Mr HUNT (Flinders) (09:01): I seek leave to move a motion of censure against the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.

Leave not granted.

Mr HUNT: I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Flinders from moving the following motion forthwith:

That this House censures the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency for:

(1) misleading the Parliament of Australia. In particular by claiming that the Leader of the Opposition recently amended Coalition policy regarding the use of taxpayers' funds for purchase of foreign carbon credits;

(2) misleading the Parliament by asserting that there was such a change when the original policy released on 2 February 2010 has a heading in bold blue font on page 14, "Direct Action in Australia, not Overseas, " and when that heading is followed by the express clear and absolute statement:

(a) "Labor's emissions trading scheme relies on extensive purchase of overseas CO2 emissions abatement to meet the 5 per cent emissions reduction target. This delivers no local environment benefit in Australia. In contrast, the Coalition's approach ensures that all abatement activity supported by the Emissions Reduction Fund to achieve the 5 per cent emissions reduction target will occur in Australia—delivering environmental benefits here rather than overseas."

(3). misleading the public about the effective carbon price in China. In particular by overstating the effective price in China by 1,000% on multiple occasions including 3 February 2011, 16 February 2011 and 9 March 2011 when the Minister's own department had found a figure 1/10 of that as early as 6 October 2010.

This minister has deliberately misled the parliament and it is part of a pattern of dishonesty and disrespect that the Australian people and parliament—

Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, I rise to raise a point of order with regard to when a serious allegation is made as to a misleading of parliament. I seek your guidance with regard to the normal practice for raising it at the earliest opportunity. My understanding is that what the member for Flinders is moving here in the parliament relates to statements made by the minister during question time yesterday, during which time the member for Flinders was in the chamber and raised no objections to any of the statements.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

The SPEAKER: I will take up as much time as I like, Manager of Opposition Business. There is no point of order. The member for Flinders, as I understand it—I do not have his suspension motion before me—has talked about misleading. His first remarks in support of the suspension motion were to talk about deliberate misleading. He will be very careful: this is a suspension motion.

Mr HUNT: We need to suspend standing orders to call this minister to account for misleading the parliament. The reason that is the case is that the minister has had before him for 18 months the coalition—

The SPEAKER: The member for Flinders will resume his seat.

Mr ALBANESE: As this is a stunt, I move:

That the member be no longer heard.

Question put.

The House divided. [09:09]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

Question negatived.

The SPEAKER: The member's time has expired. The member for Sturt?

Mr PYNE: I move:

That the member for Flinders be granted an extension of time not exceeding five minutes.

Question put:

The House divided. [09:18]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

Question agreed to.

The SPEAKER: The time allotted for the debate has expired.

Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) (09:28): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill makes minor amendments to certain governance and business arrangements for portfolio bodies under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005.

At present, several statutory positions established under that act are referred to by the term 'general manager'—that is, the heads of Indigenous Business Australia, the Indigenous Land Corporation, Aboriginal Hostels Limited and the Torres Strait Regional Authority.

However, the roles undertaken by occupants of those positions have changed in nature since the positions were created. The term 'general manager' will be changed to 'chief executive officer' as a better reflection of the responsibilities and expectations of these agency heads.

The change will bring these agencies into line with the majority of other Commonwealth statutory authorities and companies, whose agency heads have the title of chief executive officer. This includes, for instance, the Australia Council for the Arts, Screen Australia, the Australian Film, Television and Radio School and the Australian Sports Commission. The chief executive officer title is a more appropriate term for agencies that have a board of directors—as each of these agencies do—and meets the general expectation that a chief executive officer is more senior than a general manager. We expect that this change will help the boards of these agencies to attract a higher calibre of candidate for agency head positions.

A further minor amendment will remove a redundant reference to review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 for two discontinued Aboriginal Hostels Limited schemes—the Community Support Hostel Grant Scheme and the Student Rent Subsidy Scheme. These schemes have not existed for a number of years, so the reference to them is no longer appropriate.

The provision for handling of information held by Indigenous Business Australia is also being amended. The narrow focus of this provision has, in the past, prevented information from being disclosed to agencies with responsibility for overseeing Commonwealth administrative practices—such as the Ombudsman and the Privacy Commissioner.

It has also prevented information being given to Commonwealth agencies working in joint initiatives with Indigenous Business Australia, and state and territory agencies seeking to work more closely with Indigenous Business Australia to achieve better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities.

The amended provision aims to overcome these difficulties—but only with the continued appropriate protection of sensitive information. The relationship of confidence between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the agencies established for their benefit is an important public interest that we need to preserve.

The new provision is also consistent with established information-handling arrangements, such as in the family assistance law and the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010, that protect information while still permitting the proper work of the Commonwealth and its agencies.

Lastly, the bill amends the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and the Coordinator-General for Remote Indigenous Services Act 2009 in relation to the power to appoint a person to act as the Executive Director of Township Leasing or the Coordinator-General for Remote Indigenous Services.

At present, the power to make these acting appointments must be exercised by the minister personally, with no capacity to delegate the power. It will now be possible for the minister to delegate the power under each act to the secretary or a deputy secretary of the department, without the need for the minister to make acting appointments personally. Appointments can then be made when there is a vacancy in the office, including any period when the executive director or coordinator-general is absent from duty or from Australia, or when the executive director or coordinator-general is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Dr MIKE KELLY (Eden-Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (09:34): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Amendment Bill (Deer) 2011 amends the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act 1998to increase the maximum allowable levy rate cap on the National Residue Survey, NRS, component of the deer slaughter levy from 4c to 10.5c per kilogram of carcass weight.

The Deer Industry Association of Australia has requested on behalf of the deer industry to reapportion the deer slaughter levy due to a significant production decline over the last 10 years, which has reduced the funds raised through the levy.

The industry proposes to reapportion the levy to increase the NRS component from 4c to 6c per kilogram and decrease the research and development, R&D, component from 4c to 2c per kilogram. To meet this request, a change to legislation is required as the act currently caps the NRS component at 4c per kilogram.

The deer industry requires the NRS component of the levy to be increased to 6c per kilogram to ensure it generates sufficient levy funds to maintain a viable residue monitoring program. Australia requires a residue monitoring program for European Union market access, and with approximately 85 per cent of all venison produced in Australia principally exported to the European Union, it is a key market for the industry.

Decreasing the R&D component of the levy to 2c per kilogram is not expected to have an impact on the industry's future R&D projects. This has been confirmed by the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.

The industry undertook an extensive period of consultation and the decision to reapportion the levy was put to a vote in March 2011, where approximately 97 per cent of valid responses from deer producers supported this change. The government has endorsed this recommendation from industry.

The government has decided to increase the NRS levy rate cap in the act from 4c to 10.5c per kilogram at this time to cover the industry's proposal and allow for future increases that the industry may seek without the need to further amend the act.

Following the passage of this bill, the government intends to put forward amendments to the Primary Industries Levies and Charges (National Residue Survey Levies) Regulations 1998 and the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Regulations 1999 to give effect to the levy reapportionment proposal from industry; that is, to increase the NRS component to 6c and decrease the R&D component to 2c.

The measures introduced in this bill and the subsequent amendments to relevant regulations will enable the deer industry to fund a viable residue monitoring program, maintaining access to key export markets—a positive result for both deer producers and their local communities. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (09:38): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Business Names Registration Bill 2011 is part of a package of bills. The package comprises:

The Business Names Registration Bill 2011;

The Business Names Registration (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011; and

The Business Names Registration (Fees) Bill 2011.

These bills, along with subordinate legislation, will create a national business names registration system.

Currently businesses need to register their names in each state and territory in which they trade. Each jurisdiction has its own processes and fees. The proposed national registration system, to be administered by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, ASIC, will mean businesses pay one fee to register nationally, using an online application process.

The idea of having uniform national business names registration laws across Australia has been around for a long time. As the result of an agreement among all Attorneys-General, uniform business names registration laws were put in place in all jurisdictions in 1962-63. Unfortunately there was no mechanism put in place to maintain uniformity, nor to prevent multiple registrations of the same name across Australia.

In 2008 the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, agreed that the Commonwealth would assume responsibility for the registration of business names. This reform proposal was one of 27 regulatory reforms forming part of the National Partnership Agreement to Deliver a Seamless National Economy. An Intergovernmental Agreement for Business Names was signed on 2 July 2009 by the Commonwealth, the states and the territories.

The national business names registration system, combined with a number of other related initiatives such as the National Australian Business Licence and Information Service and the Australian Business Account, are estimated to provide benefits of $1.5 billion over eight years to business, government and consumers.

The Commonwealth has no power to regulate all business names registrations in Australia; therefore the establishment of a national business names registration system and the legislation which underpins it relies on a referral of constitutional powers from the states to the Commonwealth. The states therefore must enact referral legislation to give effect to the national registration system, and the Commonwealth legislation is drafted in such a way that the national system cannot commence if any state does not refer or adopt the legislation.

The business names registration legislation package will set up a new national business names register, to be operated by ASIC. Any entity carrying on a business in Australia using a name other than its own will be required to register with ASIC. This will enable the identification of the entity behind a business name.

The national registration system will assist new businesses by providing a joint online application for an Australian Business Number, ABN, and national business name, two of the most common registrations undertaken by those starting a new business. Combining these two common start-up registrations in a single online process will make it simpler to start a new business.

Under the new system, businesses will only need to complete a single online application, and pay a single fee, to register a business name nationally. This will mean, for most businesses, reduced registration costs and a simpler process, especially for businesses that trade in more than one state or territory.

At present, a business operating in every state and territory faces a cost of more than $1,000 to register a business name for three years. Under the national registration system, businesses will only pay one fee, which will be in the order of $70 to register for three years. An optional $30 fee will apply for a one-year registration.

To assist with identification of the entity behind a business name, the national registration system mandates an ABN for any new business name registration. Currently all state and territory business name registers allocate a business name number. The allocation of such a number will no longer take place under a national system.

The register will enable any party—be they a consumer or another business—to ascertain who the entity is behind a business name.

The register will prevent identical business names in the states and territories being registered in the future. It will also prevent the registration of otherwise undesirable names such as names that are misleading to consumers, or offensive. The national register will also provide national rules to apply in relation to the use of business names when a person is disqualified from carrying on business.

Consistent with trademark law, registering a business name under this legislation will not give rise to any proprietary rights over that name. Existing businesses will not need to do anything when the national registration system commences. Their existing state and territory business name registrations will automatically be transferred into the new national business name register.

People who are thinking of starting new businesses will be able to apply to register their national business names online, at any time, and in most cases will receive confirmation of registration immediately. Applicants will be able to follow a link to Australian trademark and domain name searches, which may be important to them in choosing their business names.

The new national registration system will commence after all states refer business names powers to the Commonwealth, or adopt the Commonwealth legislation. It is envisaged that states will have completed this process by March 2012, and the national registration system will commence by the end of May 2012. Extensive consultation was undertaken to reach agreement among the Commonwealth, states and territories on the structure of the proposed national registration system and the legislation which will establish it. Extensive public consultation was also undertaken, including two rounds of public consultation on the draft legislation.

Full details are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (09:45): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Business Names Registration (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011 is part of a package of bills. The total package will, along with subordinate legislation, create a national business names registration system.

Existing businesses will not need to do anything when the new national business name service commences. Their existing state and territory business name registrations will automatically be transferred into the new national business name register.

Where there are identical business names currently registered in different jurisdictions, the proposed arrangements under the legislation will not require existing businesses to spend money on reissuing stationery or replacing signage. These businesses will be able to keep their existing business name; however, a distinguishing mark will be placed on the business name register, allowing specific businesses operating in different jurisdictions to be identified.

My comments in relation to the Business Names Registration Bill 2011 also apply to this bill.

Debate adjourned.

Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (09:47): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Business Names Registration (Fees) Bill 2011 is part of a package of bills. The total package will, along with subordinate legislation, create a national business names registration system.

The fees bill is a taxing measure which will impose the fees for registering business names in the new national registration system.

At present, a business operating in every state and territory faces a cost of more than $1,000 to register a business name for three years. Under the national system, businesses will only pay one fee, which will be in the order of $70 to register for three years. An optional $30 fee will apply for a one-year registration.

My comments in relation to the Business Names Registration Bill 2011 also apply to this bill.

Debate adjourned.

Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (09:48): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties I present the committee's report entitled Report 118: Treaties tabled on 23 March and 11 May 2011, incorporating a dissenting report and additional comments. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Leave granted.

Mr KELVIN THOMSON: I thank the House. Report 118 contains the committee's views on two treaties: the Protocol on Investment to the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement and the Resolution MPEC.189(60) Amendments to the Annex of the Protocol of 1978 Relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (MARPOL).

Australia's economic relationship with New Zealand is conducted within the framework of the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement, colloquially known as ANZCERTA. It covers all trans-Tasman trade in goods and services and is the principal instrument for the elimination of trade barriers between the two nations. The protocol on investment will raise the threshold below which New Zealand investors in Australia require investigation by the Foreign Investment Review Board from a 15 per cent or more share of an Australian entity worth at least $231 million to an investment of $1.005 billion. For Australian investors in New Zealand, the threshold below which they will not be subject to investigation has increased from NZ$100 million to NZ$477 million. Both countries have retained the entitlement to review foreign investment originating in the other signatory and sensitive areas, such as urban residential and commercial property investment; media, telecommunications, transport; defence related industries; uranium investments in Australia; and farming, waterfront or sensitive land investment in New Zealand.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade says that the protocol on investment is in the national interest because it will remove or reduce investment barriers; bring the treatment of New Zealand investors under Australia's foreign investment regime, in line with that granted to United States investors under the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement; and maintain Australia's capacity to screen New Zealand investment proposals that are large or involve sensitive sectors that raise national interest concerns.

While the majority of the committee supported ratification of the protocol on investment, the report contains a dissent in relation to this treaty. The dissenting report from the members for Murray and Mallee is thoughtful, and I hope the government gives it proper consideration in thinking about future foreign investment policy. The truth is that many Australians are concerned about foreign investment, and the evidence to the committee about the Foreign Investment Review Board's handling of foreign investment does not do much to allay those concerns. In 10 years, the FIRB has knocked back just two foreign investment proposals: the Shell bid for Woodside and the Singapore stock exchange bid for the Australian Stock Exchange. The FIRB says that it will reject proposals that are not in the national interest. But, when you ask Treasury whether foreign investment is in the national interest, you are told that it is. If you ask, 'Are there any circumstances in which it might not be in the national interest?' all you get is a shrug of the shoulders. The second treaty considered in this report is the Resolution MEPC 189(60) amendments to MARPOL. This treaty is a multilateral treaty regulating marine pollution. The amendments add a new chapter 9 to MARPOL dealing with the use and transport of heavy fuel oil in Antarctic seas. The new chapter will prohibit the bulk transportation and use as fuel of heavy oils, bitumen and tar and their emulsions unless they are aboard vessels securing the safety of ships or in a search and rescue operation, and ships owned and operated by governments such as naval vessels, auxiliaries and research vessels.

The Australian Antarctic Division administers the Australian Antarctic Territory and is the major Australian presence in the Antarctic. The division strongly supports the measures introduced under the resolution. Nevertheless, implementation of the resolution will have some operational and budgetary implications for its work. Given Australia's leadership in marine environment protection, it is worth noting that the research vessel chartered by the division, the RSV Aurora Australis, already uses light fuel and is therefore compliant with the treaty. Australia's stations in the Antarctic are also compliant.

The division also contracts Russian flagged vessels to provide logistic support for its Australian Arctic program. These vessels are large, specialised, ice-strengthened cargo vessels, which, unfortunately, operate on intermediate fuel oil which will be banned under the treaty. However, the division has advised the committee that the fleet of ice-strengthened cargo vessels is nearing 30 years old, which is the usual end of a ship's life. The division expects to see a changeover in this fleet to modern, compliant vessels in the next five years.

The committee is concerned that a large proportion of vessels operating in Antarctic waters will be exempt from the prohibition on the basis that they are operated by governments. We believe the Australian Maritime Safety Authority should monitor the number of exempt ships carrying heavy oils in the region to see whether the provisions of the exemption need tightening. I commend the report to the House.

Dr STONE (Murray) (09:54): by leave—I thank our very able chairman, the member for Wills, for his reference to this dissenting report that I and the member for Forrest have attached to the Protocol on Investment in the Australian-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement—ANZCERTA. This treaty was originally tabled on 11 May 2011. We are not, and certainly I am not, against the business of foreign investment in Australia—not at all. What we are concerned about is anything which further diminishes the transparency or scrutiny of any foreign investment proposal, and we are certainly concerned when this is done, as it appears to be, as a cost-cutting measure.

This protocol does not in fact harmonise current anomalies or increase scrutiny of investment proposals by foreign private parties between Australia and New Zealand. As I said, it diminishes scrutiny and increases the disparities which already exist between the investment potentials in Australia and New Zealand for private companies and citizens. While it presumes to be doing more, the new ANZCERTA investment protocol only focuses on significantly increasing the dollar thresholds that trigger screening in either country. The actual business of this protocol is to make sure that New Zealand enjoys the same treatment as our preferred trading partner, the United States of America, when it comes to investment protocols. With this protocol, New Zealand investors would see the threshold for the scrutiny of their proposals raised from 15 per cent of A$231 million for general investment, A$5 million for Australian heritage properties or A$50 million for commercial properties to the one all-encompassing trigger of 15 per cent of A$1.005 billion in assets for any investment by a New Zealand corporation or business.

Australians, on the other hand, would see the investment-screening threshold raised from 25 per cent of New Zealand's NZ$100 million to 25 per cent of NZ$477 million. The New Zealand Overseas Investment Office would retain its current 'sensitive assets' criteria, so in effect this protocol does not at all give a level playing field to the two countries' investment. The argument for that is that New Zealand has a much smaller economy and investment by Australians in New Zealand is, at this point in time, substantially greater than the reverse.

I have to say, however, that the protocol does not address different percentages of investment triggering scrutiny or the levels of proposed investment triggering screening. Neither does it deal with the different definitions of so called 'sensitive assets' in New Zealand, which include rural land over five hectares and any waterfront property, or Australia's prescribed 'sensitive areas', which include media, telecommunications, transport, defence related industries and uranium but not rural land or waterfront land. Those disparities would continue under this new so-called 'harmonising protocol'. As well, New Zealand citizen investors are given a special visa category which exempts them from Australia's residential property investment conditions. However, the same does not occur for Australian citizen investors in New Zealand. They will continue to be restricted by certain criteria, for example, in regard to water frontage and farmland over five hectares.

The New Zealand OIO also charges a significant application fee of some NZ$12,000. Australia does not charge anything at all. This is another anomaly which has not been considered. New Zealand Treasury has calculated the protocol as proposed would substantially reduce the current costs for investment in business assets by around two-thirds. But it would appear that this will largely come from Australian businesses less frequently triggering the New Zealand OIO application fees, and fewer New Zealand investors triggering the Australian thresholds. Therefore, this saving comes at a cost of less scrutiny and transparency for either country. It cannot be seen as a savings carrying a benefit of increased efficiency or effectiveness or ensuring the national interests of both countries are preserved. Australia accepted the conditions of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement for screening of non-government investment in Australia by US corporations or businesses. This is now the standard to be offered to New Zealand as the equivalent of USA preferred status. However, that Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement hardly had generous conditions for Australia and it was not reciprocated nor harmonised with the United States criteria. The USA, for example, has no formal dollar threshold triggering screening of private investment but instead requires voluntary notification of any proposed investment which may trigger national security sensitivities.

It seems we still have not learned much then about equal or reciprocal bilateral trade arrangements or increasing transparency and accountability. In particular, article 8, the senior management and board of directors section of the new protocol, provides that neither party may restrict the nationality or residence of the senior management or board members of an enterprise of that party who plans to invest. We are concerned that such an arrangement could lead to a diminishing of Australia's national interest if board members or senior management are not resident in either country and do not have Australian or New Zealand nationality but still get to enjoy the preferential investment-screening treatment.

In summary, the only new obligation imposed by this new protocol on investment to the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement is the requirement that Australia substantially increases the thresholds before screening of New Zealand private sector investment proposals occurs. Fees charged are not harmonised and special considerations are not aligned. Given the growing public disquiet about the lack of transparency and accounting for foreign investment in Australia, especially for farming land and manufacturing, now is not the time to simply raise the bar to save costs by triggering less scrutiny, assessment of national interest and accountability. In fact, I believe we need to urgently review our non-government foreign investment triggers for scrutiny and our definition of 'national interest', in particular to include consideration of Australian food production capacity. Because of those points, we cannot support this protocol.

Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (10:02): I had only 30 seconds last night. I will continue on the substance of the National Health Reform Amendment (National Health Performance Authority) Bill 2011 and the range of amendments that are emerging not only from me but also from the coalition and the government, which has some substantial amendments. I am not opposed to establishing a national health performance authority as a concept. I think it is an important contribution to national health and hospital reform that this House and Australia have been chasing now for at the very least three years. To have in concept form a body to monitor the performance of all aspects of that health and hospital system is a sensible and much needed part of the oversight and scrutiny in regard to the health reform agenda on behalf of Australian taxpayers.

However, having said that, we are seeing before our eyes now some changes with regard to what was introduced in this parliament under the guise of the Health Performance Authority and now, with substantial government amendments, some substantial changes to the concept that was introduced, arguably even to the point where we could build a case that it is a separate bill altogether in structure. The amendments are so substantial in the way they change this from what started out as a national performance authority to what is now a gaggle of states authority. The command and control really is residing once again back in the hands of the states and territories. Back in 2008, when we started this journey, really largely the point of the exercise was to find a way for the Commonwealth to directly fund that resource and give the local health district networks or their equivalents around Australia much greater command, control and autonomy on the ground. That was the model when this bill was introduced in the House in the last session. The principle still stood and health and hospital reform generally was looking to still be on track.

I urge every member and anyone listening to this debate to focus not necessarily on the bill itself but on the 29 government amendments to their own legislation that they put before the House several months ago. The concern is in those amendments and how much has been given with regard to state clawback and the use of COAG as a Trojan Horse on behalf of the states once again wanting to get command and control of a system that they considered was under threat through what was, and hopefully still is, a very good and important reform for Australia in tidying up and essentially nationalising our health and hospital system in Australia.

In relation to the amendments before the House, the coalition's second reading amendment will be the first we will deal with. It states the coalition's desire for the House to decline to give the bill a second reading until:

(1)      provisions establishing the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority, including its functions and responsibilities, are presented to the House for its consideration …

I can understand the coalition's desire to want all of the health and hospital reform brought in globo and have us deal with it all at once. I hope that is the desire. From my reading of this, I think the link is tenuous at best to the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority. Health and hospital reform in some form is happening in a range of bills and my reading of this second reading amendment is that it is the continuation of the policy of wanting to be slow and difficult on all policy if not in control of the government benches. So I will not be supporting the second reading amendment from the coalition.

