworking Australians and appease their big business mates. If those opposite really cared about cost-of-living pressures in Western Sydney they would support the rights of working families in New South Wales—the nurses, the firefighters and other public servants who will now have the worst industrial rights of any workers in New South Wales.

Today the ACTU has called on the federal opposition leader to break his silence on these new industrial relations laws introduced by the O'Farrell government. I join the ACTU in this call. The opposition leader must either condemn the actions of his New South Wales colleague Premier Barry O'Farrell or confirm the actions are indeed Liberal Party policy. I suspect he will remain silent on this issue regardless of how many hardworking Australians protest Premier O'Farrell's IR laws because we all know that those opposite have a passion for denying the rights of decent working men and women. We all know that they are committed to Work Choices. We know the only thing dead, buried and cremated about Work Choices is the name. Nevertheless, I invite the opposition leader to share his views on Premier O'Farrell's approach to industrial relations.

I stand in this place condemning the actions of the New South Wales state government towards the public sector workers of New South Wales. These laws reflect a coalition government determined to introduce Work Choices style laws and change industrial relations in Australia—changes that will destroy the rights of workers. Without indisputable denunciation of these laws, working families can only conclude that the federal opposition condones the New South Wales government's introduction of laws that remove workers' rights and remove the independent umpire. When it comes to industrial relations, those opposite simply cannot help themselves and cannot be trusted.

I will end by saying that over the past few weeks I have been inundated with constituents who have randomly approached me and told me that in the last state election on 20 March they voted Liberal for the first time. They are now saying to me that they will never do that again. For all the feigned concern by those opposite about cost-of-living pressures, they are conspicuously silent on the rights of decent, hardworking men and women in New South Wales.

I have been a proud member of a union for my entire working life, from the shop floor of a supermarket at the age of 15, and today I am proudly a member of the PSA in New South Wales, the same union which represents the decent, hardworking public sector workers of New South Wales. Those opposite stand condemned for merely seeking to endorse this Work Choices style legislation in New South Wales.

For all their laughter and all their scorn I say to them that they will rue the day they sought to bring these changes into New South Wales. They have been exposed for what they are. They cannot help themselves when it comes to industrial relations. They cannot help themselves in putting down the rights of hardworking men and women of New South Wales and Australia, and they will stand condemned.

Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong) (21:41): You do not have to look far in our daily media cycle to find an attention-grabbing headline about the issue of food security. The Sydney Morning Herald bellows 'A new food crisis on our plates', the Adelaide Advertiser warns that it is 'Time to stop selling the farm' and just yesterday in my own state of Victoria the Sunday Age led with 'Qatar land grab angers bush' on its front page.

The truth is that Australia is not about to starve. We produce considerably more food than we consume. We export 60 per cent of all our agricultural produce which has created a thriving industry worth $24.5 billion in 2009-10 alone. But these statistics do not tell us the complete story because there are two major international developments of which we must be aware and be prepared for. The first is the inexorable upward pressure on global food prices which is ultimately leading to shortages and intrastate and interstate tensions. There is a series of complex reasons on both the demand and supply side for this trend. As a developed nation with specific expertise in food production we have a capacity and responsibility to contribute to the global response to the food security issue. The second development relates to the deliberate policies of those countries with potential food shortages to acquire agricultural-producing assets including arable land in developing and developed countries alike. Australia, like a number of other nations, has been the focus of increased in-bound investment in its agricultural sector. Given the sensitivities involved, we do need greater transparency and scrutiny of such investments to ensure they pass the national interest test.

I will now speak in more detail about both these developments. It was in 1798 that the English scholar the Reverend Thomas Malthus issued his grim warning, 'that a gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear' as a result of the consumption demands of an ever-growing population. Fortunately the world's population—then 800 million—went on to prosper and the prophecy came to nothing. However, the rapid growth in the world's population, now 6.9 billion and estimated to surpass nine billion by 2050, has created and is creating significant stress on the food supply chain.

Today it is estimated by the Food and Agriculture Organisation that 925 million people do not have sufficient food to eat and with much of the population growth in Africa and Asia, where countries like Ethiopia, Niger and Uganda already suffer food security issues, existing food shortages will become more acute. The potential for spillover into domestic unrest is real with food shortages and price hikes in the Middle East being a contributing factor to the dramatic developments we recently saw in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere. It is for this reason that Bob Zoellick, former US Deputy Secretary of State and now head of the World Bank, said that food security is now a global security issue. With maize prices up 73 per cent in the last six months and the Food and Agricultural Organisation's food price index just below its 2008 global food crisis peak, Zoellick has said that prices are now at dangerous levels.

