Mr FITZGIBBON: by leave—I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (09:35): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Road transport accounts for over 1.7 per cent of Australia's total GDP and employs over 246,000 Australians.

Australia's freight task has increased at an annual rate of 5.6 per cent and is forecast to continue growing.

Given the vast distances of this nation, the government knows that a safe and productive transport sector is in the interests of all Australians.

The economic importance of transport is one side of the story.

Sadly, there is another side.

Each day four people are killed and another 80 are seriously injured on our roads, on average.

Last year, 1,368 Australians lost their lives on our roads.

A further 30,000 were hospitalised.

The statistics for truck driving are particularly grave.

It is the Australian industry with the highest incidence of fatal injuries, with 25 deaths per 100,000 workers in 2008-09.

That is 10 times higher than the average for all industries.

The Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics has calculated that the cost to the Australian economy of this is $2.7 billion a year.

While the economic cost is important it is the human cost that really counts.

Very few Australians have not been affected by the loss of a loved family member, a work mate or a friend.

The effect is devastating: too many lives cut short too young.

The government is committed to doing all that is necessary to ensure that our truck drivers, whether they be an employee or a self employed owner-driver, have a safe and fair workplace, while sustaining the long-term viability of the road transport industry. The government recognises the important role of small businesses, particularly owner drivers in the road transport industry.

They provide flexibility for businesses to meet demand for the delivery of goods, particularly in rural and regional areas—small businesses make up around 60 per cent of the road transport industry, yet they make up far less of the income earned in that industry.

Almost 30 per cent of owner drivers are paid below the award rate and many are unable to recover the cost of operating their vehicle.

In 2008, the National Transport Commission's review into remuneration and safety in the Australian heavy vehicle industry found that:

…commercial arrangements between an array of parties to the transport of freight, including load owners/clients and receivers, consignors and brokers, freight forwarders, large and small fleets as well as owner/drivers have a significant influence on safety.

Drivers are at the bottom of the contracting chain and have little commercial ability to demand rates which would enable them to perform their work safely and legally.

In this market, owner drivers are often forced to accept work at the going rate or have no work at all.

Not only is remuneration for owner drivers low, working hours are long.

There are other issues that affect the payment systems for owner drivers and employee drivers and impact the productivity of the industry.

Unpaid queuing time was highlighted as a major issue in the transport industry during fatigue-related reforms and consultation for Safe Rates, Safe Roads Directions Paper.

According to the National Road Transport Operators Association, distribution centres regularly require drivers to wait up to 10 hours before loading or unloading.

Drivers are not paid for this waiting time and cannot claim the waiting time as an official rest break, which impacts on both income and fatigue management.

The loss of ten hours' driving time is an incentive to make up for lost time, by driving additional hours, speeding or contravening mandatory fatigue management systems.

Any improvements that can be made to these practices will bring about positive change for the road transport industry and will provide incentives for transport companies and warehouses to increase efficiency by minimising waiting times.

To date, a national approach to safety issues that address pay as well as pay-related conditions in the industry, particularly for owner drivers, has not been taken.

The bill being introduced today reflects the government's commitment to taking the necessary next steps in addressing the underlying economic factors which create an incentive for, or encourage, unsafe on-road practices.

The measures being introduced will ensure pay and pay related conditions encourage drivers to drive safely, manage their hours and maintain their vehicles.

This will benefit the industry and it will benefit the wider community.

The bill seeks to reduce the number of road transport fatalities and injuries. This is important for truck drivers and their families, but it is also important for industry and it is important for all who use our roads in the community.

Improved conditions, including work-life balance and other health benefits for truck drivers and their families will also contribute to a safer industry.

The bill will reinforce and lock in the benefits of previous reforms, including those achieved by both industry and governments, whilst complementing the role of the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator.

It is another important step in removing economic incentives for unsafe behaviour.

The government recognises that owner drivers have chosen to be independent contractors and operate as small businesses.

The bill establishes a system that will assist road transport industry small businesses, while ensuring that owner drivers maintain their status as independent contractors.

This legislation will play an important role in removing the incentives for employee and owner drivers to drive in ways that increase the risk of deaths and injuries on the road

The safety of truck drivers and the community is paramount.

Key elements of the bill

The bill being introduced today will establish a new Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, whose objects are to promote safety and fairness in the road transport industry.

The bill complements existing federal legislation such as the Fair Work Act 2009 and the Independent Contractors Act 2006; current state-based schemes dealing with owner driver contracts; and the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator laws.

The principal objects of the bill recognise the government's intention to provide a framework that promotes a safe industry by:

Ensuring that drivers in the road transport industry do not have pay and pay-related incentives and pressures to work in an unsafe manner. This includes unsafe work practices such as speeding and working excessive hours.

Ensuring that road transport drivers are paid for their work, including loading or unloading their vehicles or waiting for someone else to load or unload their vehicle.

Developing and applying reasonable and enforceable standards throughout the road transport industry supply chain to ensure the safety of road transport drivers.

Ensuring that hirers of drivers and participants in the supply chain take responsibility for implementing and maintaining those standards.

The bill empowers the tribunal to inquire into sectors, issues and practices within the road transport industry and, where appropriate, determine mandatory minimum rates of pay and related conditions for employed and self-employed drivers.

The tribunal will be able to concurrently consider matters, for example safety issues that impact on both employee and owner drivers, such as addressing waiting times.

These determinations, to be known as Road Safety Remuneration Orders, will be in addition to any existing rights employed drivers have under industrial instruments and owner drivers have under their contracts for services.

The tribunal's approach will be evidence-based and research-focused.

With this approach, the tribunal will have regard to issues such as:

the need to apply fair, reasonable and enforceable standards in the road transport industry to ensure the safety and fair treatment of road transport drivers;

the likely impact of any order on the viability of businesses involved in the road transport industry;

the special circumstances of areas that are particularly reliant on the road transport industry, such as rural, regional and other isolated areas;

the likely impact of any order on the national economy and on the movement of freight across the nation;

the need to minimise the compliance burden on the road transport industry.

The tribunal will also be empowered to grant 'safe remuneration approvals' in relation to the remuneration and remuneration-related conditions contained in a road transport collective agreement between a hirer and all self-employed drivers with whom the hirer contracts.

The tribunal will be empowered to resolve disputes between drivers, their hirers or employers and participants in the road transport industry supply chain about remuneration and related conditions in so far as they provide incentives to work in an unsafe manner.

The tribunal will deal with a dispute as it considers appropriate, including by:

mediation or conciliation;

making a recommendation or expressing an opinion; or

arbitration with the consent of the parties.

Fair Work Australia will be assisting the tribunal with dual appointments, ensuring a mixture of Fair Work Australia members and expert members with qualifications relevant to the road transport industry.

The tribunal secretariat will be provided by the General Manager of Fair Work Australia.

The bill also establishes a compliance regime for the enforcement of orders made by the tribunal, safe remuneration approvals and any orders arising out of a dispute.

These compliance functions will be performed by the Fair Work Ombudsman.

In addition, the Fair Work Ombudsman will provide education, assistance and advice to owner drivers, employees and the industry.

Conclusion

This bill is the government's response to the report of the National Transport Commission that I commissioned when I became the transport minister, but it is also in response to numerous reports over many years, including the Burning the midnight oil report, which was done by the House of Representatives committee, chaired by the member for Hinkler, who is in the chamber today. This has been an issue which has been talked about for a long time, but not acted upon until today.

While transport safety outcomes have improved over the years, there are still an unacceptably high number of truck accidents and deaths.

Without further action, the number of accidents will remain unacceptably high, impacting truck drivers, their industry and the wider community.

Lasting reform is necessary.

I pay tribute to all those who have worked so hard, including the members of the Transport Workers Union, the members of industry, including industry leaders such as Lindsay Fox, who have placed on the record for so many years the need to get a comprehensive plan to address these issues.

This reform is necessary and it must be directed at addressing the specific problems of the industry.

This bill does just this.

I commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (09:48): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I introduce the Road Safety Remuneration (Consequential Amendments and Related Provisions) Bill 2011. This bill makes consequential amendments and provides for other matters in connection with the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2011 that I have just introduced into the House of Representatives.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) (09:49): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2011 is being introduced alongside its companion, the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011.

The Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, which complements measures set out in these bills, is being introduced separately.

Together, these bills form a part of our next steps in the Northern Territory, undertaken in partnership with Aboriginal people and the Northern Territory government.

These are steps taken with a clear eye to the future.

A stronger future which sees a substantial and significant change for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.

Where people live in good houses, and in safe communities.

Where parents go to work, and children go to school each day.

A stronger future, grounded in a stronger relationship between government and Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.

A relationship built on respect for Australia’s first peoples, for their custodianship of the land, for their culture and for their ongoing contributions to our shared nation.

This is a respect that is about much more than sentiment. It is about the approach we take to our work, and the approach we take to working together.

This is the approach we took to consultations after we first came into government.

These conversations revealed the depth of hurt felt by Aboriginal people by the sudden and rushed implementation of the Northern Territory Emergency Response.

It also informed our amendments, including the reinstatement of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 in the Northern Territory.

As we have built houses, as we have built health services and preschools, we have also set about rebuilding the relationship with Aboriginal people. Let me be very clear: we must achieve real change for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory because the situation does remain critical.

Yes, important progress has been made.

The independent evaluation of the Northern Territory Emergency Response shows that there have been real and positive improvements over the last three years.

People have said that their communities are safer than they were three years ago. New police stations and night patrols have improved community safety.

The introduction of the basics card has been positive, showing that income management is a useful tool for people.

It has helped them to stabilise the family budget and make sure that money is being spent on housing, food and clothing for children.

More than 350 new houses have been built and another 275 are underway. More than 1,800 rebuilds and refurbishments of houses are also complete.

Our investment is delivering improved living conditions—better and safer houses—to more than 2,000 Aboriginal families in the Northern Territory.

And more people are working—in properly paid jobs—than three years ago.

But the fact remains that Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory continue to face significant levels of need on a daily basis.

Some children are still not receiving proper care, and that is completely unacceptable.

The child protection substantiation rate has doubled for Indigenous children in the Northern Territory since the start of the Emergency Response.

Three in four of these cases related to child neglect.

The increased rate in reporting reflects our increased investment, with the Northern Territory government, in child protection services.

This includes additional funding from both governments delivered in response to the Bath report last year, which recommended additional child protection workers in remote communities, stronger alcohol controls and new intensive family support services for families referred for child protection income management.

We have enabled referrals from the child protection system for income management in the Northern Territory to ensure all the tools are available to child protection workers to make sure that children are not neglected, that they have food and clothing and housing.

With increased visibility of the extent of child neglect in the Northern Territory must come our reaffirmed commitment to do all that we can to ensure that children are safe.

Similarly, with our increased visibility of school enrolment and attendance, we must do more to make sure that children are going to school.

The evaluation report shows that there has been no overall improvement in school attendance—and while we are starting to see good signs in reading, the Northern Territory still lags behind the national standards for reading, writing and numeracy.

Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory still experience the widest gaps by a large margin across the Closing the Gap indicators.

They have a lower life expectancy than anywhere else in the country and a higher infant mortality rate.

We see that much more needs to be done—and we hear it too.

Across the Territory, people have told us that more needs to be done to achieve the change we all want to see for Aboriginal people who live there.

People in the Northern Territory want for their children what each of us, right across the country, want for our children:

that they will grow up healthy and safe and get a good education,

that they have a bright future that includes a roof over their heads, food on the table, and a good job, and

that they will be strong people, proud of who they are.

It is clear that, if we are to see these stronger futures take shape, we must not walk away and we must continue to work hard.

Existing legislation for the Northern Territory is due to cease in August next year.

But our efforts cannot cease, because we know—and Aboriginal people have told us—that much more work needs to be done: work to consolidate our progress to date and work to build on these achievements, to build a stronger future with the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory.

The measures I bring forward in these bills today reflect our determination to continue this work.

All of the measures in this bill have been designed to comply with the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

They reflect our understanding that our efforts cannot cease with the existing legislation.

They reflect our appreciation of just how critical the situation is in the Northern Territory.

And they reflect the many conversations we have had with Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory over the past few months, and the past few years and more recently.

Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory

In the six weeks of our Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory consultations, we held meetings in 100 communities and town camps and public meetings in major towns.

Hundreds of smaller discussions took place with individuals, families and other groups right across the Territory.

These consultations were overseen by the independent Cultural and Indigenous Research Centre Australia, who agreed that the discussions were fair, open and accountable.

The outcomes of these consultations have been recorded in the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory: report on consultations, which was released last month and which forms an important part of this government’s policy statement on our path forward.

I personally participated in a number of these discussions and want to place on the record my appreciation for the openness and the frankness with which people shared their stories and their hopes for a stronger future for themselves and for their children.

What is clear from these conversations is that we are united in our desire for change and that there is much more work to be done.

What we heard in the course of our conversations is that the path to change is laid with barriers, which we must break down if we are to create that change.

The barriers people described to us in this consultation were about the lack of services; yes, that is true.

But they were also about attitudes.

They said to me that we as a government have to do more, but that we must also expect more—that people would find a job and keep it; that children would go to school; and that people would sober up.

Because if children do not go to school, the best teachers and the best classrooms cannot give them a good education. The strongest work ethic and the most driving ambitions will be wasted if there are no jobs.

If people cannot get sober, if they cannot set the best example for their children—a parent who goes to work each day and brings home a pay cheque each fortnight.

The measures in this legislative package I am introducing to the parliament today help tackle the barriers to change. They clear the path for us to walk together and work together for the change we all want to see.

They make clear our expectations of parents—that they will send their children to school to get a good education.

They support more jobs in the Northern Territory.

And they do more to tackle alcohol abuse.

The Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2011

The Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2011 contains measures aimed at breaking the back of alcohol abuse—to help individuals, their families and communities get back on their feet.

When people spoke to me of barriers, they spoke of alcohol and the havoc it wreaks on remote and urban communities alike.

They spoke of the harm caused by alcohol abuse—of loved ones lost to alcohol related disease, road accidents and the violence it causes in families and communities.

Alcohol abuse is at the heart of dysfunction, violence and abuse in many communities.

There is extensive hard evidence of the harm being caused by alcohol in Aboriginal communities, and of the huge economic and social costs of alcohol to the Territory.

Communities have called for their 'dry' status to remain in place.

The hard evidence and also what we heard from the consultations have persuaded the government that the alcohol restrictions must not be relaxed.

The Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill provides for the current alcohol restrictions to be continued.

It requires respectful signage so that everyone is clear about the alcohol management arrangements in place, and communities will be consulted about these signs.

It responds to the concerns people raised—their frustrations with grog runners undermining the restrictions. So we are introducing tough new measures to clamp down on grog runners.

We are proposing to increase the penalty for liquor offences under 1,350 millilitres, to include six months’ imprisonment.

Northern Territory laws will then permit the option of referral to the Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral for Treatment Court for this offence.

We have heard from people across the Territory that, if we are to break the back of alcohol abuse, we must empower individuals, families and communities to take control.

This bill strengthens the ability of communities to take that control.

The bill provides that alcohol management plans established by local communities be directed at minimising alcohol related harm.

To ensure that alcohol management plans are able to contribute to reducing harm, the bill includes provision for rules on the minimum standards an alcohol management plan will need to meet before it can be approved.

In future alcohol management plans will be approved by the Commonwealth minister for Indigenous affairs.

Where an alcohol management plan is approved and in place, consideration will be given to lifting the restrictions under the Stronger Futures legislation. If the restrictions are lifted, the Northern Territory Liquor Act will continue to apply.

Where communities want to retain these Stronger Futures restrictions, they will be able to do so.

This measure is designed to support communities get control of the drinking problem and forge their own path—to make the grog, the despair and the violence that comes with it a thing of the past.

To assist the Northern Territory government to clamp down on alcohol traders who may be linked to substantial alcohol related harm to Aboriginal people, the bill provides that the Commonwealth Indigenous affairs minister may request the Northern Territory government to appoint an assessor under the Northern Territory Liquor Act to examine their practices and report back on findings.

The bill also provides for a joint Commonwealth-Northern Territory review to be conducted two years after commencement of the Stronger Futures legislation.

The review will examine the effectiveness of the Stronger Futures and the Territory laws in addressing alcohol related harm to Aboriginal people.

This will allow both governments to continue working together to make progress.

This review report will be tabled in this parliament.

Alcohol related harm, of course, is not confined to the Northern Territory.

The government is also increasing the tools available to governments across Australia to tackle alcohol related harm.

We are proposing to amend income management legislation to allow referrals by recognised state or territory authorities to trigger income management.

This non-discriminatory measure is intended to commence in the Northern Territory as a first step, to support referrals for income management from the Northern Territory Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal.

These proposals are included in the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2011.

Alcohol abuse is a serious problem in the Northern Territory.

It is causing real harm to individuals, to families and to communities.

And it is a barrier to the positive changes that we all want to see.

We are responding with serious measures.

The Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 will also boost our efforts to tackle the barriers created by children not going to school.

All of us know a good education is a firm foundation for a stronger future.

And yet, we also know that levels of enrolment and attendance for Indigenous children in the Territory remain unacceptable.

Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory have made clear their expectation that governments support Indigenous children to get a good education.

They have been equally clear about their expectations of parents.

Parents do have a responsibility to send their children to school.

Parents of children everywhere.

Whether in a remote community in the Northern Territory, a regional town in Victoria or in the middle of Brisbane—parents have a responsibility to give their children the best start in life.

They have a responsibility to send their children to school every day.

The School Enrolment and Attendance Measure already applies to all parents on income support in some areas in the Northern Territory and in some areas in Queensland.

The Australian government will extend the School Enrolment and Attendance Measure to the townships of Alyangula and Nhulunbuy, and to Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, and the remaining schools in Katherine and the communities of Yirrkala, Maningrida, Galiwin’ku, Ngukurr, Numbulwar, Umbakumba, Angurugu, Gapuwiyak, Gunbalanya, Milingimbi, Lajamanu and Yuendumu.

Other M easures in the Bill

The Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2011 paves the way for change by supporting strong communities.

We heard in consultations that remote community stores have improved over the past four years. They now offer healthier food and are better managed.

We will continue to improve community stores licensing arrangements.

Licensing will focus more clearly on supporting food security in remote communities. In the future, a community store may be required to have a licence to operate if it is an important source of food, drink or grocery items for Aboriginal communities.

We will also introduce a range of new penalties to encourage stores to improve their performance and crack down on unscrupulous practices.

We have long been clear that secure tenure is a foundation stone for our work to improve housing in remote Indigenous communities.

We have been determined not to replicate the mistakes of the past that saw ownership and responsibility for houses uncertain and unclear.

In the past, no-one made sure homes were maintained; no-one made sure proper tenancy management was in place.

This is now being fixed through systemic reforms in the delivery of remote housing under the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing.

Leases which run for 40 years now form the foundation for housing in 15 larger communities. Tenancy management is now the clear responsibility of the Territory government.

And tenants now have a clear responsibility to pay their rent, just like tenants anywhere else in Australia.

The Australian and Northern Territory governments will continue to negotiate leases with Aboriginal land owners to enable the Territory government to manage public housing in remote communities.

This means that there is clear responsibility for the upkeep of houses—and that no longer will they fall down around people's ears through years of neglect.

In this bill, we make clear too that the Australian government will not be extending the compulsory five-year leases acquired under the original legislation, and instead will negotiate voluntary long-term leases.

The bill provides the Australian government with the ability to make regulations removing barriers in Northern Territory legislation to leasing on town camp and community living area land.

Currently, there are restrictions on how this land can be used—even where the community agrees that they want to put it to different uses.

This will enable the Aboriginal landholders of town camps and community living areas to make use of their land for a broader range of purposes, including for economic development and private home ownership.

This bill builds on what Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory have told us about the changes they want to see for themselves and for their children.

The measures have been designed for the long haul—to reflect our belief that over time these measures will provide better opportunities for Aboriginal people.

Over time, they will break down the barriers.

Over time, they will pave the way for the path forward.

And, over time, they will achieve their objectives.

These measures are designed so that when they achieve their objectives they will not continue.

Accordingly, we propose that the new Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act sunset 10 years after its commencement.

After seven years of operation, the government is proposing a legislative review of the stronger futures legislation.

The findings of this independent review will be tabled in the parliament.

The time frame for the review has been planned so that we could reasonably expect to see changes in the priority areas that were outlined in the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory discussion paper—outcomes on education, jobs, alcohol related harm and housing.

Across each of the closing-the-gap targets, the gap does remain the greatest for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.

Progress is being made but much more remains to be done.

This bill is part of our next steps in the Northern Territory, steps taken in partnership with Aboriginal people. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) (10:13): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011 is the companion bill to the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2011.

This bill amends existing Commonwealth legislation, and sets out transitional arrangements, to complement the new primary legislation established under the main Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill.

This bill seeks to repeal the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007.

The speech I have just made on the main bill described our clear commitment to put new housing on firm foundations through secure tenure—so responsibility for maintenance, responsibility to pay rent and responsibility to build new housing is clear for the first time.

We have made clear our commitment to no new five-year leasing arrangements, and our intention to move to long-term voluntary leasing arrangements to give communities and governments certainty as we plan for the future. This bill includes savings provisions which make this transition possible. These provisions will preserve the current leasing arrangements as necessary until their planned sunset date—so that we can work with communities to transition to new, voluntary leases.

This provision also makes sure that rent can continue to be paid to the Aboriginal land owners of the five-year leases.

The bill will also allow landowners of Community Living Areas land to receive the help of land councils in managing their land, including negotiating lease arrangements.

This is designed to support the voluntary leasing arrangements—so that communities and governments have certainty and can accept responsibility for land and housing.

The measures we introduce today reflect our evaluation—of what is working and what is not.

They also repeal those measures in the existing legislation which have not worked or which are no longer needed.

This bill repeals statutory rights provisions that provide rights to carry out works in a construction area, and to occupy, use, maintain, repair or make minor improvements to the buildings and infrastructures in the construction area.

These are not consistent with our approach to voluntary leasing, and have never been used.

This bill also includes transitional arrangements for the measures to tackle alcohol abuse and to improve licensing arrangements for community stores that are considered in the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2011.

This bill will continue measures which have helped make communities safer and to protect their most vulnerable members, women and children.

The recently released evaluation of our work in the Northern Territory showed that nearly three out of every four people said that their community felt safer than four years ago.

The bill continues and makes minor changes to the restrictions introduced by the Northern Territory Emergency Response on sexually explicit and very violent material (the pornography restrictions) in remote Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory.

This measure will be subject to the 10-year sunset applying to measures in the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill and the review to be undertaken at seven years after the legislation commences.