With regard to the in-detail stage, I will be putting forward an amendment concerning the reporting requirements of the health reform agenda and the National Health Performance Authority. This was put to the House committee that looked at this issue with regard to how the authority reports: does it report directly to the minister or should it also have some obligations to report to parliament? My perspective—and I am pleased that the House committee also supported these considerations—is that the authority should have responsibility to report as soon as practicable to the parliament so that reporting is not part of a game by the executive to release bad news the day before Christmas or to get up to any other tricks that everyone in this place knows can get played when governments are behaving badly. The authority should have some tight time frames for reporting and some clear and specific obligations for reporting to parliament and therefore to all of the 150 members and indirectly to 150 communities around Australia. I am hopeful of support for the amendment. I think that it is a small but important reflection on the role and status that parliament itself plays in the transparency process that delivers better policy outcomes for all of us.

There will also be a batch of 29 amendments that the government is introducing to their own legislation. It is here that I have most concern, and I will speak again in the in-detail stage. This is really where the dumbing down of this legislation is taking place, in my view. As I said at the start, whilst we are regarding these amendments as being an inch better than where we were before, we are still a mile short of where we could or should have been with health reform and the agenda that has been going on for the last three years. That is where the disappointment lies, in the lost opportunity of reform and allowing a performance authority, unfettered, with independence, to truly assess data from all states and territories of all hospitals regardless of who the direct authority is, so that we can get some direct benchmarking and some clear direction on who is or is not performing in health and hospital services today. In my view, the amendments that the government is introducing are tying the hands of the performance authority and really making it subservient to the states' authority.

That has been a big part of the problem to date that I thought the reform agenda was trying to resolve, and in the whole negotiation of trying to get all the states and territories on board there has actually been a compromise too far. I understand that negotiation and compromise have their place but I do not think that the balance has been struck. I think that compromise with the states has really given command and control back to the state and territory authorities to potentially continue to behave in an inefficient and less than value-for-money way than we desire.

I think I heard another speaker talk about the performance authority as a consequence being a 'toothless tiger'. I hope that is not the case and that is why I will continue to support the substance of the bill, because we have inched forward slightly. But I do think that it is a neutered tiger. I think that through this process it has lost a lot of its authority to truly assess the performance of health and hospital services across the board in Australia on behalf of Australian people with data that is given to the parliament and to the people without fear or favour, without any washing by any states or territories, without any tricks or political games with talk of various turnarounds of work schedules or how early the documents have to be given to state and territory health ministers so that they can get their guns loaded in response and without the use of COAG as the body to really hide a Trojan Horse for this re-emergence of state and territory command and control. I am very uncomfortable with those government amendments and will not be supporting those when it comes down to the in-detail stage.

I hope—and I flag and I warn—that this whole exercise is different from the recently signed health and hospital reform agreement documents and that this is not symptomatic of what is to come through legislation. I hope there is not going to be a range of legislation that sees the states claw back control three years after the beginning of a very good and very important reform agenda.

In 2008, in the previous parliament when the government was a majority government, I was still a very strong advocate for the importance of this reform. The then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, sat in the tea room of a local hospital, the Port Macquarie Base Hospital, and talked at length with the medical staff at the hospital and listened closely to discussion on the importance of the principles of the two Es—efficiency and equity. That is all I and communities such as mine have sought through this process, namely, efficiency being rewarded in the system and equity. Those services performing over and above should be rewarded. Currently in the funding models they are not, so that inefficiency, in many ways, gets rewarded. The resource distribution model controlled by the states does not deliver equity, particularly to rural and remote communities and to high-growth areas. Both are traditionally behind equity in the delivery of resources and funding.

The National Rural Health Alliance put a figure of $1 billion a year based on a failed model of the states resource distribution formulas not making it to where, on the state's own funding formulas, it should. It is a disgrace. It is one of the great failures of Australian public policy at the moment and it is the fundamental reason that reform is so important and that we need to be eyeballing the states rather than being subservient to them.

What I am seeing in these amendments that have come through whilst this bill is before the House is in my view too much compromise with those that are too much to blame for the problem—the very reason that we are reforming. So I would hope this is not the first of many. I hope this is a one-off where, for a whole range of reasons that I am probably not aware of, the states got a great big win through the range of amendments that have come in and Australian taxpayers as a consequence in my view got a great big loss.

I would hope that in upcoming legislation attached to the health and hospital reform agenda we do see the Commonwealth actually stepping up and sticking true to what the reform agenda was in 2008—that is, to start to have a Commonwealth funding authority working directly with local command and control. It is a sensible concept; let's deliver it.

Ms ROXON (Gellibrand—Minister for Health and Ageing) (10:16): I would like to thank the very many members who have spoken on this bill from both sides of the House. It would be fair to say from listening to the contributions that people feel very strongly about making sure that our hospitals can deliver for local communities. The member for Lyne, the final speaker on the bill, is a very passionate advocate for making sure that his local community is well looked after. I can indicate to the member for Lyne that the government will be supporting his amendment when the opportunity comes for that. However, I do need to indicate to him and to the House that we fundamentally disagree with his assessment of what the amendments mean. I will be addressing that in more detail when I move those amendments.

Let me go to the summing-up and deal with those issues first and then for the convenience of the House I might mention that we intend to move the amendments together as a group. The National Health Reform Amendment (National Health Performance Authority) Bill 2011 establishes a key element of the Australian government's health reform agenda. (Quorum formed) I am sure that members are delighted to be here to know that the National Health Performance Authority will act as a watchdog over the performance of both public and private hospitals, local hospital networks and Medicare Locals. It will regularly report comparative information on the performance of these bodies and give the public information in respect of consistently poor performance. Performance monitoring will support the improvement in healthcare delivery, safety and quality by all of these services. Poor performance will be identified to allow for remediation and superior performance will be identified to allow for the dissemination of best practice approaches.

The establishment of the authority is a key part of the health reform agreement signed by all states and territories this month. We then introduced the legislation into this House in order to meet the time frames of the February COAG meeting but also were open to consider amendments which might be suggested from the states, the committee inquiry in this place or the Senate committee inquiry. State and territory health ministers agreed to the detail of the legislation and how it will interact with their health systems at a meeting of the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council on 7 June. Amendments to reflect the detail of this agreement were distributed by the government in the last session of parliament.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Would those members who are still standing out of their place and having little discussions either do that outside or resume their place in the chamber.

Ms ROXON: I will be moving amendments in the committee stage of the bill. These also reflect amendments suggested by the Senate committee inquiry. The amendments will bring about a firm partnership between the Commonwealth and the states and territories in their endeavour to deliver better healthcare services to all Australians. The amendments to the bill will enshrine the independence of the authority giving it the ability to appoint its own chief executive officer as well as the power to remove that person in the case of poor performance or misconduct. Amendments will also foster greater cooperation with the states through consultation on the authority's strategic plan, consultation about reports of poor performance and the designation of local hospital networks. This shows that the government is committed to work with all jurisdictions on health reform and deliver an outcome that will put more information in the hands of Australian patients. I thank those members who have made constructive contributions to this debate. However, unfortunately, a number of members of the opposition have used their time to simply complain and criticise rather than to outline any plans they would use to deliver improvements to the health system. They have been consistently silent on their vision, except for a policy to wreak havoc on and cut health services.

It is a fact that this bill delivers on reforms that the Leader of the Opposition once talked about but never had the capacity to deliver. On 9 May 2008 he said the Howard government:

… would have empowered the public by requiring the states to publish detailed information about the specific performance of hospitals.

… … …

In return for continued funding increases, each state would have been required to provide detailed quarterly reports on the precise number and type of services delivered at each public hospital and to provide detailed quarterly reports on adverse events at each hospital.

So, while the opposition has an 'oppose everything' strategy, by not supporting this bill they will be opposing something that their leader himself once called for—although did not achieve in 11½ years.

We are now seeing the opposition, having no ideas of its own, continuing to play the easy game of trying to frustrate the government's significant reforms. This was highlighted earlier this year when the shadow minister took a similar approach in regard to the bill to establish the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, a body originally established, temporarily, by the Leader of the Opposition. Now we have had a bill before the House for some months, scrutinised and endorsed by committees in both the House and the Senate, and the best the opposition can come up with is saying that we should sit on it and not establish this important watchdog agency.

The shadow minister clearly knows that this agency is a key part of the health reform agenda and that this legislation has been endorsed by all the states and territories, including three Liberal states. He also clearly knows that this agency will have a watchdog role in scrutinising the performance of health services, whereas the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority will have a completely different role, an important technical and financial role, in determining the official price for hospital services. Rather than trying to wreck every bill, it might be worth the opposition's time to develop at least one health policy of its own.

Our government is determined to pursue the tough reforms, particularly when they involve more transparency for the Australian public. Standing on the shoulders of My School, My Hospitals and the work of the National Health Performance Authority, this agency will deliver for Australians unprecedented levels of nationally comparable information. It will also be a watchdog to detect poor performance in our public and private hospitals and primary care sector. I thank members for their contributions, my officials for their hard work and the states for their cooperation with these reforms. Question put:

That the amendment be agreed to.

The House divided. [10:30]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time.

Ms ROXON (Gellibrand—Minister for Health and Ageing) (10:38): I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill, and I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (29) together.

Leave granted.

Ms ROXON: I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 15, page 5 (line 25), omit "For the purposes of paragraph (b), body includes a part of a body.", substitute "If a body is established by or under a law of a State, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory, the Minister must not specify the body in an instrument under paragraph (b) without the written agreement of the State/Territory Health Minister of the State or Territory, as the case may be. For the purposes of this definition (other than paragraph (a)), body includes a part of a body.".

(2) Schedule 1, item 29, page 8 (line 17), at the end of the definition of public hospital, add "If a facility is situated in a State, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory, the Minister must not specify the facility in such an instrument without the written agreement of the State/Territory Health Minister of the State or Territory, as the case may be.".

(3) Schedule 1, item 130, page 24 (after line 25), at the end of Part 3.1, add:

58A Role of State/Territory Health Ministers as health system managers

(1) The Parliament acknowledges the role of State/Territory Health Ministers as health system managers in relation to local hospital networks and public hospitals.

(2) The Parliament intends that the Performance Authority should, in performing a function that is relevant to:

   (a)   a local hospital network in a State, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory; or

   (b)   a public hospital in a State, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory;

have regard to the role of the State/Territory Health Minister of the State or Territory, as the case may be, as the health system manager in relation to local hospital networks and public hospitals.

(4) Schedule 1, item 130, page 25 (line 33), at the end of paragraph 60(1)(f), add "with the agreement of COAG".

(5) Schedule 1, item 130, page 26 (after line 7), after subsection 60(2), insert:

(2A)   Subparagraph (1)(a)(v) does not apply to a particular body or organisation unless:

   (a)   COAG has agreed that that subparagraph should apply to the body or organisation; or

   (b)   both:

      (i)   COAG has agreed that that subparagraph should apply to a class of bodies or organisations; and

      (ii)   the body or organisation is included in that class.

(2B)   COAG is to give its agreement for the purposes of paragraph (2A)(a) or subparagraph (2A)(b)(i) by a written resolution of COAG passed in accordance with the procedures determined by COAG.

(6) Schedule 1, item 130, page 26 (after line 15), after subsection 60(3), insert:

(3A)   COAG is to give its agreement for the purposes of paragraph (1)(f) by a written resolution of COAG passed in accordance with the procedures determined by COAG.

(7) Schedule 1, item 130, page 27 (lines 5 to 23), omit section 62, substitute:

62 Additional provisions about reports

Scope

(1) This section applies to a report prepared by the Performance Authority under paragraph 60(1)(a) if the report indicates poor performance by any of the following entities or facilities:

   (a)   a local hospital network;

   (b)   a public hospital;

   (c)   a private hospital;

   (d)   a primary health care organisation;

   (e)   any other body or organisation that provides health care services.

Objects

(2) The primary object of this section is to assist State/Territory Health Ministers in carrying out their role as health system managers in relation to local hospital networks and public hospitals.

(3) The secondary object of this section is to authorise appropriate consultation in relation to the preparation of the report.

Local hospital networks and public hospitals—consultation with State/Territory Health Ministers

(4) If the report indicates poor performance by:

   (a)   a local hospital network in a State, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory; or

   (b)   a public hospital in a State, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory;

then, before completing the preparation of the report, the Performance Authority must:

   (c)   give a copy of a draft of the report to the State/Territory Health Minister of the State or Territory, as the case may be; and

   (d)   invite the State/Territory Health Minister to give the Performance Authority written comments about the draft report within 30 days after receiving the draft report; and

   (e)   have regard to any comments given by the State/Territory Health Minister within the 30-day period mentioned in paragraph (d).

(5) If the Performance Authority gives a copy of a draft of the report to a State/Territory Health Minister under subsection (4), then, before completing the preparation of the report, the Performance Authority must:

   (a)   give a copy of the final draft of the report to the State/Territory Health Minister (even if the final draft is the same as the draft given under subsection (4)); and

   (b)   invite the State/Territory Health Minister to give the Performance Authority written comments about the final draft within 15 days after receiving the final draft; and

   (c)   have regard to any comments given by the State/Territory Health Minister within the 15-day period mentioned in paragraph (b).

Local hospital networks and public hospitals—final draft to be given to manager of entity or facility on an "information-only" basis

(6) If the report indicates poor performance by:

   (a)   a local hospital network in a State, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory; or

   (b)   a public hospital in a State, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory;

then, at least 15 days before completing the preparation of the report, the Performance Authority must give a copy of the final draft of the report to the manager of the network or hospital. The manager of the network or hospital is not entitled to give the Performance Authority any comments about the final draft.

Consultation—general

(7) Before completing the preparation of the report, the Performance Authority may consult such persons and bodies as it considers appropriate.

(8) However, if the report indicates poor performance by:

   (a)   a local hospital network in a State, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory; or

   (b)   a public hospital in a State, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory;

the Performance Authority must not consult, and is not otherwise obliged to observe any requirements of procedural fairness in relation to:

   (c)   in the case of a local hospital network:

      (i)   the manager of the network; or

      (ii)   an employee of the network; or

      (iii)   the manager of a facility that belongs to the network; or

      (iv)   an employee of a facility that belongs to the network; or

      (v)   any other person who provides services in a facility that belongs to the network; or

   (d)   in the case of a public hospital:

      (i)   the manager of the hospital; or

      (ii)   an employee of the hospital; or

      (iii)   any other person who provides services in the hospital.

(8)   Schedule 1, item 130, page 29 (after line 24), after section 66, insert:

66A Policy principles—COAG

(1) COAG may give written policy principles to the Performance Authority about the performance of the Performance Authority's functions.

Note:   For variation and revocation, see subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

(2) The policy principles are to be given in accordance with a written resolution of COAG passed in accordance with the procedures determined by COAG.

(3) The Performance Authority must publish a copy of the policy principles on its website.

(4) The Performance Authority must not perform its functions in a manner that is inconsistent with the policy principles (if any).

(5) The policy principles are not legislative instruments.

(9)   Schedule 1, item 130, page 38 (line 30), omit "Minister.", substitute "Minister; or".

(10)   Schedule 1, item 130, page 38 (after line 30), at the end of subsection 90(3), add:

   (c)   a function or power under Part 3.7.

(11)   Schedule 1, item 130, page 39 (line 21), omit "Minister", substitute "Performance Authority".

(12)   Schedule 1, item 130, page 39 (line 24), omit "Minister must consult the Performance Authority", substitute "Performance Authority must consult the Minister".

(13)   Schedule 1, item 130, page 40 (line 4), omit "Minister", substitute "Performance Authority".

(14)   Schedule 1, item 130, page 40 (line 28), omit "Minister", substitute "Performance Authority".

(15)   Schedule 1, item 130, page 41 (line 10), omit "Minister", substitute "Performance Authority".

(16)   Schedule 1, item 130, page 41 (line 12), omit "Minister determines", substitute "Performance Authority determines with the written agreement of the Minister".

(17)   Schedule 1, item 130, page 41 (line 21), omit "Minister", substitute "Performance Authority".

(18)   Schedule 1, item 130, page 41 (line 23), omit "Minister", substitute "Performance Authority".

(19)   Schedule 1, item 130, page 41 (lines 25 and 26), omit "Minister must notify the Performance Authority", substitute "Performance Authority must notify the Minister".

(20)   Schedule 1, item 130, page 41 (line 28), omit "Minister", substitute "Performance Authority".

(21)   Schedule 1, item 130, page 41 (after line 29), after subsection 100(1), insert:

(1A)   The Performance Authority may terminate the appointment of the Performance Authority CEO if the Performance Authority is satisfied that the Performance Authority CEO's performance has been unsatisfactory.

(22)   Schedule 1, item 130, page 42 (line 1), omit "Minister", substitute "Performance Authority".

(23)   Schedule 1, item 130, page 42 (line 16), omit "Minister", substitute "Performance Authority".

(24)   Schedule 1, item 130, page 42 (line 19), omit "Minister must consult the Performance Authority", substitute "Performance Authority must consult the Minister".

(25)   Schedule 1, item 130, page 42 (line 23), omit "determined by the Minister", substitute "determined by the Performance Authority with the written agreement of the Minister".

(26)   Schedule 1, item 130, page 47 (after line 11), after subsection 112(3), insert:

(3A)   Before completing the preparation of the plan, the Performance Authority must:

   (a)   give a copy of a draft of the plan to each State/Territory Health Minister; and

   (b)   invite the State/Territory Health Minister to give the Performance Authority written comments about the draft plan within 30 days after receiving the draft plan; and

   (c)   have regard to any comments given by the State/Territory Health Minister within the 30-day period mentioned in paragraph (b).

(27)   Schedule 1, item 130, page 49 (after line 24), after section 116, insert:

116A Disclosure to a State/Territory Health Minister

      An official of the Performance Authority may disclose protected Performance Authority information to a State/Territory Health Minister.

(28)   Schedule 1, item 130, page 49 (lines 25 to 27), omit section 117.

(29)   Schedule 1, item 132, page 55 (lines 15 to 28), omit the item, substitute:

132 Appointment of acting Performance Authority CEO

(1) The Minister may, before the end of the 6-month period beginning at the commencement of this item, appoint a person to act as the Performance Authority CEO during a vacancy in the office of the Performance Authority CEO, so long as no appointment has previously been made to the office.

(2) An appointment under subitem (1) is to be made by written instrument.

(3) Anything done by or in relation to a person purporting to act under an appointment under subitem (1) is not invalid merely because:

   (a)   the occasion for the appointment had not arisen; or

   (b)   there was a defect or irregularity in connection with the appointment; or

   (c)   the appointment had ceased to have effect; or

   (d)   the occasion to act had not arisen or had ceased.

Note:   For more about acting appointments, see sections 20 and 33A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

(4) If a person is acting as the Performance Authority CEO in accordance with an appointment under subitem (1), the Performance Authority must not appoint anyone, under subsection 94(1) of the National Health Reform Act 2011, to act as the Performance Authority CEO.

(5) If, immediately before the end of the 6-month period beginning at the commencement of this item, a person is acting as the Performance Authority CEO in accordance with an appointment under subitem (1), the appointment is terminated at the end of that 6-month period.

(6) Subitem (5) does not prevent the person from being appointed by the Performance Authority, under subsection 94(1) of the National Health Reform Act 2011, to act as the Performance Authority CEO after the end of that 6-month period.

As mentioned in my summing-up speech, these amendments take into account the resolution of a meeting of health ministers that was held on 7 June which supported in principle this legislation with these amendments. It is very important to note that these amendments give the National Health Performance Authority the power to appoint and dismiss its own CEO; set mechanisms for notification of poor performance to states and territories, local hospital networks and hospitals; deal with the definition of public hospitals and local hospital networks; consult the states on the strategic plan; allow for disclosure of information to state ministers; and deal with the act's functions.

It is not right, as the member for Lyne and on occasions the opposition have put it, that these changes give the states power to do what they want in hospitals. Nothing could be further from the truth. This bill, with these amendments, will introduce the most rigorous performance measures that have ever existed in Australia's history for our hospital system. That is of course why the states fought hard to make sure that the detail was practical. As systems managers of our hospital system, they would be aware of and responsible for the fixing of problems within our hospital system—something I would think all members would be keen to support.

These amendments have, by the nature of the process for getting agreement through a COAG arrangement, been subject to extensive consultation with my state and territory colleagues. They also address issues that were raised through the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee hearing. These amendments will ensure that the act has the support and cooperation of state governments so that the authority can properly undertake its role as a watchdog of public hospital, local hospital network, private hospital and Medicare Locals performance.

By addressing these amendments we will achieve what has long been wished for in the Australian health system: independent, hospital-by-hospital reporting of performance. I cannot think of anything that is a better indicator of how we will improve performance year after year after year than making sure that we have an independent system which assesses the performance of each hospital and allows us to make sure that those that are underperforming improve and those that are doing well can be copied around the country. I am very proud of these amendments and the bill as a whole. I think it is a historic part of our agreement, and I think the view that the states and territories might occasionally like to have put in the media that they had a big win on this just is not supported by the evidence of what is in this bill and these amendments. I commend these amendments to the House.

Mr DUTTON (Dickson) (10:42): Since I last contributed to this debate on the National Health Reform Amendment (National Health Performance Authority) Bill, significant developments have taken place. The most significant development is that the states have completely and utterly won out in this debate against the Commonwealth. I want the House to understand—and I am going to ask the Minister for Health and Ageing some questions in a moment but I think the Australian public has seen it for what it is— that what has taken place here is that the Prime Minister was desperate to claim to the public that she had had a win. This Prime Minister was desperate over the break to try and flick the switch away from the carbon tax and she was wanting to say to the Australian people that on health reform the Commonwealth was able to strike a deal.

Let us look at the circumstances under which the Commonwealth has been able to strike this deal, and some of it has been discussed in the contribution of the member for Lyne. Essentially, the government has agreed to continue business as usual in Australia's 750 public hospitals in return for the agreement of the states—in particular, the states that held out, namely, Western Australia and, to a lesser extent, Victoria. It has meant a huge bucket of money. The states have got a huge amount of money and there are 29 amendments to this legislation to try and accommodate the capitulation of the Commonwealth to the states. So the Commonwealth again has got itself into a financial bind where this incompetent federal government has said to the state premiers, 'To get a signature on the paper we will do whatever it takes.'

Could you imagine negotiating any sort of business contract in the real world on this basis? Go to BHP and say, 'We are desperate to do a deal with you and, whatever condition you put in the contract, know that we will sign it.' That is basically what has happened here. This government is desperate and on its knees, and it cannot manage money. In trying to give the public the perception that some sort of grand health deal has been done, the Commonwealth has sold out not only this government but also future governments. Future legislators in this place will be bound to this incompetent and lazy deal. It is not good for parliament, it is not good for the Australian people and, most importantly and it is not good for the doctors and nurses that work in public hospitals or, indeed, the patients who access the services. I think it is right that this minister is condemned yet again for the latest failing in the so-called health reform debate.