To understand what is happening now, it is important to recount the developments leading up to the crisis of 2008 when rice prices tripled in just 12 months and world grain prices more than doubled. At the time the World Bank warned that up to 33 countries were unstable due to rapid price hikes that had seen 100 million people fall into poverty. On the demand side there were a number of factors, including a more prosperous and growing population whose food preferences, particularly among the middle classes in China and India, were for higher calorie products, including meat. With one kilogram of beef requiring seven kilograms of feed grain, the implications for demand are obvious.

The expansion of the biofuel industry—production tripling between 2000 and 2007—also had a major impact. It was estimated by the FAO in 2007 that more than 100 million tonnes of cereals were diverted annually from food production to fuel production. Speculation by commodity investors also soared, with Alan DuPont and Mark Thirlwell pointing out in a significant article in the international journal Survival that the level of large institutional investment in the commodity index was around $10 billion in 2000 but had risen to a whopping $250 billion in 2008. Such an explosion in demand for commodity contracts adds both to the upward price pressures and the market volatility. On the supply side, rising energy prices impacted on the cost of inputs, including fertiliser. Extreme adverse weather events—droughts in Australia, Russia and Ukraine and floods in northern Europe—soil degradation and water scarcity were all significant factors.

We are not talking small numbers. The United Nations Environment Programme estimates that human activity has precipitated soil degradation across 2 billion hectares of vegetated land and estimates that up to half the world's population will be living in areas under extreme water stress in the next 15 years. The prognosis is dire.

The reality is that all the factors we saw at play in 2008 are again on the rise—higher energy costs, extreme weather events and water scarcity. Those supply factors and of course the upward trajectory of millions of people in China and India into the burgeoning middle class will only ensure that, when it comes to food consumption and production, demand will exceed supply. With global food production needing to double over the next 30 years, the status quo is no longer enough. That is where Australia must play a lead role. We have the institutions in place—the Australian aid agency, AusAID, and the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research are cases in point. They can direct financial support and expertise into developing countries, particularly in our region, to support sustainable production practices and programs. The adaptation of innovative technologies and approaches is a proven path to better productivity and crop yields.

We must also do all we can within the international institutional framework. This includes generating international support to bring the decade-long Doha round of free trade negotiations to a positive end—if we eventually see a reduction in the extensive European agricultural subsidies, we will stimulate greater production in developing countries. We have a special opportunity as hosts of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, CHOGM, in Western Australia later this year to push for coordinated international action on the present food security issue. Most of all, this issue needs the attention of our Prime Minister and our Minister for Foreign Affairs because it is a security issue as well as a humanitarian one. Only if it gets the necessary attention will we have the chance of heading off the next, inevitable, food crisis.

In light of these international developments, it is totally predictable and understandable that a number of other countries, particularly the more wealthy ones, are sending their sovereign wealth funds abroad in an attempt to lock up agricultural assets abroad. There are reports that the Qataris have taken control of thousands of arable hectares in Kenya, that the South Koreans are in the Sudan and that the Bahrainis are in Turkey. Just recently Hassad Foods, which is owned by the Qatar government, has bought—as revealed in the Sunday Age—more than 8,000 hectares in Victoria's Western District. This follows soon after its purchase of more than 2,500 hectares of Victorian farming land the previous year. Other examples of foreign government owned entities entering Australia's market abound.

The issue is not with foreign investment per se; foreign investment is a significant enabler for Australia. Our economy would not have developed in the way it has without billions of dollars of foreign investment giving our resource, manufacturing and other industries the capacity to capitalise on the opportunities available. But at the same time we need to know more than we do about who is investing in our agricultural sector and why. The current rules governing foreign investment are opaque and the national interest test is ill-defined. In the words of Patrick Colmer, the executive member of the Foreign Investment Review Board and a senior Treasury official:

The way that the legislation is set up is that the default position is that the investment is allowed to proceed.

What is more, the threshold for consideration by FIRB for a foreign investor in Australian agricultural land is a purchase price over $231 million. Compare this to New Zealand, where the Overseas Investment Act 2005 requires government consent before a foreign investment in any rural land acquisition exceeding five hectares can proceed. Indeed, when Treasury's Patrick Colmer appeared last year before my colleague Senator Heffernan in his capacity as the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Agriculture and Related Industries, he was asked by the senator:

You could acquire an entire district, just farm by farm by farm, with a foreign entity and it would never come on your radar?