The bill continues the prohibition on taking customary law and cultural practice into account in considering the seriousness of an alleged offender's criminal behaviour in bail and sentencing decisions for Commonwealth and Northern Territory offences.

However, some changes are proposed to exempt offences that protect cultural heritage, such as offences around damaging sacred sites and cultural heritage objects. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Privacy and Freedom of Information, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Justice) (10:18): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Providing law enforcement agencies with modern tools to combat modern forms of crime is the responsibility of every government. (Quorum formed)

The Gillard government is delivering on its commitment to combat crime, while also establishing strong safeguards and protections for victims, those accused of crimes, and the general public.

The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers and Offences) Bill 2011 contains important amendments to Commonwealth law enforcement legislation that will provide further tools to ensure the effective investigation and enforcement of crimes, and make enhancements to the safeguards applicable in those investigations.

DNA Forensic Procedures

Firstly, this bill will increase the transparency and reduce the complexity surrounding the procedures governing the collection, use and analysis of DNA forensic material through amendments to part 1D of the Crimes Act 1914.

The majority of these amendments are in response to the 2010 DNA Forensic Procedures: Further Independent Review of Part 1D of the Crimes Act 1914 led by Mr Peter Ford.

The review, which involved detailed consultation with Commonwealth, state and territory stakeholders, focused on ensuring the efficiency and effectiveness of DNA forensic sampling, profiling and matching while also appropriately safeguarding civil liberties and privacy.

Those themes are reflected in the amendments contained in this bill.

Of significance to law enforcement agencies, the bill contains amendments to help Commonwealth agencies work more effectively with their state and territory counterparts in cross-border criminal investigations involving DNA forensic evidence.

The amendments enhance the ability of the Australian Federal Police to respond to requests from foreign law enforcement agencies to match DNA profiles on the national criminal investigation DNA database with profiles obtained as part of criminal investigations by foreign agencies.

The bill also increases efficiencies in DNA sample collection.

Alongside these law enforcement measures, the bill will make a series of improvements to the consent processes relating to the collection and use of DNA forensic material and other safeguards that currently apply to forensic procedures.

One such amendment will enable new consent forms to be prescribed under regulations that will ensure the information required to be provided to persons whose consent is being sought to a DNA forensic procedure under the act is both consistent and comprehensible.

The bill will also clarify the processes currently in part 1D for suspects and offenders to access part of their DNA sample for the purposes of innocence testing, and other material related to their sample, such as copies of its analysis or copies of related records.

In addition, the bill will:

increase the availability of interpreter services to persons whose consent is sought to a forensic procedure;

allow judges, magistrates and senior police officers, when authorising a forensic procedure, to authorise the most appropriate collection method in the circumstances;

place strict restrictions on the purposes for which a DNA sample provided by a volunteer may be used; and

require laboratories undertaking DNA analysis to be suitably accredited.

The bill also addresses some minor drafting issues.

A key message that came out of Peter Ford's review of part 1D of the Crimes Act is that it is a very complex area of law. I am confident that the amendments contained in this bill go significantly towards reducing that complexity and enhancing the procedures governing DNA collection and use for law enforcement and suspects, offenders and volunteers alike.

Australian Crime Commission

This bill will also enhance the Australian Crime Commission's information sharing capabilities. It will establish a comprehensive regime under which the commission can share information with Commonwealth, state and territory agencies and international law enforcement and intelligence bodies.

To effectively combat crime, however, government needs to share its information beyond just government agencies, and proactively collaborate with the private sector.

To assist in the Crime Commission's building preventative partnerships with industries that are exposed to serious and organised crime threats, the bill will provide the ACC CEO with the ability to share information with private sector bodies for a range of specified purposes where the CEO considers it appropriate. This will enable the Australian Crime Commission to share information and intelligence with private sector bodies to enable them to be aware of vulnerabilities and threats that exist in their respective industries. These changes reflect the responsibility held by the private sector to contribute to the fight against organised crime and will ensure that they are better equipped to do so.

Stringent safeguards on the handling, storage and disposal of any information provided will be applied by the ACC CEO. In addition, new criminal offences will apply to the misuse or inappropriate disclosure of this information. This will ensure the proper protection of information that has been disclosed to the private sector.

Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity

Schedule 4 of the bill contains amendments to the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 to provide the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI) with a contempt power and to enhance the commission's capability to investigate corruption.

The commission was established in 2006 to investigate allegations of corruption and to enhance the integrity of Commonwealth law enforcement agencies.

The amendments will enable the Integrity Commissioner to refer a person to the Federal Court of Australia or a Supreme Court of a state or territory for contempt of the commission. The person will be in contempt if they fail, or refuse, to cooperate with requests such as refusing or failing to answer the Integrity Commissioner's questions.

These provisions are designed to motivate an uncooperative witness to reconsider his or her position and will provide a swift and powerful mechanism for the Integrity Commissioner to deal with uncooperative witnesses.

These amendments will mirror the contempt provisions in the Australian Crime Commission Act and will align the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity with various state bodies which exercise comparable coercive investigative powers.

Commonwealth drug offences

New measures are also proposed in the bill to help combat the emergence of new and illicit substances, and are an important step in halting the emergence of a new drugs market in Australia.

It is proposed that the Criminal Code Act 1995 be amended to list additional drug substances and quantities to be subject to the full range of Commonwealth serious drug offences

As an example, the amendments will enable law enforcement agencies to capture individuals and organised crime groups involved in drug importation and other drug related activities involving substances such as 'meow meow' and 'special K'.

The bill will also assist the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service perform its vital role in intercepting and seizing illicit drugs detected at the Australian border by overcoming a legislative anomaly which currently exists in relation to their ability to seize illicit substances without a warrant. The bill proposes amendments to ensure that the powers available to Customs to seize all illicit drugs—whether proscribed under Customs Regulations or the Criminal Code—are consistent.

Commonwealth parole amendments

The next area of reform in the bill relates to federal offenders. The bill proposes amendments to the Crimes Act to implement recommendations from the 2006 Australian Law Reform Commission report, Same crime, same time: sentencing of federal offenders. Currently, there is no discretion to refuse parole to a federal offender serving a sentence of imprisonment of less than 10 years, even if reports from corrective service agencies do not support the granting of parole.

The amendments will ensure that release on parole of all federal offenders is a discretionary decision. This is consistent with the general approach in the states and territories. The Attorney-General will be able to refuse or delay the release of an offender on parole, where this is appropriate.

For example, under current arrangements federal child sex offenders can refuse to participate in sex offender treatment programs, as they know they will be released at the end of their non-parole period regardless. Offenders would be encouraged to take part in rehabilitation programs if they knew that this would be taken into account in deciding whether they should be released on parole.

Further, amendments will be made to provide that the federal offender's parole period ends on the same day as his or her sentence and that the parole supervision period may extend to the end of the federal offender's parole period. Currently, for federal sentences other than a life sentence, the maximum parole supervision period is three years. By establishing that the supervision period may extend to the end of the offender's parole period, this will allow federal offenders who may require ongoing supervision during their parole period to receive this assistance. Such supervision may be required, for example, if the offender is engaging in ongoing drug use, or is displaying other worrying behaviour.

Com monwealth fine e nforcement

This bill further amends the Crimes Act to improve the enforcement of Commonwealth fines.

The Commonwealth does not have a fine enforcement agency and relies on state and territory agencies to enforce Commonwealth fines on its behalf.

Currently, these agencies cannot impose certain penalties on persons who default on the payment of Commonwealth fines unless they first obtain a court order. It is expensive and time consuming for fine enforcement agencies to return to court to obtain an order, and this acts as a disincentive to do so.

These amendments will empower state and territory fine enforcement agencies to enforce Commonwealth fines through non-judicial enforcement actions without first obtaining a court order. These non-judicial enforcement actions may include, for example, garnishment of a debtor's wage or salary.

The amendments will not affect other fine enforcement options that are currently available as an alternative to paying a fine such as voluntary community service or suspension of a person's drivers licence.

Proceeds of o rganised c rime

Lastly, the bill will amend the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 to allow a court to restrict the publication of certain matters in relation to applications for freezing orders and restraining orders.

As freezing orders and restraining orders are made early in proceedings, it is important that courts are empowered to prevent the early publication of information that could compromise a proceeds of crime investigation or a related criminal investigation.A minor amendment will be made to the Proceeds of Crime Act to expand the definition of 'authorised officer' to include AFP employees and secondees to the AFP who are authorised by the Commissioner of AFP.

This amendment will ensure that AFP employees and other government secondees working in the new multi-agency Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce can be appointed as authorised officers and fully utilise their significant expertise in proceeds of crime investigations.

Conclusion

The measures contained in this bill are important to help support the fight against crime by enhancing laws relating to the investigation and enforcement of Commonwealth criminal matters. Importantly, they are balanced by significant safeguards. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Privacy and Freedom of Information, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Justice) (10:33): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to present the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill (No. 2) 2011, representing the second tranche of legislation implementing the government's reforms to Australia's anti-dumping system.

The package of reforms announced by the government in June are designed to provide better access to remedies for Australian industry, and to ensure those remedies are available as quickly as possible. They aim to improve the robustness and transparency of anti-dumping decisions and introduce stronger compliance mechanisms.

The elements of the reforms that I am introducing into the House today are focused on improving the robustness and transparency of anti-dumping decisions.

In particular, I am proposing a new appeals process to replace the existing mechanism, and provide more flexibility in seeking extensions of time during the course of investigations.

This bill also provides a legislative basis for the International Trade Remedies Forum, which met for the first time in August this year.

These amendments were drafted in close consultation with the Office of International Law within the Attorney-General's Department, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, to make sure that they are consistent with Australia's international law obligations. (Quorum formed)

New a ppeals p rocess

The bill implements a number of changes to the process for appealing decisions of the minister or the Chief Executive Officer of Customs and Border Protection.

Presently decisions may be appealed to the trade measures review officer, who was an employee of the Attorney-General's Department. The review officer will be replaced by a three-member review panel able to take on a greater case workload. Members of the panel will be appointed by the minister based on their relevant expertise. Panel members will no longer be employees of the Attorney-General's Department, so will be independent of government.

The government will make available resources in the form of administrative and research assistance, to support the effective functioning of the panel.

Presently the review officer must accept an application for review unless the applicant has failed to provide sufficient particulars of the findings to which the review application relates. This has resulted in approximately 80 per cent of ministerial decisions being appealed to the trade measures review officer by one of the parties to the proceeding. The government is proposing a higher threshold for appeal. Now, in order to initiate an appeal, the panel will need to be satisfied that the applicant has established that the minister did not make the correct and preferable decision.

Presently there is a perception that the International Trade Remedies Branch is conflicted in reinvestigating its own decisions. When the review officer reviewed a decision, the officer would recommend a reinvestigation to the minister who referred it back to the branch which reinvestigated and made recommendations to the minister as to whether to overturn or amend the original decision.

To address this, the panel will now make recommendations directly to the minister as to whether the original decisions should be affirmed, revoked or substituted. Where reinvestigation of a particular finding is required, the panel will direct the branch to reinvestigate that finding and to report back to the panel to inform their recommendation to the minister.

Parties will now be able to appeal the minister's decision to continue or not continue measures, and also the minister's decisions to vary or revoke measures (or not) on review.

As part of the appeals process reforms, the Customs Act will be amended to allow for important stakeholder groups, such as downstream industry and trade unions, to participate in administrative reviews.

The changes to the appeals system allow for a more robust system which is better able to identify and process meritorious applications for review.

Extension of time—i nvestigations

Second, these reforms will allow for more flexible extensions to the time frames of an investigation, review of measures, continuation inquiry or duty assessment.

Australia's antidumping system contains one of the shortest investigation time frames in the world, at 155 days. At present only one extension to that time frame can be sought, and it must be prior to the publication of the Statement of Essential Facts at day 110. This can mean that extensions, where required, tend to be for significant periods, to anticipate any possible further need for an extension.

Consistent with a recommendation of the Productivity Commission, the bill will allow for more flexible extensions of investigation time frames.

The minister will still have to approve all extensions of time. Implementation of this proposal will be carefully monitored to ensure it does not result in a blow-out of investigation periods, and that extensions are only sought in complex cases, not routinely.

The International Trade Remedies Branch will continue to provide in its annual report a consolidated summary of the timeliness of its investigations in the preceding 12 months.

This proposed change will improve decision making by allowing extensions to accommodate complex cases and to allow for the consideration of critical new information that could not reasonably have been provided earlier.

International Trade Remedies Forum

There is currently no stakeholder body to provide feedback to government on the operation of the antidumping system.

The government has established the International Trade Remedies Forum to provide strategic advice and feedback on the implementation of the reforms, the ongoing operations of the antidumping system as well as reporting to government on opportunities for further improvements.

The forum, which met for the first time in August, comprises representatives of manufacturers, producers and importers, as well as industry associations, trade unions and relevant government agencies.

The government is establishing the forum in legislation to ensure that this valuable dialogue with industry continues into the future.

The forum will meet a minimum of two times a year.

Concluding remarks

This second tranche of reforms directly responds to stakeholder concerns about enhancing the appeals process, providing adequate time for investigations and ensuring stakeholder consultation in the future.

These amendments will further strengthen the antidumping system by enhancing the appeals process to allow for a more streamlined process better able to process meritorious applications, provide greater independence and afford new opportunities for parties to seek review for decisions they disagree with.

The International Trade Remedies Forum will provide a greater opportunity for Australian industries and other stakeholders to play a role in the development and operation of Australia's antidumping system.

The changes to extension of time for reviews will allow Customs and Border Protection more flexibility in dealing with complex matters and scope for consideration of new information.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Privacy and Freedom of Information, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Justice) (10:44): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This government has a proud history of reforms that facilitate access to justice. This bill marks the latest tranche of those reforms.

Discovery

The bill will implement legislative reforms regarding discovery during Federal Court litigation that were recommended in the Australian Law Reform Commission’s Managing discovery report, tabled in parliament in May 2011.

The Attorney-General initiated that inquiry in May 2010, following the 2009 report by the Attorney-General’s Department’s Access to Justice Taskforce entitled A strategic framework for access to justice in the federal civil justice system. The task force identified the high and sometimes disproportionate costs of discovery as a specific barrier to justice.

The Australian Law Reform Commission made practical recommendations aimed at the Federal Court taking greater control over the discovery process, many of which have already been implemented by the court in its new rules, or are under active consideration by the court. I acknowledge the effort the Federal Court continues to put into refining its case management processes, including those relating to discovery.

The government also welcomes current consideration by the Federal Court and National Judicial College of Australia of how judicial education and training can better equip judges to manage the discovery process.

The two recommendations to be implemented by this bill will give the Federal Court stronger powers to deal with the costs of discovery, and clarify that oral examinations can be used to assist to identify which kinds of documents should be subject to discovery. This will support judges in their role as robust case managers.

I am confident that this package of reforms will give the Federal Court the tools it needs to control discovery more tightly, assisting in the delivery of a more accessible and effective system of civil justice.

Suppression and non-publication orders

The bill will also implement—with some minor variations—the model legislation developed by the then Standing Committee of Attorneys-General on suppression and non-publication orders in the High Court, Federal Court, Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court.

There has been criticism of the volume and breadth of suppression orders granted by some state courts. As a result of these concerns, after extensive consultation, in 2010, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General developed model legislation on suppression orders.

This bill will implement that model law in relation to the federal courts—in the interests of national consistency and to provide a more robust and comprehensive legislative framework.

The bill has several advantages over the current arrangements for the making of suppression orders in the federal courts:

It provides a clearer legislative framework for the grounds on which suppression orders can be made, what information they can cover, how long they should last for, how broad they should be and what information such orders should contain, as well as clearer rules about standing.

It clearly preserves the importance of the principle of open justice, and provides that suppression orders can only be made where such orders are necessary, consistent with recent High Court jurisprudence. This bill has been amended from the model law to more clearly define the grounds which empower the courts to exercise their discretion.

The bill does not include the provision in the SCAG model law that allows a court to grant a suppression order if it is necessary in the public interest for the order to be made. The bill therefore does not broaden the grounds on which suppression orders can be made from those that currently apply.

This bill will provide a more transparent and accountable legislative regime for courts to make suppression orders. By ensuring that courts can only make suppression orders when they are clearly justified—and in as narrow terms as necessary to achieve their purpose—this bill appropriately recognises the fundamental importance that open justice plays in the administration of justice, and ultimately in upholding the rule of law.

Vexatious proceedings

Vexatious litigants have the capacity to absorb an enormous amount of judicial and registry staff’s time, to the detriment of other litigants waiting to have their cases dealt with.

It was for this reason the then Standing Committee of Attorneys-General developed a model law on vexatious proceedings. This law has already been implemented in Queensland, New South Wales and the Northern Territory. This bill will implement the model law in the High Court, Federal Court, Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court.

It is important to bear in mind that a self-represented litigant, or a litigant who has challenging behaviour (perhaps caused by mental illness), is very different from a vexatious litigant. With advice and assistance, many self-represented litigants are often able to adequately formulate and articulate their claims, or to obtain legal representation to enable them to do so. Those with challenging behaviours may be able to obtain professional assistance of another kind. I want to emphasise that these are not the kinds of litigants intended to be addressed by this bill.

Rather, vexatious litigants are those who frequently bring proceedings that are, for example, an abuse of process, designed to annoy others, or have no reasonable grounds.

Although the federal courts already have existing powers to deal with vexatious litigants, these powers are located across various legislation and court rules, and differ in detail. The bill will establish a more comprehensive and consistent legislative regime across all four federal courts.

While an order preventing access to the courts should not be made lightly, where a person has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in any Australian court or tribunal, a court will be able to make an order that a person not be able to commence any subsequent proceedings in that court without first obtaining the leave of the court.

The intention is that, once nationally consistent laws are passed, a vexatious litigant will no longer be able to repeatedly initiate proceedings in different courts with hopelessly doomed litigation.

(Quorum formed)

It is essential that court resources are devoted to cases that have merit, and cases which cannot be resolved by other means. The courts need appropriate powers to be able to deal with clearly unmeritorious cases brought by vexatious litigants. This bill will deliver that.

Family law jurisdiction

The bill will also remove the current jurisdictional ceiling on family law magistrates in Western Australia that applies in family law property matters.

This will bring Western Australia’s family law magistrates into line with the family law property jurisdiction which can be exercised by the Federal Magistrates Court in the rest of Australia, and give the Family Court of Western Australia more flexibility in the allocation of cases.

Ensuring that disputes are dealt with at the most appropriate level is an important aspect of access to justice.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal fees

The bill also makes amendments relating to fees in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. These amendments will serve two purposes.

Firstly, they will allow applicants to make a valid application for review where they do not have the money to pay immediately, but where there is a time limit for making the application.

Secondly, they will allow regulations to be made to prescribe fees to be paid by any party to proceedings. This will allow regulations to be made to give the tribunal the discretion to impose fees on respondent government agencies which unsuccessfully defend tribunal proceedings, unless there were compelling reasons for proceeding to a hearing.

This is intended to provide a financial incentive to promote better primary decision making and early resolution of disputes where possible.

These are both important access to justice measures, aimed at early dispute resolution and ensuring that applicants can access the review of government decisions.

Conclusion

This bill will implement a number of important measures that will improve access to justice in a variety of ways.

The reforms to discovery, family law property jurisdiction and vexatious proceedings aim to ensure that valuable judicial resources are used appropriately, efficiently and effectively: for the benefit of all litigants.

Reforms to suppression orders create a framework that safeguards the public interest in open justice and accountability, reinforcing an important aspect of the administration of justice.

Finally, reforms to fees in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will facilitate fairer access to the review of government decisions—encouraging better decision making by government agencies and earlier dispute resolution.

All these reforms are consistent with the Strategic Framework for Access to Justice—implemented by this government—designed to facilitate accessible and equitable dispute resolution, at the most appropriate level, delivered through efficient and effective means.

I thank all involved for their work in developing this bill, which is an important part of the government’s ongoing access to justice initiatives.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Privacy and Freedom of Information, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Justice) (10:57): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The bill implements the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

The convention recognises that acts relating to nuclear material and other radiological material and devices can pose a serious threat to international peace and security.

The convention is an important tool in the international fight against terrorism and the proliferation and use of weapons of mass destruction.

It fills a gap in existing international regimes by recognising the potential for nuclear weapons, facilities and radioactive material to be used to carry out acts of terrorism.

The convention establishes frameworks for criminalising certain conduct relating to nuclear material and other radiological material and devices and for international cooperation in the prevention, investigation, prosecution and extradition of persons who commit those offences.

Some of the obligations under the convention are already satisfied.

For example, existing provisions in the Criminal Code Act 1995 and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 1987 implement some of the Nuclear Terrorism Convention's provisions.

While some aspects of the conduct prohibited by the convention are consistent with measures Australia has already taken, some amendments to Commonwealth legislation are necessary to fully implement the convention.

The bill creates new offences for specific conduct that is prohibited by the convention.

This includes:

possessing radioactive material or a device

using or damaging a radioactive material or device or nuclear facility

demanding the use of radioactive material or device or nuclear facility

threatening or attempting to use or damage a device, radioactive material or nuclear facility, and

using radioactive material, or a device, or using or damaging a nuclear facility.

The offences will not be limited to conduct by Australians and in Australia, but will apply in a broad range of situations where the convention requires states parties to assert jurisdiction.

For example, the offences will cover situations where the offender is a foreigner if the offence is committed on board an Australian ship or aircraft or against an Australian citizen.

The bill also contains minor technical amendments to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987 updating various provisions to take account of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 and amending the definition of Australian aircraft by replacing the reference to the Air Navigation Regulations (which is no longer correct) with a reference to the Civil Aviation Act 1988. Australia is committed to ratifying all international counterterrorism instruments as an integral part of strengthening its legal framework to fight terrorism.

Ratifying this convention will send a strong message to the international community and demonstrate Australia's continued commitment to addressing the threat of terrorism.

It will represent an important contribution by Australia to the second Nuclear Security Summit, which will take place in the Republic of Korea in March 2012.

In addition, it will strengthen Australia's efforts to encourage other countries in our region to ratify the 16 international counterterrorism instruments.

It is in this context that the government today commends to the chamber the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) (11:00): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Antarctica has a unique place in Australia’s national identity. We are tied to Antarctica through our history, our geology and our climate.

This year marks the 100th anniversary of the departure of the first Australasian Antarctic Expedition led by Sir Douglas Mawson. Mawson stands alongside other giants of Antarctic discovery, like Scott and Shackleton, for his remarkable endeavours to explore Antarctica and claim a sizeable portion of the continent on behalf of all Australians.