I might say as part of this contribution that I welcomed some of the words from the member for Lyne, who I think has a genuine interest in the area of health reform. The sincerity stops, I am afraid to say, where the member for Lyne—in spite of having made all of those statements before: that this is bad legislation; that basically the Rudd vision that he was tied up to, quite willingly, has now been abandoned; that the states have won out; and that we are going to have business as usual at a huge cost to the Australian taxpayer—is still going to support this legislation. I think it is disappointing because, as I said, I think he does have a genuine belief in wanting to reform our health system—as we all do.

But we are not going to get that if we end up with the government's own legislation being amended 29 times before the bill has even passed the parliament. Just to put that into context: this is a government that has had to amend its own bill in 29 different areas. Basically, it completely undermines the intent of the original bill. The intent of the original bill was to vest certain powers in the Commonwealth so that we could drive efficiency, productivity and changes in the hospitals, which are owned and managed by the state governments. The member for Lyne has said, 'I'm going to oppose these amendments because I think they weaken the original bill'. He is not going to oppose them, knowing that the other Independents will support his position so that ultimately the amendments would go down. The member for Lyne has decided ultimately to support the bill, which I think undermines credibility in this debate. I think that it has to be put on the record, because I suspect that the member for Lyne would not oppose these amendments if the member for Lyne knew that he could possibly defeat them.

In this debate people should really put their cards on the table, because this is bad legislation. The member for Lyne, who, as I said, does have a genuine interest in health reform, acknowledges that this is just the latest example of a failure to deliver on health reform in this country. I would like to ask the minister: can this minister point to anywhere in this legislation where the Commonwealth has the final say in relation to any aspect of the bill before the House?

Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (10:47): I will talk specifically about the amendments, but I cannot let the somewhat obsessed commentary on my sincerity go without a response.

I am here participating in this debate with sincerity for the right outcomes, as I hope all members of this chamber are.

Mr Dutton: Well, vote against the bill!

Mr OAKESHOTT: If you listened closely to what I said: I said that with regard to the substance of the bill I think it is an inch further than where we were before, but it is a mile short of where we could be. In language that is as simple as I can possibly make it, it is a step forward but it is a lost opportunity for where we could be. If you think that fails a sincerity test then I think that is a disappointment that reflects poorly on you, sir, the member for Dickson, in your running commentary in a partisan way.

Mr Dutton: Why don't you hold out and get a better deal?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr KJ Thomson ): Order! The member for Dickson was heard in silence. He will extend the same courtesy.

Mr OAKESHOTT: And in response to the interjection as to why I am running a commentary on the member for Dickson, it is in response to his running commentary on me. I would not have commented otherwise.

With regard to the amendments before the House: I think they are a watering down of where we could be. In fact, I like the substance of the legislation and the bill that was originally put before the House. That is the bill I want to support, not reject, as the member for Dickson seems confused about. I want to support a National Health Performance Authority that is unfettered in its business in the way it works through the various hospital and health providers and reports accordingly for good or for bad.

I understand administrative principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, particularly in relation to individuals who work within the public sector—in fact, for all Australian citizens. I think that principle does not stand as much for state bodies that may feel aggrieved if there is a poor performance report around a particular hospital. These amendments seem all about what I consider to be the weak argument of procedural unfairness that has been run by the states in an effort to try to get some buy-in with regard to command and control back within the health and hospital reform agenda.

I will quote some examples. Amendment (4) to section 62:

(4) If the report indicates poor performance by:

   (a) a local hospital network in a State, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory; or

   (b) a public hospital in a State, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory;

Then there is this process where a copy of the draft of the report has to be given to the state or health minister; there has to be an invitation to the state and to the health minister to give the performance authority written comments about the draft report within 30 days; and there has to be regard to any of these comments.

If we are serious about an unfettered performance authority and genuine independence, and with reliable data—and I accept COAG reform, and McClintock and crew have been talking about poor data within many systems and the timeliness of that data—do not buy the argument that there is procedural unfairness, that the states seem to be treated unfairly if under the performance authority rules of engagement a particular hospital is found with poor performance. Based on the unfettered powers that they may have, I do not accept procedural unfairness to the state. Yes, I think we have to protect individuals—hospital managers and any of the health workforce—but as far as the states are concerned, I think they should cop it and they should do what they can to improve whatever the performance authority publicly releases either to the parliament or to any other body.

Mr Dutton: Well, move that amendment!

Mr OAKESHOTT: I am going against these amendments, member for Dickson. I cannot understand your confusion with regard to how explicit I have been. I support the original legislation before the parliament. I do not support these.

Mr Dutton: Move an amendment to strengthen it up!

Mr OAKESHOTT: I do not support these. I do not want to amend them; I do not support them. I do not understand your confusion or your interjections, sir. You will get the right to speak again, and hopefully you can explain yourself.

I also have a problem with the states having input into the work plan of the performance authority. This should be the equivalent of an integrity body that has its own work program, not one that has the states or the Commonwealth directly inputting into that work program.

Ms ROXON (Gellibrand—Minister for Health and Ageing) (10:52): I am happy to take all of the comments. This is consideration in detail. I am happy to take any objections, questions and queries that people have and deal with them all at once. I do not think that it will serve the House that well for us to prolong this if there are not new issues to discuss.

I think we need to bring some of the detailed information back to the focus of the House, and I can pick up the points that the member for Lyne is making and some that the shadow minister is making. I think people are confusing things and alleging things about the original bill that was put forward. At the time that it was put forward we clearly stated that there were still to be negotiations with the states and territories and that amendments would be moved; we said that on day one. We also acknowledged that there was a lot of interest and that there would be inquiries in both the House and the Senate, and we understood that that might lead to some changes. That is the sort of open policymaking that people ask for from governments. Yes, you could do it differently—you could have an exposure draft; you could do some negotiations first—but ultimately the parliament enables this process, and we have been pretty up-front about it. So I do not think there is anything peculiar in the way that the member for Dickson seems to be suggesting—that, because there are a lot of amendments, that is somehow a bad reflection on the process. I think it actually shows that the process, as we indicated from the beginning, has worked quite well.

But where the confusion seems to come in is that these amendments are being seen as a removal of Commonwealth power when actually what this legislation is establishing is an independent body. It is not a body that is going to be controlled by the Commonwealth. It is not a body where we are asking for final control. It is a body where we are saying that we should remove from the political agenda an assessment of performance hospital by hospital. A vast number of those 29 amendments make clear that it will be more independent from the Commonwealth than the original draft. It is not moving from the Commonwealth to the states but moving from the Commonwealth—for example, the minister having the ability to employ and dismiss the CEO—to giving the board the power to do that. I think that that actually increases the assertion that we have made from the beginning that this is an independent body. It makes it even clearer that we are serious about it being an independent role.

The example that the member for Lyne raised, which is a significant one, goes to some practical objections that the states and territories had about when they are the ones that are required to help improve a hospital facility if it is found to be lacking in performance, which is the very thing that the member raised at the end. What I want them to do if there is a performance problem is get on with fixing it. They asked that they have the opportunity, in a very short time, first to check that the data is correct—and unfortunately in health this has been a problem that has dogged the system, so I think it is not an unreasonable request from people who want to make sure data is correct—and second to be able to get on straightaway with fixing a problem while this process of reporting continues. From my perspective, for the patient that is a good thing. It means that the states are asking for that information to be given to them early so that they can respond and fix performance problems early and so that for patients we have things picked up more quickly.

I can understand that people might have some scepticism. There has been a fair bit of history in a lot of parts of the country where there is not always confidence that the states have done what they ought to in particular areas. What the Commonwealth is interested in doing with our reforms—and this legislation is a big part of it—is making much clearer the lines of responsibility of who does what, who fixes what, how we know when something needs to be fixed and how we make sure the performance is publicly available to people. And we will be. I know as the health minister that every member in this House, if their hospital is found not to be performing properly by this Health Performance Authority, will be in here asking me about what else can be done to fix it. That is how this sort of reporting drives improvements in the system.

So I do not accept the criticisms that are made. I do understand that a number of them are made totally in good faith, but this is a huge leap. It is not an inch further from where we were; it is a huge leap from where we were. I am sure that, over coming years and in the future, people will watch how the performance authority works and may well seek to improve it even further in the future.

Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (10:57): I will be brief and will just clarify any perception of confusion. I accept the minister's argument that this is the movement from the Commonwealth to an independent authority and not necessarily an ongoing running battle between the Commonwealth and the states, but I would also put on the record, Minister, that I know independence and this is not independence. That is the concern specifically about the amendments. I refer you to the policy principles of COAG at proposed section 66A, where it is COAG itself that is giving written policy principles to the performance authority about the performance of the performance authority's functions. COAG, if I read it correctly, will be a gathering of health ministers, state and federal, and therefore it remains a part of the political process. Likewise, with the similar issues around amendment (26) in regard to who decides the work plan of the performance authority, it is by agreement, as I understand it and read it, between the state and federal health ministers. That is arguably much more a political decision than an independent one.

So I fully back the concept of an independent performance authority with unfettered powers alongside an audit office, an ombudsman and inspectors-general of defence or taxation. If we are serious about establishing an independent body, it needs to be unfettered and to be genuinely removed from the political process. These 29 amendments are the political process using its claws, and particularly the states, to work against what is a very good concept as part of the health reform agenda. So no confusion, just disappointment. Maybe it is a reality of negotiations in a federated system that once again the Commonwealth takes a bullet as a consequence of having to negotiate with states. But I, as the local member representing my people in the federal parliament, in what I consider the 'common wealth' parliament, should not accept this incursion from the states once again. In 2008, it was finding ways to get around state command and control which was one of the fundamental reasons we were doing what we were doing.

Mr DUTTON (Dickson) (11:00): I welcome some of the comments in the Minister for Health and Ageing's previous contribution, but I think they go further to underscore the fact that this is a terrible deal for the Commonwealth. As we mentioned before, when Kevin Rudd won the 2007 election the promise was that hospitals would be federally funded but locally run. As a principle, that is admirable. As the member for Lyne has commented on a number of occasions, that would have been a better and more desirable outcome. But the more we look in detail at these amendments the more we see the way in which the Commonwealth has capitulated.

Far from being a federal takeover or a greater concentration of funding power to try to drive changes, this has been a takeover in reverse. The states have effectively usurped the Commonwealth's power in relation to this bill and, I suspect, many others that we will see before the parliament. I asked the minister a very specific question about in what area the Commonwealth might have a final say. The minister tried to fob that off by saying that this was an independent authority, but if you look at the government's original intent in relation to this authority certain appointments were made by the minister, by the Commonwealth, and certain obligations were imposed on the authority by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth's intent was very clearly to try to drive this performance authority so that we could see better outcomes in our public hospitals.

It is abundantly clear—and it should be clear to all Australians—that this is yet another demonstration of a bad government in action. This is a government that has locked this nation's healthcare future in mediocrity. This is a situation that is of the Prime Minister's own making. In a way I feel for the current health minister because not only was she gazumped by Prime Minister Rudd but also she has been completely sidelined by this Prime Minister. It is humiliating for a minister, particularly for a cabinet minister, when that cabinet minister is put to the side because he or she has no capacity to deliver the outcome that the Prime Minister desires. I think that is part of what has happened here. The minister cannot come before this House with a serious and sincere look on her face and say that this is what she intended out of this process.

There is no final say for the Commonwealth, as there was in the original draft of the legislation, because the states have their fingerprints all over this bill. We can have a debate about federalism and the role of the states in the health system. That debate will no doubt take place in coming years, as it has in previous years. But people should be under no illusion that this does anything to end the blame game, to fix public hospitals, to improve standards. You only have to look at the detail. There is no financial penalty. I asked the minister what happens in a situation of proven incompetence or demonstrated poor clinical outcomes in a public hospital continuing under this process. What power does the Commonwealth have, without having to consult the states or territories, to deliver some sort of financial penalty on the states? What sorts of powers does that extend to?

I know that sometimes, particularly given 29 amendments have been moved, some of the detail gets brushed over. But there is a benefit in putting on the record what some of these amendments entail. I only have a short time, but I intend to detail a couple which serve to underscore our argument that this is a bad deal. Amendment (2) goes to amend section 5. It provides a definition of public hospitals, which is fine, and adds these words:

If a facility is situated in a State, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory—

it is hard to imagine where a facility could otherwise be situated; so a public hospital anywhere in the country—

the Minister must not specify the facility in such an instrument without the written agreement of the State/Territory Health Minister of the State or Territory, as the case may be.

Ask yourself why the Commonwealth did not see fit to put those words into the original legislation, but does now. As I said, it goes to this federal government having completely given up on any reform. They were desperate to do a deal that they have surrendered everything that was going to provide capacity to improve our public hospitals which is what the Australian public demand. I have some other amendments which I will go to shortly, but I ask the minister to address directly those issues so that I can have a response to that particular question. (Time expired)

Ms ROXON (Gellibrand—Minister for Health and Ageing) (11:05): This is not a Q and A session. This is a debate on the amendments. If the shadow minister wants to tell the House his other concerns, I am happy to listen to them and respond to them when he has done so.

Mr DUTTON (Dickson) (11:05): The Minister for Health and Ageing is having difficulty. My question went in particular to what financial penalty the Commonwealth could impose without consultation with the states and territories if there has been proven clinical failure, demonstrated incompetence or a failure of management at a particular hospital. If we saw, for argument's sake, the premature birth of a baby in a public hospital toilet outside an emergency waiting room, what could the minister do under this legislation that she cannot do now? They are important questions and they go specifically to the amendments.

It is not for the minister to try to usurp the process of this parliament. The minister has to provide detailed responses. That is what the minister is obliged to do. Minister, what could you do if that happened in a public hospital today that you could not do under the previous arrangements without the aid of this legislation? I have further contributions to make.

Ms Plibersek: Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your advice on whether this is a Q and A session or Senate estimates, or whether we are now dealing with the amendments to the legislation.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr KJ Thomson ): My response is that the House is considering the bill in detail. Are there any further speakers on the question that the amendments be agreed to?

Ms ROXON (Gellibrand—Minister for Health and Ageing) (11:07): I am comfortable with providing comment on amendments if members want to raise questions on it. I am not going to allow this parliament to descend into a rambling Q and A from a shadow minister who has not asked me a question in question time for two years and is asking a question about something which is actually not the remit of this bill. He wants to know if there are financial penalties. This bill does not deal with financial arrangements between the states and territories.

This bill and the amendments deal with the reporting of poor performance. He might want to ask, if there is that poor performance, what other sorts of financial impacts are there? But he cannot turn this debate into a general Q and A session when he cannot get through his own tactics people a question in question time and has not bothered to ask me a question about health or health reform for two years in question time. He cannot now come in here and try to use this for a rambling discussion about a whole range of other things.

What we have before us is a detailed bill which is a fundamental change to the way that performance is going to be reported about our hospitals. It is going to provide much more information to the public and it is going to have a much more rigorous assessment process so that states and territories are not able to have poor data or, in an even worse scenario, have it somehow presented in a way which is fraudulent, as unfortunately we have seen with a couple of reported cases in various hospitals across the country. No state or territory wants that to happen either, so this is now a process, and, with the amendments, is an agreed procedure between the states and the territories.

I am very comfortable that it gives the new independent authority far-reaching power to do things that have never been done in our federation before. I accept that there are people in this House, and the member for Lyne is clearly one of them, who think that they are good steps but would like it to go even further. I accept that there are people who have that view, and I would imagine that there are people in that category who—once this bill is passed, if it is passed, and once the authority is set up—will be campaigners who will see what it delivers and will want to argue for further change into the future.

But that is different to coming in here, as the federal opposition is doing, and having a general spray about every issue that they are frustrated about not being able to raise elsewhere and expecting me to enter into a debate with them about it. There are other forums of this House. Bring on a matter of public importance. Do some work yourself and move an amendment, rather than interjecting that the member for Lyne should move one if he feels strongly about this. Where are yours on that, if you think this is such an important issue? Let us actually use the parliament for what is intended. We are clearly going to have to agree to disagree. We get an opportunity to vote on these amendments.

I understood, when I came into the House and asked the shadow minister if he was voting for these amendments, that he said yes. Now he has a whiff that the member for Lyne is not, so the opposition have changed their minds and now are not voting for the amendments. This is the sort of policymaking that the federal opposition are into. They are not actually reading the bill. They are not making a decision about whether this is good or bad policy. They are looking at the politics. They think that if they have got one Independent they will be able to knock off this bill and that might be an embarrassment to the government, so they will jump on it.

None of this is to do with any desire that the shadow minister has for hospitals to improve their services across the country. I am very confident that this bill, if enacted, will deliver fundamental change to the way we report hospital performance across the country. It is on that basis that I commend the bill to the House, and I think that if the shadow minister does not have anything to say that is relevant to this debate then we should put the question that these amendments be agreed to.

Mr DUTTON (Dickson) (11:11): Just to clarify a couple of facts in this debate, I have been asking questions on health in this place. I have asked them of the Prime Minister over the course of the last two years because we cannot get a straight answer out of this health minister. We moved an amendment in relation to this bill only a few minutes ago. I am not sure if the minister recalls that debate and, in fact, that vote. If it rings a bell, Minister, we did move an amendment, which the government, of course, did not support.

I want the minister to provide in detail some response, as is required in this debate by any standard. The minister put before that essentially I wanted answers but then provided no answer. This is a performance authority, yes, but if there is not performance, what is the penalty? Is there a financial penalty that is imposed? Is money withheld? Can you demand from a state health minister particular outcomes at particular hospitals?

What happens, Minister, if we see a tragic situation occur in a public hospital in a month's time after this legislation receives royal assent? How does that differ from your response today? What is the purpose of this legislation if you cannot direct change in our public hospitals? What is the purpose, if you have surrendered every aspect of responsibility that the Commonwealth wanted from this piece of legislation and you have provided that to the state and territory ministers? What has all of this debate been about over the course of the last three or four years, where the Labor Party have said that they want to fix public hospitals? That is a promise that has long been abandoned.

Can the minister answer the question? If performance does not improve—in fact, if it deteriorates—in a public hospital somewhere in the country, what can she do as a result of this legislation? These are basic questions that the minister continues to refuse to answer. If people can look to this government and see any sincerity in what it is they are proposing by this legislation then I think the minister needs to get to her feet now and answer these reasonable questions so that we can at least have some faith that we are moving forwards and not backwards.

Ms ROXON (Gellibrand—Minister for Health and Ageing) (11:14): I think we are going to be in for a very long and unedifying toing and froing, because I am answering the shadow minister's question by explaining to him that this piece of legislation does not deal with financial penalties to the states. It did not when we introduced it into the House and it does not with the amendments that are moved today. This is a fundamental misunderstanding by the shadow minister of the purpose of performance reporting. The purpose of performance reporting is not solely to be able to deal with one isolated, tragic incident that might occur in a particular hospital. We all know that the reality of people being unwell and presenting at hospitals can have tragic consequences. This is about moving beyond one isolated, tragic circumstance and looking at how we actually lift the standard across the board, across hospital services and across each and every hospital in the country. This sets up a system that enables us to provide information that is collected at arm's length and rigorously checked and therefore can be held up to the states, as systems managers order the local hospital networks to say: 'This is your performance. Look how it compares to everybody else's. You need to lift your game, and we will give you resources to do this and we'll do a whole range of other things.'

The shadow minister for health cannot come in here and ignore every other part of the health reform bill and use this as an opportunity to have a general spray at the government. I know he does not agree with a whole range of things. Frankly, I am a little bit surprised to hear him say that he is now a big advocate of the reforms that were proposed by Prime Minister Rudd, because I seem to remember him and his leader in here ranting and raving, opposing them. Now that an agreement has been struck with every state and territory leader—which is different from but maintains the fundamentals that were put forward by Prime Minister Rudd—they are now actually advocates for that.

Those opposite have no idea what sort of health policy they would adopt if they were in government. They did not take any policy to the last election and they are not formulating any that they are making clear here. Whilst I am happy to answer genuine questions about matters that relate to this bill and the amendments, it is not an opportunity to raise each and every other issue. I cannot be clearer in answering the question: this bill and these amendments do not go to any financial arrangements between the states and the Commonwealth.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr KJ Thomson ): The question is that the amendments be agreed to. I hope the minister and the shadow minister have something new to contribute; that would be helpful.

Mr DUTTON (Dickson) (11:16): If we could see something new in this debate that provided us with some promise, some hope—even a slight glimmer—we would be happy, let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker Thomson. I think what the Minister for Health and Ageing has just done is bell the cat on what a failure this bill is. If members of the Australian public read this bill, the National Health Reform Amendment (National Health Performance Authority) Bill 2011, they would look at the words 'National Health Performance Authority' and presumably, like me, think it was about the performance of our public hospitals and an authority that would improve that performance. But what the minister has basically just said is that what they are doing—again, in true Labor style—is creating yet another health bureaucracy. This was the great failing of the state Labor premiers: every time they received more money in Health, they did not put it into doctors, nurses or beds; they put it into new bureaucracies. The fact is that this is what is happening at a federal level.

This is a new bureaucracy, a toothless tiger. It is going to gather statistics and look at poor performance and, in the end, do nothing about it. That is, I think, the best way to sum up this government's approach not just to health but to the whole running of government. This government has lurched from one policy disaster to the next, and now that dangerous disease has infected the health portfolio. This is a government that promised to increase performance, but at every turn—and we see the evidence in black and white in these 29 amendments—we see that they are not going to do anything more than give additional and overriding powers to the state premiers.

I want to take the House to government amendment (7), which abolishes or strikes out the previous section, which had additional provisions about reports. Basically, there is a whole section that has been rewritten. Subsection (6) of the amendment reads:

If the report indicates poor performance by:

(a)   a local hospital network in a State, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory; or

(b)   a public hospital in a State, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory;

then, at least 15 days before completing the preparation of the report, the Performance Authority must give a copy of the final draft of the report to the manager of the network or hospital.

But listen to this:

The manager of the network or hospital is not entitled to give the Performance Authority any comments about the final draft.

The government have gone completely insane with their proposed 29 amendments. This amendment takes away any meaningful capacity, once they have identified a poor performance, to do anything about it. That is why even the No. 1 ticket holder for this government, our friend the member for Lyne, says that this is a watering-down, this is bad policy and these amendments make bad policy worse. I think this is an opportunity for the member for Lyne and others to vote against these bad amendments. We will be voting against this bill because we believe that these amendments make a bad bill worse.

Ms Roxon interjecting—

Mr DUTTON: That is the problem that this minister has. She has absolutely no capacity to deliver what is said publicly. There are other amendments which are worthy of noting, but in many parts they basically go towards withdrawing the minister's own capacity. I take the House to amendment (11), which alters section 93 of the bill. Subsection (1) says:

The Performance Authority CEO is to be appointed by the Minister.

That is in the bill in its original form. In the amendment, 'minister' has been struck out, with the performance authority CEO now to be appointed by the performance authority. Subsection (3) says:

Before appointing a person as the Performance Authority CEO, the Minister must consult the Performance Authority.