The response from Colmer was:

It is quite possible, yes

It is clearly inadequate to have a situation where these acquisitions can go under the radar and where we find ourselves in a position in which we do not have a reliable and comprehensive register of information about foreign investments in Australian agricultural assets.

Labor is clearly cognisant of the growing community concern about this issue but is sitting on its hands. While the Assistant Treasurer is happy to talk the talk by posing the big questions—such as, 'Is land being bought up by foreign interests?' and 'Are we losing control of our food and water?'—he offers no serious follow-up. The coalition, however, have moved a motion in parliament to request the Productivity Commission to gather data on foreign ownership of agricultural land and agricultural businesses. In doing so, we want to facilitate an informed constructive, bipartisan public consultation about foreign investment in our agricultural sector, as this issue will only become more sensitive and important.

The Australian community needs to appreciate that food security is a global issue of the utmost importance. It is not merely an issue of development but one of war and peace. What is more, those countries most acutely affected are taking preventive action to secure food supplies ahead of the next food crisis. Australia has a responsibility to help our neighbours and friends around the world who will be affected by price hikes and shortages. At the same time we need to do all we can to ensure that, when it comes to foreign investment in our precious agricultural sector, we have greater transparency so that it can be more effectively determined whether a particular acquisition is in the national interest. (Time expired)

Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (21:51): I am deeply and historically aggrieved at the attitude of the coalition with respect to the road infrastructure in South-East Queensland. I say to the coalition: what is the attitude of the coalition to the $255 million allocated in this budget towards the Ipswich Motorway's Dinmore to Goodna section? What is the attitude of the coalition to the $54 million allocated in this budget to the upgrade of the Blacksoil Interchange? In the three election campaigns which I have fought, on each occasion the coalition opponent has opposed the Ipswich Motorway upgrade. Why should I not be surprised about that? My predecessor who I fought in 2004 and 2007 opposed the Ipswich Motorway upgrade and the coalition opposed it for 11½ years while they were in office. The member for Wide Bay, the shadow minister for roads, in this place just last week poured scorn on the Ipswich Motorway upgrade and said that they would not do it. In fact, his view was that they would support a Goodna bypass. In October 2009 he said, in an interjection he made in federal parliament, that he would actually stop construction on the Ipswich Motorway.

If the coalition had their way, the 25 kilometres of road between Ipswich and Brisbane would not have anything done on it and for 11½ years almost nothing was done. But just before the 2007 federal election former Prime Minister John Howard came up with an idea at the request of my predecessor that he would cross the Brisbane River on at least two occasions, possibly four occasions, with a road that cut through the leafy suburbs of Brisbane but with no off ramps so that people from Ipswich could get into Brisbane that way—because you would not have any Ipswich riffraff in the leafy suburbs of Brisbane! That is the attitude of those people in the posh suburbs, the wealthy western suburbs of Brisbane. But guess what? The cost would be twice as much in real terms to the Ipswich Motorway upgrade from Dinmore to Goodna now. That puts in not an $11 billion black hole for the coalition but a $15 billion black hole.

The Ipswich Motorway has at its least busy 80,000 vehicles a day across the length and breadth as people commute—farmers, small business operators, workers, mums and dads taking their kids to school—because it is a very important road not just for the people of Ipswich but for Toowoomba, the Lockyer Valley, the Brisbane Valley and the Scenic Rim in Brisbane. Up to 100,000 vehicles per day use that road. It is probably the most important road apart from the Gateway Motorway and those of us from Ipswich say that it is the most important road in South-East Queensland. Yet the coalition has steadfastly opposed road funding for it.

I say to the coalition members opposite: what will your attitude be to the road funding and the nation building funding we have put in this budget? Having voted against the Ipswich Motorway funding allocations year after year after year and bill after bill after bill, what is your attitude now? It is one of disdain and disrespect for the people of Ipswich—that is the attitude historically in relation to that. For 11½ years the coalition failed to upgrade the Blacksoil Interchange. The Blacksoil Interchange is the intersection between the Warrego Highway and the Brisbane Valley Highway. The Blacksoil Interchange was No. 1 on the list of projects—one of the magnificent seven—that the South-East Queensland Council of Mayors supported. Guess who was the chair of the South-East Queensland Council of Mayors? It was Campbell Newman, the former Lord Mayor of Brisbane, yet the coalition did not fund it, did not support it for 11½ years and failed to make a commitment in the last federal campaign with not a whisper, not a peep from the coalition in relation to the Blacksoil Interchange. This is really important because 8,000 vehicles a day go through that intersection on the Brisbane Valley section. Up to 40,000 vehicles a day go through the intersection from the Warrego Highway through to Ipswich Central. Yet the coalition has voted against the road funding allocations and the nation building funding to resurface that road. All the funding that we have given in relation to the Warrego Highway towards Toowoomba the coalition has voted against. The LNP candidate and member for Lockyer consistently bleeds about the issue yet when John Howard was the Prime Minister they capped the funding.