It was Mawson who established Australia’s first scientific research base at Cape Denison in Antarctica. Over the past century, Australia has built on that legacy, establishing a strong reputation for Antarctic science in areas such as climate change, conservation, astronomy and geoscience.

Antarctica’s unique environment offers major opportunities for this scientific research. The continent is recognised as a key indicator of global climate change. Better understanding of Antarctic ecosystems, weather and climate is crucial to environmental protection in the region as well as understanding global climate trends.

Australia has also become a world leader in Antarctic protection. We were one of the 12 original signatories to the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, which enshrines the principle of peaceful use of the Antarctic. Fifty years on, the Antarctic Treaty remains a model for global cooperation.

Australia actively engages in the international governance of the Antarctic. We played a key role in the development of the broader system of international arrangements for the region, known as the Antarctic Treaty system.

Just two decades ago, former Prime Minister Bob Hawke worked with former French Prime Minister Michel Rocard to prevent mining in Antarctica. For the first time, we recognised that the last pristine continent on earth should remain untouched. The opportunity was nearly missed but the decision changed the world’s way of thinking just in time.

Their efforts led to the Madrid protocol, which now protects the Antarctic environment, bans mining in Antarctica and designates Antarctica as a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science.

In October this year, I was honoured to join Bob Hawke and Michel Rocard in Hobart to commemorate the 20th anniversary of that Madrid protocol.

We will continue to build on protections for this unique and special part of the world.

This Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Amendment Bill 2011 will amend the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980, which gives effect to our obligations under the Madrid protocol and the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals.

The bill will align the act with Australia’s new obligations in relation to three measures adopted under the Antarctic Treaty and Madrid protocol, namely:

1. Measure 4 relating to insurance and contingency planning for tourism and non-governmental activities in the Antarctic Treaty area that was adopted in June 2004;

2. Measure 1 relating to liability arising from environmental emergencies that was adopted in June 2005; and

3. Measure 15 relating to the landing of people from passenger vessels in the Antarctic Treaty area that was adopted in April 2009.

These measures will establish more stringent arrangements to protect human and vessel safety in the Antarctic, and the Antarctic environment.

Key amendments in the bill include:

1. providing the ability for the minister to grant a safety approval, an environmental protection approval, and to impose conditions on such approvals;

2. implementing new offences and civil penalties regarding unapproved activities, activities carried on in contravention of the conditions imposed by an approval, and offences and civil penalties related to environmental emergencies;

3. establishing a liability regime for environmental emergencies that occur in the Antarctic;

4. establishing an Antarctic environmental liability special account to receive payments from operators for the costs of response action to an environmental emergency caused by their activities in the Antarctic;

5. implementing new offences and civil penalties applicable to tourist vessels operating in the Antarctic;

6. making minor and technical amendments to the act; and

7. amending the long title of the act to extend the scope of the legislation;

As Australia prepares to host the 35th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Hobart in June 2012, this bill marks another chapter in Australia’s history of involvement in Antarctica and maintains our commitments under the Antarctic Treaty and Madrid protocol.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (11:08): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill makes amendments to social security law to improve the operation of the income management system and to improve school attendance.

In regard to income management, the government believes all Australians should be able to share in the benefits of this strong economy, and enjoy the financial and social benefits of work.

The government's Building Australia's Future Workforcepackage addresses entrenched disadvantage in targeted locations by helping to stabilise families and to remove barriers to participation in work and the community.

The amendments in this bill will expand income management in five of the most disadvantaged locations in the country.

They will give greater flexibility to the operation of income management. For example, the refinements would allow the vulnerable welfare payment recipients measure to be activated on its own in a particular area, instead of in conjunction with the long-term welfare payment recipients measure and the disengaged youth measure, as is currently the case.

A new external referral income management measure, known as supporting people at risk, is being introduced. This will allow referrals from a wide range of state and territory authorities on a similar basis to referrals under the current child protection measure, and will help ensure income management assists those people most likely to benefit.

For example, to support the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory alcohol measures, this bill will enable people referred by the Northern Territory government's Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal to be placed on this new measure of income management, thus reducing the proportion of income available for alcohol.

Additionally, the rules applying to a person who is subject to income management in a declared area and who moves to another location will be clarified, as will the school exemption criteria for the long-term welfarepayment and disengaged youth measures.

A second measure in the bill amends the provisions in social security law that underpin the government's improving school enrolment and attendance through welfare reform measure, or SEAM.

SEAM is one aspect of the Australian government's strategy to improve school attendance and engagement. The amendments allow the possibility of an income support suspension to be integrated into the Northern Territory government's Every Child, Every Day attendance strategy.

School attendance in parts of the Northern Territory is unacceptably low—as low as 40 per cent in some schools. With such a level of absence, a child cannot build a sufficient foundation in literacy and numeracy to enable them to succeed in later schooling and in the modern world.

The Gillard government has invested significantly to improve the quality of education in schools in the Northern Territory. On top of base funding provided to government and non-government education authorities, our additional investments in the Northern Territory include:

$16 million to expand preschool services

$70 million in funding for Northern Territory schools in disadvantaged communities

$50 million for teacher quality and literacy and numeracy initiatives

$46 million for 200 additional teachers

$256 million under the Building the Education Revolution program for school infrastructure

A further $10 million for classrooms in remote schools, and

$12 million to build trades training centres.

In four years we have made substantial progress in addressing shortages of early childhood services, teachers, teacher housing and classrooms in Northern Territory schools. The COAG Reform Council's recent report shows progress is being made in preschool participation and early years literacy. The recent evaluation of the Northern Territory Emergency Response found that some 57 per cent of people surveyed strongly agreed that the school in their community was better now than it was three years ago.

This work must continue, but it is clear that for these improvements in schools to translate into improvements in educational outcomes for students, regular school attendance is essential.

Improving attendance can never be done by governments and schools alone. For all the funding that governments invest and all the skills that teachers bring to their schools, we still ultimately rely on the parents to get their children ready and to the school gate each morning.

While the overwhelming majority of parents understand the value of education and are making sure their children are in class and learning for their future every day, there are a number who do not.

The overwhelming opinion of Aboriginal people who participated in the Stronger Futures consultations in the Northern Territory was that they wanted action to hold to account those parents who do not send their children to school.

The amendments in the bill enable a new, integrated approach to managing cases of poor school attendance in the Northern Territory. They complement and strengthen the Northern Territory's Every Child, Every Day strategy and boost that government's own efforts on school attendance.

According to this approach, if a child is not attending school regularly, the school will convene an attendance conference with the family to talk through barriers to the child's education. The conference will agree on an attendance plan.

The attendance plan will include actions that the family commit to undertake, for example, walking the child to school in the mornings or providing a place for the child to study at home. Support from a social worker will be available to help the family meet their obligations under the plan.

Importantly, the attendance plan can also include actions that the school or other parties will undertake, for example, providing a school uniform or resolving an issue around bullying that may be contributing to the child's disengagement.

This is a collaborative approach that attempts to improve attendance in partnership with the family. However, it is important that there be a lever to ensure families engage in this process. If a family refuses to participate in the attendance conference, or refuses to agree to an attendance plan, or fails to live up to their agreed actions in the attendance plan when other parties to the plan fulfil their commitments, then their income support payments may be suspended until they do.

If the family complies within 13 weeks, their income support payment can be reinstated with full back pay.

This is a sensible approach that apportions responsibility for school attendance appropriately between the school and family, and it recognises the crucial role that attendance plays in ensuring that children everywhere, and especially in the Northern Territory, get an adequate education.

I commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (11:16): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Australian Research Council (ARC) is a statutory authority within the Australian Government's Innovation portfolio. Its mission is to deliver policy and programs that advance Australian research and innovation globally and benefit the community.

In seeking to achieve its mission, the ARC provides advice to the government on research matters and manages the National Competitive Grants Program (NCGP), a significant component of Australia's investment in research and development.

Through the NCGP, the ARC supports the highest-quality fundamental and applied research and research training through competitive selection processes across all disciplines, with the exception of clinical medicine and dentistry.

This is an appropriation bill to support the ongoing operations of the Australian Research Council. It will fund the high-quality research we need to address the great challenges of our time, to improve the quality of people's lives, to support the development of new industries and to remain competitive in the global knowledge economy.

Bills to amend the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to receive administered funding occur each year. The bills are generated to apply indexation to existing appropriation amounts, create an additional forward estimate and may also contain new funding for new initiatives.

The amendments proposed in this bill change only the administered special appropriation; they do not alter the substance of the act or increase departmental funds.

The ARC is the major source of funding for the innovative, investigator-driven research that has underpinned inventions ranging from the bionic ear to the Jameson Flotation Cell, which saves the coal industry hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

ARC funded research has and continues to play an important role in improving the lives of Australians and addressing the big issues of our time. This includes, for example, our need to transform our manufacturing industries to create greener, healthier and more resilient processes and products. The government is proud that stronger steel and cleaner, safer cars could soon be manufactured in Australia thanks to research made possible with funding from the ARC.

Ongoing funding for the ARC is essential to the vitality of the Australian higher education system and our commitment to strengthen Australia's research workforce. Excellent researchers across all areas of the university system must be able to compete for funding if we are to keep world-class academics in Australia, working in our universities and teaching the next generation.

It is important to note the key role the ARC has been and is playing in attracting more Indigenous Australians to academia and keeping more women in research careers. This includes through the Discovery Indigenous scheme, the addition of two new Australian Laureate Fellowships specifically for women and the introduction of Research Opportunity and Performance Evidence (ROPE) to enable assessors to take into account any career interruptions, including those for childbirth and caring responsibilities.

Through these initiatives and through the whole NCGP, the ARC is helping us to reduce research career barriers and ensure the nation reaps the benefit of all of its research talent.

And the ARC is not only supporting quality research and research careers, it is helping the government measure our research investment and assure taxpayers that their money is being invested wisely.

In January 2011, the government announced the outcomes of the first full Excellence in Research for Australia evaluations. Developed and implemented by the ARC, ERA allowed us, for the first time, to see exactly how our country's research efforts compare to the rest of the world. This is giving the government a clear idea of the research areas we need to focus on for improvement and continued excellence.

ERA is a key element of the government's 10-year innovation agenda, Powering Ideas.

Through this important legislation, the ARC will continue to advance our efforts to build a fairer and more prosperous Australia through innovation and education.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) (11:21): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill delivers on the government's commitment to reduce business compliance costs for excise liable businesses.

These taxpayers, operating under the existing standard seven-day excise settlement period, beginning Monday and ending Sunday, will become eligible to apply for a new weekly period, to begin on their preferred day.

The codification of the seven-day period will provide certainty to businesses. Furthermore, the flexibility to choose the particular seven-day cycle that best suits the business's commercial practice will reduce their administration costs.

Most importantly, small businesses will be able to apply for permission to defer their excise settlement to a monthly reporting cycle, with a further 21 days from the end of the month to remit their tax liability. This will considerably reduce the administration and cash management burden on small businesses.

For example, a small business would previously have paid excise to the ATO every seven days although their typical business terms may be for a 30-day settlement. This bill gives small businesses at least 21 days, and up to 51 days, to remit their tax liability—which will significantly help with their cash management.

Furthermore, small businesses will be required to lodge only 12 returns per year, as opposed to 52 returns per year under the current arrangements.

Under this bill, business entities with no duty liabilities may have the terms of their seven-day or monthly permission amended to a longer reporting cycle at the discretion of the tax commissioner.

If a business's permission relates to gaseous fuel on a seven-day permission, this bill will allow that business to give the commissioner a return, on or before the sixth business day following the end of each seven-day period. This bill also ensures that the existing monthly settlement arrangement for stabilised crude oil and condensate will remain unchanged.

These arrangements reflect the particular commercial circumstances of the gaseous fuel, stabilised crude oil and condensate industries.

Full details of the amendments in this bill are contained in the combined explanatory memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) (11:25): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This is the second of the bills that deliver on this government’s commitment to reduce business compliance costs for businesses dealing with goods liable for excise and excise equivalent customs duty.

This bill amends the Customs Act 1901 to codify administrative arrangements relating to periodic settlement permissions in relation to customs duty.

The amendments establish a flexible seven-day permission cycle for the giving of returns and the payment of excise equivalent customs duty. When the seven-day permission is for gaseous fuels, the permission holder may give their return and pay customs duty up to six business days following the end of the seven-day period.

Additionally, small business entities, prescribed persons and producers of prescribed goods will be able to apply for a permission to defer their customs duty settlement to a monthly reporting cycle.

Full details of the amendments in this bill are contained in the combined explanatory memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) (11:27): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Insurance Contracts Amendments Bill 2011 introduces amendments to provide for a legislative framework so that regulations can be made to establish a standard definition of 'flood' for home building, home contents, small business and strata title insurance policies and a key fact sheet in relation to home building and home contents insurance policies.

What this bill shows is that, after nearly half a century of delay following Cyclone Tracy and the 1974 Brisbane floods, the Gillard government has fixed a too long overdue problem.

This bill delivers on the government's commitment to provide consumers—everyday individuals, modest hardworking families and striving Australian enterprises—with a better understanding of what is included in their insurance policies and in particular, the extent to which policies provide cover for flood and what cover for flood actually means.

In recent times there has been a distressing increase in the occurrence of major natural disasters.

In 2009, the Black Saturday bushfires spread across over 450,000 hectares in Victoria, tragically killing 173 people.

In 2010 and 2011, areas of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria experienced severe flooding with Queensland also suffering the effects of Cyclone Yasi. We saw the tragic deaths of 37 people as a result of these events.

A substantial portion of the financial costs of losses resulting from these natural disasters was met by insurance with claims currently estimated at $3.64 billion for Queensland alone.

These catastrophic events highlight the importance of insurance and making sure that individuals, families, communities and governments have effective insurance cover in place to guard against and recover from disasters.

In April, I released a consultation paper entitled 'Reforming flood insurance: clearing the waters'.

It contained proposals for a standard definition of 'flood' and a key fact sheet—both of which were designed to ensure insurers communicate more effectively with consumers. Further, industry and consumer groups have indicated broad support for these measures today.

This bill will implement these proposals with the aim of helping consumers make effective decisions in relation to their insurance needs, through increased clarity and accessibility of key information. Standard definition of flood

Schedule 1 to the bill will amend the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 to introduce a legislative framework for standard definition of the term 'flood' for home building, home contents, small business and strata title insurance policies.

As I said earlier, this should have been done many years ago—indeed it ought to have been done decades ago. The confusion has lingered on far too long.

Therefore, I am pleased that the Gillard government have demonstrated our willingness and capacity to deal with the hard issues and, with the collaboration of industry, consumers and local members of parliament, clarify for Australian families and businesses what constitutes a flood.

The definition is designed to provide a clear and easily understandable meaning for what is commonly known as riverine flooding, namely the covering of normally dry land with water that has escaped or been released from the normal confines of any lake, river, creek or other natural watercourse or alternatively, any reservoir, canal or dam.

A standard definition of flood will reduce consumer confusion regarding what is and is not included in insurance contracts. It will also avoid situations where neighbouring properties in the same street, affected by the same flood event, receive different claims assessments because the policies covering them use different definitions of flood.

Further, this measure will improve consumers' ability to evaluate potential insurance policies and compare 'like' products between different insurance providers.

Whilst this measure will not mandate the inclusion of flood cover in all insurance policies, it does ensure that whenever the term 'flood' appears in any of the relevant classes of insurance contracts, it will be taken to have the meaning I outlined earlier. Insurance contracts must not include the term 'flood' (or any related terms) except in association with the proposed definition. This restriction will also prevent said contracts from including compound phrases based on the term 'flood' (for example flash flood or accidental flooding).

The detail of this measure, including the actual wording of the standard definition, will be made in regulations contained in the Insurance Contracts Regulations 1985. Draft regulations containing these measures are expected to be released for public consultation by the end of the year.

Key facts sheet

Schedule 2 to the bill will amend the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 to provide a legislative framework to allow regulations to be made to introduce a requirement for insurers to provide a key facts sheet outlining key information in relation to home building and home contents insurance policies.

The key facts sheet will enable consumers to access key information in relation to home building and home contents insurance policies in a concise and easy to understand format. This will assist consumers in making more appropriate decisions when entering into these types of insurance contracts.

In order to ensure consumers are able to effectively utilise the key facts sheet, insurers will be required to provide this document to consumers as soon as they have requested information on the particular policy.

The introduction of the key facts sheet will make the purchase of home building and home contents policies simpler for consumers, assisting them to compare policies with a consistent document, and facilitate more effective and informed decision making.

The detail of these measures, including the specific content of the key facts sheet, will be made in regulations contained in the Insurance Contracts Regulations 1985. The draft regulations containing these measures will be released for public consultation in the new year. The key facts sheet will be consumer tested before being finalised.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Gillard government are committed to improving the performance of the insurance market in Australia and we have announced our response to a number of other recommendations put forward by the Natural Disaster Insurance Review to help continue to provide an improved insurance market for all Australians.

I thoroughly believe that in some unexpected, unsought for and undesired way, natural disasters do tend to help us in Australia rediscover and remind us of our greatest strengths.

In this continent that we call home, we do often see natural disasters occurring. But if we remain strong and resolute, and industry and consumers work together as they have on this matter, we still can indeed see our way through to the future.

The legislation is mindful that, even in tough times, with people working together, we can make the best of what has happened.

The amendments in this bill are an important first step in improving Australia's insurance market through better disclosure of insurance cover for consumers—and clearing up the lingering confusion.

Further details of the amendments are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) (11:35): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends various taxation laws to implement a range of improvements to Australia's tax laws.

Schedule 1 amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 and the Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997 to permit the Australian Taxation Office to operate a scheme that will make it easier and simpler for lost superannuation fund members and retirement savings account holders to consolidate their benefits.

This scheme, known as the electronic portability form, will allow members reported as lost by their superannuation funds to electronically request the transfer of their superannuation benefits through the ATO.

The new form will enable lost members to visit the ATO website, find their benefits, fill in a simple transfer request and submit it electronically to the ATO. The ATO will apply a verification process using data supplied by the member. If these processes are successfully completed, the ATO will electronically send the member's request to the fund that reported the member as lost, which will then transfer the member's benefits to the nominated receiving fund.

The electronic portability form will not prevent members from dealing directly with their fund to arrange the transfer of their benefits if they so wish.

The amendments allow the regulations to set out the operating details of the electronic portability form and also amend the tax file number provisions for the purposes of the new form.

The amendments are expected to reduce the amount of lost superannuation. There are about five million lost superannuation accounts worth $20.2 billion (as at 30 June 2011). These amendments will benefit individual members by reducing the fees they pay on multiple accounts and maximising their benefits on retirement. Schedule 2 amends the CGT provisions to make it easier for businesses to restructure. These changes include extending the CGT rollover for the conversion of a body to an incorporated company and broadening the range of CGT rollovers where entities can use a share or interest sale facility for foreign residents in a restructure. These changes also allow CGT demerger relief for demerger groups that include corporations sole or complying superannuation entities, which currently cannot access the relief. These changes are consistent with the government's objective of promoting flexibility for business.

Schedule 3 amends the GST law to implement three of the recommendations agreed to by the government arising out of Treasury's review of the GST financial supply provisions. The remaining measures require amendments to GST regulations and will be put before the parliament at a later date.

Part 1 amends the GST law to increase the first limb of the financial acquisitions threshold from $50,000 to $150,000. This increase will reduce compliance costs for businesses that only make a small number of low value financial supplies through reducing the number of businesses that are drawn into the financial supplies regime and then prevented from claiming input tax credits on acquisitions that relate to making financial supplies.

An entity can now make up to $1.65 million of financial acquisitions in the relevant 12-month period and still be able to claim input tax credits on those acquisitions. This compares with up to only $550,000 of similar acquisitions prior to 1 July 2012.

Part 2 amends the GST law to exclude financial supplies consisting of a borrowing made through the provision of deposit accounts by an Australian authorised deposit-taking institution from the current concession for borrowings. This will better target the exemption to reflect the policy intent.

Part 3 allows taxpayers who account on a cash basis to claim input tax credits upfront for acquisitions they make under hire purchase agreements.

This change will remove the distortion between hire purchase and other forms of financing for cash-based taxpayers, and also ensure that hire purchase transactions are treated on the same basis regardless of whether taxpayers account on a cash or non-cash basis. Removing the current discrepancy in the GST treatment will allow cash-based taxpayers to acquire business assets at a lower cost.

These amendments apply from 1 July 2012.

Schedule 4 amends the GST act to ensure that sales or long-term leases of new residential premises by a registered entity are taxable supplies and that sales or long-term leases of existing residential premises are input taxed supplies.

This schedule provides that a 'wholesale supply' of residential premises is disregarded in certain circumstances for the purposes of determining whether a subsequent supply of the premises is a supply of new residential premises.

In addition, any supply of residential premises by a government body as a result of the lodgement of a property subdivision plan is disregarded for the purposes of determining whether a subsequent supply of the premises is a supply of new residential premises.

Further, these amendments clarify and remove any doubt that the subdivision of existing residential premises that are not new residential premises, by itself, does not result in the subdivided premises being new residential premises.

The main provisions take effect from the date of the government's announcement on 27 January 2011. This is to reduce risks to revenue that might otherwise arise from behavioural change.

However, this schedule also contains a transitional provision to ensure that developers who were 'commercially committed' to arrangements to develop premises before 27 January 2011 are not disadvantaged by the measure.

Schedule 5 adds one new organisation to list of deductible gift recipients, namely, the Rhodes Trust of Australia. The purpose of the Rhodes Trust of Australia is to raise moneys in Australia to augment the existing Rhodes Scholarship program at Oxford University in the United Kingdom. All moneys raised in Australia are used to provide scholarships to Australians to undertake tertiary education at Oxford University in the United Kingdom.

Schedule 5 also recognises the name change of 'Playgroup Australia Incorporated' to 'Playgroup Australia Limited'.

DGR status will assist this organisation to attract public support for their activities.

Schedule 6 includes amendments to the tax laws to ensure that the law operates as intended by correcting technical or drafting defects, removing anomalies and addressing unintended outcomes.

These amendments are part of the government's commitment to the care and maintenance of the tax law.

This package also includes some legislative issues raised by the public through the tax issues entry system, or TIES for short.

Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State) (11:42): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to present a bill to amend the Electoral Act and the referendum act to deliver a more accurate electoral roll.

This bill will allow the Electoral Commissioner to directly update an elector's enrolled address following receipt and analysis of reliable and current data sources from outside the Electoral Commission. The bill is consistent with legislation already operating in Victoria and New South Wales.