The minister, who has carriage of policy in this area, under the original bill had the power to make the appointment and was required to consult the performance authority on that. Otherwise, the minister was not overwhelmed with considerations; she just had to consult them. But government amendment (12) strikes out the words 'the minister must consult the performance authority' and inserts in its place the words:

Performance Authority must consult the Minister.

The minister does not have final say. The minister can provide some sort of feedback or response, like she is some sort of subservient public servant providing advice to a minister. The relationship has been flipped and it completely undermines this process. (Time expired)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr KJ Thomson ): The question is that the amendments be agreed to. All those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it.

Dr Southcott: Mr Deputy Speaker, I was on my feet.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you were not.

Dr Southcott: I am on my feet.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, but I have put the question. I think the ayes have it. Is a division required?

Mr Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I will seek to dissent from your ruling. Clearly, the member was on his feet seeking the call.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member was not on his feet seeking the call so I put the question.

Mr Baldwin: Then I will seek to dissent from your ruling.

Mr Dutton: Mr Deputy Speaker, on indulgence, if it would help the course of the debate, I think in the circumstances it is reasonable to hear from the shadow parliamentary secretary for health in a succinct way and this is the process. That would preclude other courses.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand the spirit in which that is offered. The fact is that the member for Boothby was sitting down. I therefore called for the division. For a member to rise after a division having been called, they are not entitled to get the call and to speak.

Dr Southcott: Mr Deputy Speaker, we have not gone into a division. We are in the consideration in detail stage. We are still discussing the bill and the minister had had no chance to respond to the issues raised by the shadow minister.

Ms Roxon: Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order, if I might contribute here, it would be a very unusual process and it is no doubt provoked by the toing and froing. I do not think it is in the House's interest for there to be a dissent from a Speaker's ruling. I am comfortable—

Mr Dutton interjecting—

Ms Roxon: If you would actually listen to what I am about to say, it might be helpful. For once, it will take two seconds for you to sit quietly while I say it was probably in the House's interest to be able to hear any other speakers, but I do think it is timely to bring this debate to a close. The shadow minister has spoken probably 10 times and not raised anything new. The member for Boothby has not spoken. It is an awkward position because the Deputy Speaker rightly put the question when no-one was on their feet. But I am certainly comfortable, if it assists the House and the chair, for members to be able to make contributions. We are not seeking to stop that but, ultimately, the contributions should be about this debate and then we should bring the debate to a conclusion and allow the vote to be taken.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member for Paterson wishes to withdraw his dissent, I will allow further discussion on the question that the amendments be agreed to.

Mr Baldwin: I withdraw, given your statement, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member for Boothby.

Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (11:25): In speaking to the government amendments, I am interested in amendment (7) and the scope of the report. Specifically, what this amendment talks about is the reports prepared by the National Health Performance Authority which will indicate poor performance by any of the following entities or facilities, and it goes on. Specifically under this section it talks about 'any other body or organisation that provides healthcare services'. My question to the minister is: does this encompass primary healthcare services which are delivered by the state governments? Does this cover the ambulance services which are covered by state and territory legislation? Does it cover, for example, the child and adolescent mental health services which are covered at the state level? Does it cover any other primary care services which have been areas of responsibility for states? Most importantly of all, does it cover general practice?

The RACGP have been particularly interested in this issue. I am seeking clarification on this because the clarification is not there in the bill. It says in this proposed amendment by the government, which is amendment (7), to clause 62(1)(e), 'any other body or organisation that provides health care services'. I am asking the minister: does it cover any of the organisations which I have mentioned? What is the scope of the reports prepared by the performance authority? Do they cover general practice? Do they cover those primary healthcare services which are currently delivered by state governments and which are enshrined in state and territory legislations?

My other question on this is: does the minister require the permission of the state or territory minister for health in those areas which are state primary healthcare services, state-run community healthcare services, state-run community mental health care services and state-run ambulance services and are they covered by the scope of these reports?

Ms ROXON (Gellibrand—Minister for Health and Ageing) (11:28): I am happy to answer a question on an issue for debate which is actually on the topic of this legislation and amendments. As is set out clearly in the detail of these amendments, the bodies that the Health Performance Authority will report on are public and private hospitals, local hospital networks and Medicare Locals. As the member for Boothby would know, Medicare Locals do have a remit which goes broadly across a particular community and will include the level of services, for example, provided by GPs in the community. It is not a reporting function about individual GPs, if that is the question that you are asking.

On the question of the scope to report on other state funded services, for example ambulance services that have never been included as part of the health system although they are obviously a vital part of how the health system works, they are not captured by this reporting. There is a provision, as the member for Lyne mentioned, that COAG can agree to extend the remit of the Health Performance Authority, so it might in its negotiations decide that X, Y and Z in the future should also be reported upon, and that would be something that the performance authority then would be able to do. It has been created by an agreement of COAG. This legislation gives force to that agreement struck by COAG. Its reach and remit does not extend beyond that agreement unless there is a future agreement that extends it.

Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (11:30): I am seeking further clarification on the same amendment—amendment (7). Proposed section 62(1) talks about the scope of the reports prepared by the performance authority and specifically about the entities or facilities which it can report on and it says in paragraph (e):

any other body or organisation that provides health care services.

As we stand here today with the current COAG agreements, are there any bodies or organisations that are covered by this paragraph? Is this just a catch-all paragraph that will allow any future decisions of COAG to include things? Does it include, for example, local government authorities that are offering immunisation services? Does it cover, for example, the Royal District Nursing Service? Does it cover things like home visits by nurses as well? I am seeking clarification from the minister as to the scope of proposed paragraph (e), which states:

any other body or organisation that provides health care services.

On reading it, it could be extremely broad. From what the minister has said, it is not envisaged that a number of the areas I have mentioned—such as the state primary healthcare services and general practice—are included by this paragraph. So what is included by this paragraph?

Mr LAMING (Bowman) (11:31): Again my question relates to the scope of amendment (7) and proposed section 62(1)(a) that covers the local hospital network. Mindful that data is already collected by the Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care and by the COAG Reform Council around performance measures in hospitals—and obviously the AIHW performs an important role—I want to know what is in this legislation to avoid duplication of data collection, collecting data that has different baselines and benchmarks collected from different periods and collecting data that is unable to be compared accurately. What are the arrangements between the four bodies I mentioned to ensure that that reporting is harmonised so we can make sense of different reports, minimise the overlap and ensure there are not data omissions? Finally, which of these NHPA rated responsibilities for data collection could not have been done already by those existing three bodies?

Ms ROXON (Gellibrand—Minister for Health and Ageing) (11:33): I will deal with both of those contributions. I refer the member for Boothby to amendment (5), which requires COAG agreement to extend the scope. Amendment (7) deals with the way reporting works but not the scope of what else can be reported. I think that should satisfy his request for clarification.

The member for Bowman raised a very legitimate question about the range of data that is already collected and also concerns about timely data and comparable data. One of the big changes that have been agreed to by the states and territories as part of this negotiation and the introduction of the performance authority is the streamlining of reporting so it is more timely, comparable across jurisdictions and able to be provided hospital by hospital. The Health Performance Authority will work with those existing datasets and in some areas create new datasets to be able to do its job properly. So a range of things that were not available before will be available when the Health Performance Authority is able to do its work properly. We will have truly comparable and timely data about each hospital across jurisdictions.

Health ministers have already agreed to do some work on how we can streamline all of the different existing datasets. We do not have any interest in reporting for reporting sake. We want the reporting to be better in having more indicators and being more comparable across the country. Whilst everyone said we should look at what the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare collects and we should look at what is already provided for reporting in each of the states, we also are moving forward on agreed national reporting measures, for example, on infection rates. In October this year for the first time hospital-by-hospital infection rates will be published on the My Hospitals website. None of that could have happened if we did not have agreement on how we are going to progress with all of this performance reporting.

Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (11:35): My question relates to the My Hospitals website. The My Hospitals website has information about the sorts of patients that are seen in emergency departments, waiting times and waiting lists in various subspecialties within each hospital. In terms of the scope of the reports that are to be prepared by the performance authority, what consideration has been given to looking at things which relate to quality and safety in the local hospital networks, the public hospitals and the private hospitals? The minister mentioned in her previous answer looking at the infection rates for the first time. It sounds like a good idea to have an idea of the infection rates in an individual hospital. What measures are proposed by the performance authority to look at quality and safety: mortality rates within a certain period in a hospital, mortality rates after discharge, complication rates from surgery and any complications that occur during the admissions?

Ms ROXON (Gellibrand—Minister for Health and Ageing) (11:37): I do not have all of that detail here in front of me right now. There are a whole range of them and this is a very complex bill. I might remind the House that the shadow minister was briefed on these amendments and, as I say, less than an hour ago told us that he supported them. I am not questioning that other members have legitimate concerns. I am happy for them to be provided with a briefing. But the truth is that the opposition have indicated they oppose these amendments now, although an hour ago they did not. I do not think that it will serve this parliament much more to continue this ongoing Q&A about a whole range of different issues. I am happy to provide that information as the bill makes its way through the rest of the parliamentary process, but I think it is well and truly time for the amendments to be put.

Mr LAMING (Bowman) (11:38): I thank the minister for answering the first of my two questions. She emphasised that there is an effort through amendment (7) to harmonise the data collection and reporting. The second part of my question is: what parts of the work that has been assigned to the authority could not have been done by the existing structures already in place? I go back to the question: can she explicitly explain? This is the basis for the entire legislation and also of course it begs the question: if we need to set up a fifth authority to monitor the other four are we going to be back here again setting up a sixth one to monitor the previous five? What is it with the COAG Reform Council, the AIHW and the Council for Safety and Quality in Health Care that makes them unable to do the very things that have been described in this legislation that are being assigned to the authority? That comes under the scope of the work in amendment (7).

Ms ROXON (Gellibrand—Minister for Health and Ageing) (11:38): I think that comment just reveals that, for some reason unknown to us, there is a delaying tactic being undertaken by the Liberal Party. Every bit of the legislation, the second reading amendment, the summing-up speeches and the speaking on the amendments makes clear what new role the Health Performance Authority takes. I stand by all of those comments and I refer the shadow minister to those if he is genuinely interested in it. The government has no more comments to make on these amendments.

Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (11:39): This goes to amendment (7), which talks about the reports prepared by the performance authority, and specifically 'if the report indicates poor performance by any of the following entities or facilities'. While it might be very clear what would constitute poor performance for local hospital networks, public hospitals and private hospitals, I am seeking clarification from the minister as to what would constitute poor performance by a primary healthcare organisation which would be caught in the scope of amendment (7). It seems that while primary healthcare organisations—or, as they have been called, Medicare Locals—have some role in the area of service delivery, in that they are going to be taking responsibility for after-hours care, they will not principally be in the front line of service delivery. The department has assured us that the primary healthcare organisations will not be fund-holding organisations, as we see in similar organisations in the United Kingdom or in New Zealand.

So, given that the scope of the primary healthcare organisations is still a little ill-defined, I am seeking clarification as to what would constitute poor performance by a primary health organisation. Would it be that they are not offering enough continuous professional development? Would it be that they are not holding enough seminars? Would it be that they are not liaising well enough with allied health or practice nurses? I am just seeking clarification from the minister as to what would constitute poor performance by a primary healthcare organisation as is envisaged in amendment (7).

Mr DUTTON (Dickson) (11:41): It is with a great deal of regret, I think, that the minister now refuses even to respond. This is a very important parliamentary process.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The member for Dickson, and everybody, should realise that consideration in detail is not question time.

Dr Southcott: It is consideration in detail.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is consideration in detail. There is actually no requirement under the standing orders for the minister to respond. The chair has given a great deal of latitude in this regard.

Mr DUTTON: I do think that it is a very important parliamentary process to be able to consider in detail amendments moved by the government. These are important questions because they go to the very soul of how our health system will operate into the next generation. This is a government that proclaimed that they wanted to fix public hospitals. They have created all these new bureaucracies. They have now capitulated and weakened even the original process that they put forward. They now have 29 amendments on the books. Yet, remarkably, the government will not go to the detail of the amendments, either because they do not know the detail or because they are embarrassed by the detail.

To go to your point, Madam Deputy Speaker, nobody pretends that this is about question time; but what does consideration in detail mean if the coalition cannot ask questions about the detail of the amendments? These are not flippant, tidying-up, clerical error type amendments that you sometimes see in this place. These are substantive amendments, 29 in total, and they completely water down, completely dilute, the original intent of the legislation. In some places whole sections have been struck out and new words have been submitted, and it is quite appropriate for us to ask detailed questions about why that has taken place. But, as importantly, it is incumbent upon the minister to answer in detail those considerations. To sit there silently and not contribute to the debate I think is a poor reflection on the minister and also shows the minister's contempt for you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as the chair in this place, and for the parliamentary process. We have reasonable questions that we want to continue to ask. We are frustrated by the process—there is no question about that—because right from the start the questions that were put have not properly been answered. We asked the minister reasonable questions from the commencement of this consideration in detail. The minister has plucked out a couple of questions and answered those, but the detail has not been forthcoming from the government. As I say, people need to ask the question: why wouldn't reasonable questions be answered by this minister? If this minister had an involvement in the construct of these amendments, why wouldn't this minister be prepared to step up and defend the amendments? If the coalition has questions to ask about why significant changes have been made—necessarily it seems at the hands of the premiers in order to do a deal by a desperate Prime Minister—why wouldn't the health minister in accord with the standing procedures in this place answer those reasonable questions?

This is not a process where a minister can come in, with due respect to the minister, and somehow answer the questions that suit the minister's own knowledge but completely ignore those questions for which she has no substantive response. I think it is for the minister to answer the questions that have been put but not yet answered. It is incumbent upon the minister so that there is faith in this process for the doctors and nurses who are waiting to see whether or not this will substantially change their workplace and whether or not this is going to be the reform that people thought they voted for in 2007 and 2010. The minister's accountability is at question here. I think it is absolutely absurd if the minister continues to refuse to partake in this debate because we will continue to contribute and put questions until this minister answers the reasonable questions that have been put. If this process has to continue on until question time, it will.

Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (11:46): The more I read these amendments, the more questions they pose. In terms of amendment (7) I do have some questions about the reports which will be prepared by the performance authority. The amendments go into quite a lot of detail about what must be done if the report indicates poor performance, the consultation that must be done with the state and territory health ministers and that they must be given an opportunity to respond.

In reading the legislation and reading the amendments it is not clear what happens to the reports after they have been prepared. My question to the minister is: is there any requirement for these reports to be made public within a certain period of time? This is especially important in the area of quality and safety—there have been disasters in Australia, for example in the Bundaberg Hospital, and we do not want to see a repeat of what happened at Bundaberg Hospital. We need to know, if reports show poor performance in the local hospital network or in a public hospital, that these reports will ultimately be made public. Amendment (7) talks a lot about the consultation and the periods of consultation that are required but my question here is: what is the requirement on making these reports public? Is there a specific time line here? We would like to know when we will be able to see them and when these reports will be made public. I go back to my previous questions that still have not been answered on the area of primary healthcare organisations.

Mr Perrett interjecting—

Dr SOUTHCOTT: They have not been answered, dopey.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The member will withdraw and the member will not interject. This is not helping the situation.

Dr SOUTHCOTT: I withdraw. I thank the minister for her answers to my earlier questions, but I still have an unanswered question about what constitutes poor performance by a primary healthcare organisation. Would this be in the area of the delivery of after-hours services? Would it be if they are not sufficiently making networks with allied health practitioners or practice nurses—what would really constitute that? I also am particularly interested in quality and safety. I would like to know what quality and safety information will be prepared and made available to the public in these reports that are being prepared by the performance authority.

Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (11:50): I raise from a tactical point of view what is becoming increasingly clear to everyone in this chamber. I raise it in defence of parliamentary processes and I raise it as, most people would know, a strong advocate of MPs' rights—that is, that the arch enemy of parliamentary processes and an MP's rights is the filibuster. What we are increasingly seeing before us is a tactic to filibuster. I do not know why. That is up to the coalition to defend, but the indication from the member for Dickson that he wants to push this through to question time and the indication from the member for Boothby that he is only just reading these amendments clearly demonstrate that this is a tactic over and above a true and genuine parliamentary process of inquiry into amendments before the House.

I do not think I have ever supported the gag, I would have to go back and check my record, but I am not far away from actually moving it. I would hope that we have genuine questions being asked, we have genuine responses and we wrap up what has been at least a 50-minute conversation with very little contribution now to genuine consideration of these amendments.

Mr DUTTON (Dickson) (11:51): I want to address briefly those remarks and again I am sure they are held sincerely. There is no filibustering going on. The fact is that we have asked questions, Member for Lyne, and we have not received adequate responses. The member for Lyne may well be satisfied with what the government has put up. He has expressed some concerns and he is going to take a certain course of action. I respect that. It is his right to do that as a member of this parliament. We have not sought to cut short his contribution, and nor would we.

But we have serious misgivings about this bill. Many of the reasons that you stated in your earlier contribution, Member for Lyne, cause us even more grief because we think that this government, by moving its 29 amendments, is without precedent in this public debate about health. They are substantive amendments, as I say—they are not 'tidy up' amendments—and they deserve an adequate and fulsome response from the minister. So, yes, we are frustrated, as I said before. There is no question about that.

The Bills Digest talks about these points. It says:

It is unlikely that the Authority, as a single entity, will be able to achieve these objectives …

Does that not cause the House concern? It goes on to say:

This Bill does not provide any details on how the three national governance agencies will work together to deliver improvements in the Australian health system.

That is exactly the point that we are trying to make. These are reasonable questions asked by the people from the library who prepare the Bills Digest. They are not members of the coalition, they are not Independents, they are not people who support or oppose the government—

Mr Baldwin: They're truly independent.

Mr DUTTON: These are truly independent people asking these questions. So why would it be unreasonable for us to ask these questions? More importantly, why would it be unreasonable for the minister to answer the questions? The Bills Digest goes on to say:

It is not yet clear how the ‘upstream’ National Health Performance Authority proposed in this Bill will connect with ‘downstream’ factors …

That goes directly to questions being asked by both of the shadow parliamentary secretaries for health on this issue, so those questions are completely reasonable. The Bills Digest goes on to say:

This Bill … does not give the Authority any enforcement powers …

That is exactly the point we were trying to make before. What penalties are in place? If the government, having collected all this data, having created this new bureaucracy, having spent all of this money, are not happy with the way in which the data is trending, what can they do? This is a basic question and it has been raised not just by us but by the Parliamentary Library, the member for Lyne and others. The Bills Digest goes on:

It is unclear how many primary health care providers will be monitored directly by the National Health Performance Authority.

That, again, goes to questions that were reasonably asked before. I do not think that a guillotining in this situation should even be canvassed, frankly, until these questions have been properly answered. For the minister to stay in her seat and refuse to contribute answers to reasonable questions is unacceptable.

In conclusion, the Digest makes a number of other points, and I think it goes to the concerns, as I have said before, of many stakeholders—not just those of the coalition and the member for Lyne. Those stakeholders have a real interest, as do many of us, in making sure that these reforms are tangible, are meaningful and achieve the aspirations that many of us in this place, including the member for Lyne, have spoken about both privately and publicly. That is why I think it is completely reasonable for us to put these questions and, most importantly, for the minister to respond. It is incumbent upon the minister to at least make some contribution to try and answer what are reasonable questions.

Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and Minister for Indigenous Health) (11:56): I want to make an observation. I have been in this parliament off and on for 24 years. I have seen different tactics used in this place to try and thwart debate. I have seen filibustering and attempts to change the dynamic. But it is a bit of an affront, given the history of this legislation and the detailed briefings the shadow minister has received around this legislation, to have him and his colleagues doing this. They are genuinely nice people by and large. We get on okay; we can all be mates. But I think it is worth while for them to ask themselves why they are doing this at this point. What is your attitude to the legislation—do you support the health reform process or not? If you do not, if you plan to vote against the legislation in any event, given that the amendments will have already been voted on, why are we participating in this farce? I think it raises serious questions about the judgments which are being made.

I have been in my office engaging in meetings since the last division and I have had on in the background the parliamentary debates. With great respect to the shadow minister, I have not seen the minister demure; I have seen her fully engaged in the discussion. She has chosen, rightfully, to hear you out and to provide the capacity in other places—because this will be dealt with in the Senate as well—to deal with this. If your concerns are genuine you could have raised them in direct dialogue, through the process of briefing. You have not done that, and today we see you, after this legislation has been in place for a number of months, reading from the Bills Digest. It makes one wonder what your game is. I say to the shadow minister—with great respect, Madam Deputy Speaker—that, if he is genuine about a discussion around these issues, this is not the tactic to adopt. We expect that, when these amendments are voted on, they will be opposed by the opposition. So what is this process all about? I suspect that the shadow minister, if he were in our shoes, would be asking the very same question. I say to the shadow minister—and I heard the member for Lyne, whose views I respect—that this is culminating in a filibuster. I say to the shadow minister that it is in our best interests that this debate be concluded. Vote against the amendments if that is your desire. They will be dealt with somewhere else and we will have a further discussion. This is not the end of the debate, as you know. If you were concerned about the content of the Bills Digest, why was it not raised previously? You have had plenty of opportunity to do so. I support the views being expressed by the member for Lyne. It is about time you took a mature approach to this discussion and conceded that we should finish this part of it and get on to the next stage.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Before I call the next speaker, I point out, as the member for Paterson has rightly done, that this is consideration in detail of the bill before us. I have allowed a latitude around what we are debating, but we will return to the bill before us. We will understand that consideration in detail is to consider the bill; it is not a question and answer session. The standing orders do not provide for anything otherwise. If you wish to establish a new procedure, you should take it to the Procedure Committee.

Mr LAMING (Bowman) (12:01): I, for one, am happy to be judged on the quality of the questions asked and by our scrutiny of the conduct of the minister, who is refusing to answer these questions. Already, one out of two questions has not been answered, so I focus again on amendment (7), which involves proposed subsections 62(5), (6), (7) and (8). My great concern with 62(5) is that, apart from the obligation upon the performance authority minister to give a copy, invite comments and have regard, after that this legislation and this particular amendment are silent on what occurs next.

In 62(6), I am concerned about the reference to the manager of the network, who, having received a report 15 days prior to its completion indicating that there is poor performance, is not entitled to give any comments on that final draft. I think it is a fair question and the public is entitled to expect an answer as to why it is in the public interest for that not to occur.

We would like a clear understanding of 62(7) and (8), given that over this four-year process these were only released weeks ago. Before completing a report, the performance authority is at liberty to consult with any persons or bodies it considers appropriate, yet, if that report does indicate poor performance, Minister, the performance authority must not consult and is not otherwise obliged to observe any requirements of procedural fairness.

Minister, my third question to you is this: regarding 62(7) and (8), why, in the preparation of a report, is it appropriate for the performance authority to consult with any person or body it wishes but if that report, particularly focused on a local hospital network or a territory hospital, indicates poor performance the performance authority must not consult, having, prior to that report being prepared, been at liberty to consult? I think it is a very important distinction that needs to be clarified in this consideration in detail stage.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that government amendments (1) to (29) be agreed to. Question put.

The House divided. [12:07]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

Question agreed to.

Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (12:13): by leave—I move together amendments (1) to (3), as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 130, page 46 (line 23), omit "report", substitute "reports".

(2) Schedule 1, item 130, page 46 (line 24), before "The Performance Authority", insert "(1)".

(3) Schedule 1, item 130, page 46 (after line 29), at the end of section 111, add:

   (2) The Performance Authority must, as soon as practicable after 30 September next following the end of each financial year, prepare and give to the Minister, for presentation to the Parliament, a report consisting of a compilation of the reports prepared by the Performance Authority under paragraph 60(1)(a) during that year

   (3) The Minister must present the report described in subsection (2) to the Parliament as soon as is practicable.

Note:   See also section 34C of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, which contains extra rules about annual reports.

Very briefly, as explained previously, this is about getting reporting requirements to the parliament as well as to the minister and to the various state ministers and to COAG so that there is some public accountability attached to the annual reports of the performance authority. I understand it has the support of both sides. I hope that remains the case, and that therefore everyone can get to lunch as quickly as possible.

Question agreed to.

Question put:

That the bill, as amended, be agreed to.

The House divided. [12:18]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Ms ROXON: by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr FITZGIBBON: by leave—I move:

That the bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.

Question agreed to.

Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (12:25): I indicate, without detaining the House too long, that this a bill which, in a sense, makes some technical amendments to the legislation in a range of matters. These are matters which are important in terms of the legislation itself and the operation of social security legislation in this country. (Quorum formed) I apologise to those members who had to rush back to the House—not on every occasion a quorum is called but on this occasion. I thank them and the government for their cooperation in this regard.

As I said, the Security and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 will introduce several measures affecting primarily the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs portfolio. The bill seeks to amend the Social Security Act 1991 to enable parenting payment recipients to transfer temporarily to bereavement allowances following the death of a partner, remove the family member exemption from the two-year newly arrived residents' waiting period before special benefit is payable, enable the minister to make legislative instruments determining impairments tables and rules relating to the tables and clarify that payments made by an employer to an employee in lieu of a notice of termination are regarded as redundancy payments for the purposes of social security payments.

The Disability Services Act 1986 will also be amended to provide the disability advocacy services. Compliance with the disability advocacy standards will be assessed by an independent certification body over a three-year cycle. The bill also seeks to amend the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans Entitlements Act 1986 in relation to certain asset test exempt income streams and the provision of actuarial certificates.

Schedule 1 of the bill—bereavement allowance—would provide parenting payment recipients access to bereavement allowance on the death of a partner. The Social Security Act prevents a parenting payment recipient from qualifying for bereavement allowance on the death of his or her partner. The original intent of the legislation was that the surviving member of a couple who had dependent children would continue to receive parenting payment single rather than transferring temporarily to the equivalent of bereavement allowance and then back to parenting payment single. Historically, there was no financial advantage in transferring between these payment types.

The introduction of the secure and sustainable pension reform package in September 2009 resulted in an increase to the single rate of certain pension types, including bereavement allowance. Allowing parenting payment recipients to transfer temporarily to bereavement allowance will provide additional assistance. Schedule 2—special benefit—would align access to special benefit for certain visa holders with other migrants by removing the family member exemption from the two-year newly arrived resident's waiting period before special benefit is payable. Temporary visa holders may qualify for special benefit if the visa is included in a class of visas set out in a determination made by the minister. Currently, special benefit is payable to these temporary visa holders on arrival in Australia if suffering hardship, whereas other migrants would be subject to the newly arrived resident's waiting period and must wait two years before special benefit is payable, unless they can demonstrate both financial hardship and a substantial change in circumstances beyond their control after arrival in Australia. An exemption from the newly arrived resident's waiting period is provided to a family member under the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Newly Arrived Resident's Waiting Periods and Other Measures) Act 1997. The Social Security Act defines a family member as a partner or a dependent child. As a result, unlike other newly arrived migrants, these temporary visa holders can receive special benefit much earlier than migrants entering with permanent visas.

As a result of the changes made by this schedule, in respect of claims for special benefit lodged on or after 1 January 2012, the exemption from the newly arrived resident's waiting period will no longer apply to a holder of a visa that is in a class of visas determined under unless another exception applies. This change means that provisional partner visa holders will need to demonstrate that they have experienced a substantial change of circumstances beyond their control after arrival in Australia, in addition to financial hardship, in order to access special benefit.

Schedule 3—impairment tables for disability support pension—removes the current impairment tables from 1 January 2012 and enables the minister to introduce new impairment tables through a legislative instrument. This schedule also establishes that the minister may make a legislative instrument setting out the new impairment tables and guidelines containing the rules relating to the new impairment tables. The placement of the impairment tables in a legislative instrument will enable the impairment tables to be updated more frequently.

Schedule 4—disability advocacy services—provides for the introduction of a third-party certification quality assurance system for disability advocacy services. It is argued that the new quality assurance system will provide greater assurances about the quality of disability advocacy support by introducing mechanisms independent from government to assess the compliance of disability advocacy services against a tailored set of new disability advocacy standards. The current quality assurance system has not changed since 1997 and does not provide assurances about the quality of disability advocacy support being provided. Under the new quality assurance system, the compliance of disability advocacy services with the new disability advocacy standards—which will be set out in a legislative instrument—is assessed by an independent certification body over a three-year cycle. The quality assurance system is based on the Joint Accreditation System of Australian and New Zealand—JAS-ANZ—under which JAS-ANZ is the accreditation body that accredits certification bodies to undertake certification assessments of disability advocacy services. This third-party certification system has been successfully in place for disability employment services since 2002.

Schedule 5—asset test exempt income streams—would make a number of amendments relating to the treatment of certain asset test exempt income streams. Under the social security law, lifetime and life expectancy income streams receive concessional treatment for the assets test, provided they meet the requirements under sections 9A and 9B of the Social Security Act. This means that the asset value of the income stream is not taken into account when determining whether a social security payment is payable to a person. Similarly, the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, in sections 5JA and 5JB, also extends a concessional treatment under its assets test when the equivalent requirements are met. Due to changes in economic and market conditions, the probability that a provider of an income stream will be able to pay the income stream as required under the contract or governing rules could fluctuate quite markedly, even over a short period of time. As a result, some social security customers provide the secretary—and, in similar circumstances, veterans affairs pensioners provide the Repatriation Commission—with actuarial certificates that fail to meet the high probability test, which results in their income stream becoming subject to the assets test, within the 26-week grace period, until they obtain a favourable certificate that meets the high probability test.

This schedule also clarifies that the grace period in which a person must provide a new actuarial certificate for an income stream applies from the beginning of the particular financial year—that is, from 1 July—and ends when a new actuarial certificate is given to the secretary or, as the case may be, the Repatriation Commission, in relation to that income stream for that financial year or at the end of the period of 26 weeks beginning on 1 July of that financial year. If a person does not give the secretary or the Repatriation Commission a new actuarial certificate in relation to the income stream by the end of the 26-week period, the income stream will lose its asset test exemption.

Schedule 6—termination payments—seeks to clarify that payments made by an employer to an employee in lieu of notice of termination are regarded as redundancy payments for the purposes of the social security law. The Social Security Act provides for an income maintenance period to be applied to people who have claimed, or are in receipt of, certain social security payments and have received a redundancy or leave payment. The income maintenance period is the period in which redundancy payments, or leave payments, are treated as income under the act. Income maintenance periods are applied because people who receive leave or redundancy payments from their employer are expected to use these payments to support themselves for a period before turning to the social security system for assistance. The amendments made by this schedule clarify that a payment made to a person in lieu of notice of the termination of their employment is a redundancy payment for the purposes of the Social Security Act. The effect of this is that a payment in lieu of notice will be included when calculating whether the person has to serve an income maintenance period and the length of that period. The changes made by this schedule ensure that people who receive payments in lieu of notice are treated in the same way as people who receive other types of redundancy or termination payments. The amendments made by this schedule apply to payments in lieu of notice made on or after the commencement of this schedule. The schedule commences on the day after royal assent.

As I indicated at the outset, these are sensible amendments that would be made, I suspect, regardless of who is in government, and for that reason the coalition does not oppose them.

Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (12:37): I speak in support of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. I will concentrate particularly on schedules (3) and (4). As the previous speaker said, there are a number of sensible amendments that update disability provisions to make sure that we enhance the integrity of the social security and veterans affairs legislation in this country. There are a number of important changes and the first schedule deals with one of these. It makes sure that parenting payment recipients can access bereavement allowance following the death of a partner, giving them a helping hand in circumstances where they are going through the grief and difficulties that arise with the loss of a loved one.

Historically, that first schedule has provided no financial advantage in transferring between types of payment. The bill gives parenting payment recipients access to a bereavement allowance, from 1 January 2012, following the death of their partner. It is a degree of compassion that means for a period of 14 weeks they can receive additional financial support, which they would need. It is difficult for people who go through these circumstances. There are added expenses, including funeral expenses, associated with the death of a partner and so this is a sensible, compassionate and charitable way to improve the lot of people in communities across the country.

The second schedule deals with the special benefit. This deals with circumstances which make it a sensible arrangement for provisional partner visa holders to have the same requirements as other new migrants who have a more restricted access to a special benefit. This is a matter of aligning the circumstances of different people. Other new migrants not only have a waiting period but also have to demonstrate financial hardship and a change of circumstances outside their control. We are changing the circumstances for provisional partner visa holders to make sure that those two factors are now taken into consideration. It makes sure that the system is consistent across the country. (Quorum formed) The coalition—who said these reforms are necessary and would have been passed if they were on the Treasury benches—are not interested in reform of disability legislation and are not interested in reform to improve the integrity of the system. The member for Cowper should hang his head in shame for calling a quorum in these circumstances. This is important reform. The previous speaker could not get here in time with his notes and it just goes to show the utter contempt and disregard the coalition have for sensible legislative reform.

I will talk briefly on the third aspect, the very sensible asset test exemption income stream. It clarifies the period in which a person must provide a new actuarial certificate on lifetime and life expectancy income streams and is a sensible reform as well. There is a termination change in schedule 6 of the social security legislation. We know that this is important because people are made redundant and redundancy payments are taken into consideration with social security payments. That is why this schedule is important.

The final two schedules I will briefly focus on deal with issues of impairment tables for disability support pensions and with the disability advocacy services. This bill removes outdated impairment tables for the disability support pension and enables the minister to introduce a new impairment table through a disallowable legislative instrument. This gives effect to the 2009-10 budget Better and Fairer Assessments measure. The reform of disability care and support has been a priority of this government, and I welcome the Productivity Commission report that we saw recently. The national disability insurance scheme, which this government has shown significant commitment to by putting $10 million on the table to support technical policy work in this regard, and the new COAG select council of ministers, which will be established and lead to greater reform in this area, are indications, along with the advisory group to the select council, that this government is committed to repairing the dysfunctional system of disability support in this country.

There are changes to the impairment tables, and they were announced in the 2009-10 year. The tables were last reviewed in 1993 and they contain a number of anomalies and inconsistencies—for example, assistance can be provided for hearing aids but that is not included in the assessment for hearing impairment. Visual assessment is assessed with glasses as well. There are a number of disability advocacy groups. The advisory committee recommended a thorough review, and it was found that the impairment tables were right out of date. The report recommended that new impairment tables be used for eligibility for disability support pensions from 1 January 2012. These tables are brought in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the World Health Organisation's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.

The final aspect I want to touch on relates to issues concerning disability advocacy service. The bill introduced a third-party certification quality assurance system for disability advocacy services. We have had a long commitment to making sure we look after the most vulnerable sections of our society, and we have made a commitment in this regard. Stronger quality assurance for disability advocacy services is important. Development of a robust quality assurance system is really important for people in the disability support sector. The third-party certification quality assurance system in this bill has been successfully in place since about 2002, and we think this will be improved with this legislative reform.

I am very strongly committed to making sure people in my area of Ipswich and West Moreton who have been disabled—and we have had a long history with large numbers of people suffering from disability in our area—are cared for properly. This goes back to the days of the Challinor Centre, which is an institution that in its first guise was an asylum for people who were previously described as 'lunatics'. That place is currently the location of the University of Queensland Ipswich campus. From that time and the de-institutionalisation that took place in the eighties and nineties, the low cost of housing meant that Ipswich and the rural areas outside were areas for a large number of people with disabilities and their carers to live. In fact, Carers Queensland told me not long ago that I had in Blair the largest number of carers in Queensland for any federal electorate.

So this is an important reform of the national disability insurance scheme. Anything that deals with disability service is extremely important for my electorate. I am putting on a national disability insurance forum in my electorate for people to come to. For any constituents who are listening, they can contact my office and we will give them the details of that. Later this year I will be running what we call the Blair Disability Links at the Brassall Shopping Centre. It is an expo where all the disability support groups across the electorate of Blair can come. They provide services and information. I congratulate the Brassall Shopping Centre, who have been the supporters of this, and I urge everyone in my electorate to contact me about the important activities of the Blair Disability Links and the national disability insurance scheme forum that we will be having in the next few months.

I support this legislation. I think it is good for our system and it is good that we care for those with disabilities.

Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (12:49): I certainly welcome the opportunity today to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. As my constituents would be aware, I am an absolute supporter of the responsibility of government to provide that hand up to people who need such support. It is through the prism of the hand up and not the handout that we must always see welfare payments in this country. Those entitled to such support must be provided with it, and those who are not entitled to it must not receive it. My last newsletter reflected the common view of my constituents that they support such assistance; but, where anyone who seeks to obtain such assistance does so without entitlement and illegally, I certainly encourage my constituents to report such persons. It has been my experience that Australians dislike someone taking something that they are not entitled to, and that is the case with some welfare payment issues. However, I think Australians should be more willing to become involved and report such issues.

But we are not here today for that. Instead we are here today to debate how to make the system more efficient and better for Australians. I know that across the 25 suburbs of Cowan there are people in need of welfare support. There are people who have to work within the confines of their disability. There are people who are in need of the various forms of payments, pensions and allowances that are available for Australians and residents of Australia. Through Girrawheen, Alexander Heights, Marangaroo, Ballajura—basically all the suburbs—there are people who are in need of support, and I welcome that support.

There has been a lot said lately on the concept of the national disability insurance scheme. Certainly in the last couple of months I have had more and more contact with people who are involved in the disability area. I would like to thank Ann Wood, one of my constituents, who brought her son to me and made it very clear the life that she has to live with her son and the difficulties that they have had. She also made it clear that there are a lot of breakdowns and systemic problems that need to be addressed. I think we are united as a parliament in the view that a system that is broken needs to be dealt with and dealt with quickly. So I welcome the Productivity Commission report. I know from my discussions with the coalition leadership on this matter that we look forward to be giving the Productivity Commission report generous consideration in the future. We will work through these problems to try to get a better, sustainable, long-term deal for those who are labouring under the issues of disability—both families and the person who has the disability. We certainly welcome that step forward, but as we know it has been estimated that some $6 billion is going to be required to sort out a National Disability Insurance Scheme. That will be challenging, but there must be a way that we can work through it with the states to make sure that we end up with the right result.

I will now move through the bill and talk about some of the issues that are involved. This bill deals with a range of income support measures, including those for veterans and for the disabled. It puts forward a range of changes that will better ensure that Australia's income support system provides more appropriate assistance to some of the most vulnerable members of our community. These are measures which the coalition supports.

The first of these changes is to allow recipients of parenting payments access to bereavement allowance. It goes without saying that the loss of a spouse or a partner has a devastating impact upon individuals and families, and quite apart from the emotional effects that result from bereavement there is invariably a financial aspect to consider as well. I understand from changes that were made in 2009 that the Social Security Act as it currently stands prevents a person receiving a parenting payment from qualifying for bereavement allowance upon the death of their partner. A typical situation is that someone on a parenting payment who is met with the death of their partner is not able to move onto the bereavement allowance. Under the changes in this bill, and rightly so, they will be allowed to do so, and then after that period they may move back to the parenting payment (single). Before 2009, that did not place vulnerable people at a disadvantage, and this bill will remedy the situation of the 2009 changes.

This bill also makes changes to correct an anomaly in the operation of special benefit for certain visa holders by removing the family member exemption from the newly arrived resident's two-year waiting period for special benefit. As things presently stand, temporary visa holders may gain access to special benefit if their visa falls within a class of visa set out in a determination made by the minister. As a result, special benefit is payable to temporary visa holders upon arrival in Australia if they are suffering hardship, whilst other migrants on other visa types are subject to the usual arrangements. Other migrants must wait for two years before a special benefit is payable, unless they are able to prove that both financial hardship and changes to their circumstances beyond their control have occurred following their arrival in Australia. In other words, temporary visa holders whose visas fall into a certain category can receive a special benefit much earlier than those migrants coming to Australia with permanent visas. The changes contained in this bill will result in a fairer application of requirements for special benefit and will ensure that assistance is genuinely being provided to those in the greatest need.

The bill also seeks to update what are known as the 'impairment tables' to ensure that Australia's legislation reflects contemporary approaches to medical treatment and rehabilitation. In order to access the disability support pension, an individual must have an impairment that rates at 20 points or more under the impairment tables. As the previous speaker said, the tables currently being used were last subject to a comprehensive review 18 years ago in 1993. Given the advances in technology, changed approaches to medical treatment and greater flexibility in rehabilitation practices that have occurred in the intervening years, a comprehensive review of those tables is appropriate and required.

I understand that the government has consulted with medical experts, allied health professionals, medical health workers and those in the rehabilitation field as well as a range of peak bodies and professional associations in reviewing these impairment tables. I understand the updated tables will be introduced at a later time by way of legislative instrument and that the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs is committed to further extensive consultations to ensure that Australia has a system where assistance is better targeted and appropriate to contemporary medical treatment and rehabilitation frameworks. Placing these updated impairment tables in a legislative instrument will mean that they can be more responsive to changing medical and rehabilitation practices.

This bill contains initiatives that are designed to improve the integrity of particular asset test exempt income streams. Over time, inequities have arisen between social security recipients and veterans' affairs pensioners; inconsistencies in the treatment of these payments have meant that some recipients have received concessions at higher payment rates without meeting their reciprocal responsibilities. The changes put forward here are intended to provide some clarity and to strengthen existing income stream rules. Social security recipients and veterans' affairs pensioners who have lifetime or life expectancy income streams are currently required to provide an actuarial certificate stating that there is a high probability that the provider of the income stream will be able to pay the income stream as required under the contract or governing rules for the term of the income stream.

Due to changes in economic and market conditions, the probability that a provider of an income stream will be able to pay the income stream as required under the contract or governing rules could fluctuate markedly, even over a short period of time. As a result, some social security and veterans' affairs customers are providing certificates that fail to meet the high probability test. This leads to their payments being subject to the assets test, which can create a level of uncertainty and financial problems for some of the most vulnerable in the community. It is good that the changes in this bill are designed to help provide some clarity so that these customers may provide only one certificate for each financial year to show that the fund has sufficient resources to pay the income stream for its term. In the event that someone provides more than one certificate for a particular financial year only the first certificate given will have effect.

The bill also provides some clarity in relation to the status of termination payments within social security law. For a variety of reasons some employers will elect to make a payment to an employee in lieu of notice of termination. The provisions of this bill will help ensure that people who receive such payments are treated in the same way as people who receive other types of redundancy or termination payments. Importantly, the bill will provide an enhanced quality assurance system for disability advocacy services to ensure that those Australians who live with disability are afforded the best possible advocacy support.

As we know, the current quality assurance system has been in place since 1997 but no longer provides sufficient assurances about the quality of disability advocacy support being provided. Under the system proposed by this bill the compliance of disability advocacy services with the new disability advocacy standards, to be set out in a legislative instrument, is assessed by an independent certification body over a three-year cycle. The quality assurance system is based on the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand, which is the accreditation body that accredits certification bodies to undertake certification assessments of disability advocacy services. I understand that the system has been the subject of a successful trial, and was developed following extensive consultation with those working in the sector.

This bill makes a number of changes which clarify aspects of social security law, and should make it easier for those who depend on income support to understand the system. Moreover, it addresses a number of inconsistencies in the application of the law that have arisen over time and the changes proposed here should result in an income support system which is fairer across the board.

It is right that the parliament do all it can to support those Australians who, because of a disability, are unable to work to support themselves and their families. It is equally important that the services of those who have risked their lives for our national security is recognised through a stable system of veterans affairs' income support. The coalition is supporting these initiatives in the hope that they will improve the system for those who depend upon it. As I said at the start, it is right that we have a strong and viable social security system put in place to protect and to provide for those who are labouring under circumstances beyond their control—particularly the victims of circumstances who do not have the same capacity as the rest of society to benefit from the opportunities that this strong society that we have provides.

It is without doubt that we support these measures. We look forward to the passing of these when this motion is concluded.

Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) (13:02): First of all I would like to thank all of the speakers for their contribution to the debate on this bill, because the government is working very hard to support people with disability to fulfil their potential.

Just last week the Prime Minister released the Productivity Commission's final report into long-term care and support of people with disability. As members would know, consistent with the Productivity Commission's recommendations we have already started work to transform the way care and support is provided to people with disabilities. We are working to deliver results for people with disability right now, including by improving support for Australians with a disability to help them into work wherever that is possible.

The disability support pension is an essential element of Australia's safety net, and it is vital that it supports the people who need it: those Australians who, through disability, are unable to work to fully support themselves. In the 2009-10 budget the government committed to update the impairment tables used to assess eligibility for the disability support pension to bring them into line with modern medical and rehabilitation practice. The current impairment tables have not been comprehensively rewritten since they were introduced in 1991. It is essential that the level of someone's impairment is assessed using the most up-to-date medical information and with reference to modern rehabilitation practices. This is an important element of the government's reforms to the disability support pension, to make it simpler, fairer and sustainable for those who need it.

An advisory committee of medical, allied health and rehabilitation experts, representatives of disability peak bodies, mental health advocates and relevant government agencies was established in 2010 to provide advice on updating the impairment tables. Following a thorough review the advisory committee has provided its final report to the government, which I released publicly last month. The report finds that the current impairment tables are out of date. The advisory committee has developed new impairment tables in close consultation with the medical profession and disability stakeholders. These proposed new tables have also been made public. The advisory committee's report recommends the new tables be used to assess eligibility for the disability support pension from 1 January 2012. In line with the advisory committee's recommendations the government is consulting with disability stakeholders, mental health advocates and experts to ensure the recommended new tables are implemented fairly and effectively.

This bill removes the current outdated tables and enables new tables to be introduced through a disallowable legislative instrument. This change will occur on 1 January 2012. Putting the impairment tables into a disallowable instrument allows them to be updated regularly in response to developments in medical and rehabilitation practice, and will also retain the parliament's role in scrutinising any changes.