We have put in an enormous amount of funding and so has the state Labor government in Queensland. The state Labor government in Queensland, on this $70 million project of the Blacksoil Interchange, has added $16 million to our $54 million. What is the attitude of the LNP opposition in Queensland in relation to it? I have not heard a peep about it—not a whisper, not a scintilla, not a jot, not a dot—nothing from the coalition in relation to the Blacksoil Interchange. I have not heard anything from them in this parliament and they have said nothing about it in the Queensland Legislative Assembly. There is nothing in the media back home and yet I have coalition mayors and coalition councillors throughout South-East Queensland talk to me regularly about this particular project but they will not do anything about it. Their failure with respect to road infrastructure in South-East Queensland is appalling. Let us talk about the Toowoomba bypass which they failed to do for 11½ years. The member for Groom constantly bleats about it offering mythical money in relation to it. It is the federal Labor government that is putting so much money into the Warrego Highway, the Brisbane Valley Highway, the Ipswich Motorway and all the road infrastructure in South-East Queensland. I will give one illustration of the failure of the previous coalition government and of the impact of regional infrastructure and the commitment of this government to road funding in the area. The Somerset Regional Council is the least populated council in South-East Queensland, but it covers the biggest area in South-East Queensland. Mr Deputy Speaker Slipper, you would know parts of it well, having previously been responsible for the Kilcoy area. But, guess what? The coalition allocated $357,000 for road funding in their last year for this local council that has the biggest land area in South-East Queensland. We are putting in nearly double that in this budget—$653,000. That is a demonstration of this government's commitment to road infrastructure. The opposition have opposed our Regional Infrastructure Development Fund, which provides $2 billion for states like my state of Queensland. Bear in mind that we have put in $8.5 billion for road, rail and port infrastructure in Queensland—more than double the amount the coalition put in when they were in power.

The coalition did not really care about the economic development of South-East Queensland and the western corridor between Toowoomba and Brisbane or my electorate around Ipswich and the Somerset region. They are not worried about the safety concerns, about the lives and the lifestyles of the farmers, the small business operators, the employees, the schoolchildren and the mums and dads in my area. They have failed comprehensively and totally with respect to road infrastructure in South-East Queensland and Ipswich particularly. We have shouted and screamed and agitated and advocated for that funding for a long time. For 11½ long years those opposite did nothing about it. They stand condemned. I am very proud to be part of a Labor government that has done something about this. We have fulfilled our election commitment on the Ipswich Motorway and fulfilled our commitment on the Blacksoil Interchange.

The days of those opposite are gone. I am proud to be part of a government that funds the Ipswich Motorway upgrade, that provides business opportunities and opportunities for the whole of South-East Queensland and beyond. South-East Queensland is the fastest growing area in all of Australia, and Ipswich is the second fastest growing area in South-East Queensland. The Somerset region is the fastest growing area in South-East Queensland. Those opposite adopt a flagrant, extravagant approach to road infrastructure. They come out with mythical funding that does not even exist. There are outrageous, expensive and unrealistic options. We are about responsible, prudent economic management and economic prosperity and development. They cannot grasp the obvious, that even the state coalition opposition in Queensland supported the Ipswich Motorway upgrade. Yet those opposite continued to oppose it. Their position is untenable, unacceptable and irrelevant.

Mr McCormack interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): Order! Does the honourable member for Riverina wish to have an hour out of the chamber?

Mr NEUMANN: They previously said that upgrading the Ipswich Motorway was a shemozzle and a hopeless situation. I say to those opposite that the only shemozzle and hopeless situations are those opposite. I welcome the upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway and the Blacksoil Interchange, and so do all the people in South-East Queensland and every council, including the coalition. Coalition members here have no idea about the needs, aspirations and lives of people in South-East Queensland. (Time expired)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time allotted for the debate has expired. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Main Committee adjourned at 11:03