Information from reliable sources is already used by the Electoral Commission to monitor the accuracy of the roll. The Electoral Act does not currently permit the Electoral Commission to use this information to update the elector's enrolled address.

The Electoral Commission currently uses this information as the basis to remove someone from the electoral roll. The result is that eligible electors are being removed from the roll despite the fact that the Electoral Commission has accurate information on the elector's current address. This restriction is having a detrimental effect on enrolment.

This bill will enable the Electoral Commission to deliver a more accurate electoral roll. The Electoral Commissioner will be permitted to use accurate and timely information from reliable sources to maintain the current address of already enrolled electors. This bill will ensure that an elector will be notified of the Electoral Commissioner's intention to enrol him or her at a new address and be given the opportunity to object to the change.

The bill will not provide the capacity to directly enrol new electors. Persons who are not on the roll will need to enrol in accordance with the current requirements in the Electoral Act.

The bill will assist in meeting the urgent need to arrest the decline in enrolment rates across Australia by ensuring the federal electoral roll is as current and accurate as possible.

It will also ensure that the roll sits in harmony with rolls in those states where trusted source enrolment currently takes place.

I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned.

Dr MIKE KELLY (Eden-Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (11:45): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Introduction

The Illegal Logging Prohibition Bill (the bill) responds to a significant issue affecting forest communities around the world.

The environmental and social costs of illegal logging worldwide have been estimated at approximately US$60 billion per annum.

Illegal harvest of timber contributes to environmental degradation through bad practices by illegal loggers. It hampers social development by depriving local governments and communities of the benefits derived from the use of their resource.

Illegally harvested timber also undermines well regulated and sustainable industries, including the Australian industry, by undercutting legally harvested timber products.

This bill will make it a criminal offence to import regulated timber products or process raw logs without undertaking due diligence.

How this bill was developed

The bill is the product of extensive consultation.

A commitment to prohibit the importation of illegally harvested timber was first presented to the community during the 2007 and 2010 election campaigns. Following the 2007 election, the Labor government commissioned substantial research to inform policy development including a regulation impact statement; a risk assessment framework; a framework for differentiating legality verification and chain of custody; a generic code of conduct for importers; an economic analysis of the impact of illegal logging; and reports on the small business impacts and social costs of illegal logging.

In December 2010, the government announced the framework to implement the policy.

On 23 March 2011 the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry tabled an exposure draft, referring it to the Senate Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for public inquiry.

The committee released a report on its findings on 23 June 2011, which included seven recommendations. In particular, the committee recommended the government reconsider the role of the timber industry certifiers and the inclusion of a requirement for a mandatory and explicit declaration at the border.

The government has considered the report, and the dissenting report, and the views of stakeholders about the committee recommendations in preparing the bill now before the parliament.

The government has received representations from the domestic timber industry, state governments, timber and timber product importers, the Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace, the Uniting Church of Australia, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, domestic retailers and exporters of timber products to Australia.

The government welcomes the strong community interest in this issue.

How the bill works

The bill focuses exclusively on measures that will restrict the importation and sale of illegally logged timber in Australia. The government recognises these measures are an essential first step towards a longer-term goal of Australia sourcing timber products from sustainably managed forests, wherever they are in the world.

The bill will regulate timber products at two key points of entry onto the Australian timber market—at the border, for imported timber products, and at timber processing plants where domestically sourced raw logs are processed for the first time. It will restrict the importation and sale of illegally logged timber in Australia in three main ways.

First, the bill prohibits the importation of all timber products that contain illegally logged timber and the processing of domestically grown raw logs that have been illegally harvested. The prohibition enters into force on the day after royal assent of this bill. A maximum penalty of five years imprisonment or 500 penalty units, equivalent to $55,000 for an individual and $275,000 for a corporation or body corporate, or both, applies under this offence. Importers and processors suspected of importing or processing illegally logged timber products will be investigated under the powers of monitoring, investigation and enforcement under part 4 of the bill and will be prosecuted if they intentionally, knowingly or recklessly import or process illegally logged timber products.

Our own research and the work of the European Union indicate that the best way to minimise trade in illegally harvested product is to implement a due diligence framework. Importers and processors will be required to undertake a process of due diligence on those products to mitigate the risk that the timber has been illegally logged. The level of culpability for these products is negligence which differs from the standard subjective fault elements of intention, knowledge or recklessness. Negligence is an objective fault element which looks to the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the circumstances. Importers of regulated timber products can only be negligent if the prosecution can satisfy the requirements for negligence set out in the Criminal Code 1995.

Second, the bill will require importers of regulated timber products and processors of raw logs to undertake due diligence to mitigate the risk of products containing illegally logged timber.

Timber products, for which due diligence will be required, will be prescribed by regulations that will be developed in consultation with key stakeholders. The government will use a number of inputs when finalising timber products to be prescribed by regulations including an economic assessment of the range of product types, value and volume of timber annually imported into Australia.

Importers of regulated timber products and processors of domestically grown raw logs will be required to undertake due diligence to mitigate the risk of importing or processing illegally logged timber. The details of the due diligence process will be prescribed by regulations and will be based on a risk management approach. Criminal offences will apply to importers and processors who do not comply with the due diligence requirements of the bill. There is a maximum penalty of 300 penalty units, equivalent to a fine of $33,000 for an individual and $165,000 for a corporation or body corporate. Administrative sanctions and civil penalties for minor breaches of the legislation will be included in subordinate legislative instruments such as administrative sanctions for noncompliance with certain due diligence requirements.

Requirements for due diligence will be enacted after two years have elapsed following the commencement of the bill to give industry sufficient time to establish and implement their due diligence systems and processes.

Due diligence will involve a three-step process: (i) identifying and gathering information to enable the risk of procuring illegally logged timber to be assessed; (ii) assessing and identifying the risk of timber being illegally logged based on this information; and (iii) mitigating this risk depending on the level identified where it has not been identified as negligible. The specific measures and procedures underpinning the three steps will be prescribed by regulations to be developed in consultation with stakeholders.

To help meet their due diligence obligations and minimise compliance costs, importers and processors may utilise laws, rules or processes including those in force in a state, a territory or another country. Individual country initiatives and national schemes including national timber legality verification and forest certification schemes that can demonstrate that timber products have been harvested in compliance with the applicable laws of the country of harvest may be used, where applicable, as part of an importer's due diligence process.

To enable the government to enforce compliance with the due diligence requirements, importers are required to complete a statement of compliance with the due diligence requirements of the bill before they complete a customs import declaration at the border. The information to be provided on the statement of compliance and customs import declaration will be prescribed by regulations.

The customs import declaration will include a community protection question asking importers of regulated timber products whether they have undertaken due diligence in compliance with this bill. This will be linked to importers' statements of compliance to provide a legally binding basis for enforcement of compliance with the legislation. The government will monitor the importation of regulated timber products at the border for compliance with the customs declaration, whilst government compliance and investigation officers will carry out border and post-border checks, as required, using the monitoring, investigation and enforcement powers of the bill.

Processors are required to complete a statement of compliance with the due diligence requirements of the bill. As Commonwealth, state and territory laws relating to the legality of timber harvesting in Australia are comprehensive and robust, the Commonwealth government will seek to align the due diligence requirements of the bill with the pre-harvesting approvals processes of relevant state and territory governments to reduce compliance and administrative costs. The content and form of the statement will be prescribed by regulations.

Third, the bill establishes a comprehensive monitoring, investigation and enforcement regime to ensure compliance with all elements of the bill including the prohibition and due diligence requirements. Imported timber products may be seized by the Commonwealth without a warrant under provisions in the Customs Act 1901, whilst goods deemed to be involved in an offence under the act, consistent with provisions provided in the Customs Act 1901 and the Crimes Act 1913, may be forfeited to the Commonwealth.

The bill also provides requirements for importers and processors to provide statements and declarations of compliance, undertake audits and remedial action, provide reports and other information to the minister and publish information for compliance and enforcement purposes.

The results of audits will provide a basis for continuous improvement of importers and processors due diligence systems and processes where deficiencies are identified, and for enforcement purposes by the Commonwealth where breaches are detected. To ensure there are satisfactory levels of transparency of compliance with the due diligence requirements of the bill, importers and processors are required to make an annual statement of compliance. The nature and detail of these statements will be prescribed by regulations to be developed in consultation with key stakeholders. This information may be used by the Commonwealth to publicly report on the performance and level of compliance of importers and processors, consistent with privacy and commercial-in-confidence considerations. The coverage and detail of public reporting requirements will be developed in consultation with key stakeholders.

The bill provides for the government to undertake a review of the first five years of the operation of the act. This review is to be commenced no later than 12 months after the five-year period is complete. This provision should ensure ongoing improvement in relation to the operational aspects and effectiveness of the legislative framework.

International alignment

The bill aligns Australia's efforts to combat illegal logging with international initiatives including legislation already implemented in the United States and developments in the European Union.

It is therefore sensible that this bill should work towards alignment with international regimes.

In establishing the regulations, the government will continue to develop requirements that, to the greatest extent possible, align with the measures being introduced as part of the US Lacey Act Amendments 2008 and the EU Regulation 2010 in order to minimise compliance costs for exporters. This will have the effect of engendering greater cooperation amongst timber importing markets like Australia, Europe and the US and help to facilitate higher compliance amongst exporting countries.

For example, the government anticipates that certification systems (either third party or government) recognised by EU or the US frameworks will be capable of meeting Australia's requirements.

The bill will also strengthen Australia's leadership position in the Asia-Pacific region on forestry issues and facilitate continued bilateral and multilateral cooperation with developing countries to promote legal and sustainable forest management.

Conclusion

The bill allows the government to work with key stakeholders to stamp out illegal logging and trade in illegally logged timber products.

An illegal logging working group comprising industry sectors and non-government organisations is already established to assist the government in this process and help minimise the compliance and administrative costs for both industry and government whilst driving, of course, behavioural change in the global timber trade. The government will continue to work closely with its illegal logging working group and state and territory governments to develop the subordinate legislative instruments required.

The government appreciates the work of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural Affairs and Transport for its contribution to the development of the bill. The government also acknowledges the input of industry, both importers and domestic producers, and other members of the community for their input into the process thus far.

The Illegal Logging Prohibition Bill 2011 delivers on the government's policy to restrict the importation and sale of illegally logged timber in Australia. It will remove unfair competition posed by illegally logged timber for Australia's domestic timber producers and suppliers and establish an even economic playing field for the purchase and sale of legally logged timber products and provide assurance to consumers that products they purchase have been sourced in compliance with government legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Ms ROXON (Gellibrand—Minister for Health and Ageing) (12:01): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The National Health Amendment (Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement Initiatives) Bill 2011 will amend the National Health Act 1953 to implement two key initiatives in the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement.

These initiatives represent another important step in improving services for Australian health consumers, and will bring pharmacists even closer to the centre of the Gillard Labor government's health reform agenda.

A pillar of these reforms is the $15.4 billion, five-year Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement, particularly the clear role within it for pharmacists to improve professional practice and patient care.

The initiatives implemented by the bill, Supply and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Claiming from a Medication Chart in Residential Aged Care Facilities and Continued Dispensing of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Medicines in Defined Circumstances, introduce more patient focused health services that will deliver better health outcomes.

In addition, the bill includes technical changes for prescribing certain quantities of pharmaceuticals.

The Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement between the Australian government and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia was entered into on 1 July 2010.

Through the fifth agreement the Australian government has committed to ensuring that fair and adequate remuneration is provided to approved pharmacists for the supply of pharmaceutical benefits. This creates and maintains a stable environment for community pharmacy to remain viable and participate in delivering better care for all Australians.

Importantly, the fifth agreement also directly provides positive health outcomes for the Australian community through the efficient delivery of professional services and targeted community programs.

The two initiatives within this bill are scheduled to be implemented at the Commonwealth level by 1 July 2012. Amendments to state and territory government legislation will also be required to support the implementation of these initiatives and it is anticipated that this will occur through a staged progression of changes within the various jurisdictional frameworks.

They have both been the subject of wider consultation with consumer representatives, interested parties and professional organisations such as the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia and the Consumers Health Forum.

The government thanks all parties for their important input, particularly the Pharmaceutical Society, which helped to draft the protocols that will guide the continued dispensing initiative, should it be passed. This input is an example of the more inclusive nature of the fifth agreement, which is helping to ensure health consumers are the biggest beneficiaries.

Medication c harts

The Supply and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Claiming from a Medication Chart in Residential Aged Care Facilities initiative will introduce the supply and claiming of PBS medicines, by approved suppliers under the National Health Act 1953, from an approved medication chart within residential aged-care facilities.

This initiative will allow the medication chart to be used in place of the PBS prescription form. This will eliminate the requirement for prescribers to write a separate PBS prescription as well as having to write on a medication chart. A pharmacist will be able to use this medication chart when supplying and claiming medicines for residents of aged-care facilities.

Medications included on the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme will also be able to be prescribed, supplied and claimed in this manner where the person is a resident of an aged-care facility.

Enabling the supply and claiming of PBS medicines from a medication chart will improve patient safety by reducing risk of transcription error when writing a prescription from a medication chart entry.

A more streamlined process will also mean that more healthcare practitioners re-engage with aged-care facilities. Lessening the administrative burden on prescribers through the removal of administrative processes will allow more time to be spent on clinical care. Feedback received by the government indicated that the necessity for a prescriber to write the medication order on a prescription, as well as on a medication chart, makes some general practitioners reluctant to provide services to residents of aged-care facilities.

The medication chart will be designed to encourage prescribers to review the chart in its entirety each time a medicine is ordered. This will result in quality use of medicine benefits and ensure the resident gets the right medication at the right time.

This initiative will also address issues faced by prescribers, pharmacies and aged-care facilities regarding the ordering or prescribing, supply and PBS claiming of medicines within aged-care facilities, and improve the timeliness of medicine supply.

Pharmacies will be provided with timely notice of updates and changes to a resident's medication regimen, ensuring that the prescriber's most recent intentions for the resident's clinical care are promptly acted on.

The initiative will be supported by the development of a nationally standardised chart that incorporates all the necessary information to allow for the prescribing, supply and claiming of PBS medicines from the medication chart. Importantly the chart will also enable aged-care facility staff, such as nurses, to record administration of treatment to residents as well as act as a complete record of the resident's medication needs.

As part of the development of the initiative, standard fields for inclusion on a medication chart that can be utilised in electronic format will be developed. This will enable the chart to interface with other new initiatives being developed in the e-health space such as the personally controlled electronic health record.

Continued d ispensing

The second initiative to be enabled by this bill is the continued dispensing of PBS medicines in defined circumstances. This initiative will provide an additional mechanism for patients to access certain PBS medicines where a valid prescription is unavailable. The PBS is an Australian government initiative that provides affordable access for all Australian residents to effective and cost-effective medicines. Under part V (21)(1) of the National Health (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Regulations 1960, a pharmacist must not supply or claim for a pharmaceutical benefit unless the prescription is written in accordance with these regulations. The requirement for a written prescription is also included in respective state and territory legislation.

This can create problems when consumers are in need of a prescription medicine but have run out of the prescription, lost it, or are not able to see a GP. Currently, both Commonwealth and state and territory legislation require that a medicine will only be supplied on presentation of a prescription.

In an urgent case, a prescriber may communicate a prescription to a pharmacist personally by telephone or other means. The prescriber is then obliged to supply a PBS prescription, known as an 'owing' prescription, to the pharmacist within seven days.

Where it is not possible to contact the prescriber, most state or territory legislation allows for an 'emergency supply' of medicines without a prescription. The quantity supplied is generally limited to no more than that required for three days treatment or the smallest standard pack in which certain medication forms, for example liquids, are contained. PBS subsidies do not apply in the case of emergency supply and so the patient is required to pay the full price of the medicine.

This initiative will ensure optimal health outcomes for patients.

For consumers taking medication for the treatment of certain chronic conditions it means that their treatment will not be interrupted should they, for example, not be able to synchronise their medical appointments with their medication requirements. Patients will not bear the financial burden of paying the full cost of the medication, as is currently the case for 'emergency supply' situations.

From commencement, oral hormonal contraceptives, or the pill, for systemic use and lipid modifying agents, specifically the HMG CoA reductase inhibitors as listed in the Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits are in scope for this initiative. These two therapeutic groups have been chosen on the basis that they are relatively well tolerated medicines with a very good safety profile.

Professional protocols by the community pharmacist will apply, so that quality and patient safety will not be compromised. These protocols will assist the pharmacist in ensuring that a person on a stable medicine regimen is being given ongoing medication through the application of the quality use of medicines principles.

The protocol is expected to include how continued dispensing interacts with already existing emergency supply arrangements; a mandatory feedback loop to the prescriber that continued dispensing has occurred; communication to the patient about the medicines dispensed under this initiative, including the importance of regular review by the prescriber; and the limited and selective availability of supply under this initiative.

The continued dispensing initiative will introduce efficiencies for pharmacists and prescribers, lessening the administrative burden of having to chase 'owing prescriptions' and decreasing the wastage that occurs when an original pack of medication has to be broken to adhere to the limited emergency supply provisions under the current state or territory legislation.

The initiative will be implemented in the community pharmacy setting only.

A review will be conducted of this initiative two years following its implementation to assess the suitability and appropriateness of the current therapeutic categories as well as the impact the initiative has had on patient access to medicines.

Technical amendments

The technical changes proposed in the bill for prescribing certain quantities of pharmaceutical benefits are intended to enhance current policy, for example, by expanding use of the streamlined 'authority required' process. This continues the government's commitment to its 2010 policy, in accordance with requests from prescribers, for expansion of the criteria for streamlining 'authority required' medicines.

The bill also enhances current arrangements by providing for determination of rules about increasing prescribed quantities for some medicines. The binding rules would be consistent with current guidelines in the Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits.

Conclusion

The $15.4 billion, five-year Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement is a central pillar of our health reform agenda.

Community pharmacists are a vital part of our primary healthcare system. They play an important role in the health care of their local communities, they are experts in medicines, and they are visited more often than GPs.

The initiatives contained within this bill are just two ways in which the Gillard Laborgovernment is supporting community pharmacy to provide better quality health outcomes to all Australians.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Ms ROXON (Gellibrand—Minister for Health and Ageing) (12:12): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

If you asked Australians if we should create a system where their health information could be easily transferred between their health practitioners, many would be surprised that such a system does not already exist.

The sad truth is that our medical information is not connected—despite how logical and possible it is to achieve.

In many ways, the absence of a system of electronic health records in Australia demonstrates the difficulties of health reform—the fragmentation, the vested interests and the balancing priorities.

But we clearly know the evidence of why we need to act.

Currently health information of individuals is fragmented across a range of locations rather than being attached to the patient. Consumers need to retell their story each time they visit a different clinician. This outdated approach can result in poor information flows, unnecessary retesting, delays and medical errors.

Studies in hospital environments have indicated that between nine per cent and 17 per cent of tests are unnecessary duplicates.

Medication errors currently account for 190,000 admissions to hospitals each year. Up to 18 per cent of medical errors are attributed to inadequate patient information.

There are situations demonstrating every day in Australia why the introduction of e-health records will lead to improved care for patients. Take these situations as examples:

A Victorian retiree on holiday away from his detailed medication history gets rushed by an ambulance to hospital.

A mother with two children who both suffer from asthma struggles to remember the different medications they have tried.

A carer tries to help their elderly mother with their health care who cannot participate in her own health care.

Or a man with a chronic disease like diabetes who wants to better manage their disease—and ensure his doctors are all working off the same information. These scenarios reflect the kinds of real-life situations that occur all around Australia every day.

E-health records can change all these situations for the better.

That is why clinicians, health consumers and the health technology industry are all united in the call for electronic health records.

The National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission recommended to the government in 2009 that 'by 2012 every Australian should be able to have a personal electronic health record that will at all times be owned and controlled by that person'.

This is a proposition that had widespread support in the extensive health reform forums and consultations that the government held throughout 2009 and 2010 around Australia.

Australians saw the value in preventing errors and misdiagnosis. They saw the benefits in managing their own health and the health of their family members. And they saw the benefits in creating a more efficient and effective health system.

Our analysis shows that the net economic benefits of e-health records are estimated at $11.5 billion until 2025.

To put it bluntly—there is widespread support for dragging the management of health records into the 21st century.

That is why this government committed $467 million in the 2010 federal budget to a two-year program to build the national infrastructure for personally controlled e-health records.

Records will have the capacity to contain summary health information such as conditions, medications, allergies and records of medical events created by healthcare providers. The records will also be able to include discharge summaries from hospitals, information from Medicare systems and some information entered by consumers themselves.

Australians rightly do not want their privacy threatened. They do not want one single massive data repository for all their records. They also want the right to participate, but not be forced to do so.

That is why we are designing this project to take heed of privacy from the ground up.

We are building a truly personally controlled record.

We are establishing new consent settings for sensitive information and auditing that does not currently exist for any individual's record.

It is how our system will strike the right balance between security and access. Many of these protections are about ensuring that patients have the same protections over the access to digital records that they do over paper based records.

The bias is placed upon linking data sources around the country—much of which exists already in various forms in general practices, at the pharmacy, with pathology groups or at hospitals. This also means that we will not be building every technology solution—but providing the national infrastructure that only the Commonwealth government can do.

Already there have been significant achievements made in the past few years towards the implementation of e-health.

This parliament passed legislation last year to implement the Healthcare Identifiers Service which provides the backbone identification system for e-health.

There are now 1.1 million of these identifiers downloaded—across jurisdictions and lead implementation sites.

Twelve lead implementation sites have been established and are working with clinicians and patients to deploy e-health solutions.

Partners have been appointed and are busy working in the key areas of building the national infrastructure, change management and evaluating the success and effectiveness of the solutions.

The implementation approach is both swift and careful. We are developing infrastructure in a set period of time, but the rollout will happen in a staged manner.

All through the process there has been extensive consultation with clinicians, consumers and the health IT industry.

The finalised concept of operations released in September is the result of much of this consultation—but the engagement work now continues as the fine details are completed.

This consultation is important because establishing e-health records is not an end in itself. It has to deliver for clinicians and patients. This is why we have embedded e-health within our health reform agenda.

We want to know what is going to work for the patients—as well as the doctors, nurses, allied health professionals and others who have to deliver care.

This legislation I am introducing today will deliver the legal basis for this new system from when it starts registrations from 1 July 2012.

To develop this legislation we have had two rounds of public consultations—both on the legal issues for the system, and then on an exposure draft version of this bill.

The central theme of our system and this bill is that any Australian will be able to register for an e-health record, and they will be able to choose the settings for who can access their record and the extent of that access.