The bill also introduces a stronger quality assurance system for disability advocacy services to make sure that people with disability receive the best possible advocacy support. The current quality assurance system has not changed since 1997, and the need for improved quality assurance for disability advocacy services has been highlighted in a number of reviews. This bill requires disability advocacy services that receive financial assistance under the Disability Services Act to be reviewed and assessed by independent, accredited certification bodies against disability advocacy standards. This quality assurance system has been in place for disability employment services since 2002. It involves people with disability at all levels in the system, including as members of audit teams. The new system has been successfully trialled and independently evaluated in consultation with the disability advocacy sector. The evaluation recommended formal implementation. These changes will help meet the objectives of the National Disability Strategy and will also help meet Australia's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

This bill also gives effect to a 2011-12 budget measure by enabling parenting payment recipients to access bereavement allowance on the death of a partner. Allowing a parenting payment recipient to transfer to bereavement allowance on the death of their partner will provide additional financial assistance during a very difficult time.

The bill also gives effect to another 2011-12 budget measure, to more closely align the rules for accessing special benefit for provisional partner visa holders with the rules for other newly arrived migrants. Under current policy, provisional partner visa holders are able to access special benefit from when they are granted the visa and are in Australia if they can demonstrate that they are suffering from financial hardship. This is not consistent with other newly arrived migrants subject to the newly arrived residents waiting period, who need to demonstrate both financial hardship and change in circumstances outside their control in order to access special benefit. From 1 January 2012, the rules for provisional partner visa holders will be consistent with those for other newly arrived migrants. The new arrangements will continue to ensure adequate protection for vulnerable migrants—for example, where there is domestic violence, death of a partner or an injury or accident after their arrival in Australia.

The bill also makes changes to the social security law and veterans entitlements legislation to enhance the integrity of treatment of certain asset-test-exempt income streams. These changes strengthen the existing rules that require lifetime and life expectancy income streams to provide an annual actuarial certificate in order to benefit from concessional treatment and address inconsistencies in the treatment of these income streams that have arisen over time.

Finally, the bill also makes amendments to the social security law to clarify that payments made by an employer to an employee in lieu of notice of the termination of his or her employment are redundancy payments for the purposes of social security law. This ensures that, in calculating income maintenance periods under the act, people who receive these payments are treated in the same way as people who receive other types of redundancy payments. I thank the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Ms MACKLIN: by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (13:12): On behalf of the opposition, I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 6) Bill 2011, which was introduced into this House on 22 June by the Assistant Treasurer, the member for Maribyrnong. This bill has three schedules. I will say at the outset that the coalition will not be opposing this bill. As is often the case and as I have said on many previous occasions, bills such as this correct unintended errors, add to the tax law in other important ways and ensure the ongoing operation of an efficient and fair tax system. This bill is no exception.

I will deal with each of the three schedules. The first schedule exempts the outer regional and remote payment made under the Better Start for Children with Disability initiative from income tax. The second schedule provides an exemption for fringe benefits tax for transport, specifically with regard to circumstances where an employee is receiving fringe benefits in a remote overseas location—and I will come back to the detail of that. Finally, as is often the case, this bill updates the deductible gift recipients list in a number of important respects.

I will deal with the first schedule. The Assistant Treasurer outlined in his tabling speech in some detail the proposed operation of this in schedule 1. As many members will be aware, there are already payments made under the program; I outlined the Better Start for Children with Disability initiative. Those payments are important payments for a range of disabilities, including sight or hearing impairment, cerebral palsy, Down syndrome and a number of others. With respect to eligible children with those disabilities in remote and regional areas, there is an additional payment of $2,000 which is being provided to take account of the additional costs resulting from the distance involved in living in those remote and regional areas. The effect of this schedule is simply to ensure that the additional payment is not subject to income tax. That is the sort of schedule we see in these tax laws amendment bills when important benefits of that nature are provided. Without this schedule, the tax law would automatically tax those additional payments, and this schedule sensibly ensures that the $2,000 payment is exempt from income tax calculations.

The second schedule deals with overseas fly-in fly-out arrangements with respect to fringe benefits tax. Essentially at the present point in time there is an exemption from fringe benefits tax for transport from an employee's usual place of residence to their place of employment, where the employee is employed under what is commonly known as fly-in fly-out arrangements and the usual place of employment is a remote location in Australia or on an oil rig or another installation at sea. The Assistant Treasurer outlined in his second reading speech the intention of this schedule essentially to extend that exemption in the same way where the employee is an Australian resident employed in a remote area overseas under a fly-in fly-out arrangement.

That makes sense. The point we on this side of the House would make is this has been necessitated by an earlier change to the taxation law. That was a change announced and legislated by the government back in 2009. It relates to foreign employment income for Australians working overseas. That change meant that Australians in this circumstance who had been exempt from Australian income tax to a level would no longer be. A corollary of that is because they may have been receiving fringe benefits before and they were not subject to income tax now, under the change to that law, there was the potential for them to be double-taxed. I would commend members who are interested in this point to read the explanatory memorandum which outlines in detail this necessity on page 10 at 2.15:

Such benefits were previously exempt from FBT because no FBT liability arose in relation to benefits provided to employees whose salary or wages were fully exempt from income tax. Removing the income tax exemption for affected individuals has brought these individuals within the FBT regime.

It goes on to outline in great detail how that would occur. At 2.19 on the same page it states:

Double taxation may occur because Australia taxes fringe benefits in the hands of employers, whereas most other countries that tax fringe benefits, tax them in the hands of employees.

Tax law is a very detailed area of law as you would appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker. But the point from this side of the House is that this is something that the government themselves should have recognised at the time of that change a couple of years ago. I make the point in the House that it is a technical oversight. This oversight was recognised prior to the introduction of this bill. In fact, the announcement of the change was made back in 2010, I believe, by the then Assistant Treasurer. I understand it has taken until now to make it into the tax laws amendment bill. The explanatory memorandum was in a media release on 18 November 2010, when it was announced that there would be this change in a tax laws amendment bill.

As I said at the outset, the final schedule updates the deductible gift recipients list. It adds to that list the New Zealand government's Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust and the Cancer Australia Gift Fund. It makes some other consequential changes, including renaming some recipients already on the list. It also repeals some from the list, but only in cases where those names are now redundant and have been replaced by either new names or, in one case I think, a merger of a couple of organisations with the same purpose. The addition of those two to the list is something that all members of this House and the Australian public would welcome. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (13:20): I am very pleased to rise in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 6) Bill. This bill delivers a number of different but highly important measures. It will directly assist families dealing with disability. It will ensure certainty for industry regarding the fringe benefits tax. Finally, it adds two new organisations to the deductible gift recipients register for tax purposes. I thank the Assistant Treasurer for all his efforts on these matters and I encourage all members to support this legislation.

First, I want to discuss the importance of this bill with specific focus on schedule 1 which amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to ensure that the outer regional and remote payment made under the Better Start for Children with Disability initiative is exempt from income tax. This government realises the unfortunate reality that it is harder for families who live in regional and remote parts of Australia and care for a loved one with a disability. It is much harder to visit necessary services in some remote parts of Australia. That is why the government introduced the outer regional and remote areas payment. This means that eligible recipients would receive a one-off payment of $2,000 to help manage the extra logistical difficulties that come with caring for a person with a disability—

(Quorum formed) Madam Deputy Speaker, I was talking about the needs of people with disability and the importance of assisting those people and particularly their carers. Under the current law, payments made to recipients under the Better Start for Children with Disability initiative may be subject to income tax. This bill will ensure that the outer regional and remote payment made under the Better Start for Children with Disability initiative is expressly exempt from income tax.

Schedule 2 of the bill will also provide increased certainty to fly-in fly-out employees working overseas and their employers by exempting transport from the fringe benefits tax.

Finally, schedule 3 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act to update the list of deductible gift recipients.

I would particularly like to spend a bit of time dealing with the issues relevant to schedule 1. On 29 July last year the Prime Minister made a landmark announcement in detailing the Better Start for Children with Disability initiative. As of 1 July this year, eligible children will be able to access a range of early intervention service providers, including speech pathologists, audiologists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists and psychologists.

Early intervention can make a huge difference to the development and lifelong learning of a child with a disability, and access to these services will help better prepare them for school. This initiative will see around 9,000 children of up to seven years of age who have been diagnosed with cerebral palsy, Down syndrome, fragile X syndrome and/or sight or hearing impairments potentially benefit from these measures. Eligible children will have access to a total of $12,000 in flexible funding for early intervention services and will be able to use up to $6,000 in any one financial year.

On top of this, those Australians living in outer regional and remote parts of the country will receive a one-off payment of $2,000 to assist with the extra costs of transport and other expenses that are incurred due to living in remote regions. By amending the Income Tax Assessment Act, the bill will ensure that families receiving the additional outer regional and remote payment under the Better Start for Children with Disability initiative will be exempt from paying income tax on this one-off payment. This government realises the added pressures, financial and otherwise, that many people who are caring for a young person with disability in regional Australia face, and we are legislating accordingly.

Schedule 2 of the bill ensures certainty for employees whose usual place of employment is overseas, specifically where they work at a remote location that is not in a state or internal territory for an Australian employer. This is otherwise referred to as a fly-in fly-out arrangement. In November last year the Assistant Treasurer announced that Australian workers in such arrangements who worked overseas would be treated the same as those in the same arrangement working in Australia. Therefore, the current fringe benefit tax exemption on travel that applies to fly-in fly-out workers in Australia will be extended to Australian workers overseas. This exemption will be backdated to 1 July 2009, when the tax changes to foreign employment income commenced. This exemption provides the certainty sought by industry regarding the fringe benefit tax implications of changes to the taxation of Australian residents employed overseas. This will improve the consistency of treatment and ensure certainty for employees and their employers.

Finally, this bill will add the New Zealand government's Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust and Cancer Australia to the list of deductible gift recipients.

I would like to mention a number of examples from my own electorate of Greenway that highlight why it is so important to address the issue of disability, as schedule 1 of this bill certainly does. In my first speech in this place, I made a commitment to try and improve the lives of people touched by disability. During my time here as a member I have been truly moved by the stories and experiences of the many people in my electorate who have a disability or who care for people with a disability. Over the winter recess, I visited a number of disability service providers and families who are caring for loved ones with a disability. Time and again, these people sat down and told me how difficult it is to provide care and support for clients and family members who have a disability.

In June this year, I met local resident Peter Mortimer and his family during a visit to the disability service provider Ability Options in Seven Hills. Peter's 25-year-old daughter, Kate, at the age of six suffered a catastrophic brain injury, causing her profound disability. After living at home with her family, Kate recently moved into a group home and receives support to manage her daily activities through the Ability Options self-managed program. Peter told me how difficult it was for Kate and the rest of his family immediately after Kate's accident and during her formative years, telling me:

Because of Kate's growth and changing posture she has needed six custom-made wheelchairs over her lifetime and these are not something you can just pick off a shelf.

For each new chair we have had to wait on average 18 months for the funding to be approved, for moulds to be taken and for the chair to be made. We even partially funded one of Kate's wheelchairs as we couldn't wait—Kate really needed it for her posture and so she could engage in activities.

Unfortunately, Kate's story is not an uncommon one, and it is exactly why we must do all we can to help Australians who have a disability, especially younger Australians during their formative years.

The Better Start for Children with Disability initiative directly aims to improve the quality of life of young people with disability. This amendment builds on this legislation by easing the financial burden on families living in remote and regional Australia who are raising children who have a disability.

I want to take this opportunity to say that it is crucial we work towards easing the pressures on people with disability and on their carers. In addition to the Better Start for Children with Disability initiative, we must ensure that all Australians with a disability have the care and support they need. That is why I and a number of other members have backed the Productivity Commission's report into long-term disability care and support, and will continue to push for the implementation of a national disability insurance scheme.

I also want to thank the Prime Minister and the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs for their support of the Productivity Commission's report. For too long, people living with disability in this country have been treated as second-class citizens. Throughout my electorate, people have contacted me saying we must address these issues.

I am advocating for a comprehensive national disability insurance scheme that will deliver lifetime care and support for people with severe and profound disability, a strong income support system to enable people who cannot support themselves through work to live in dignity and a range of measures to facilitate increased private expenditure.

Only last week I visited Northcott Disability Services, where I met an extraordinary young women named Gretta Serov—and people may have seen Gretta in the Sydney Morning Herald. Gretta has cerebral palsy. She is confined to a wheelchair and cannot speak. She told me her story by communicating through a tablet computer. Gretta told me that an NDIS would 'basically mean I could integrate much more smoothly into the community and it will increase my independence and quality of life by providing much needed support and transport'. Gretta and the Northcott staff also highlighted how pleased they were with the Prime Minister's response to the Productivity Commission's report. Gretta went on to tell me that she is looking forward to attending university to possibly study creative writing. I have no doubt that Gretta will get to university and achieve her goals, but it is up to us to remove the unfair and unequal barriers that currently stand in her way. That is why I support the implementation of a national disability insurance scheme and encourage all members to do the same.

In conclusion, as I said, this bill does three important things. The bill will amend the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 to exempt from fringe benefits tax the cost of transport for Australian residents travelling to and from remote overseas places of employment, providing certainty to employees and employers. The bill will also amend the list of deductible gift recipients to make gifts to the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust and Cancer Australia tax-deductible. Finally, the bill will ease the financial strain on families in regional and remote parts of Australia who are caring for someone with a disability, by exempting their regional and remote payments made under the Better Start for Children with Disability initiative from income tax. These are the right things to do for our community, and I urge all members to support this bill.

Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (13:34): I rise to lend my support to the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 6) Bill 2011. The bill is not controversial. It is broken up into three segments. The first schedule amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 in order to ensure that certain payments made under the Better Start for Children with Disability initiative are exempt from income tax—and I will expand on the benefits of that later on in my speech. Schedule 2 amends the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 to exempt from fringe benefits tax the cost of transport for Australian residents travelling to and from remote overseas places of employment. Schedule 3 amends the list of deductible gift recipients, DGRs, in the ITAA 1997 to make gifts to the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust and Cancer Australia tax-deductible. According to the explanatory memorandum, the sole financial implication of the bill is a $0.68 million cost to revenue in the 2011-12 financial year.

Looking at schedule 1 in more detail, the Better Start for Children with Disability initiative, which we refer to as Better Start, provides funding for early intervention for particular disabled children. The aim of the initiative is to intervene early in the lives of such children because intervention at that stage is considered to be more effective than later treatment. In particular, it is hoped that early intervention will prepare this cohort of children for school. The disabilities covered by the initiative are cerebral palsy, Down syndrome, fragile X syndrome, and moderate or greater vision and hearing impairments including deaf-blindness. To be eligible for funding under the initiative, the family must provide evidence of the child's age; a confirmed, written diagnosis of a relevant disability; evidence of residential status; and the child's Centrelink customer number—relatively easy things for parents to comply with. In addition to the general benefits available to all eligible children and their parents and/or carers, those living in remote and regional Australia will also be eligible for a further, one-off payment of $2,000. This is to reflect the additional expenses associated with accessing early intervention services, including travel and home visits. My seat of Wright includes an element of remoteness, so those funds will be well sought after by people in my electorate.

I am sure we would all agree that parents of severely disabled children have one of the toughest gigs in the world. Coping with the additional amount of physical and emotional care is a challenge. Children with disabilities may need regular medical attention, time in hospital or regular therapy in addition to extra care at home. These pressures, the sense of isolation and, indeed, desperation that can accompany high levels of care can place a lot of emotional as well as financial stress on a parent. The difficulties of that responsibility are only magnified if they happen to live in a regional or remote area where access to services and support are naturally harder to come by. In those circumstances, a bit of extra assistance will never go astray. To that end, the amendments contained in schedule 1 will ensure that the outer regional and remote payment will be exempt from income tax. I personally believe these amendments are entirely appropriate for families to whom every extra dollar counts.

Schedule 2 speaks to the overseas fly-in fly-out FBT exemption. The bill gives an exemption from fringe benefits tax for transport from an employee's usual place of residence to their usual place of employment where the employee is an Australian resident employed in a remote area overseas under fly-in fly-out arrangements. Current FBT arrangements expressly exempt transport from an employee's usual place of residence to their usual place of employment, where the employee is employed under what is commonly known as a fly-in fly-out arrangement and the usual place of employment is a remote location in Australia, on an oil rig or on another installation at sea.

As we reflect on the booming resources sector that Australia is incurring at the moment, we have more people who are choosing to reside on the eastern seaboard while there is a greater demand for their skills either in remote parts of Australia or offshore. Schedule 2 extends the exemption to Australians whose usual place of employment is overseas specifically where they work at a remote location that is not in a state or internal territory of an Australian employer.

The extension will apply to fringe benefits provided since 1 July 2009, which is when the foreign employment income of Australian residents became assessable in certain circumstances. Previously, foreign employment income was exempt from income tax paid by the taxpayer if they had been employed overseas for more than 91 days in a continuous period. However, in 2009 the Rudd government tightened the eligibility requirements for the exemption in section 23AG of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 so that only foreign income that is 'directly attributable' to particular activities, such as the delivery of Australia's official development assistance or the person's deployment as a member of an Australian 'disciplined force', is exempt.

Since 2009 the foreign employment income of Australians not engaged in any of those specific activities has been subject to Australian income tax. Similarly, any fringe benefits provided by the employer, including fly-in fly-out transport, has also been subject to taxation.

Under the proposed amendments, while foreign employment income will still be subject to Australian income tax, the provision of transport will become exempt from FBT. Extending the exemption will ensure that Australian residents working for Australian employers in remote areas on fly-in fly-out arrangements are taxed consistently, regardless of whether they are working in Australia or overseas, as well as eliminate any possible double taxation on such benefits. The extension of the exemption will only apply to Australian resident taxpayers because foreign resident taxpayers are not taxable in Australia on their foreign sourced income.

This amendment clears up an oversight from a previous tax law change. This is a fairly obvious technical oversight to previous changes that the government should not have allowed to happen in the first place. However, with the number of Australians working under fly-in fly-out arrangements increasing, it is satisfying to see that we are finally rectifying a loophole which unfairly disadvantaged those Australians who operated under similar circumstances in an overseas location.

Schedule 3 speaks to deductible gift recipients. The income tax laws allow income tax deductions for taxpayers who make gifts of $2 or more to organisations registered as deductible gift recipients. To be considered a DGR, an organisation must fall within one of the general categories set out in division 30 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 or be specifically listed by name in that division. DGR status assists eligible funds and organisations to garner public support for their activities.

The amendments in schedule 3 add the New Zealand government's Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust, established following the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake, and Cancer Australia to the list of DGRs and makes other minor changes to the DGR listings. Both charities well deserve a place on that register.

In my electorate of Wright, we know a thing or two about natural disasters and we can truly sympathise with the tough time the people of Christchurch have been through over the past six months or so. Recovering from a natural disaster is an ongoing process and no doubt it will be some time yet before the physical and emotional scars have healed. Later this year I look forward to catching up with the mayor of Christchurch to discuss the personal hardship that he went through, similar to that which we went through in the Grantham area. I understand the Earthquake Appeal Trust is doing fantastic work repairing schools, restoring the city's parks and sporting facilities and laying the groundwork for the construction of an interim 'cardboard cathedral' to temporarily replace the iconic Anglican cathedral in the city centre. I know that many Australians have donated generously to their Kiwi cousins and it is only fair that their generosity is acknowledged in this way on this register.

Cancer Australia was established in 2006 to provide national leadership in cancer control and to benefit all Australians, their families and carers who are affected by cancer. The organisation works to reduce the impact of cancer and improve the wellbeing of those diagnosed by ensuring that evidence informs cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment and supportive care. Everybody knows at least one person who has been tragically touched by cancer and it is the one cause to which almost everyone is happy to donate. For that reason alone, I am happy to see the Cancer Australia gift fund included on the list of DGRs.

In conclusion, the coalition believes the amendments contained in the bill are worth while and, for that reason, it carries my full support.

Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (13:44): I rise to speak in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 6) Bill 2011. This is very important legislation because it seeks to amend various taxation laws and will implement a range of improvements to our current Australian taxation law.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): Order! I apologise to the member for Robertson but, it being 1.45 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the honourable member for Robertson will at that time have an opportunity to continue her remarks.

Mrs ELLIOT: by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (16:56): I move:

That this House concurs with the resolution relating to the reduction of energy use in Parliament House.

The 10 Per Cent campaign is a challenge to individuals and businesses to reduce their energy consumption, electricity and fuel by 10 per cent, and it is a great practical campaign being run by Do Something and by Choice. The motion before us passed the Senate on the voices and has been sent to the House for concurrence.

Parliament House easily has the capacity to meet this challenge and the Department of Parliamentary Services has the capacity to facilitate these reduction targets. Other organisations that have signed up to the 10 Per Cent challenge include Bunnings, Visy, Unilever, Toyota, Sensis, the University of Canberra and, notably, News Limited. I for one would hate to see a situation where this Parliament House was trailing News Limited when it came to energy innovation initiatives.

One of the practical consequences will be to provide some real leadership from this parliament to Australians about the benefits of cutting their electricity bills through energy efficiency. It is clear that one of the greatest steps we can take to reduce energy use is also the one that is going to reduce people's power bills. That is true in the home. It is estimated that somewhere between 30 and 40 per cent savings can be made on energy bills simply through energy efficiency measures. And that is true here. By reducing our reliance on energy here in Parliament House we will of course be saving a significant amount of taxpayer dollars. It is also an example of practical leadership, one that I would hope all sides of parliament and all members of this House would support. I commend the motion to the House.

Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (16:58): I second the motion and I reserve my right to speak.

Question agreed to.

Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (16:59): I rise to speak in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 6) Bill 2011. This bill makes three changes to Australian tax laws further modernising our taxation system and ensuring that our taxation system takes account of the most disadvantaged in our society. I strongly support the first initiative in this bill which is aimed at promoting early intervention for children with disabilities. Under the system known as the Better Start for Children with Disability initiative, which the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs has just outlined and that was announced as part of the government's election commitments on 29 July 2010, I am proud to be a member of a government that has fulfilled a commitment to improve the long-term outcomes for children with disabilities. I have long believed that we must not consider children with a disability as necessarily placing a significant burden on the state. Indeed, as a teacher and now as a parliamentarian I have long observed the incredibly positive contribution that people with disabilities play in our community at all ages and stages of their lives. It is always important to reaffirm the vast variety of disabilities of differing degrees that people are affected by and to identify within that incredible talents and abilities as well.

Early intervention initiatives have proven immensely successful in improving the lives of children with a variety of disabilities. Indeed, intervention at the early childhood stage of development is now considered to be much more effective than later treatment. The Better Start for Children with Disability initiative funds early intervention for children with certain developmental disabilities which the minister recently outlined. This amendment to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 ensures that the outer regional and remote payment made under the Better Start for Children with Disability initiative is exempt from income tax. I find this reform very encouraging because it will ensure that financial assistance is available and secure. Funding under this initiative is available to families after evidence is provided of confirmed written diagnosis of disability. Whilst this eligibility regime is a necessity, as a community I say again we must always remember that people, including particularly children with disabilities, are never to be defined by those disabilities. While definitions of disability are a necessity in relation to the administration of these tax and social security benefits, we have to be mindful of the inherent limitation of labels, to see the abilities of all, and to celebrate the gifts that kids with disabilities bring to their families, to their school communities and to their broader communities.