When registered, consumers may be represented by authorised and/or nominated representatives. This allows minors and persons with limited or no capacity to have an e-health record which details their medical history. Patients can choose to have a carer, family member or friend assist them with their record.

Apart from consumers, the other participants who can choose to register include healthcare provider organisations and repository and portal operators.

A registration framework will ensure regulation of all these parties, verification of identity, assurance that minimum technical, security and administrative requirements are met, and system accountability.

The bill prescribes the circumstances in which e-health record information can be collected, used or disclosed and imposes civil penalties for knowing or reckless unauthorised collection, use or disclosure.

All registered consumers and organisations will be subject to the Privacy Act 1988 or state or territory privacy laws as prescribed. The Privacy Act will also apply to the system operator including the ability of the Information Commissioner to investigate an interference with privacy and to penalise an offending party.

The bill also sets out requirements which apply to protect the privacy and security of patient health information. This includes notification of data breaches and storing all information in Australia. These requirements are also subject to civil penalties.

The system operator will be responsible for the operation of the system. The Department of Health and Ageing will initially perform this role. The bill allows for the system operator to change in future to a statutory authority. This will be the subject of future discussions, both with states and territories and with stakeholders.

The system operator will be responsible for establishing and maintaining the basic infrastructure of the system—including a register of participants, index service for documents and national repositories where appropriate.

There will also be important safeguards that the system operator will deliver including audit logs for access to records, reports on the performance of the system and mechanisms for handling complaints.

An independent advisory council will provide expert advice on the operation of the system and on clinical, privacy and security matters.

The membership will include consumers, health providers and people with experience in critical areas such as rural health, Indigenous health, administration, technology and legal or privacy issues.

A jurisdictional advisory committee will include representatives of the Commonwealth, states and territories and will provide advice regarding their perspectives of the system.

The Australian Information Commissioner will be the key regulator for the system and will have the capacity to conduct audits, commence investigations and impose a range of sanctions, accept enforceable undertakings and investigate complaints.

To ensure transparency of the system, the system operator and the Information Commissioner will be required to provide annual reports on the practical operation of the system to the minister and the ministerial council. The system is to be reviewed two years after the bill commences. To ensure transparency of the system, the System Operator and the Information Commissioner will be required to provide annual reports on the practical operation of the system to the minister and the ministerial council. The system is to be reviewed two years after the bill commences.

This legislation being introduced is yet another sign that this government is getting on with the job of rolling out e-health records.

This stands in stark contrast to the record of the opposition in this area, and particularly the current Leader of the Opposition. When he was the health minister he committed to establishing e-health records. This of course did not occur.

He recalled in 2005, and I quote:

Failure to establish an electronic patient record within five years—

that would take us to 2010—

I said, would be an indictment against everyone in the system, including the Government. I hope to be judged against that somewhat rashly declared standard; not because it is likely to be fully met but because it would mean that, come next year, I remain the Health Minister!

Of course that did not eventuate, that was a standard that he failed. The previous government did not deliver on this change, much to the detriment of patients and clinicians alike.

However he also failed a second test when, in the lead-up to the 2010 election, the Liberal Party promised that if they formed government they would cut every cent of the $467 million that this government had committed to e-health.

This legislation presents another test. What will the opposition do? Will it do the right thing for this country and support bringing our health system into the 21st century, or will the Leader of the Opposition continue down this well-trodden path of just saying no?

For the sake of the future health care of Australians I hope that the opposition will come on board.

Many people may see this system and legislation as being about technology. That is a mistake. It is about health care. It is about helping patients and doctors to prevent, cure and treat, and it uses technology to do that.

It also builds upon the other advances that are happening because of this government's investments—namely the National Broadband Network and telehealth, investments that are rolling out right now and helping to better the lives of Australians.

The use of technology to improve care will have a similar effect to the other great advances in healthcare technology, whether it be antibiotics or X-rays. This is a once in a generation opportunity to deliver these important reforms.

I encourage this parliament to support this improved health care through the passage of this bill, which I commend to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Ms ROXON (Gellibrand—Minister for Health and Ageing) (12:25): I move:

That this bill be read a second time.

This bill makes a number of minor, consequential amendments to existing acts to support the introduction of the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records Bill 2011, which I have just introduced into the parliament.

The system will enable patients who register to access their health information and make it available to participating healthcare providers, online, where and when it is needed.

To manage the information from different sources, a consumer's individual healthcare identifier number is used to ensure that only information relating to that consumer can be viewed through their e-health record.

This consequential amendments bill will ensure that the system is able to operate appropriately and effectively.

In order to enable the system to operate, a number of amendments to existing acts are required, including to the Healthcare Identifiers Act 2010 to allow the system to take up and use healthcare identifiers. Using healthcare identifiers will allow more accurate matching of health information to the correct consumer record and allow more accurate identification of healthcare providers.

The amendments to the Healthcare Identifiers Act 2010 will authorise the System Operator, and other entities such as Medicare acting on behalf of the System Operator, to handle healthcare identifiers in various ways including the capacity to:

collect, use and disclose healthcare identifiers for the purpose of registering consumers in the system; and

use healthcare identifiers to verify the identity of individuals during the registration process;

Similarly, authorisations are also sought for repository providers to:

disclose healthcare identifiers for the purpose of indexing documents uploaded to a consumers electronic health record; and

adopt healthcare identifiers as the main identifiers in their repository for information that is to be used within the system.

There will also need to be amendments to the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the National Health Act 1953 to allow a range of health records stored by Medicare to be included in a consumer's e-health record if the consumer so chooses.

The consequential amendments proposed in this bill will allow a range of records created by Medicare to be included in a consumer's e-health record. Consumers will be able to choose to have their Medical Benefits Scheme, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, organ donor and childhood immunisation information included in their e-health record. Both the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the National Health Act 1953 contain certain prohibitions regarding the linking of Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme information, and the amendments will displace those prohibitions only for e-health records system purposes.

This bill seeks to make these amendments so that consumers can have the health information they choose included in their e-health record to support their better coordinated and better informed ongoing health care.

I commend this bill also to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr CLARE (Blaxland—Minister for Defence Materiel) (12:29): On behalf of the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, I move:

That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposals for works in the Parliamentary Zone which were presented to the House on 21 November 2011, namely: High Court of Australia south western forecourt landscape works, and installation of a raised concrete bench seat at the southern end of the Ceremonial Ramp at the entrance to the High Court of Australia.

Question agreed to.

Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (12:29): On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the committee's report No. 426 entitled Ninth biennial hearing with the Commissioner of Taxation.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

Mr OAKESHOTT: by leave—On 23 September 2011 the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit held its ninth biannual hearing with the Commissioner for Taxation. The hearing provides the committee with the opportunity to directly review and scrutinise the activities of the Australian Taxation Office. It also allows the committee to work with the tax office to ensure a stable, certain, and efficient taxation system of the highest quality for all Australians.

To enable the committee to gain a broader and deeper view of the operations of the tax office, the latest hearing was conducted with an expanded format and additional participants. Participants included the ATO's external scrutiny bodies—the Taxation Ombudsman; the Inspector-General of Taxation; and the Auditor-General. In addition, the Tax Institute and the Association of Taxation and Management Accountants provided a voice to the professional bodies during the hearing.

This new format provided the committee with a broad range of expert input and perspectives which added exceptional value to the process. Having used this new expanded format, I can attest that overall Australia's tax system is robust, well-managed and meets the highest standards. I believe it provides a trusted foundation for Australia's people, business and governments. However, there is always room for improvement.

The committee therefore made the following six recommendations in the report tabled today: firstly, that key service standards performance information, such as the ATO's traffic light benchmark reporting system, be made more prominent on the ATO's website to increase transparency and accountability; and secondly, the committee found that ATO notifications to government of tax policy or legislative problems currently remain confidential.

The committee has called for a change towards a more transparent approach, recommending that such submissions should be made public after 12 months, along with a response from government. I believe this will allow the government adequate time to consider and rectify any substantial policy or legislative problems before they become widely known and, at the same time, will place appropriate pressure on the government to act on these notifications from the ATO and that the committee did feel that the public conversation was an important driver of accountability through the process.

Thirdly, the committee found that reviews conducted by the Inspector-General of Taxation are not necessarily made public as soon as they could be. Therefore, the report's third recommendation is that these reviews should be made public after a reasonable period of time. The committee's fourth recommendation is directed at the ATO's external scrutineers asking them to investigate and report on opportunities for more strategic planning and improved information sharing as they undertake their reviews. This recommendation is focused on further improving the already high quality of scrutiny these bodies provide.

Finally, recommendations 5 and 6 call upon the ATO to provide detailed additional information to the committee in its next submission on a range of important areas and that all future submissions continue to be provided at least one month prior to the committee hearings. Amongst other issues, the committee has requested that the ATO provide updates on what lessons they have learnt from public and business complaints; initiatives towards simplifying communication and the use of plain language; simplification of lodgement processes for medium, small and micro businesses; work done on estimating the tax gap and its possible impacts; progress to implement any recommendations by external scrutiny bodies; and processes for speedy release of superannuation funds in crisis situations.

The committee expects that the information provided in the ATO's next submission will demonstrate that concrete actions have been taken throughout the year to improve the ATO's administration and effectiveness. Given the constructive approach taken by the ATO during the past six months and at the recent hearing, the committee has full confidence that the ATO will work towards this goal also.

The committee has further decided to hold future hearings with the tax commissioner annually rather than biannually with the next hearing likely to be held in September 2012. This new time frame acknowledges the expanded scope of the hearings and that the ATO would benefit from having a longer time frame to implement improvements and evaluate outcomes following on from the committee's tabled reports and recommendations.

Overall, I and the committee believe all participants worked through issues collaboratively and constructively during the hearing. I look forward to this continuing and further cultivating a productive relationship with the ATO and other witnesses.

In closing, I wish to thank all those who participated and assisted the committee with its work, in particular the Commissioner of Taxation, the Ombudsman, the Auditor-General and the Inspector-General of Taxation. I would also like to thank the representatives of the Tax Institute and the Association of Taxation and Management Accountants. I once again thank the secretariat of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit for their work and, at this time of year, wish them a very Merry Christmas. I commend the report to the House.

Mr OAKESHOTT: I move:

That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.

Question agreed to.

Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (12:36): We have the member for Lyne, the member for Lyons and we have Mr Lyons, the member for Bass, sitting in the chamber—it can get confusing. On behalf of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry, I present the committee's report entitled Seeing the forest through the trees–Inquiry into the future of the Australian forestry industry together with the minutes of proceedings. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Leave granted.

Mr ADAMS: The committee's brief was to inquire into the current and future prospects of the Australian forest industry. The inquiry took in a number of factors which included the opportunities for forestry and the constraints upon production and for diversification into the future. Opportunities for value adding and the product innovation we could seek included opportunities for the development of potential energy production through biofuse fuels, biomass and biochar. It also touched on co-generation and carbon sequestration, all issues that have been opportunities for the forest industries as a result of climate change discussions.

The committee was aware of the land-use competition between the forestry and agriculture sectors. The environmental impacts of forestry were considered, including the impacts of plantations upon land and water availability for other land uses. We were aware of the need to look at balancing environmental costs with economic opportunities and coming up with some solutions for the conflict that has faced the forest industry in recent times.

The implications of competing land use for the cost of the availability of timber, food and fibre were also considered. There needs to be some harmonising of competing interests while looking at farm and forest opportunities. The need was identified to look at creating a better business environment for forest industries, including investment models for sawlog production, new business and investment models for plantation production, superannuation investment in plantations, and social and economic benefits for forestry production. This became quite a task.

Over the course of the inquiry, the committee was impressed by the passion and commitment of individuals and groups throughout the forest industry. We received 121 detailed written submissions from a huge range of organisations involved in some way with the industry—from both public and private forestry areas; from industry players, individuals and some non-government environmental groups. There were seven public hearings in Canberra between 25 May and 24 August. There were three public hearing outside Canberra taking in Melbourne, New Norfolk in Tasmania and Grafton in New South Wales. The committee also took the opportunity to inspect first-hand operations in the Northern Rivers in New South Wales, the Derwent Valley in Tasmania and Ballarat in Victoria.

This inquiry has come at an important time for the forest industry and the committee has been privileged to visit some of Australia's timber communities to talk about the future of the industry. One of the most important aspects of an inquiry is to spend time listening to people about things they know best. The committee is grateful for the contribution of all those who made submissions and attended hearings. Throughout this report the committee has focused on new forestry opportunities, both for today and in the future. The committee firmly believes that the future of Australian forestry is bright and looks forward to seeing those in the industry take advantage of these opportunities. It can be seen from the recommendations that there is plenty more to do. However, I think the future of the forest industry is full of promise and opportunity. The committee firmly believes that, with the right policy settings, the industry will be able to take advantage of each and every opportunity. The forest industry will thus continue to play an important role, as it does in Australia's economy, particularly in rural and regional areas.

I thank my fellow committee members—the deputy chair, Alby Schultz; Mr Geoff Lyons, the member for Bass; Darren Cheeseman; George Christensen; Robb Mitchell; Tony Crook and Dan Tehan—for all their hard work and commitment in seeing this report through. It was no mean task. I also thank the committee secretariat—Mr David Brunoro from 3 February, Dr Bill Pender until 25 July, Mr Thomas Gregory from 8 August, and Fiona Gardner—who pulled together what I believe will be seen as a landmark report into the future. Lastly, I thank all those who submitted information, attended hearings and talked to us around Australia, for without their help we would not have been able to get the complete picture we finally received. I move:

That the House take note of the report.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms King ): In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Mr ADAMS: by leave—I move:

That the order for the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.

Question agreed to.

Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (12:43): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories I have pleasure in presenting the committee’s report entitled Etched in Stone? Inquiry into the Administration of the National Memorials Ordinance 1928, together with minutes of proceedings.I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Leave granted.

Mr SIMPKINS: The National Memorials Ordinance 1928 defines the membership and responsibilities of the Canberra National Memorials Committee—the CNMC. The CNMC is the body responsible for approving national memorials, an important responsibility given that national memorials represent a permanent symbol of the nation's history and our aspirations.

The inquiry arose out of public concern about the processes underpinning the work of the CNMC. The committee was tasked with examining the membership and decision-making processes of the CNMC. If changes were recommended, transition arrangements for current memorial proposals were also to be considered. The evidence presented to the committee indicates that there are significant problems with the ordinance and the operation of the CNMC. There are problems associated with the membership of the CNMC. There is a lack of structure in decision making; a lack of transparency in decision making; questionable treatment of heritage issues; doubts about access to independent expert advice; an absence of public participation; a lack of supporting documentation such as plans and guidelines; inadequate definition of key issues, including the basic question of what constitutes a national memorial; and a lack of effective parliamentary oversight.

The report raises two possibilities in addressing these issues. Firstly, the ordinance could be retained, but with the ordinance and the CNMC being substantially modernised. The committee has addressed this possibility in some detail, and indicated the reforms required to modernise the ordinance and make its operation more effective.

The preferred option of the committee is, however, for the ordinance to be repealed and the CNMC abolished. In its place, a new model for approving national memorials would be adopted, based upon the approvals process for memorials in Washington DC.

An Australian commemorative works act would define a commemorative work; define the legislative process by which commemoratives intent is established and approved by parliament; establish and define the responsibilities of the National Memorials Advisory Committee, an expert body capable of giving high-level advice on any memorial proposal; give legal standing to the criteria by which commemorative works are assessed and approved; define the process for establishing the character and location of memorials; define the responsibilities of proponents in meeting design, construction and maintenance costs; and define the role of the joint standing committee in the final approvals process for memorials.

Each proposal for a national memorial would require a motion to be introduced in each house of parliament approving its commemorative intent. Each proposal would be referred to the joint standing committee for consideration and report. The National Memorials Advisory Committee would assess each proposal against the criteria for commemorative works, while the National Capital Authority would be responsible for ensuring that the project was financially viable. Upon the joint standing committee's report, the commemorative intent of the National Memorial would be either rejected or approved.

Once approved, the task of identifying a location for the memorial and initiating a process for its design would pass to the National Capital Authority. This would involve extensive public consultation, independent expert input, and environmental and heritage approvals. Once a design and location were settled, the proposal would be referred to the joint standing committee for consideration and approval on behalf of the parliament. The committee's approval would be final.

The prominent role in this scheme given to the joint standing committee is based on its representative mixture of national and local members, its ability to represent the views of parliament and its ability to access public and expert opinion through normal inquiry processes. The committee believes its preferred option would give parliament and the people a simple, robust and transparent mechanism for assessing and approving national memorials as enduring symbols of national commemoration.

I take this opportunity to thank the secretariat for their hard work—Secretary Mr Peter Stephens, Inquiry Secretary Dr William Pender and the whole of the secretariat staff. There were a number of complicated, tricky matters involved in this inquiry, and the secretariat's great work was of excellent assistance to the members of the committee. I also thank Senator Pratt, the chair of the committee, and all members of the committee, including my friend Dick Adams, the honourable member for Lyons. In particular, I thank the ACT members of the committee, Dr Leigh, Ms Brodtmann and Senator Gary Humphries. Senator Humphries's work in giving us some insights into the way things work in Washington—in many ways, the model for what we are looking at—was a great step forward for the committee. It was good to see that, on a bipartisan program, the whole committee acknowledged the need for this fundamental change that we are proposing.

On behalf of the committee I commend the report to the House.

Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (12:49): by leave—An inquiry into the National Memorials Ordinance was long overdue. This ordinance, first promulgated in 1928, governs the decisions made on which memorials can be constructed in the ACT. It does this through the creation of a specific committee with responsibility for these decisions—that is, the Canberra National Memorials Committee. The ordinance has not been significantly reviewed since its creation, and the overwhelming evidence before the committee has been that it is no longer functioning in a manner that best suits its purpose.

In the short time that I have been the member for Canberra, many people have contacted me with questions about the process by which national memorials in Canberra are approved. This is not to say that Canberrans are against the commissioning of national memorials here. Nothing could be further from the truth. We Canberrans accept the role we play as custodians of the national capital. It is a role that we relish and one that we take seriously. We also understand and agree that all Australians have a legitimate interest in decisions on commemorating the significant events that have made our nation. However, much has changed since this ordinance was promulgated and Canberra was founded.

Canberra has grown to be more than just a quaint place filled with memorials and the federal parliament. We are a living community with our own identity. There are now families with generations of residence in Canberra. The Canberra of 1928 was little more than a concept, and the full vision of Australia's national capital was yet to be realised. Indeed, the Canberra and Canberrans of 1928 could not be more different from their counterparts today. Canberra's population has become larger than what was dreamed of by Walter Burley Griffin when he first put pen to paper. Instead of a population of 50,000, Canberra today is a growing city of hundreds of thousands. We have a citizenry deeply interested in the aesthetic of our city and strongly committed to the future of its built environment. And we now have self-government, with responsibility for the planning and development of that future environment.

There have also been many changes to the national political dynamic that mean there are demands on the time of our federal leaders that in 1928 would not have been deemed possible. This means that they are not as well placed as they were in 1928 to discharge their duties on the Canberra National Memorials Committee.

These changes, taken together, have created gaps and uncertainties in the decision-making process on memorials. These just cannot be adequately addressed by the current ordinance. Indeed, this can be quite clearly seen in the level of interest and vigorous debate surrounding one particular proposal. While I wish in no way to detract from those concerned by that proposal, I believe the controversy is a symptom of a larger problem. The problem is that there is a lack of adequate process and transparency concerning the way in which the Canberra National Memorials Committee operates. This process was appropriate for its day and has served the country well, but it clearly does not meet modern standards expected by Australians and strongly desired by Canberrans.

To this end I fully endorse the chief recommendation of this report that the National Memorials Ordinance 1928 be replaced by a new commemorative works act. I also agree completely with the view of the committee that as an interim measure those vacant positions open to citizens of the ACT on the Canberra National Memorials Committee be filled. Surprisingly, it appears that none have ever been appointed. Overall I am pleased with the direction of the committee and the recommendations it has made. In particular, the recommendations provide for comprehensive public consultation. They also would establish a rigorous two-step process of evaluation, providing greater assurance of quality and financial viability.

The recommendations also set out appropriate parliamentary oversight of memorials. This provides not only assurances on accountability but also ensures there is a national interest oversight. The recommendations thus provide the necessary and overdue modernisation of the process of national memorials and provide reassurance to my electorate that their views are valued.

I thank the committee chair, Senator Pratt, for her leadership in this inquiry and all the members of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories for their work on the inquiry. I also thank all those people who took the time to make submissions to the inquiry and to appear as witnesses. Finally, I would like to express my deep thanks to the support of the secretariat staff, in particular Mr Peter Stephens and Dr William Pender, for their support during this inquiry.

Mr SIMPKINS: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Mr SIMPKINS: by leave—I move:

That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.

Question agreed to.

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (12:55): I move:

That the amendment be agreed to.

The purpose of this amendment is to amend the commencement provision of the bill to commence proposed sections 1 to 3 and schedule 1 part 2 on royal assent and the remainder of schedule 1 on earlier of proclamation or six months. Commencing schedule 1 part 2 on royal assent will extend the operation of transport security programs for regulated air cargo agents. This means that transport security programs due to expire before 31 December 2012 will be taken to be in force until 31 December 2012 unless the TSP is either revised or cancelled at an earlier date.

This item will allow industry to adjust to new measures to help secure Australia's air cargo supply chain that were announced on 9 February 2010, thereby minimising the administrative burden on industry during the transition to the new air cargo security framework. Delaying the commencement of the other parts of schedule 1 will provide more time for consultation with industry about consequential regulations that will implement changes to the air cargo security framework contained in the bill. This will also prevent a period where the act and regulations may not align and provide certainty to the air cargo and aviation industries about security arrangements over the busy Christmas period. I commend the bill as amended to the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms K Livermore ): The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Mr CLARE: by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr CLARE: by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr CLARE: by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr CLARE: by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr CLARE (Blaxland—Minister for Defence Materiel) (13:01): Madam Deputy Speaker, for the information of honourable members, I present a correction to the explanatory memorandum for the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2011.

Mr CREAN (Hotham—Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and Minister for the Arts) (13:02): I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill will introduce amendments by giving effect to the teenage parent and jobless families trials which were announced in the Building Australia’s Future Workforce package in the 2011-12 budget. This is an important bill because it will address social inclusion, lift educational attainment and also increase workforce participation. The bill will be accompanied by a legislative instrument which will outline limited circumstances where a parenting payment recipient with a youngest child aged less than six years can be required to attend interviews and develop a participation plan with the Department of Human Services. For teenage parent trial participants, parents can also be required to do the activities set out in the participation plan. Trial participants who do not meet these requirements can have their income support payment suspended until they do.

Joblessness among families is a significant social and economic problem in Australia, and we have one of the highest proportions of children living in jobless families in the OECD. There are currently some 257,000 jobless families with dependent children who are on income support and who have no reported income over the last year or more. Being in a jobless family where no adult has a job for a significant period of time is associated with higher rates of poverty, poorer health status and lower education attainment for both parents and their children.

There are around 11,000 teenage parents currently on parenting payments in Australia. The vast majority of these parents have not completed year 12 and over a quarter only have primary school as their highest level of attained education. That said, there are some teenage parents who do very well for themselves and their children. However, there is also very clear evidence that becoming a teenage parent carries with it a greater risk of poor life outcomes for both parents and children.

This bill, therefore, will provide new services and new opportunities and will require new responsibilities to boost the educational attainment and job readiness of the parents, the wellbeing of children and the functioning of families with young children in some of the most disadvantaged locations in the country. By introducing requirements for trial participants—which means they must access local services and attend activities if they want to continue to receive parenting payment—the government is sending a very clear message that it is the responsibility of the parent to make the most of the opportunities available to them.

The trial participants will be teenage parents in the 10 locations who do not have year 12 or equivalent, have children who are not yet six years old and are in receipt of parenting payment. There will be some 4,000 teen parents in total participating in the trial. The government is sending a very clear message to parents in the jobless families trial that attending Centrelink interviews and workshops and developing a participation plan are important steps towards being work-ready once children start school. There will be some 22,000 parents a year participating in the jobless families trial. The two trials require that selected parents in the 10 locations must plan to use the services available to their local communities whilst they are on parenting payment and before they are required to look for work. The specific and additional focus for teenage parent trial participants is that the parent must work towards attaining year 12 or equivalent whilst also spending time doing child-centred activities. Of course, some teen parents have dropped out of school even before becoming pregnant, so going back to their old school might not be an attractive or even possible option for them.

Each of the trial locations will have specially tailored opportunities for teen parents to re-engage with education, including options for studying without having to put their children into child care. There will be people who can help the teenage parents to navigate the variety of services available, including, for example, helping them enrol in a course or go along to an activity for the first time. The government has invested in ensuring that there are extra services (such as Youth Connections and Communities for Children) in the trial locations to make sure parents get the help they need to participate.

The bill will make necessary changes to the social security law so that parents subject to the new requirements do not lose entitlement to other non-participation payments (such as family tax benefit) due to failure to comply with the new requirements. Parents in the trials will not be subject to the jobseeker compliance framework.

Parents who are particularly vulnerable will be assessed by Centrelink and offered more intensive support via case coordination. This new approach helps Centrelink better identify a parent's needs and allows them to provide more appropriate referrals and better services at the time that they are needed most. This support may also extend to exempting the parent from certain aspects of the trial for a period of time. This is worthy and vital legislation, and I commend the bill to the House.

Leave granted for second reading debate to continue immediately.

Ms LEY (Farrer) (13:09): I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Family Participation Measures) Bill 2011. This bill, as we have heard from the minister—and from others in the Senate two days ago—announces pilot programs in the area of social security and welfare which were mentioned in the 2011-12 budget. There are two measures: a teenage parent participation pilot and a jobless families participation pilot. The cost of these measures is $43.7 million over four years. I note—as the minister also noted—that the government announced additional expenditure of $80 million over four years to provide extra training places for single and teenage parents who are in receipt of income support, so these pilot programs, as well as costing $43.7 million over four years, do link into those additional programs which provide support, places to go and extra help for the vulnerable people who are covered by the two pilots.

I now turn to a consideration of the basic elements of the teenage parents participation pilot, which are as follows. These pilots are to be conducted in 10 targeted local government areas. Parents on income support will be required to attend six-monthly interviews with Centrelink once their child turns six months of age. Once the child is 12 months old, the purpose of the interview with Centrelink will be to develop a participation plan. The participation plan will be compulsory and is to be aimed at improving education outcomes for the parent by focusing on school completion, foundation skills or certificate-level qualifications as well as focusing on the health and education of the participation plan child. Support for the participation plan is to continue until the parent achieves year 12 completion or the child turns six years of age. Clearly, the pilot seeks to address a growing issue of concern: the number of teenage parents who have failed to complete year 12 or an equivalent qualification. Alarmingly, more than 50 per cent of teenage parents were on welfare support before becoming a parent, and a massive 80 per cent of them have not completed their year 12 studies.

We on this side of the House do not suppose that every parent who is a teenager is vulnerable, has problems or needs to be specifically investigated by departments. But we do recognise, as does the government, that there is an issue of teenage parents falling out of school and therefore falling out of the workforce and finding it that much more difficult later in life to get back on the treadmill of a job and a pathway to an opportunity which has unfortunately gone missing. We recognise that young people who have failed to complete their schooling are generally highly disadvantaged in the job market and that they have limited future career possibilities. In addition, when they do find employment, they are more likely to earn lower incomes than are those students who achieved a year 12 qualification. However, the evidence clearly shows that those between 20 and 24 years of age are more likely to be unemployed if they have not completed their year 12 studies. This very well-intentioned pilot is clearly about making sure that mothers—and it nearly always is mothers—who are leaving school to bring up children who they have had while they are teenagers need to be assisted to get back into the workforce and to have the maximum help that we can offer them as government and non-government organisations so that they are properly catered for into the future. As I said, it is a well-intentioned pilot program.

The additional pressures of raising a young child further decrease the likelihood of a teenage parent's securing employment. Many teenage mothers raise their child on their own with little or no support from the baby's father. In 2008 it was estimated that around 60 per cent of teenage mothers had no male partner by the time they gave birth. Without this support, and in some instances without support from their own families, teenage parents are in a difficult position. By having the mechanisms in place to introduce vulnerable young mothers to organisations and to parenting groups, they can develop a support network and access the advice and assistance that they need to care for the child. The next step, of course, is to get them back into school—whether it be their school, a TAFE facility, a community college or a registered training organisation—so that they will be better placed to provide for their family into the future. This, for them, is about overcoming those initial barriers that tell them that they do not have a chance, that they are not worth it, that school and TAFE are places that are no longer for them and also that they perhaps do not need to take the level of responsibility for their own lives and the welfare of their children that we would expect them to.

So that is the teenage parents participation pilot, and what I would say about it is that a lot of the efforts that it talks about should be and are going on in the community already. Perhaps more can be done to bring the linkages together, but in announcing a pilot over 10 separate locations what are we doing about the teenage parents in the other locations? What will happen from this pilot that will lead to future government policy? And isn't it a bit of a cop-out anyway for the government to couch its messages about mutual obligations—which it talks up, because it gets a good response in the community, which recognises the necessity for them—in pilots that are not necessarily going to transfer well into public policy?

I know that research will be done. I am not sure how effective it will be. But I do come back to the point that all of these support mechanisms that we are talking about to surround teenage parents are actually already there in the community. How much of the $47 million that we are allocating to this is going to go to additional staff in our government departments, including Centrelink and the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations? Those staff do good work and we recognise that, but I am always wary when I see dollars allocated to administration and to coordination. When a program is surrounded by all of these good words, you still need to drill down and ask: what is happening? What is happening at the teenager's school? What is happening in the teenager's family? What is happening in their town?

The federal government dollars that have been allocated are going towards coordination efforts, meetings at Centrelink and bringing together the various providers—perhaps around a table to talk about it on a case management basis. All of these are very well intentioned, I know, but it is a significant allocation of taxpayers' dollars for services that I know, as a local member, and that other local members will also know, happen already. They are not always connected very well. The dots are not always joined up very well. But we have youth connections, we have facilities for NGOs and we have organisations that look after teen parents. We have the state government departments and we have the state schools.

If I look at my daughter's school, which is in a town that unhappily has one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in Australia, and consider the friends that she had at school who fell pregnant during years 11 and 12, one of the things I can say is how well that school looked after those kids and how well it linked them into the services in the community. By announcing this pilot, the government is saying: 'We've got 10 areas we are going to focus on, and we are going to do something that hasn't been done before. We're also going to spend a lot of money doing it.' The coalition does not disagree with this legislation about teenage participation pilots at all, but we really do want to make those points.

We also know in this area that, the longer the time that someone spends out of the workforce, the more they struggle to re-engage down the track. That is one thing that I am totally aware of from my meetings with employment participation agencies—if I can scoop them up under that one umbrella—around the country and with bodies that look for jobs for vulnerable people, that work with youth and that try to connect youth as they leave school. We need to make it clear, not just to teenage parents but to young people, that education is an absolutely valid choice, that there is nothing scary about setting foot on the grounds of a TAFE, a community college or any other educational institution, and that when the time comes in your life to get into education, to learn something and to get a certificate and you find the one that means something to you and that can get you a job then that should be an absolutely logical step that you take.

Intergenerational unemployment is a real risk and the reality is that many of our teenage parents come from families who themselves have been supported predominantly by the welfare system. Currently, there are more than 530,000 children younger than 15 who are living with parents who do not work, and there is a strong likelihood of the cycle of dependency being repeated. It is a statistic that has been around as long as I have been in politics—that is, our very poor standing in OECD terms relating to our intergenerational unemployment. It is so bad, in fact, that I have met families who do not talk about collecting a benefit from Centrelink, who do not recognise that with a welfare cheque comes an responsibility to look for work or to participate in training, but who actually talk about going to Centrelink to pick up their pay—so strong and so entrenched is the message of no work and joblessness. I do not blame those individuals at all, because in many cases their life circumstances have not led them to any other choice. That is where the tough love of government policy really needs to take effect.

As I said, the decision has been made for this pilot to be undertaken in areas identified as having higher than average levels of disadvantage. Currently there are around 11,000 teenage parents in Australia, so this really will only scratch the surface. Teenage parents will be required to attend Centrelink once their child turns six months so they can formulate a plan to return to schooling once their child is a year old. Fully-subsidised child care will be provided to enable them to return to school at this 12-month mark. I do have real concerns about the fully-subsidised child care. This is not because it is not a good thing—it is—but because of the shortages of nought to two-year-old places and that that shortage is becoming exacerbated with every passing day because of the government's new rules around child-to-staff ratios that are forcing childcare centres to reduce the number of places. This government really will have a task ahead of it to ensure that those places are available in convenient and suitable locations for these parents.

At the heart of this measure—if it becomes policy, and there is no reason why it should not—there is the need for the teenage parent to have really good child care so that they can educate themselves. You cannot do that with a newborn baby in the room, so we have to have child care that is affordable and available for teenage parents. Because of the new rules that I have just mentioned, which reduce the number of nought to two places, I visit childcare centres all the time that say, 'We've decided that it is not going to pay to have babies, so our youngest room will have toddlers,' and they will just start at two-year-olds, saying, 'We won't do nought to twos anymore'. I also meet a lot of childcare providers who say that they are having to cut down on the number of nought to two places they have, and everywhere I go I say, 'Where is your waiting list?' It is in the nought to twos—sometimes as many as 50. I do not know how the Centrelink case managers and the people who fill in numerous pages about compliance in relation to this measure are going to answer the question: 'Where is my child going to go for child care that I can really feel comfortable with as a nervous new mother? Where is my child going to go so that I can go to TAFE or back to school or back to community college?' I would simply say to the government that, with $47 million attached to this and the other significant dollars with all the training places et cetera, it is all going to fall in a heap if the child care is not available.

I also remain concerned as to how Centrelink plans to monitor school attendance and compliance with the rest of the employment pathway plan. In particular, teenage parents will be required at these interviews they attend to outline how they will maximise the health and education of their children. Part of making this work is ensuring that they do adhere to those commitments. But it is not really the role of Centrelink to look at the health and education of a child. It is slightly outside their role. Their job in this respect is to complete an employment pathway plan and to interview the teenage parent. It is not an unfriendly exercise, because there is really nothing to do when the baby is six months. That is about saying: 'Okay, let's get something happening here. Let's make a plan so that when your child turns one you do start doing something that is in your own interest and also, because of the vulnerability of the children of teenage parents, we'll keep an eye on that as well.' How this actually happens in the real world is not clear to me at all. Again, we have the Labor government announcing rather grand plans and initiatives. People should not make the mistake of thinking that they will translate well in a real world situation.

I want to talk about the other pilot, the jobless families pilot, which is the subject of this legislation. It will commence on 1 July 2012. As with the teenage parents pilot, it will be run in 10 local government areas. It introduces new participation requirements and support services for parents who have been on income support for over two years or who are aged under 23 and are in a targeted local government area. They will be required to attend compulsory workshops and interviews and set personal and family goals. They will receive assistance to target prevocational barriers to engage in the community and to improve the health and education outcomes for children. They will have access to 52 weeks of jobs, education and training child care fee assistance, which pays any childcare fee gap, effectively making child care cost free. This also links to $71.1 million which is provided in other government programs, $19.4 million of which is to be spent on children for community services, which the minister recently mentioned was going to be enhanced in these targeted areas.

I know that all these things happen with clients of Centrelink, our job services agencies and our disability employment service providers. They conduct workshops, they talk to people about setting family goals. It might be that the people in this jobless families participation pilot do not have those activity test requirements, but if we give them those requirements, which essentially is what we seem to be doing here, the services and the provision of those services does already exist. Again I question where the $47 million is going to significantly add value?

One of the most frustrating things for me is going to a town and seeing something provided by one service, something provided by another service around the corner, and other related activities somewhere else—no-one entirely talking to each other because, let us face it, there is a bit of competition between them in attracting the government funding to run the services. If we simply said, 'Everybody sit around the same table, talk about this particular family, talk about this particular teenage parent and work out what you are going to do,' it would be a common sense local initiative that would not require so much money.

Remember: where you create a program like this you create significant compliance as well. You have a computer system, you have forms to fill in. At interviews an amazing number of boxes have to be ticked and questions have to be asked, but you have to remember the experience of the individual. These are vulnerable members of our community and they are sitting in a chair across from somebody who is staring at a computer screen with a program that has been provided by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Those people who sit at the computer screen tell me they sometimes spend 50 per cent to 60 per cent of their time filling in forms in order to serve the great IT system within the department. I have seen this in many situations. The person sitting there wonders: 'Is this person interested in me? Do they want to know about my problems? Are they, in fact, someone who is trained to understand my problems or are they someone who is really, really good at compliance, who can sit in front of his computer screen and give all the answers to make the department happy?'

I know I am being a little unfair and I am probably exaggerating to get my point across, but it is a valid point. When I talk to the people who run these case management exercises that is the single thing they say: 'We would like to speak to people. We would like to empathise with our clients. We would like to say, "We see you, we hear you, we understand what your life is like," but instead we are sitting in front of a computer screen moving the mouse and just glancing occasionally at them.' It is not a good way to do business.

Despite the investment we are making in our jobless families participation pilot, there is no requirement for the families to commit to taking work. Compliance with the employment pathway plan should be a given. I understand with the teenage parents it is about getting them back to school, so we do not want to be withdrawing dollars or support. But in this case, compliance with the employment pathway plan is about being a young person without a job. So once again we have a prime example of how the Labor Party has watered down the compliance regime: talking tough about mutual obligation, making the public think that that is what they are doing, but not really doing it. We absolutely have to ensure that jobseekers follow through on their commitments and accept responsibility for their financial futures.

Indigenous families are chronically overrepresented in the cohort of welfare dependent families, with around 40 per cent of Indigenous children living in jobless families. Here the challenge to break this cycle is absolutely paramount. I see this tragedy firsthand in a number of places in my electorate, with families camping outside local pubs waiting for opening time: grandma, mum, dad and a handful of toddlers running around—it is absolutely heartbreaking to witness. It is a battle that we do have to win, and it often does require a firm hand.

The coalition has a proud track record of welfare reform. We stand firm in our commitment to mutual obligation. Welfare payments need to be viewed as a temporary safety net—there to support people when they are down but intrinsically linked to the support mechanisms that will help raise them up. That is why a program such as Work for the Dole has such an important role to play. It reiterates that in order to receive income support one has subsequent obligations to look for work, and in the absence of paid employment to give back to the society that supports you. More than 600,000 people have benefited from time in Work for the Dole, with programs across the country helping get job seekers job ready. It has taught real-life skills that are needed in every workplace: punctuality, teamwork, appearance and work ethic. I would like to reiterate that the coalition sees Work for the Dole as a labour market program.

We certainly witnessed great success during our time in government but, unfortunately, since the Rudd-Gillard governments came in unemployment has risen. The government chose to water down mutual obligation when it came to power by changing the requirement for job seekers to undertake a Work for the Dole activity after six months, which was the case when we were in government, to 12 months. This government is actually helping to allow people to languish on welfare. The departmental secretary reinforced Labor's position by writing to employment services providers and urging them to be more lenient on job seekers' noncompliance. But compliance has a critical role to play in getting job seekers off welfare and into work. The coalition has never lost sight of this, opposing Labor's frequent attempts to water it down. We face an increasingly complex demographic challenge in the Australian workforce; we have an ageing population and we will face significant skills challenges into the future. But we still have an extraordinarily high number of long-term unemployed job seekers. We need to ensure that those who can work do work.

The coalition moved amendments in the Senate yesterday, one of which the Greens supported, I am happy to say. Our amendments sought to maintain the ability of the secretary to intervene in extenuating circumstances. I actually remain quite bewildered at Labor's decision to introduce this clause—that is, that the secretary cannot intervene. There must always be scope for the secretary to intervene when we are talking about vulnerable people. In addition to the amendment moved to this bill in the Senate, where the bill was introduced, we will move further amendments here to address the need for real penalties to apply in the case of jobless family participants so that we can follow through on requiring an employment participation plan. If there are no teeth then there may not be any agreement by the participant to go ahead.

I foreshadow that we will move those amendments in the consideration in detail stage and repeat that, despite the concerns that I have indicated, the coalition will be supporting this bill. It takes some positive albeit rather baby steps towards reinforcing the responsibilities that come with the right to welfare, and it provides a basis for supporting teenage parents and jobless families to help them realise a brighter future.

Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Government Whip) (13:33): At the outset can I just say that I am proud to be associated with a government that, at a period of time when most of the advanced world was shedding jobs phenomenally, was able to create them. We had an economy that was stronger than most of the rest of the world and we have survived today. This is even to the extent that, when the Leader of the Opposition trawls around the country talking down the economy, the minute he gets a chance to go overseas and thinks that no-one is watching he is praising it.

We have done a lot in employment, job growth and finding work here. I just wanted to note that in the context of the contribution that has just been made, which tried to suggest otherwise. We are always looking for ways to improve job outcomes, not just because of the economic benefit that flows from that but also because of the fact that it provides opportunity for people to do within their lives the types of things that they want to see within themselves individually, for their families, for their friends and for their communities.

Particularly in Western Sydney, where we have stubbornly higher than national average unemployment, we are always looking for ways to find meaningful work, and there are a number of ways that we seek to do it. Certainly since becoming the member for Chifley last year I have spoken at length in this place and elsewhere about the need for our young people to remain at school as long as possible. In an electorate like Chifley, where there are households that have multiple generations of people who have been on some sort of income support, it is important that we give young people the tools and the motivation to get skilled to get a job and to get ahead.

In my first speech to this place I nominated lifting local school retention rates as one of my main priorities as a member of parliament. I commented in that speech that retention rates in Chifley were stubbornly lower than the national average and I lauded, for example, three trade training centres that had been promised and said how I hoped they would lift the number of students staying on in years 11 and 12. Last week I had the opportunity of inspecting the progress of construction at the Loyola trade centre at Mount Druitt. I am excited about the momentum that is building around this centre, which has started delivering trade qualifications in commercial cookery, electrotechnology and hairdressing. Students are lining up in great numbers to begin studying automotive, carpentry, shopfitting and metal fabrication when classes resume in February.

I see these centres and other initiatives in our schools as delivering opportunities to young people—not just opportunities to study but opportunities to find work—and these are opportunities for life. It is why I am supporting this legislation today. I am not comfortable with opportunities like these passing people by, particularly because of changing circumstances—some of which include the need to raise young children and the family responsibilities that come with that.

There are roughly 11,000 teenage parents in Australia. They receive a parenting payment, and more than 90 per cent of them have not completed year 12. A quarter of them claim primary school as their highest level of education. Certainly when economic conditions change—when they tighten, when they are harder and when jobs are lost—this lack of a skills base is one of the greatest disadvantages that people, particularly in the electorate that I am proud to represent, have. Having grown up in those areas, I know that the people there have enormous hearts, are willing, keen and enthusiastic and want to get involved but sometimes a lack of qualifications holds them back.

Not only are many teenage parents missing out on opportunities for a stable future but so too are their children. There is clear evidence that becoming a parent as a teenager brings with it greater risk of poor life outcomes for both the parent and the child. There is also evidence that coming from a family where no adult has a job for a significant period is associated with high rates of poverty, poorer health status and lower education attainment for the child and the parent.

This bill will allow for the commencement of two trials: the teenage parent trial and the jobless family trial. These trials will be implemented in 10 disadvantaged communities across Australia. It is hoped they will lead to improved family functioning. The jobless family trial will amend the arrangement that currently requires parenting payment recipients to look for a job for at least 15 hours per week once their youngest child turns six. The trial will now extend that requirement to where the youngest child is less than six years of age. Some might claim that we are taking parents away from their primary role of caring for their child, but we believe there are enormous benefits that flow from being able to get people in a position where they are training and seeking work. Already there are many services available in local communities which families can use while they are parenting, such as playgroups and play schools. Other often free services, like TAFE courses, baby health clinics and community courses in cooking or financial management, can also improve family outcomes. Making use of services like these while children are young can improve the chances of welfare recipients becoming financially independent once their children are at school. Children themselves are more likely to be school ready when they turn six.

The teenage parent trial will require participants to access local services and attend activities in order to continue receiving the parenting payment. The government is sending the clear message that it is the responsibility of the parent to make the most of the opportunities available to them. Trial participants will be teenage parents who have not attained year 12 or an equivalent qualification, or who have children who are not yet six, and are in receipt of the parenting payment.

In order to facilitate these trials the Gillard government has invested in extra services like Youth Connections and Communities for Children in the trial locations. Communities for Children is also making great headway in suburbs like Mount Druitt. A few months ago the Parliamentary Secretary for Community Services, Julie Collins, visited Mount Druitt. We were very happy to have her visit. The state government announced support in Mount Druitt to help families.

There are also a number of other services helping families in Bidwill. They are helping young parents cope with their new-found responsibilities as parents. Sometimes this is approved in some suburbs within Chifley. There is enormous pressure on families who do not have support networks. Some of the work that is being done to invest in that support has been hugely beneficial. I congratulate UnitingCare on their work in Bidwill. The NewPIN program has made some important contributions to improving family life and improving the role of young parents in our area.