The provision I mentioned here provides a further one-off payment of $2,000 to parents and carers who are living in rural and regional communities in Australia who require assistance to get their young child with a disability to the type of care and support that they deserve and they need. This element is a vital component to the scheme because parents and carers living in remote and regional areas experience far greater difficulty in accessing services than we would like to be the case. I believe that the additional $2,000 will help remedy this by enabling additional expenses such as travel for doctors appointments and transport to be able to be covered. This social program represents a very smart investment by government.

By investing in early intervention we not only improve real life outcomes, we also save on health costs. By intervening early we are increasing the likelihood that individual children with disabilities will lead happy, independent and fulfilling lives. By establishing support services early in life, it is likely that children with disabilities will grow up much more engaged with and active in their communities. I am proud to support a government committed to improving the life circumstances for people with disabilities. It is a core Labor value to support the most disadvantaged in society. Our record shows that our policy decisions are not just geared to ensuring the greatest good for the greatest number but always retain within our legislative program compassion, empathy and a belief in supporting those who might be less advantaged. I believe that this legislation is complemented by our plan to introduce a national disability insurance scheme, a once in a generation reform that will directly improve and transform the lives of people with disabilities and those of their families.

Another important reform contained in this bill is the amendments to the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 in particular in relation to transport from an employee's usual place of residence to their usual place of employment. This bill will provide an exemption from the fringe benefits tax for transport from an employee's usual place of residence to their usual place of employment. This amendment operates in the circumstances where the employee is an Australian resident employed in a remote area overseas under what is commonly known as a fly-in fly-out arrangement. Our taxation system should not act as a disincentive for people to work under a fly-in fly-out arrangement.

Also as stated by the minister in his second reading speech, this measure ensures that any possible double taxation is eliminated. Taxing transport provided under these arrangements may also result in economic double taxation, with an Australian employer paying FBT on transport provided to an employee employed under a fly-in fly-out situation. Our taxation system needs to take into account the fact that Australians work and engage in a global economy, and working overseas is necessarily a component of this. The amendments improve the fairness and integrity of Australia's tax system by better targeting the tax exemption for income earned by Australians overseas. As a result, most Australian residents earning employment income are now treated more consistently.

The third important change that this legislation brings is one to our recognition of charitable donations and adds a new fund to the list of deductible gift recipients. DGR status will assist the listed organisations to attract public support for their activities. It will allow those who wish to donate more than $2 to deduct the amount from their tax for that year. The Charities Aid Foundation, a body representing charities in the United Kingdom, has recognised Australia as the most giving nation in their annual World Giving Index.

The giving index aggregates three key factors: money given to charities by a nation's citizens, time spent volunteering, and how willing a nation's citizens are to help strangers. Australia and New Zealand were shown to be the most giving nations. It is a testament to the Australian character that we are so willing to give. We are willing to give our time to friends and family, to give support to strangers, and to give money to help our fellow Australians and our friends across the Tasman.

This schedule adds an organisation to the act, namely, the New Zealand government's Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust, and also the Cancer Australia Gift Fund. The New Zealand government's Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust was established to help the families and communities affected by the devastating earthquake of 22 February 2011. Listing the New Zealand government's Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust will allow Australians to donate to the appeal and claim a tax deduction for the donation.

These changes reward Australians who give to our closest neighbours and friends. New Zealand suffered greatly through the earthquakes earlier this year, and since then has suffered many tremors and frightening shocks. Nearly 200 New Zealanders lost their lives, and the resulting damage bill is in the tens of billions. The natural response from Australians is to act. Immediately, the Prime Minister pledged Australian assistance to New Zealand and gave $5 million to the Red Cross. This was accompanied by direct assistance from the people of Australia. As the Prime Minister said in her address to the parliament of New Zealand earlier this year:

That is why I say Australia has many alliances and friendships around the world. Economic and defence partnerships of every kind. But New Zealand alone is family.

This schedule does not only deal with aid to New Zealand, however; it also makes some procedural changes related to the amalgamation of the National Breast and Ovarian Cancer Centre, the NBOCC, and Cancer Australia on 15 June 2010.

The National Breast and Ovarian Cancer Centre and Cancer Australia merged to create a one-stop shop to provide improved leadership to and outcomes for Australians living with cancer and their families. The new Cancer Australia will combine the experience and successes of both organisations to further strengthen the Australian government's strategic focus on cancer and create a solid platform for the coordination of cancer initiatives at a national level. Breast cancer and ovarian cancer will remain a priority for Cancer Australia as it delivers the government's broader cancer programs and research priorities. Following the listing of the Cancer Australia Gift Fund, donations made to this new organisation will be used to improve breast cancer outcomes for women, reduce mortalities from breast cancer and improve the wellbeing of women diagnosed with the disease.

This is an important bill that will ensure greater equality in our taxation system. It will support early identification and intervention for children with disabilities who live in families in remote and rural areas. They will get the assistance they need. The bill will support Australian workers that are employed in fly-in fly-out industries by ensuring they will not be taxed twice. It will also support charitable donations to new and vital organisations to ensure that Australians can contribute to, and great outcomes can be achieved for, the health of the nation. I commend the minister for his work and I commend the bill to the House.

Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) (17:10): I would like to thank all those members who have contributed to the debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 6) Bill 2011, including the member for Robertson.

Schedule 1 to this bill ensures that the outer regional and remote payments to support families with children with disabilities will be exempt from income tax. This is an important amendment to ensure families with children with disabilities will not have to pay tax on the outer regional and remote payments they receive.

Schedule 2 extends the fringe benefits tax exemption for Australian residents working in remote locations on a fly-in fly-out basis to Australian residents working on a fly-in fly-out basis in similar remote locations overseas. Extending the exemption will ensure that Australian residents working for Australian employers in remote areas in fly-in fly-out arrangements will be taxed consistently, regardless of whether they are working in Australia or overseas. This measure will apply to fringe benefits provided after 1 July 2009, when Australian residents working in remote areas overseas became potentially assessable on their foreign employment income.

Schedule 3 amends the deductible gift recipient, DGR, provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. Taxpayers can claim an income tax deduction for gifts to organisations that are DGRs. This schedule adds two new organisations to the act, namely: the New Zealand government's Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust and the Cancer Australia Gift Fund. Making these organisations deductible gift recipients will assist them in attracting public support for their activities. It also recognises the name change of WorldSkills Australia Inc. to WorldSkills Australia.

This bill deserves the support of the parliament. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr SHORTEN: by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper) (17:16): I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill 2011 because it is a particularly important industry reform. It is vitally important that we protect our manufacturing industries from unfair competition. This legislation makes some meaningful improvements to our antidumping regime. We should be aiming towards a regime that allows our manufacturers to access good protections without undue cost or undue delays. Under the present regime, where it is very cumbersome and very untimely to counter the effects of dumping, our manufacturers are being greatly disadvantaged.

In my electorate, our many manufacturers are concerned with the issue of dumping—and I do welcome the reforms in this legislation. On 8 August, I welcomed the member for Indi, the shadow minister for innovation, industry and science, to my electorate. We met with a range of manufacturers and discussed a range of issues of importance to them. That visit was held at the premises of WE Smith Hudson, an innovative manufacturer of pressure vessels in my electorate. They employ some 90 employees. They have reduced staff fairly recently due to a downturn in orders, but they still maintain a staff of around 90. They produce world-class equipment, particularly in the area of heat exchangers, and they raised a number of important issues with the shadow minister and me.

One of the main issues that they raised was the ineffectiveness of our current local content laws, where a range of projects are required to have a certain set percentage of local content, but unfortunately it is possible for those laws to be circumvented by certain operators, who incorporate parts of the structure which are groundworks and are actually considered to be part of the local content. They raised with us the very important issue that, where you had local content requirements, they had to relate to the equipment itself and not to the preparatory work and groundworks that might be a necessary accompaniment to the equipment but really could not be imported anyway. If you have a local content requirement, it is vitally important that it is effective, and WE Smith Hudson raised the very important point that the current local content rules certainly did not pass that effectiveness test because purchases of equipment were able to incorporate the groundworks as part of the local content. Clearly that was not the intent of the legislation, but it has been the practical effect.

Another issue that WE Smith Hudson raised with us during that visit was the fact that many overseas countries are subsidising their manufacturers in competing with Australian manufacturers. Countries in Europe, for instance, are subsidising the cost of transport of their equipment to Australia for the purposes of incorporation in resource projects. I think that is a very important issue; it is not a level playing field for our local manufacturers. We are losing manufacturing jobs at the rate of around 620 every week and we need to look to ensure that our world-class manufacturing industry is not being disadvantaged by unfair competition, either through the failure of the effectiveness of the local content laws or through our industries having to compete with unfair subsidies being provided by countries in Asia and Europe.

Also the issue was raised with us of the fact that many countries preclude our manufacturers from competing in their markets. It is a source of great concern and it is costing us jobs. A firm like WE Smith Hudson has incredible skills—the match of anywhere in the world and better than most countries in the world—and incredible intellectual property, but in many cases it is disadvantaged in the markets that it wishes to compete in.

During that visit by the shadow minister, we spoke to a range of other manufacturers and the story was the same. Dealing with unfair competition, rising costs and government induced overheads was making it more difficult for them to compete in markets where imports are benefiting from a strong Australian dollar and cheaper labour costs. It is making it very difficult for those manufacturers to compete and to continue to employ people. I commend the shadow minister on coming to my electorate and sharing her time and discussing with my local manufacturers their concerns.

I commend the work that she did in discussing with WE Smith Hudson their specific concerns in relation to the very specialised pressure vessel markets and the challenges they faced with regard to the ineffectiveness of the local content laws and dealing with subsidised overseas competitors. They also raised the issue of infrastructure. The pressure vessels which they produce are massive in size and in many cases they are limited in transporting them on the current road infrastructure because of load limits on bridges. Another important factor that we need to incorporate in our transport policy is measures in relation to load limits so that we can transport large objects that are manufactured locally along our roads and get those goods to market.

I commend this legislation for the improvements that it makes to the antidumping regime. I know that much more needs to be done in this area. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (17:22): I speak in support of the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Improvements) Bill 2011. To start, I want to commend a number of organisations and individuals for the work they have done in relation to this: my good friend the member for Oxley, the Hon. Bernie Ripoll; the Hon. Brendan O'Connor, the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Justice; the Australian Aluminium Extrusions Association for their advocacy; and the Australian Workers Union, particularly Paul Howes. Locally, out my way, I would like to thank Sven Gade, the business manager of Capral Ltd, and Phil Jobe, the managing director of Capral; and G James Glass for their advocacy in relation to this issue. This is a national issue that has big resonance in my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland where Capral is located. Capral is a major manufacturer of aluminium products. The legislation here will make a big difference that will protect the jobs of hundreds of people living in the western corridor between Ipswich and Brisbane and the rural areas outside. I want to thank those people and those organisations for their wonderful advocacy in relation to this bill.

Dumping is a particularly iniquitous practice that affects Australian jobs. Dumping occurs when an overseas supplier exports goods to Australia at a price below their normal value. The normal value is usually based on the domestic price of the goods in the exporting country. Tragically for Australian jobs, this has happened all too often. It is not a matter of free trade versus fair trade. We believe in free trade; as an exporting country we believe that it is in the best interests of Australia to export to countries like China, South Korea, the United States, Japan and Europe. But we also believe that trade between countries needs to be based on a degree of justice and fairness. When a company engages in dumping, it really seeks to have an unfair advantage compared to local Australian companies, and it will materially impact on local Australian jobs.

The improvements summarised in this legislation are the result of extensive stakeholder consultation, and some of the organisations and individuals I mentioned here have been major players in that consultation. There has been consideration of the Productivity Commission Inquiry Report No. 48 of 18 December 2009, Australia's anti-dumping and countervailing system. The consideration of this legislation comes very much out of that. The changes, we believe, will improve access to the antidumping system across the country. It will improve the timeliness of decisions in relation to this. We believe it will improve decision making over the whole process. We do not believe these are protectionist measures. We believe they are in line with our obligations, particularly our obligations under World Trade Organisation arrangements. We think also that we are doing what other countries comparable to us, the United States, Canada and other countries in the EU, are doing to protect local jobs and to make sure that there is a level playing field in relation to this particular measure.

There is a raft of improvements. I welcome the package of 29 improvements to the system. They will have a big impact on not only employment but also the social fabric of our community. There will be better support to industries in our area. The AWU supports this. We have had companies like Capral supporting this. We have even had the National Farmers Federation coming out in support of the measures we are undertaking here. David Crombie, the chair of the National Farmers Federation Trade Committee had this to say:

Agriculture is one industry that is particularly susceptible to dumping, where foreign products are exported to Australia at a price below cost price.

The NFF believes it is very important that industries like agriculture, that have legitimate claims against dumped exports, have the opportunity to seek a remedy for this through Australia’s anti-dumping system, ensuring unfair trading practices can be challenged.

He went on to say:

This means that the emphasis remains on whether goods were exported to Australia at a price below the normal value of the goods, thus making it harder for our farmers to complete, rather than on any perceived short-term consumer benefit.

When you have a situation where the National Farmers Federation, the AWU and business are in support of these changes, I think we have got it right.

In my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland, which has a very large farming community and a very big manufacturing base in Ipswich, this will be particularly important—also for smaller businesses as well because they have found the cost, the expense and the complexity of antidumping action prohibitive in taking actions. So these amendments, which will make an impact nationally, will make an impact locally in my electorate. There are a number of improvements. The minister said in his second reading speech on 6 July 2011:

These improvements will improve the way we administer global anti-dumping rules in Australia and better align our laws and practices with those of other countries.

I agree. This will make a difference locally.

I will go through the amendments which will have an impact in my electorate and in communities across the country. Improvements include the following. There is an improved timeliness in relation to this issue. We will have a 45 per cent increase in Customs staff working on antidumping issues over the next 12 months to ensure cases are dealt with more efficiently and effectively. I think the 30-day time limit for ministerial decisions on antidumping cases will make a difference, for a start.

I think one of the biggest problems in this area is that it is extraordinarily complex. It is very difficult for the average person to get their head around. It is difficult for small companies to take on these types of cases. One only has to read anything prepared in relation to this issue, including reports, advice from QCs given to me, reports from companies involved in these types of cases, and analyses by Access Economics, to see this. It is extraordinarily difficult for the layperson to get their head around. This is very complex law. The whole practice and procedures here make it very difficult to identify whether a company overseas is dumping. We have not had the expertise, in my view. We have not had the staff in Customs to take this on. I think the commitment to boost the monitoring measures to ensure compliance will be very important. With companies from overseas, particularly in the case of Capral, the competition and the dumping have been from Chinese companies. For too long we have found it difficult to identify that dumping has actually occurred. The indexes, the criteria, the factors and the circumstances make it very difficult, particularly when companies overseas are often state-owned companies, which are heavily subsidised in countries like China. We need stronger compliance. The idea that we can combat these measures is really important. I think we need improved decision making. (Quorum formed)

Obviously we on this side of the House are concerned about protecting jobs and helping farmers, but those opposite are not listening to those sorts of speeches. They are not interested in protecting jobs, protecting workers or protecting farmers in our economies across the country. I mentioned before the complexity of this issue. For example, on 22 March 2011 Deloitte Access Economics undertook an analysis of antidumping measures in aluminium markets in 2008-09 for Capral. It is extraordinarily complex analysing the approach of Customs and Border Protection to substituting the London Metal Exchange prices with Shanghai Futures Exchange prices over 2008-09. Capral have been involved in a number of pieces of litigation, including an application they made on 11 May 2009 for the publication of dumping duty and countervailing duty notices in respect of aluminium extrusions exported to Australia from China. That is just one of many measures that the company and other companies in the country have been involved in. As at 30 June 2011, there were 24 measures in place against 18 products and 12 countries in relation to antidumping.

This is not some academic exercise. This is about protecting jobs and making sure that we have got a fair system across the country. We want to make sure that, while our local economies are strong and our national economies are strong, workers are protected, and that is what we believe in the Labor Party. We are not the party of Work Choices; we are the party that protects jobs and makes sure that we stand up for the living standards of people across the country. The reforms here ensure quicker and better dumping decisions and greater consistency with other countries. This is doing what the Americans and the Canadians are doing, in large part. There is stronger compliance with antidumping measures. We have accepted 15 of the 20 recommendations in the Productivity Commission report I referred to. Some of the Productivity Commission report recommendations make it more costly and more difficult, and we did not adopt those.

We have made a big difference here. As I say, there is improved decision making through greater use of trade and industry experts in investigating complaints. There is a more rigorous appeals process supported by more resources from government, providing flexibility in allowing extensions of time to complete the complex cases, which makes it easier to expedite, and there is better access to the antidumping system. I think increasing the standing of individuals, companies, unions and other people to take these cases on will improve the capacity to stand up for local jobs, local companies and local farmers. That is important. We need to clarify who can participate in these investigations. It has been difficult in the past. A lot of small businesses and small farmers could not do it. I can imagine industry associations, large trade unions and downstream industry standing up for workers and farmers in this country.

I think it is important that we have these measures. It is important nationally and it is important for local jobs. Once again, it is a federal Labor government that stands up for workers' rights, as it has been in the past and always will be in the future. I commend the legislation to the House.

Mrs MIRABELLA (Indi) (17:37): I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill 2011. This is a day that Australian industry and the coalition has been waiting for for a long time—around three years, in fact. It was genuinely as long ago as that that the Labor Party flagged that the government would be taking action to improve Australia's antidumping system.

Finally, after all that time and following almost endless and ongoing efforts at buck-passing in recent years, the day has arrived when we have the opportunity to debate a piece of legislation on this issue. Of course, as every stakeholder in this area appreciates, the government has only acted now because it was shamed into it. Such a cross-section of critics had coalesced and so many storm clouds had gathered around its inaction that the government was rendered powerless to resist the inevitable any longer, especially after it became clear that even its own brethren in the union movement—and the faceless man who installed Ms Gillard as Prime Minister—were unhappy with its impotence on this issue. They told the government in no uncertain terms that something had to be done. I only wish this debate had come on sooner.

We all know that the Labor Party does not have its heart in legislation like the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill. You only had to watch the awkward, cringe-worthy body language and answers of the trade minister at the press conference on this issue on 22 June if you were not aware of this point already.

This legislation is being introduced under sufferance and it is born not from a desire to support, encourage and improve the fate of Australian industry and Australian agriculture but out of what the government see as a need to appease Mr Howes and to shut down public criticism of their misunderstanding of the problem of dumping and its ramifications for the Australian economy. It is the result of Minister O'Connor and Minister Emerson being panicked into doing and saying something—so much so that, even at the time they were staging their rushed press conference, some of the key documents outlining the changes were, quite remarkably, still being hastily cobbled together, to the point that, for a number of days after the announcement, they were not even ready on the ALP website, the Prime Minister's website, the customs minister's website, the trade minister's website or in any other kind of public distribution, even though they had had three years to get the details ready.

And then we found out that that was not even adequate in any case. What has subsequently been revealed is that this turned out to be yet another occasion when a policy was not even taken to cabinet, let alone to caucus, for its consideration. On one hand you had two ministers spinning a line for public consumption that the changes in this bill are revolutionary and apparently—if you swallow what was in their media alert—the most ground-breaking changes to Australia's antidumping framework in more than a decade. Yet, on the other hand, it turns out that this issue, in practice, is so trivial to the Labor Party that it has not even been listed as an agenda item for its caucus to discuss.

The succession of Labor backbenchers who will be trotted out in this debate have had absolutely no say in their party's policy on this issue of antidumping and are now, far from the first time in their careers, being ordered to blindly support a policy that has come their way. Nor have Labor powerbrokers even bothered to make any serious explanatory information available to key industry stakeholders or to the Australian public at large. It just shows, yet again, how loose is their grip on proper government and democratic processes, how feigned is their interest in the future of Australian industry, especially local manufacturing, and how skewed their priorities are.

Nonetheless—I will make an important concession here—given how reluctant they always are to admit error and defeat, even when it is blindingly obvious how bad their decisions and policies are and how devastating the impacts are for the Australian community, I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies like this piece of legislation. In that context the coalition will be supporting the passage of the bill because at least it legislates for some basic improvements, and that is a start. But, as the AWU says, it is a first step. It is also quite a come-down—and an important one at that—for the trade minister and the customs minister. So some change in this area is definitely preferable to none.

We are glad that, dragged kicking and screaming though they may have been, the government have eventually reacted to the combined pressure of the coalition, Senator Xenophon, industry groups, individual businesses and trade unions to make changes such as imposing a time limit of 30 days on ministerial decision making, widening the range of factors available for consideration in the determination of material damage and expanding the list of subsidies against which Australian industries can apply for countervailing duties. Those are sensible and practical changes for which key stakeholders have been calling for some time and it is good that something is being done about these problems.

The coalition will also support the move to grant interested-party status to unions, industry associations and other downstream users through part 10B of the Customs Act. This change will allow these parties to gain direct participative rights in dumping investigations and the capacity to initiate appeals and reviews of decisions. It embeds in legislation recognition of the obvious point that the dumping of goods in Australia impacts on a wide range of parties. It also recognises that there are sometimes commercial limitations on the ability of a business or businesses to engage in antidumping applications.

Indeed, some of the trade unionists who have been at the core of this debate in Australia over recent months should be congratulated for their commitment to placing pressure on the government when it comes to antidumping policy. More broadly, we also welcome the custom minister's statement, in his second reading speech, that changes to improve Australia's antidumping system are vital, and we welcome his accompanying comment that local industries here are vulnerable to dumping. These are long-overdue acknowledgements from the government. There have been considerable and growing frustrations over recent years in Australia with the lack of a timely and effective investigation process undertaken by Customs and the significant costs imposed on businesses that wish to raise possible cases for consideration under the current antidumping regime. The system is widely regarded as being too expensive to access and is largely unworkable in its present form. The current structure of the system typically works against the best interests of Australian manufacturers. It represents another burden on them at a time when they are already encountering a range of unwanted costs and pressures and a series of poor and clumsy policies from a government that simply has no empathy for their plight. They want a system that works for them, not one that thwarts them, especially at a time when they are already confronted by a range of government imposed costs and compliance burdens and a series of clumsy policies from the government.

Against this background, anything that can be done to strengthen the integrity and quality of the administration of our antidumping system should be supported. We need to recognise that, for as much as Australia and other nations have embraced the ethos and operation of free trade over recent decades, it does not mean that there are not instances of unfair restrictive trade, nor that such instances may even be on the rise. After all, it is for entirely these reasons that antidumping systems exist in the first place and it is why their use is fully sanctioned and supported by the WTO. Far from serving as some sort of abominable subversion of free trade or as the last form of refuge for the closet protectionists, as some observers like the trade minister would often imply, they actually enshrine and serve to underpin free trade principles.