So that the trial participants can navigate the array of services available to them, there will be people to help them enrol in a course or attend an activity for the first time. It is anticipated that these trials will positively impact 4,000 teenage parents and 22,000 parents in jobless families. Parents who fail to comply with these requirements will have income support payments suspended until they do so; however, family tax benefit will continue to be paid.

It has to be emphasised that the government is providing participants with all the support they need to comply with the requirement to attend activities or to complete secondary education or the equivalent. There are a range of safety measures in place to ensure that those most at risk will get the support they need. Parents who are particularly vulnerable will be assessed by Centrelink and offered more intensive support via case coordination. Centrelink is going to be required to identify a parent's needs and provide more appropriate referrals and better services. This additional support may include exempting the parent from certain aspects of the trial for a period of time.

The government will ensure that these trials are monitored closely throughout their implementation. That is fundamental. This will ensure that parents are achieving the desired goal and that it is remaining fair to those participating. Overall the greatest focus needs to remain on how to improve access to education early on for parents, particularly for young people. As I said earlier, their greatest level of education attainment might be attending primary school or in some areas the early years of high school. That denies them so many opportunities not just to participate in the workplace but to equip them to navigate their way through community life. As I said at the beginning of my contribution to this debate, that is why I feel so strongly that being able to find ways to ensure students stay on as long as they possibly can in school is critical.

I refer to the fact that we have had trade training centres open. With years 11 and 12 counting as the first years of an apprenticeship, people are finding this is definitely keeping students in school longer. At Loyola, for instance, they have the Nicholas Owen Program for students who just do not have the enthusiasm for school and who, as a result their lack of engagement, create social problems in school. They have found other ways to keep the kids in longer. They found that a lot of the students in the Nicholas Owen Program were attracted to a trade type course. The students are enrolled in carpentry and trained on the way through. They are retained in school while building their skills.

When students do not stay on in school as long as they possibly can it can affect them greatly, particularly when economic circumstances become bad and they are unable to hold onto employment. Hopefully, through the initiatives being discussed in this legislation, especially where intergenerational unemployment has gripped so many families in suburbs north of Mount Druitt in the seat I represent, we will see those people able to get a faster track and faster focus on education—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): Order! It being 1.45 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The honourable member for Chifley will have the opportunity to continue his remarks at a later hour.

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:27): I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Warringah from moving immediately:

That this House censures the Prime Minister for the deceptive, dysfunctional and directionless government she leads which doesn't trust the people, doesn't consult the people but which always consults Bob Brown and the Greens and is now headed for a crisis mini budget.

This year Bob Brown did the deciding and the Prime Minister delivered what he wanted. Bob Brown wanted a carbon tax, so the Prime Minister broke her solemn promise to the Australian people and hit families with the world's biggest carbon tax. Bob Brown wanted a dirty deal in the dead of night on the mining tax, so what did this Prime Minister do—the Prime Minister that has just, shamefully, scurried out of this chamber? She delivered.

And after deciding on the East Timor solution, the Manus Island solution and then the failed Malaysia people swap, what did this Prime Minister do? The Prime Minister who does not have the courage and the principle to face up to this parliament today—what did she do? She gave Bob Brown what he wanted all along: onshore processing.

This is a Prime Minister who claims that this has been the year of decision and delivery. Wrong, wrong, wrong. This has been the year of backflips and broken promises. There is the carbon tax based on a lie. There is the mining tax based on a secret deal. There is the border protection policy in an absolute shambles as the boats just keep coming day in, day out.

This is a government which illustrated in this parliament last night the totally chaotic and shambolic process that is the Gillard way of government, and that is why standing orders must be suspended. The mining tax was based on a secret deal done with the three big miners. Then more deals were cut with the various Independents. Then there was a second secret deal, done in the dead of night last night with the people who really pull the strings in this government. The Treasurer, who is sitting there at the ministerial table now, said that this is a deal which will stand the test of time. This deal did not last until breakfast time this morning. It has been changed five times and will be changed again and again as this panicked government goes to its crisis mini-budget next week.

This is a mining tax. It is a bad tax from a bad government. It is a secret tax from a bad government which is run not by its own backbench but, fundamentally, by the real Prime Minister of this country: Bob Brown. This deal was done without any knowledge of the cabinet, without any knowledge of the ministers, without any knowledge even of the Independents—but they can speak for themselves. I say to the minister at the table: if the Independents knew anything about the deal that had been cut with the Greens, why don't they tell us what they knew? Oh, no. It was not ministers. It was not the caucus. It was not the cabinet. It was not even the Independents. No, it was just two people who knew what was really going on in this parliament last night. It is this Prime Minister and the person who pulls the strings in this government: Bob Brown.

Everything about this mining tax is bad. The first version of the mining tax would have killed the mining boom stone dead. This is the industry which saved this country from a recession, and what is the reward that this government gives this vital industry which has saved Australia from a recession, this vital industry which is essential to the prosperity which every family in this country needs and cherishes? Their reward is a great big new tax that will cost jobs and cost investment. The first version of the mining tax would have killed the goose that laid the golden egg for Australia. The second version, cobbled together in secret with three big miners who had a gun to their heads from a government which practises payback, is a version that will punish the entrepreneurial local companies that this country will rely on if the mining industry is to expand in the years ahead.

This is a government which just does not get it when it comes to the prosperity of our country. This is a government which is consistent only in its desperate scramble to survive. The carbon tax was the greatest example of deception from this government. We have a Prime Minister who said one thing to win votes before an election and did the opposite to stay in office after the election, but what was done last night was all of a piece with the carbon tax. Like the carbon tax, it was another special deal done with the Greens and the Australian parliament and the Australian people were the last people to know. We all know that the Greens hate the mining tax. We all know that the Greens are fundamentally opposed to a modern economy which depends upon mining and resources in this country for the prosperity which each Australian needs.

This is a bad tax from a bad government which just does not get the essence of a modern economy. This government does not understand that you cannot have a society—you cannot have a community—without an economy to sustain it. You cannot have a functioning economy without profitable businesses, and profitable businesses cannot be taxed as soon as they start succeeding. What this government does not understand is that the last thing you should do if you want to improve the economy of this country is penalise success. You do not penalise success if you want to improve our economy. You do not give an uncovenanted advantage to this country's competitors. Above all else, you do not speed up the slow lane of our economy by slowing down the fast lane. This is what this government fundamentally does not understand.

This government thinks that somehow you can build prosperity with new taxes. No country ever got rich by increasing taxation. No country ever built a strong economy by clobbering itself with tax after tax after tax. It is typical of this government that it cannot even get it right. It is hitting our economy with two big new taxes and in the process is opening up a $10 billion budget black hole. More taxes, even more spending, even more borrowing—that is the Labor way, and that is the way to disaster for our country.

Every time the Prime Minister got up in question time today, every time the Prime Minister got up in question time yesterday, every minister who gets up—and let me let you in on a little secret, Mr Speaker: when the minister gets up in a few moments time, he will say, 'This is an opposition that says no to everything.' I looked at the paper yesterday, and there it is:

The Sydney Morning Heraldproudly says no.

No to fear.

No to favours.

No to pulling punches.

…   …   …

No one person's influence.

…   …   …

No to agendas.

Well, I am like that—I say no to Bob Brown's influence and no to the Green agenda. I have to say I am quite happy to say no to what is destroying the prosperity of this country and I am happy to be on— (Time expired)

The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?

Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (14:37): I second the motion. I am glad the Treasurer is staying here for this debate because I think every comedian that cracks a joke should be entitled to hear whether or not the audience laughs. When the Treasurer said a little earlier today that this is a tax that will withstand the test of time, we all had a giggle. When the mining tax was originally announced it was not five months before they had to negotiate a new secret agreement with BHP, Rio and Xstrata. It did not withstand the test of time.

Then, of course, after the election there was a transitional working group, and it was revealed that the royalties were going to have to be refunded in full out of a secret deal. So the new mining tax did not withstand the test of time. Then, of course, the draft of the legislation came out, and that changed again before the legislation was introduced. That did not withstand the test of time. Then a deal was done with the members for Lyne and New England, and the tax did not withstand the test of time. A separate deal was done with the member for Denison, and the tax did not withstand the test of time. Now, a $140 million deal has been done with the member for Melbourne, and the tax did not withstand the test of time.

After all of those compromises, totalling in excess of $13½ billion in deals, arrangements and secret negotiations, this Treasurer has the audacity to say: 'We are in it forever. This is a tax that will withstand the test of time.' I read the member for Melbourne's comments from last night very carefully. He said:

I'm very pleased that we have reached agreement with the government on a set of arrangements that will allow us to support the passage of the mining tax through the House of Representatives tonight ….

We will be reserving our position in the Senate.

So the tax that is meant to withstand the test of time is not going to make it from the House of Reps to the Senate. They have spent $140 million buying off the member for Melbourne and they are going to have to spend more money with the Greens in the Senate. What a joke. This government has seen more deals than a Las Vegas croupier. This is the way they are behaving. They do deals. They do whatever it takes.

We had to drag the Labor Party to the table to reveal the overnight deal. They were not going to reveal the deal because the Greens in here—and it is light Green in here and dark Green in the Senate—said they had entered into a secret negotiation with the government and could not reveal the details. One of the reasons for that is that it was the Treasurer who said that the interest withholding tax on financial institutions was being introduced by the government so that major banks would have access to cheaper funding so they could offer cheaper loans to Australian households and businesses. The government expects this reform will allow such bank branches to continue their active lending to Australian businesses, including infrastructure investors, at even more competitive interest rates.

The Treasurer said that the deal with the Greens—the light Greens—to get the of the mining tax passed through this place was at a cost to lower interest rates, in his view. He sent out the Assistant Treasurer to give the bad news, to say that this is the way they are going to pay for the Greens deal to get it through the House of Representatives. So we have good cop here, bad cop there, but the police commissioner in the Senate. The police commissioner is calling the shots in the Senate—the guy that is wagging the dog. It comes back to the fundamental point: the Greens are asking for more.

We know the Greens set budget policy, because on fringe benefits tax they came up with a $970 million change to fringe benefits on cars. Now I can reveal to the House that there is a report from the Treasury that states that Senator Brown has requested costings on increasing petrol prices by CPI, amounting to over $4 billion. The last time we saw this costing by the Greens from the Treasury, it came through in budget policy. Now we know that the Greens have requested from the Treasury costings on increasing the cost of petrol for everyday Australians with a higher excise. Stop wagging the dog. Get rid of the Greens— (Time expired)

Mr Laming interjecting—

The SPEAKER: The member for Bowman will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).

The member for Bowman then left the chamber.

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:43): For this Leader of the Opposition, his whole notion of leadership is the political equivalent of going the biff. That is his way of acting. He has done for political discourse in this country what the vuvuzela did for World Cup soccer in South Africa.

He is saying that his very first commitment, if he is elected to office, is to give a tax break to 30 of the wealthiest companies in this country—people who are having superprofits. These people are not only making these profits but saying they are prepared to pay the tax. They should pay the tax. We on this side of the chamber say yes to the minerals resource rent tax. The Australian public say yes to the minerals rent tax. The big miners say yes to the MRRT. The only people in Australia who say no are those opposite.

Mr John Cobb interjecting—

Mr ALBANESE: And last night they said it 32 times.

But there is something that is very interesting. As everyone would know, there was no gagging of the debate last night. Everyone had an opportunity to make a contribution, but there is one person who did not make a contribution to the debate on the minerals resource rent tax—and that is the Leader of the Opposition.

He could not get to his feet: not yesterday, not the day before, not when we introduced the legislation. Not one word during the debate did he have to make, yet he says this is the most important issue facing Australia. He could not be bothered getting to his feet. He slept through the economic stimulus plan vote and last night had to have a person either side of him to nudge him and wake him up during the divisions. You had the Chief Opposition Whip on one side and the Manager of Opposition Business on the other nudging him every 10 minutes to get him to wake up, having slept through the economic stimulus plan.

But of course he has got form because he could not be bothered speaking on the minerals resource rent tax legislation. When the carbon price came to a vote in the Senate—remember the other big piece of legislation—he was on a plane—

Mr Tony Smith interjecting—

The SPEAKER: The member for Casey is warned!

Mr ALBANESE: to Europe where he told them that the Australian economy led by this Prime Minister and this Treasurer was the envy of the industrialised world. That is what he had to say overseas, and it stands in stark contrast to his behaviour in this House.

The fact is that this Leader of the Opposition is hoping to survive and get out of this place because he is looking forward to Christmas. He is hoping that Santa brings him a policy because what happened late yesterday in his own caucus room is that, one by one, they stood up and spoke about the National Party tail wagging the Liberal Party dog. They spoke about the pathetic failure of modern liberalism under this leader. Robert Menzies, the founder of the Liberal Party, had this to say:

In other words, on far too many questions we have found our role to be simply that of the man who says 'No.'

A visionary was Robert Menzies: 67 years ago he picked this bloke, and this is what he also said about this bloke:

There is no room in Australia for a party of reaction. There is no useful place for a policy of negation.

That is what Robert Menzies said about this person who has led the coalition of yesterday into the 'noalition' of today—the 'noalition' who have just one policy to every issue: no, no, no, no, no. We heard it 32 times last night, and so desperate were they that we had the unprecedented action from the opposition of moving divisions and having counts on third readings of legislation. That is how strong they were in their opposition to big miners being taxed. That is how strong they were in making sure that they go to the next election. They are going to say to the people who have had the income tax-free threshold lifted from $6,000 to $18,000 that they are going to bring it back in. They are going to put a million people back into the income tax system, the lowest paid Australians in this country. Why? So that BHP, Rio Tinto and the big miners who say they can pay more will get a tax cut. What a disgrace, and that is on top of the fact that they are going to increase company tax for Australia's 2.7 million small businesses. That is the policy that they have.

Last night we saw the farce of them having a bit of a focus group—and maybe it came through: maybe they are being a little bit too negative. 'Maybe we need to have a bit of a nuance.' So we saw the little nuance with regard to superannuation. They did not trust the shadow finance minister, so he was out of the loop. But they made an announcement about superannuation about how they were going to support it, and guess what? Last night—

Mr Christensen interjecting—

The SPEAKER: The member for Dawson is warned!

Mr ALBANESE: they voted against it again. They voted against the super changes last night. This is a person who was saying no in his sleep. We know that this is the case because we saw it last night. There he was asleep on the front bench. He only woke up to say no, no. It was unbelievable but that is what we saw last night for 2½ hours. This is someone who thinks that he will sleepwalk into office. I have got news for him: the Australian people are better than that. We are a country that believes in fairness. We are a country that understands the importance of superannuation.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

The SPEAKER: The member for Sturt is warned!

Mr ALBANESE: We are a country that understands the importance of giving tax breaks to low-income earners and companies, of stimulating our economy. This is a government that is proud of the fact that we have created 770,000 jobs since we came to office, including 100,000 in the last year. But the hypocrisy: while they were out there voting against all this, this is what they say about regional infrastructure. Today's paper in Gladstone, where we have announced a fast-tracking of funding for the Calliope crossroads, had this to say about the member for Flynn:

Mr O'Dowd said the announcement was a direct result of representations by himself …

I checked the records. He has not written me a letter. He has not had a meeting. He has not picked up a phone. I know who he is vaguely but I have never had a conversation with him in my life. I do not plan to have one soon, because this is the sort of pathetic performance they have of opposing all the funding. They oppose everything, but then they try and get their snouts in the trough to get every bit of funding they can. Then they claim credit for it. We have two years to go, two years of the relentless negativity of the Leader of the Opposition. The game is up. Your backbench know it and pretty soon you will know it too.

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Abbott's) be agreed to.

The House divided. [14:57]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

Question negatived.

Ms Gillard: In the absence of any questions from the opposition I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

The SPEAKER: I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip, nominating members to be supplementary members of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into insurance response to natural disasters.

Mr ALBANESE: by leave—I move:

That Mr Entsch and Mr Christensen be appointed supplementary members of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs for the purpose of the committee’s inquiry into insurance response to natural disasters.

Question agreed to.

Ms BURKE (Chisholm) (16:32): On behalf of the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests I present the Draft code of conduct for members of parliament: discussion paper, November 2011.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

Ms BURKE: by leave—Consideration of a possible code of conduct for federal parliamentarians is not new. As noted in the discussion paper I have presented, such considerations go back as far as 1975. Since then the issue has emerged at various times but has not been brought to fruition. Most recently, the agreements for parliamentary reform that were negotiated as part of the process for formation of minority government in the 43rd Parliament made provision for the implementation of a code of conduct for federal parliamentarians. The agreements also referred to the appointment of a Parliamentary Integrity Commissioner to uphold the code.

In November 2010, the House referred an inquiry into this matter to the committee. While the committee has taken evidence from Australian and international parliamentarians who have experience with codes of conduct —and I want to thank the many people who made themselves available for this important work—it has decided not to reach a concluded view on the merits of adopting a code of conduct, and it now presents its work on the inquiry as a discussion paper. The discussion paper addresses the terms of reference and includes a consideration of the various aspects of such a code. I do not propose to canvass all those aspects, but I would strongly suggest—and actually urge—that all members read this discussion paper to better inform themselves on the issues to do with the code of conduct. Many members of the public are under codes, and it is probably time that parliamentarians gave serious consideration to adopting what has been outlined in the discussion paper.

The only two matters I would refer to relate to the preferred view of the committee if a code of conduct is to proceed. First, the committee considers that it would be preferable for any code of conduct to be broad in nature and to reflect key principles and values as a guide to conduct, rather than being a detailed, prescriptive code. The committee has included a draft paper of possible codes in the discussion paper. Second, the committee considers that it would be preferable for any code of conduct to be adopted by resolution of the House rather than by statute. We do strongly recommend this if it were to come to pass. There was very strong evidence from both the United Kingdom House of Commons and the Canadian House of Commons that a code should be adopted by resolution. A statutory code would open up the interpretation of members' conduct to be subject to scrutiny in the courts. The committee considers it essential that the House itself retains control over its own affairs, including the conduct of its members.

With these comments, I commend the discussion paper for the consideration of members. I thank all the privileges committee members who have been involved in this discussion. We have had some full and frank discussions and I really do thank them for their input. I also would really like to thank particularly David Elder, Claressa Surtees and Laura Gillies for their phenomenal work in establishing this discussion paper. I would ask everyone to give it due consideration. I thank the House.

The SPEAKER (17:03): I present the House Standing Committee on Appropriations and Administration's report No. 2, Annual Report 2010-11. In doing so, I am recommending it to members. I place on record that this committee is a very important step in the life of the House. It gives for the first time a formal and representative body of members, led by the Speaker, the opportunity to look at the funding needs of the Department of the House of Representatives on a regular basis and then make representations if they think it is necessary.

In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.

Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (17:07): I rise to speak up on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Family Participation Measures) Bill 2011. The purpose of the bill is to address two areas of concern: teenage families and jobless families. For teenage parents who live in one of the 10 identified areas of disadvantage, there will be a 3½-year trial starting on 1 January 2012, requiring those who receive parenting payments to develop and sign an Employment Pathway Plan. There will be a separate three-year trial commencing on 1 July 2012, requiring certain jobless family members who are receiving parenting payment to develop and sign an Employment Pathway Plan.

The government announced the introduction of these participation pilots for teenage parents in the 2011-12 budget and it is believed that this measure will cost in the order of $47.1 million and will be rolled out across 10 areas of high disadvantage. These areas include: Playford in South Australia; Hume and Shepparton in Victoria; Burnie in Tasmania; Bankstown, Wyong and Shellharbour in New South Wales; Rockhampton and Logan in Queensland; and Kwinana in Western Australia.

As the federal member for Solomon, I am disappointed that the Northern Territory has been overlooked. Yet again, the Northern Territory is not getting the attention it deserves and, quite frankly, I am sick and tired of the government treating the Northern Territory with contempt. Statistics from the Parliamentary Library show birth rates to teenagers in the Northern Territory are consistently higher than the national average. Fertility rates for Territory teenage girls are also among the highest in the country. This concerns me, because teenage pregnancies are usually associated with many social issues, such as higher rates of debt and lower educational levels. Being a parent can make it harder to get a job or find a job. The difficulty of juggling being a parent with school, work and family can also be a strain. Often getting child care can be difficult too because of the expense involved. These factors can often lead to parents feeling inadequate, lonely and not part of a family.

Smoking, drinking and drug use are also big factors and can also break down the relationship between the young mother and her own parents. One Australian study claims that, while 49 per cent of pregnant teenagers were living with their parents before pregnancy, only 30 per cent lived at home during the pregnancy. Stress and the realisation of becoming a young parent also cause problems and sometimes result in unwanted children and broken families. In some cases, too, the grandparents are forced to care for the children, and, with no government assistance in place to support this, how will they be supported?

Currently there are more than 11,000 teenage parents in Australia. According to the ABS, the age-specific fertility rate of women aged 15 to 19 years in the Northern Territory in 2010 was 48.1 per cent. The national average that same year was 15.5 per cent. Indigenous teenagers also have a fertility rate twice that of all teenage women in the Northern Territory. This is of great concern because, without the opportunity to complete their education, these teenagers may become trapped in a cycle of welfare dependency and could disadvantage not only themselves but also their children. Therefore, births to Indigenous teenagers in remote and disadvantaged areas of the Territory are of great concern. According to ABS statistics, for Indigenous women in 2004 the teenage fertility rate of 71 babies per 1,000 women was more than four times the fertility rate of all teenage women—16 babies.

Because we have a much younger population than any other population in Australia, this is an ongoing challenge. Coupled with the life expectancy gap, we need to acknowledge child health and youth services in rural and remote areas of the NT to deal with sexually active teenagers. This bill will require teenage parents to enter into an Employment Pathways Plan with Centrelink once their youngest child turns six months. The aim is to re-engage them with study as early as possible to prevent their long-term disadvantage. Once their youngest child turns six months old, they will be required to attend a Centrelink appointment and will need to enter into a plan to see them resume study and develop a plan for healthy early development and education outcomes for their child.

Education and health are extremely important to me in Solomon. In fact, recently I was fortunate enough to meet members of the Top End girls academy. The girls academy initiative was created with the aim of improving educational, personal and employment outcomes for Indigenous secondary school females. The program provides a strong community with supportive programs so that all members work towards completion of year 12, employment or further education. This is one such initiative that is proving successful for young Territory women.

Ultimately, for this pilot to succeed there needs to be a focus on workforce participation and an enforcement of the obligations of the job seeker. Yet the only penalties that apply are when a job seeker fails to meet with Centrelink without a reasonable excuse. Whilst the legislation does require parents to enter into an Employment Pathway Plan to outline their employment, training and education and health outcomes for their child, there will be no requirement for them to comply with this plan and it will not be compulsory for them to commit to looking for or accepting employment or undertaking further study. Therefore, our amendment will seek to require compliance with the undertakings given in the employment pathway plan. Failure to adhere to these commitments would result in a suspension of payment. As with the teenage pilot, the jobless families trial was a commitment made in the 2011-12 budget.

The jobless families trial program targets parenting payment recipients who have been on income support for more than two years or those who are under 23 years of age, not working or studying and have a youngest child under six years of age. According to 2011 ABS statistics, more than 530,000 Australian children under 15 live with parents who do not work. Again, this can lead to serious disadvantage for the child and may ingrain a sense of welfare dependency. This also puts added pressure on housing affordability and the Northern Territory is already in the midst of a housing shortage.

Too many young families are struggling to find affordable homes and accommodation in my electorate. As a result, they are being forced to leave the Territory and seek more affordable options interstate. This is why the government should make use of the 200-plus vacant RAAF base houses sitting in Eaton rotting away. Instead, the Gillard Labor government ignores the will of the parliament. It should make these houses available to Territorians and it should do it now. Having an extra 200-plus houses available in the market would alleviate some of the pressure on young families in my electorate. Defence people assure me that they would love the opportunity to live in those houses. Unfortunately, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Mr Snowdon, did not do what he previously agreed and that was to offer those houses to Defence families. I understand he is no longer the minister responsible for that, but I am hoping the new minister responsible will honour the will of the parliament and make those houses available.

While the Northern Territory has relatively low unemployment levels, ABS statistics reveal there are currently around 96,000 jobless couples with children as well as 210,000 single parents out of work across the nation. Indigenous children are most at risk, with more than 40 per cent living in jobless families—nearly three times the rate of other children. Parliamentary Library statistics show that the Northern Territory has the lowest rate of student participation in schooling of all states and territories. These rates are also lower for Indigenous students and students in remote and very remote areas. School attendance is closely linked to socioeconomic status, locality, Indigenous status and literacy and numeracy attainment.

The coalition supports attempts to have parents re-engage with the workforce early; however, this bill does not require parents to adhere to the commitments they make in their employment pathway plan. The coalition has concerns that this bill seeks to remove the provision for the secretary to intervene in exceptional circumstances, and that is why we will move amendmentsto this bill in the Senate.

Ultimately, the intention of these pilots is to increase engagement with education and employment opportunities, preventing future intergenerational unemployment and potential lifelong disadvantage. The coalition welcomes the intent of these pilots to encourage engagement; however, there are still some concerns. Whilst we acknowledge there are parents whose children are under six years of age and, as such, they should not be forced to look for a job, there should still be a recognised compliance regime. If they commit to further studies or to look for employment then they should be required to comply with these undertakings. As already indicated, the coalition supports the bill; however, we will be moving some amendments.

Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (17:18): In 1981 a young woman found that she was pregnant at 16. After confirming the pregnancy and breaking the news to her mum, she attended school until the baby was nearly due. Although her mother was supportive and encouraged her to go back to school, the young woman decided it was too hard to commence year 12 with a young infant. Having already completed her year 11 studies, she eventually enrolled in a TAFE course and began a diploma in child care, part time. Now 45, with two children, she has a successful career in the early childhood sector running childcare centres in Melbourne. She also helps pregnant women who are not so lucky, in particular teenage mothers. Her daughter, now 29, is married with two children of her own. This story was told anonymously online by the woman herself to encourage teenage mothers never to give up. It shows why attaining year 12 or its equivalent is so important for teenage parents.

The number of teenage mothers in Australia has dropped significantly over recent decades. The most recent ABS data shows just four per cent of births were to teen mothers. But the outcomes of this small group are still worrying. In the 2006 census only 17 per cent of teenage mothers completed year 12. Over 1,500 females aged 15 to 19 years were not gaining the level of education that is increasingly essential for the demands of a 21st century workforce.

In June of this year the National Centre for Vocational Education Research released a report titled From education to employment: how long does it take? The centre found that young people who do not finish year 12 take significantly longer to move into employment. The prime factor influencing the speed at which a young person obtains work after they leave the education sector was their level of education. The report also found strong gender differences. For men, those with a degree obtained work five times faster than those who did not complete year 12. For women, those with a degree obtained work eight times faster. The unequivocal message from this report is that education is vital. For a young person entering the labour market, higher levels of education lead to better wages and to getting a job faster. In a worrying statistic, about one-quarter of the young people sampled with less than a year 12 education had not obtained any work by the end of the observation period. This is a serious warning for the long-term prospects of younger Australians who do not have year 12 or its equivalent. This prognosis for the career development and income levels of those young people is grim. This bill heeds that warning and puts in place a program for teenage parents to work towards attaining year 12 or its equivalent. From 1 January 2012, teenage parents in 10 disadvantaged locations with a youngest child under six who receive parenting payment and have not completed year 12 or an equivalent qualification will be required to attend Centrelink to develop a participation plan. Under the teenage parents trial, participants will be required to undertake compulsory activities from when their child is one year old. This will give them time to settle into life with a new baby; but, equally important, they will be able to develop a plan towards gaining a good education.

Education is the best antipoverty vaccine we have yet invented. It provides the foundations from which a young person can build a life of their choosing from the career opportunities and skills development that it brings. This government gets it. We understand that education is good social policy, that unemployment is the best predictor of disadvantage and that having the skills for the jobs of the future is essential to staying out of poverty. Although it was based on children and families in the United Kingdom, a recent Four Corners program made this point. It showed the human face, the cost and devastating impact of poverty on children.

One story was of Sam, who is 11 years old and lives in Leicester with his dad and older sister. Sam's dad is unemployed and struggles with finding enough money to buy food or to operate the electricity. Their income is £70 to £80 a week, which is barely enough to buy them the basics. Often the electricity and gas run out, leaving them cold and miserable. Sam has problems with bullying and suffers from low self-esteem. He has to be careful about what he says to other students for fear he will be judged and ridiculed. As Sam said, 'People don't like you if you're poor.'

This bill puts supports in place to cut the cycle of unemployment and poverty through education. I am sure that no-one in this place wants to see any child suffer, like Sam, the indignity of poverty. A great education in Australia can see a child from Cape York go to university, become a leader in her community and eventually become Young Australian of the Year. A great education means that a child from Ilfracombe can become the first female member of the Queensland bar and our first female Governor-General. This national parliament is itself a showcase of the opportunities that education provides to children from all corners of the nation. So many members of this House acknowledged in their first speeches that they would not be here today were it not for a great education.

The Brotherhood of St Laurence tells the story of another Sam. Forty years old, Sam has been working with the local council's road services department for the past 18 months. Now Sam's life is settled, he has safe, stable accommodation and is working towards future employment goals—but it has not always been that way. In 2009 Sam was living in a rooming house where violence was commonplace and the environment unsanitary. Through the Centre for Work and Learning at the Brotherhood of St Laurence, he was chosen to join a pre-employment training program. Sam successfully completed the training and was picked up as a trainee street cleaner with the local council. Having a steady income and taking control of his finances meant that Sam was finally able to renew his drivers licence. After he completed his traineeship he was linked to a recruitment agency used by the local council, and now enjoys a regular job. 'I really want to use my brain,' says Sam, when he is asked about his plans to work with youth and when he talks about becoming a teacher.

The other part of this bill focuses on families at risk of long-term unemployment. The aim of the jobless families trial is to break cycles of unemployment. For parents with children under school age, they will be required to develop a plan for re-entering the workforce once their youngest child starts school. Their Employment Pathway Plan can also include activities focusing on the health, wellbeing and education of their children. Because this government gets it, we are making sure children in families of risk are 'school ready' to make the most of their educational opportunities.

On a definition of poverty as households with less than 50 per cent of the median income, the OECD Family Database finds that 14 per cent of Australian children live in poverty. That is too many. This is why we are taking action with this bill and trialling these programs to support those at risk of long periods of unemployment and its lasting effects.

Recently the Economist magazine reported on the impact of unemployment in Western nations. Noting the scale of joblessness in the West, it pointed out that if all unemployed people lived in one country, it would have a population similar to that of Spain. By comparison, Australia's economy and our low levels of unemployment are the envy of other Western nations. We still have our own areas of stubbornly high unemployment, those pockets of disadvantage and of generational cycles of joblessness. For those Australians caught in those cycles of unemployment and disadvantage, or at risk of falling into those cycles, the human cost is all too real. Joblessness can lead to increases in depression, divorce, substance abuse, family breakdown and life's other troubles.

A 2007 study, 'Unemployment and Psychological Well-being', by Nick Carroll of the ANU, found that the adverse effects of unemployment on life satisfaction was large and significant. Not having a job was a much better predictor of having low life satisfaction than simply having a low income. Past unemployment also had a similar adverse effect, suggesting that unemployment had left long-term scars.

Internationally, there is substantial joblessness around the world, and we know that the longer a young person spends being unemployed, the greater that scarring effect is. In the United States, the average period of joblessness is now up to 40 weeks—an increase from only 17 weeks four years ago. In Italy, a person who is unemployed has, on average, been jobless for more than a year. The more detached people become from the workforce, the more their skills atrophy, the more their self-esteem drops, making it harder to re-enter the labour force, particularly a labour force that is moving on. That leaves countries with lower growth rates, putting strains on public finances and on the social fabric.

It is a grim picture, but it is important to understand the full impact that long-term unemployment has on individuals, communities and nations. That is why education is so important to prepare and equip people for the workforce of tomorrow, to safeguard them against the detrimental effects of unemployment. I know the power of education and the dignity of work have been at the heart of the agenda of the Rudd and Gillard governments. This is one of the reasons that I ran for parliament and it is central to what we on this side of the House believe in. There are still too many Australians who live in circumstances of entrenched disadvantage. Too many Australian children are in families where their parents and grandparents have not known regular employment. They deserve to know the dignity of work, and they can benefit from the habits that arise from growing up in a household where an alarm clock goes off in the morning and someone goes off to a dignified job.

As the Prime Minister said in her address to the Sydney Institute earlier this year:

The party I lead is—politically, spiritually, even literally—the party of work … the party of opportunity not exclusion.

Welfare reform and workforce participation is where progressive policy and Labor values come together.

Not everyone can make it on their own. Sometimes the odds are stacked against people. We on this side of the House are committed to putting the odds back in their favour. This bill harnesses the transformative power of education to provide opportunities for some our most disadvantaged communities. This is what a government should do and this is what this Labor government is doing.

Recently the Australian Bureau of Statistics released figures showing that in June this year there were 96,000 jobless couple families and 210,000 jobless single parent families. Of these single parent families looking for work, 23 per cent had been jobless for more than a year. For those teenage parents and families experiencing long-term unemployment in Playford, Hume, Shepparton, Burnie, Bankstown, Wyong and the other trial regions, this government knows that in this place we have a responsibility to ensure that they are part of Australia's productivity, our economic fabric and our social wellbeing now and into the future. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (17:31): In may this year the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer of Australia delivered his fourth budget, and as a part of that budget he announced a $4 billion investment in skills development over the forward estimates. He did that because our government understands that over the next three years there is going to be an escalating demand for skilled workers as our economy continues to grow. At the same time, we realise that we have an obligation as a Labor government to ensure that we do not leave anybody behind as the economy and the demand for skilled workers grow.

At any point in time there are over 11,000 teenage parents on parenting payments in Australia. More than 90 per cent of these do not have a year 12 or equivalent education. In my own electorate I see this all too often. There are suburbs where we have intergenerational unemployment where nobody within the household or family has completed a year 12 or equivalent education. This devastating combination of low education attainment and parenting responsibilities at a young age contributes to long-term unemployment and welfare dependency.

There are no easy answers in responding to this challenge, but one thing we do know is that we do not do any favours to anyone if we do not tell them the truth, and the truth, quite simply, is that there is a direct link between your educational attainment—whether you have finished high school or not—and your chances of being unemployed in your twenties and thirties. That is why this government's approach involves a combination of intensive assistance and stronger reciprocal obligations, taking a local approach to finding solutions to work and education retention.

As a government with Labor values of fairness and equity at our heart, our ministers have set about working on a range of policies to give effect to a strong social inclusion agenda. In a broad range of policy areas across many portfolios measures dealing with mental health, disability services, pension reforms, boosts to superannuation savings, paid parental leave, early childhood education, better access to university courses for low-socioeconomic students, social housing initiatives, the Closing the Gap program, our multicultural program, not to mention the Fair Work Act, our support for the equal pay case and many other measures, the measures in this bill form a part of that overall social inclusion agenda. They are core Labor values.

The bill before the House today implements the teen parents trial measure that was announced in the May budget as part of the Building Australia's Future Workforce package and is yet another important plank in the social inclusion agenda. Teen parents in 10 sites around Australia will be provided with intensive support and assistance to boost their education, job readiness and family wellbeing. I am very pleased, given the observations I have made about some of the areas within my electorate which are very similar to areas within your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom, that the Shellharbour Local Government Area, a part of my electorate, has been selected as one of the 10 trial sites for the teen parent initiative. These 10 sites were chosen because they are currently areas of higher-than-average social disadvantage. Shellharbour has a higher-than-average number of people receiving income support, a higher-than-national-average number of teenage parents and lower-than-national-average levels of educational attainment for these groups.

The measures in this bill will amend the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to provide a clear legislative basis to implement the compulsory requirements for parents on parenting payments who are in the trials to attend Centrelink appointments for the purpose of discussing and entering into an employment pathway plan. For teenage parents there will be a 3½-year trial commencing on 1 January next year that will apply to teen parents with a youngest child under six years of age who are receiving a parenting payment, who are 19 years of age or under, who have not completed year 12 or equivalent and who reside in one of the 10 locations that I have already identified. Once the youngest child turns one they will be required to attend Centrelink to discuss and develop a participation plan that focuses on their education completion and early health and education outcomes for their child. They will also need to agree to comply with the plan, which will be supported by a range of extra services in those locations.

The jobless family measures will consist of a three-year trial commencing on 1 July 2012 that will apply to parenting payment recipients with a youngest child under six years of age who have been on income support for two years or more or who are under 23 years of age and are not working and/or studying and who reside in one of the 10 locations that I have already mentioned. Parents will be required to attend interviews and workshops with Centrelink, where they will develop a plan that focuses on job preparation for themselves and, again, early health and education outcomes for their child.

The amendments in this bill broaden participation requirements and compliance sanctions to parenting payment recipients with children under six who are part of the teenage parent or jobless families trials operating in 10 disadvantaged locations. The provisions in this bill will not apply to parenting payment recipients who are not part of these trials.

I am pleased to take this opportunity to note some of the developments in my own electorate in preparation for these trials. Last month I had the pleasure of welcoming the Minister for Human Services, Tanya Plibersek, to my electorate to announce that Barnardos Australia, who currently operate some successful programs on behalf of the department in Warrawong, will receive over half a million dollars in additional funding over three years to expand the highly effective Communities for Children service in the Shellharbour local government area.

I was delighted to join staff from Barnardos Australia, parents and kids at a local play group, in Hegarty Park in Albion Park, which is funded through the Communities for Children program, to share this news and discuss the program with some of the participants. On that day I had many conversations with young teen parents, many of whom are participating in one of the innovative programs run by Barnardos Australia called Talking Realities. In this program young teen mums are trained up to become mentors. They go into schools and talk to young women and men about the realities of being a teenage mum. They also have one-on-one discussions with young women who have fallen pregnant about the things that they can anticipate as their pregnancy develops and in the early years after their child is born. It is an important initiative which is about transferring life knowledge and real skills and providing mentorship and support to these young women, many of whom do not get the same sort of mentorship or support from either their school or their family.

The new funding will focus on services that support teenage parents and jobless families who are part of the teen parents trial in Shellharbour. Barnardos Australia is working with local parents to build their parenting skills and to improve children's health and early learning outcomes. Communities for Children services in other areas have helped to change the lives of parents and children—with marked improvements in children's language skills, with parents getting support to find work and with mothers getting more involved in their local community. There is no doubt that the Shellharbour community will benefit from the boost to family and children's services, as well as this new and novel approach to delivering welfare services. It is quite simply a great initiative.

The expanded program will allow Barnardos to continue the great work that they are already doing supporting families in our community. Barnardos have delivered, through eight community partners, services and programs including food and nutrition, play activities such as circus skills, parenting support services and information DVDs, as well as a community garden.

Over the past six months, these local based initiatives have provided support to over 300 people, including 23 young parents and 600 children and young people, to help builder stronger and healthier relationships while improving parenting practices and increasing children's wellbeing. They add to and help provide additional support to the requirements and reciprocal obligations contained within the legislation before the House.

While our economy is strong, we know that some areas are falling behind the rest of the country. We know that, within these areas, there are specific groups of disadvantage and that teen parents are one of these groups. High unemployment rates, low educational attainment, welfare dependency and families at risk are the characteristics of social disadvantage in our community. If you are born into disadvantage, it is tough to break out of it and to find the support and assistance tailored to your own situation and personal circumstances that will provide the hand up to help you develop and reach your potential. When you meet and talk to these young mums you understand that inside each and every one of them there is potential. We cannot give up on these people. More importantly, we cannot allow our society to give up on their children and continue the cycle of disadvantage.

Australia's remarkable economic strength and the current mining boom have afforded this country and this government the opportunity to deal with some tough issues like these pockets of social disadvantage. Labor's approach, the Labor way, is to ensure that the mining boom provides benefits for all Australians. We do not want to leave anyone behind as we reap the benefits of our good fortune from our wealth of natural resources. That is why it is vitally important that we take the opportunity in our current economic circumstances to find new ways to break the cycle of welfare dependence.

Labor's aim is to ensure that our children are not growing up in families where no parent or grandparent has ever known work, where there is no memory of a working family member within those households. We want to create a culture of work, of life fulfilment and of economic and social participation, with the benefits that flow from this. Australia has an unacceptably high number of jobless families. While Australia has relatively high workforce participation rates and low levels of unemployment, by international standards the number of jobless families is still too high. There are currently over 250,000 families with dependent children in which neither parent is working. Over half of these families have been experiencing ongoing unemployment for three years or more.

Employment is the surest path out of poverty for every member of a family. That is because kids who grow up in jobless families are more likely to be unemployed as adults. The place-based programs which are a part of this legislation take advantage of local expertise and conditions rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all model. The place-based approach uses the wisdom and strengths of local communities and allows us to target government efforts towards intergenerational challenges such as low educational attainment, welfare dependency and unemployment.

I know that within my community, which has suffered many challenges over the last 12 months, there still exists a passion to address the issue of intergenerational unemployment and break the nexus between low educational attainment, people falling pregnant too young and having children, and dropping out of school and not completing their high school certificates. If we are able to break this nexus and re-engage these young people with education and with the workforce, we give these young families the opportunity to enjoy and connect themselves to the great opportunities that this country has to offer to everyone. I commend the legislation to the House. It is great Labor legislation. It is the sort of initiative that people expect Labor governments to undertake when we are in power.

Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (17:44): When it comes to this bill the Greens support the aim but not the approach. Accordingly, we oppose this bill and believe that it is unnecessary, ineffective, and further stigmatises young parents. It is clearly the case that nonattendance is a barrier to education and work, but we do not believe that the punitive compliance measures proposed in the bill will be effective in achieving its stated aims. It is not clear if there will be adequate protection for young parents and whether Centerlink staff will receive training on engaging with young parents.

This bill looks like many of the Welfare to Work reforms that were a hallmark of the Howard era where increasingly punitive measures were put in place. Unfortunately, the government appears to be continuing this legacy in part. The Greens opposed these Welfare to Work measures when they were proposed by the Howard government and we oppose them now.

Removing income support is not the way to encourage young parents to work. We must remove the barriers rather than seek to punish. We do not want to make life harder for people on pensions and allowances—many of them are already doing it tough. My electorate has more public housing dwellings than any other electorate in the country, and there are a very high proportion of people who are on pensions and allowances.

Although my electorate is not directly touched by the measures that have been announced in this bill, the picture that my electorate paints and that I have from engaging with the kinds of people who are referred to in this bill is that many of them are doing it tough. Many of them want to improve their situation but they face significant barriers.

It is pretty difficult, if you are a parent or a single parent of a young child, to not only look after them but try and find your way back into the workforce or education and training. What is needed is support, not the threat of a bigger stick. In other measures that have been outlined by the government elsewhere, the Greens believe that the eligibility criteria for the disability support pension, the failure to index thresholds and the failure to index supplements have negative effects.

The measures proposed by the government would, we are concerned, create even greater inequity for those on income support in Australia. There is already inequity in the levels of income support that we provide people, given the difference between pensions and allowances; however, this bill will make the inequality worse by imposing additional requirements on these very young and very vulnerable parents.

The measures proposed are disproportionate, given that only 2.5 percent of parenting payment recipients are teenagers, which equates to approximately 11,000 out of 446,000 recipients nationally. This approach is not the best way to deal with such a small and often disempowered group.

The impact of this approach on teenage parents is of particular concern. These parents are some of the most vulnerable people in our society. This approach will not help them to make their lives better but may jeopardise their welfare and that of their children.

The measures in this bill assume that parents will have secure housing arrangements and enough money for the basic necessities of life if their income is suspended. Realistically, education can only be undertaken once these basic needs are met. The Welfare Rights Network and ACOSS also expressed this view, saying:

An initiative designed to support young parents should not involve any risk of increasing levels of poverty or children being left without access to food, essential health care and shelter.

In the context of an inquiry earlier into another of the government's bills that would have had the effect of suspending or potentially cancelling payments if someone failed to attend a meeting, one of the things that became crystal clear is that neither the department nor any of the people working in the field could tell us why people were missing meetings: whether it was because they did not understand the requirements of the system, poor public transport or family needs. No-one could tell us and, before we start wielding a big stick at some of the most vulnerable parents in our community, we should first be asking: do we know why these people are missing appointments; why there is nonattendance; and what we can do to support them?

There is significant anecdotal evidence and evidence from those who work in the field that many find this system bewildering. Since the privatisation of the Job Network system, who can blame them? It often involves appointments with many different sets of people, and we are talking about people who often have low levels of education. It may well be that people do not attend these things because they do not realise that they have to or other things crop up.

One would think that, before bringing out the big stick, first of all you would try to find out and understand why people are missing appointments and why there is nonattendance and then work out what could be done to assist them. There is no need for the stick until we have tried those other measures.