If they are effectively implemented, antidumping systems can go a long way to remove cases of market distortion and ensure that trade is conducted on a genuinely even playing field. If there is unfair trade, if goods are being dumped on the Australian market at below their comparable price at home or in some cases even below the cost of production, then these practices should be identified and dealt with. To simply cite the pre-eminence of market forces in this kind of debate and stand idly by while industry is held hostage to unfair practices that threaten their very existence is frankly nowhere near good enough anymore.

Hopefully the changes that the government is making in this bill will mark a turning point in helping to reverse any increases in dumping in Australia. They are certainly among the kinds of changes to which the coalition was giving voice when we committed in our 2010 election policy statement to review Australia's antidumping scheme to effectively ensure that Australian manufacturers' products are not undercut by imported subsidised products or products that do not comply with appropriate quality standards. In early 2011 we reinforced that commitment by establishing our dedicated coalition antidumping task force to specifically examine problems with the current regime and advocate for a more workable, accessible and effective model. They also tap into—albeit in an understated way—the reality that a number of other countries have increasingly recognised the importance of antidumping measures when encountering market-distorting trade activities, especially countries like the US and a number of EU member states, and more recently nations like Brazil, Argentina and India, where there has been a rapid escalation in the uptake of antidumping actions. Australia will find itself increasingly exposed and in an increasingly dangerous position if it does not remain mindful of these realities.

That said, the government here still has considerable work to do. Not only is it apparent that this bill legislates for only four of the policy changes announced on 22 June—and it is anyone's guess when we might expect to see further legislative changes that have been promised—but it is also clear that, even taking all of the flagged changes as a whole, the government has still not gone far enough. It is again indulging in another of its landmark hollowmen style games by selling some of its changes as things they are plainly not, especially when it comes to the absurd boast that it is allegedly boosting the resources of Customs—a point to which I will return shortly.

Fundamentally, this is yet another exercise in spin, in which the government is being too cute by half. In characteristic style, it is demonstrating that it is more obsessed with controlling public reporting of this issue than with putting in the hard yards and legislating for a full suite of changes that will actually have teeth and will genuinely deliver the kinds of reforms that will work to the full benefit of the Australian economy.

The spectacle of Minister Emerson breathlessly invoking the acronym WTO in almost every question he is asked on this issue and essentially railing against everyone and everything that argues for enhancements to Australian's antidumping system represents not only a public slap in the face for at least two senators on his own side of the parliament who have identified grave concerns with recent approaches to this policy area but also a misreading of the national interest—and it is a slap in the face for Australian industry, which is heartily sick and tired of being treated so poorly by this government. It is a shame he clearly does not come to this debate realising that antidumping systems and free trade are not mutually exclusive and that our obligations to the World Trade Organisation do not preclude us from implementing a more effective and robust framework. If he recognised that to be the case, then we might have had a more serious and proactive effort from the government.

For once, just once, it would be nice if Minister Emerson actually stood up for Australian industry and for all those millions of workers who used to be the lifeblood of the Australian Labor Party—the Australian Labor Party that is now simply an axis of weasels. As one of their own senators drubs them, they are a group of 'lobotomised zombies' whose passive acquiescence, as Australian industry gets battered from pillar to post, is a national disgrace.

Let me turn to one of the many obvious holes in Labor's spin on this issue: the implication in its glossy promotional documents that its alleged extra resourcing of Customs represents 'a boost'. There is Minister O'Connor's statement on 22 June that the government is looking to increase Customs' resources by nearly 50 per cent. The coalition's suspicion at the time that this was nothing more than sneaky rhetoric has subsequently proved to be extremely well founded because it has now emerged that there is going to be no extra funding of Customs at all. Rather than recruiting 14 new staff, it turns out that there will be no net increase in the overall staff numbers of Customs, only that 14 positions will be taken from elsewhere within the agency. So the overblown claim that there is an increase at all, let alone one of nearly 50 per cent, is exactly that—overblown. Even if they do ultimately shift another 14 staff to the relevant branch, other areas of Customs will obviously need to be cut to compensate.

All of this is at a time when there is already unprecedented strain and pressure on Customs staff in a number of areas, especially passenger processing, as the government continues to try in vain to patch up its dog's breakfast on border protection, following year after year of budget reductions that have already been forced upon the agency under this government—and to think that the Labor Party has the hide to criticise the coalition for its statements about the Public Service.

Something has to give and it is clear that Labor does not particularly care where or what it is. There is no commitment to improving the lot, the culture, the morale or the practical effectiveness of Customs. There is only a determination to try to make up for some of its excessive spending and appalling waste of government by now starving funds to areas that are already on life support anyway. Simply shuffling resources and giving the relevant branch the appearance of a lick of fresh paint by changing its name and relocating back to a diffuse staff that it probably had shifted out of there during its first few years in office is not going to achieve anything. What is to say that when it is required to extinguish another spot fire in another area of Customs at some point in the future the government will not just engage in the same kind of cost shifting again—only this time removing resources from the anti-dumping area itself?

This government is on the run. It is not considered policymaking or careful deployment of resources. I also note that the second reading speech of the Minister for Home Affairs on this bill featured references to the utopian prospect that this bill will provide 'greater certainty'. Unfortunately, he is clearly a long way from providing certainty on at least two of the key other measures, namely, the appointment of an SME support officer and the creation of a working group of the International Trade Remedies Forum, because it is not clear how these will function in practice other than that the SME support officer will be appointed purely on a trial basis and—surprise, surprise!—only until just after the time that the next federal election is due.

One of the other critical points of contention, confusion and uncertainty around dumping is that there is growing suspicion of increased use of subsidies by foreign governments to help lower the costs of production borne by exporters from within their own countries. It is true that through this legislation Labor is taking the rather obvious step of expanding the list of subsidies against which Australians can take action, and that is a good thing. But there has been nothing in the way of serious debate, discussion or information from the Labor Party about how it practically plans to strengthen the application of measures such as preliminary affirmative determinations or how it takes account, through article 2.4 of the WTO's anti-dumping agreement for instance, of the comparative advantage that will be conferred on overseas producers as a result of the introduction of Australia's go-it-alone carbon tax or how it intends, if at all, to make changes to the way in which the WTO's agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures is interpreted and applied.

Labor's changes do represent an improvement, but you could also be forgiven for being worried that the pursuit of this so-called package of improvements will, at the end of the day, just be another chapter in the long tale of Labor inaction and impotence when it comes to anti-dumping—just as was the case in 2008 when Labor, as part of the COAG process, formally agreed that anti-dumping was a priority area for reform but then nothing whatsoever was even uttered about it until the following year, just like in 2009 when the Labor Party commissioned and then received a Productivity Commission review of anti-dumping policy but then stuffed the report in the bottom drawer and did not bother to dust it off until after the 2010 election and just like earlier this year when the Minister for Home Affairs faithfully promised that Labor would commit to a new approach to anti-dumping—and presumably to new financial investments in the system as well—as part of the budget but then was forced to give in to the Treasurer who presumably told him that Labor's serial squandering had ensured there was simply no money left to fund this new approach and the announcement would need to be postponed and reworked yet again.

If the Labor Party were genuinely serious about anti-dumping reform, it would not merely introduce this so-called first tranche of anti-dumping legislation or even the second, third and however many more tranches it has in mind to implement what has been announced. Indeed, it would go further. Rather than gilding the lily about the modest reach and impact of its changes, it would practically and genuinely commit to more far-reaching cultural and practical reforms that are required. Nonetheless, these modest improvements are welcomed and I commend the bill.

Mr SECKER (Barker—Opposition Whip) (17:58): From the outset, when speaking on the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill 2011, I will give the House a little bit about my background, because it was actually an anti-tariffs message that got me really interested in politics as a teenager. I pay homage to Bert Kelly, who was a lone voice in the Australian parliament for a couple of decades. He kept on fighting the anti-tariff issue on the basis that it made our economy worse off by trying to protect certain industries, because whenever you protected one industry you invariably hurt another industry and, of course, you hurt the consumer. So I come here on the basis of being still a free marketer. I am sure there are many on the other side who are of the same opinion and believe in free trade—but it has to be fair. That is why we have the World Trade Organisation and the rules on the basis that, where a product is proved to be dumped and harming a local industry, you can then use tariffs to fight against that unfair trade. I come from a free-trade basis, but I also believe it has to be fair, and that is what this issue is all about.

The issue of dumping in Australia is not just about competition. It is about unfair competition, and there is a substantial difference. Australian businesses are generally resilient and tough and have become so from reforms over the last 30 or so years, so there is no doubt that if they are given a fair go they will withstand, innovate and produce. However, it is very difficult for Australian businesses to move forward in the current climate when they come up against forces such as a cheap product being dumped into the country at up to 60 per cent below production cost. This is where Australia needs to support businesses with responsible policy. It can be a hard decision for businesses to launch a case against dumping; if they go ahead, the process needs to be made much fairer than it is. Certainly the feedback I hear currently is that time and money invested just in putting a case together is hugely consuming. I am not saying it should be dead easy, but I think everyone recognises it is way too hard, is way too expensive and takes too long, and by that time the industry can be in such a situation that it will not survive.

Recently I met with a business in the south-east of my electorate of Barker along with my colleague the member for Indi. I think it should be noted that the member for Indi visited 20 electorates during the five-week break from parliament. That shows a huge amount of commitment to this goal, and I think we are all the better for it. This company could clearly point out where dumping had occurred and the devastating effects it was having on their operations. When weighing up their next course of action, the company is faced with the arduous task of proceeding with putting forward a case for dumping. A large amount of resources is needed to prove a dumping case. The process has many flaws, and for small to medium sized businesses it is simply not possible for them to see out the process. Consider the obstacles faced by industry in Australia: the looming price on carbon that will drive up costs and drive investments offshore; the dangerous two-speed economy that is making it increasingly difficult for businesses to remain profitable; and now the prospect of a product being dumped unfairly against their business.

With responsible policy, the pressure of dumping could be alleviated somewhat. With appropriate measures, businesses would feel confident that they had the backing of a government that understands the issues they face and is willing to support them. But they have no such feeling of this government. It is simply not happening under the Gillard government. I know this because I have met with businesses and heard it straight from the horse's mouth. The government should be well informed about this issue, considering they commissioned the report into dumping. I was certainly floored that, even after the government's own report saying that product was in fact being dumped in Australia at up to 60 per cent below cost of production, Labor chose to take no action. Here we are, over 12 months down the track, and this government has made some changes to their anti-dumping policy, but it is nowhere near enough.

An example I can give the House—and have on numerous occasions already—is that of Kimberly-Clark's mill in the township of Millicent. Millicent is a town with a little over 5,000 people, about 700 of whom are employed in the Kimberly-Clark factory. Many more, of course, are in related industries. So you can understand how important the Kimberly-Clark mill is to the people of Millicent. The factory uses a lot of our wood products, which we also grow in the local area, and it is a very strong part of our whole economy down there. In fact, the forestry industry alone is worth more than $3 billion a year to the local economy. It is not just a very substantial part of the direct local economy around Millicent; it is also important to the area for another 100 kilometres around it, where there is a lot of forestry.

This factory uses those products and makes tissues, toilet paper and those sorts of things. The Productivity Commission report showed that there were other countries dumping tissue and toilet paper in Australia, to quite an extensive degree, at up to 60 per cent below the cost of production. It was not five or 10 per cent—in fact, I think most companies in Australia could still compete with that—but up to 60 per cent below the cost of production. Kimberly-Clark is a prime example of a business that was harmed by dumping, and I brought the plight of the Kimberly-Clark mill to the attention of the House over 12 months ago. It is only now that the government is taking some steps to rectify the issue.

It is interesting that the government established a $17 million fund in the south-east for innovation and investment. This was in part to help Kimberly-Clark workers who were made redundant to find new jobs and up-skill. It is hard not to wonder if this was a patch-up job by this government. Perhaps, if Labor had acted responsibly in the first place and made certain businesses were protected from this unfair dumping, there would have been no need for this fund in the first place. I note the government's improvement to this anti-dumping policy, and it is a step in the right direction, but it does not go anywhere near far enough. Businesses need to be protected and the processes need to be such that businesses have the resources to complete the process. I am talking about the time and the money, because, in speaking with several local businesses, it has been made clear to me that there are significant faults in the current process. The government has indicated that this legislation is the first instalment, with more to come. We will wait with bated breath on that one. I am aware that these improvements have been well received by stakeholders, but a lot more has to be done. This legislation is not tight enough and not structured well enough.

The coalition has really pushed the government into making these improvements. If not for the pressure from the coalition I very much doubt that this Gillard government would have bothered to make these improvements. There were some contrasting views within the Labor Party itself about this issue. A few Labor members took it upon themselves to write their own report on anti-dumping, which they felt quite strongly about, and this was quite a bit more involved than the changes proposed here in this legislation. As I understand it, the Minister for Home Affairs, Brendan O'Connor, was not very happy about that, but at least some members on the other side were prepared to stand up for their constituents.

This legislation was not taken to cabinet or the caucus, something we are seeing more and more often from this government. It is just a select few making the decisions and the rest are expected to follow quietly. I wonder what the members with manufacturing in their electorates think about this legislation. Do they think it has made the appropriate measures to protect businesses? I doubt very much that they would agree that this is anywhere near enough.

I am sure that there would be members of the other side pushing for further improvements because if, like me, they spend any time out in their electorates visiting businesses then I am confident they would know of the issues that have been plaguing the anti-dumping campaign. The government must take further steps to protect businesses from the burden that dumping brings to their operations and profits, because without profits you will not have employment. Businesses are the backbone of this nation and should be treated as such, not crippled as they are under this government. For instance, the government has promised to increase resources within Customs, adding extra staff to deal with anti-dumping. It sounds like a great idea in theory, except it has allocated no new money for it. Minister for Home Affairs Brendan O'Connor said a few weeks ago that the government was promising 'a 45 per cent increase in Customs staff working on anti-dumping issues over the next 12 months'. If there is no new money, then how can this be achieved without cuts from other areas? This is going to add pressure to an already underresourced sector. Customs has plenty to worry about with keeping the country safe from terrorism and the like, and then the Labor government comes along and cuts their resources even further. This government has cut resources from Customs in every budget it has delivered. Now it is making more promises that will equate to more cuts. This is a real shame.

Another improvement the government is making is to include a few new groups to the list of 'interested parties' who investigate the complaints and are generally involved in the process. These groups include industry associations, downstream groups and trade unions. The involvement of trade unions can be concerning, but in this instance it seems that they are on board with helping businesses overcome dumping. It really is in the best interests of the workers to see the business recover fully and move on with business as usual. Certainly, in the dealings I have had with local businesses that have been harmed by dumping, their unions have assisted with the process and acted in the businesses' best interests, and I welcome that action.

The Minister for Home Affairs was quick to criticise the opposition during his press release on the government improvements and he called on Tony Abbott to declare where he stands on dumping. I think it is quite obvious where the coalition and Mr Abbott stand on dumping, given we stand in this place time and time again asking the government to take action and run campaigns in our electorates. On top of that, Mr Abbott created the anti-dumping taskforce in February this year so the coalition could develop responsible and practical policy. Yet this government jumped on the band wagon only a month ago, even though these problems have been very clear for a long time. I think the minister should pull his head out of the sand.

Confidence is down amongst the business community, and who can blame them in light of the uncertainty that this government brings to the nation? Labor cannot be trusted. The Prime Minister cannot be trusted. She has misled the Australian public with her intentions, and this legislation is no different. 'Here is the first instalment but trust us to deliver more,' says the government. 'We will promise more resources but there is no new money.' This government was backed into a corner on anti-dumping by the coalition and that is why this legislation has come about. What will we have to do to get the rest fixed up? How many more businesses will have to be brought under by unfair dumping before this government makes responsible changes to ensure that they are protected?

The coalition has been serious about this issue since it arose as a potential problem. I have stood in this place and raised my concerns on several occasions. We have a task force that is specifically working on our policy so that it is well structured and responsible—not a last minute, poorly thought through decision like we see all too often from this government. Members from the coalition task force are out there visiting businesses like the member for Indi did in my electorate. Where is the government's task force and where are their members sticking up for local business?

The improvements outlined in this legislation are a step forward in protecting businesses from dumping, but they are not enough. Labor needs to tighten up this legislation and the minister must divulge how the extra Customs staff will be funded and reveal all the details. I would hope that this government is sincere about protecting businesses and does not just stop at this bill. It would be helpful if the minister revealed the government's plans about more improvements and it would be helpful if this happened soon—not another 12 months down the track. This is another example of the devil in the detail, another example of delays and of acting only after significant pressure from stakeholders and the coalition. (Time expired)

Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (18:14): I rise to make a few brief comments on the changes being proposed in the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Improvements) Bill 2011. I make these comments in the hope that the bill will indeed seek to improve the current regime. I make these comments with the knowledge that on one hand the Labor administration is hoping to improve business through strengthening provisions within anti-dumping and in providing some safeguards and some actions on the minister. Yet at the same time and, indeed, in the same breath, the government is seeking to make it instrumentally difficult for business through implementing a carbon tax; the only economy-wide carbon tax in the world being considered and implemented—the words of the Productivity Commission in its latest report.

You would have thought that if a government comes to the dispatch box to look at issues that affect business—in this case to stop illegal dumping at a lower price—that there would be a degree of consistency in the values and principles by which they present legislation, and that that consistency would concern what makes it easier for business. But the only consistency we have seen so far is the impost on business. Even the Australian Industry Group is now looking at Labor's so-called Fair Work Bill and saying, 'You know what? It's neither fair nor leading to work.'

The carbon tax is now being universally described as a disaster right across the nation in terms of its antibusiness stance and how it affects the basic economics as well as business confidence in manufacturing. So many things this government does are harming business that it is hard to see a narrative about how they seek to help. So it is my hope that this bill will seek to make some improvements, and we shall be watching with great interest over the coming months and years to ensure that occurs.

A company in my electorate called JELD-WEN Australia is a company that has been through the mill twice on anti-dumping. The first time it was found to be unwarranted and the second time, I believe, the same will be found. It is hoped that these improvements will ensure that companies like JELD-WEN can face fairly and squarely the issues and that they can get the ministerial representation they need.

But it is also instructive that a company like JELD-WEN, which owns brands like Corinthian Doors and Stegbar, is experiencing a downturn in some areas of their business by as much as 20 per cent. Something like 80 per cent of our homes, offices and buildings contain at least something that JELD-WEN produces. If a company like JELD-WEN is experiencing such a dramatic downturn, it speaks volumes about what is happening in our economy.

If I look at the Gold Coast, at my electorate, there are three key things—three concerns—on people's minds. Number 1 is the carbon tax—the betrayal by the government—and the fact that the government will not listen to them. Number 2 is jobs and the loss of jobs, and number 3 is the increasing cost of living. That a company like JELD-WEN is showing such a downturn in this time of corporate downturn reinforces that people are hurting. The cost of living is increasing, people are not spending and people are worried about their jobs. The carbon tax is simply exacerbating a difficult situation.

All I ask for in this place—all we want from this government—is consistency, and the carbon tax shows there is none of that. I think we all agree that the basic purpose of anti-dumping is to allow countries to take action against foreign manufacturers who seek to export a product into Australia at a price which is lower than the price it charges in its home market and/or its costs of production. Whilst there are more technicalities involved in that, including shipping and the averaging of the cost of production if production is across multiple sites, the intent is to stop a major company coming through and exporting into Australia with a loss leader or dumping products that they cannot move and that fundamentally affect Australia's manufacturing or local industry. I think we all accept that that makes sense.

However, there is a range of issues with the current arrangements and the way they are implemented and administered. I think it is fair to say that there has been considerable frustration at the lack of timeliness and the effectiveness of the processes undertaken within Customs and the costs imposed on businesses where they are raising cases or seeking to address cases because of the multinational aspect of their business. Our system is widely regarded as being costly and for the most part reasonably unworkable. Perversely, it imposes a greater burden of proof on local industries. Again, it is hoped that these amendments will seek to change that.

The introduction of this amendment is certainly a response from Labor to the concerns being raised. Like all things it takes a long time—ironical, as opposed to the carbon tax. Six or seven days after becoming the government—once the final numbers were in—the Prime Minister broke her word, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'. But when it comes to Australian business and Australian manufacturing apparently it takes years. Can I say to the government: the irony is not lost on the bulk of Australia's businesses. It is good to see that the coalition—and I acknowledge Senator Xenophon—industrial bodies, individual businesses and trade unions have said to the government that there needs to be a range of responses to deal with the issues.

These reforms will seek to bring in a range of amendments, including a time limit of 30 days on ministerial decision making—which is nice—widening the range of factors available for consideration in the determination of material injury and, of course, expanding the list of subsidies against which Australian industries can apply for countervailing duties. On the whole, these changes would appear to be sensible and practical, but like all things time will tell whether they are workable and time will tell whether the ministerial intervention is done appropriately, logically and sensibly.

Most seem to interpret the bill as a reasonably positive move that may help to address some of the inherent flaws in the way that business is currently done and the way that anti-dumping is currently looked at. The members of the coalition's anti-dumping task force—I acknowledge the Hon. John Cobb MP, Senator the Hon. Richard Colbeck, my good friend Michael Keenan MP, who is sitting at the desk now, and of course the shadow minister, Sophie Mirabella MP—have done a great job in consistently engaging with stakeholders and getting advice from business and industry associations. The general feel is for tacit support. We believe these moves are in the interest of the nation; let us wait and see how they go. It is our hope that these moves will improve the situation for business—hence the wide-ranging support we are giving to them. I personally hope that these moves will assist companies like JELD-WEN in my electorate, who have been at the receiving end of a range of cases that will assist them to defend themselves appropriately, properly and judiciously. I welcome the bill's introduction to the House.

Debate adjourned.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Georganas): I present the Selection Committee's report No. 28, relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday, 22 August 2011. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.

The report read as follows—

Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business

1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 16 August 2011.

2. The committee determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation business and private Members' business on Monday, 22 August 2011, as follows:

Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)

COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS

Presentation and statements

1 Parliamentary Joint Committ ee on Intelligence and Security

Review of the listing of AQAP and the re listing of six terrorist organizations.

The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.20 am.

Speech time limits —

Mr Byrne—5 minutes.

Next Member—5 minutes.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]

2 Joint Standing Committee on For eign Affairs, Defence and Trade

Review of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Annual Report 2009-10.

The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.30 am.

Speech time limits —

Mr Danby—5 minutes.

Next Member—5 minutes.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]

3 Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade

Australia's Trade and Investment Relations with Asia, the Pacific and Latin America.

The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.40 am.

Speech time limits —

Ms Saffin—5 minutes.

Next Member—5 minutes.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]

4 Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs

Inquiry into Language learning in Indigenous Communities.

The Committee determined that statements on the inquiry may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.50 am.

Speech time limits —

Mr Neumann—5 minutes.

Next Member—5 minutes.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]

5 Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement

Examination of the Annual Report of the Australian Federal Police 2009-10.

The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.55 am.

Speech time limits —

Mr Hayes—5 minutes.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins]

6 Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement

Examination of the Annual Report of the Australian Crime Commission 2009-10.

The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 11 am.

Speech time limits —

Mr Hayes—5 minutes.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins]

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS