2012-02-16 43 1 5 House of Reps 0 0

Thursday, 16 February 2012

The SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper) took the chair at 9:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

BILLS 1571 BILLS Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012 1571

Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012

First Reading 1571 Second Reading 1571 09:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I move: That this bill be now read a second time. On 25 December 2009, a passenger attempted to bomb Northwest Airlines flight 253 en route from Amsterdam to Detroit. This would-be bomber successfully smuggled a viable improvised explosive device through aviation security screening and onto the aircraft without being detected. The device, which was concealed inside the passenger's underwear, contained no metallic components and was therefore able to be carried through a walk-through metal detector without triggering any alarm. This event highlighted a significant vulnerability in global aviation security screening practices, including in Australia. In response to this incident, on 9 February 2010 the government announced a package of measures to strengthen Australia's aviation security. This package included $28.5 million to assist the aviation industry to introduce a range of optimal technologies, including body scanners, multiview X-ray machines, bottled liquid scanners and additional explosive trace detection units at international screening points. These new technologies will mitigate current vulnerabilities in the aviation security screening regime. The Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012 will support the upcoming introduction of body scanners at Australia's international airports. This will ensure that Australian travellers are afforded the highest level of protection against aviation terrorism, bringing Australia into line with countries such as the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. The bill will provide flexibility in the future for the government to introduce new screening tools as improvements are made to existing technologies. It will also ensure that these technologies are used in such a way that achieves both a maximum security outcome and minimal impact on passenger facilitation. It is important to note that the new body scanner technology will operate alongside existing walk-through metal detectors at airports. This bill contains four amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 that allow for the introduction of body scanners and enhance current screening procedures. The first amendment will ensure that passenger throughput rates are not unnecessarily affected by the introduction of body scanners and other technologies. It will allow aviation screening officers to assume that a person who presents at an aviation security screening point consents to any screening procedure, with the exception of a frisk search, unless the person expressly states their refusal to undergo a particular screening procedure. This measure will minimise the impact of body scanners on passenger facilitation by removing the requirement for screening officers to ask every passenger whether or not they consent to undergo a body scan. It will also increase facilitation rates for screening procedures already in use at aviation security screening points, such as explosive trace detection. It is essential that passengers are fully informed of their rights and obligations at a screening point. As such, the government is making changes to the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 to mandate appropriate signage requirements at screening points. These signs will inform passengers that they will be taken to have consented to screening procedures, with the exception of a frisk search, once they enter a screening point unless they specifically indicate otherwise. The signs will take a form similar to those currently used to inform passengers of requirements regarding the carriage of liquid, aerosol and gel products through screening points at Australia's international airports. The second amendment will allow the Aviation Transport Security Regulations to prescribe persons that must not pass through a screening point. This will allow for a subsequent change to the regulations, whereby a person who refuses to undergo a screening procedure they have been randomly selected for will not be granted clearance and will be unable to pass through the screening point. The benefit of introducing body scanning technology is that it can identify a variety of sophisticated threats that cannot be detected by existing screening technology. Australia's current security environment is such that we are vulnerable to these types of threats. Walk-through metal detectors and the style of frisk search currently used at Australian airports simply cannot provide the same security outcome that a body scanner can. The only method of screening that could provide a similar security outcome to that of a body scanner is the type of invasive body search that is conducted in the United States. The government has been resolute in not introducing invasive body searches as part of our airport security arrangements. For this reason and in the interests of security and privacy, passengers selected for body scanner screening cannot choose inferior or significantly intrusive alternatives. Accordingly, the government has decided that a no-opt-out policy will be enforced in relation to screening at airports. As such, the third amendment to this bill will be to repeal the current provision in the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 that allows passengers to request a frisk search as an alternative to another screening procedure. This policy will not only apply to passengers but also airport and airline staff. Provision will be retained so that persons who have a physical or medical condition that prevents them from being screened by a body scanner can be screened by alternative means appropriate to their circumstances. The government has carefully considered what can be done to alleviate concerns that passengers may have about being screened by body scanners. A voluntary body scanner trial was conducted at Sydney and Melbourne international airports last year. Over 23,000 passengers volunteered to go through the body scanners during the trial period. Market research conducted during the trial found that a great majority of passengers who underwent a body scan reported a positive experience. Nonetheless, the government has been focused on ensuring that health concerns regarding body scanners are understood and addressed. There are two types of body scanning technology used for aviation security screening internationally: millimetre-wave and backscatter X-ray. After consideration of the merits of both technologies and extensive consultation with relevant federal and state government agencies, including the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the Department of Health and Ageing, state health agencies and international partner agencies, the government decided that only body scanners that use millimetre-wave technology will be used in Australia. Active millimetre-wave body scanners use safe non-ionising radiation and produce emissions well below the permissible limits set by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. One body scan emits 10,000 times less radio frequency energy than a single mobile telephone call. Health and safety information about millimetre-wave body scanners is available on my department's website. The second key area of concern regarding body scanners is in relation to privacy. The Department of Infrastructure and Transport has consulted extensively with privacy and civil society groups in order to address any privacy concerns. These consultations have been productive and have allowed us to strike the right balance between security and privacy. Importantly, only body scanners equipped with automatic threat detection technology will be used. This technology has the ability to identify areas of concern on a generic human representation, similar to that of a 'stick figure'—that is, each male outline looks the same as any other male outline, and every female outline looks the same as any other female outline. There are no defining characteristics available under this technology. The operator will not view raw images such as those produced by first generation body scanning technology. In addition, body scanners that are introduced in Australia will not be allowed to store or transmit any information or data. My department has worked closely with the Office of the Australian Information Commission (OAIC) to address stakeholder issues. Two roundtable discussions have been held with various privacy and civil society groups to discuss the impact of body scanners. Stakeholders were also invited to attend the body scanner trial last year, giving them the opportunity to view the body scanner in operation. A comprehensive privacy impact assessment was prepared in consultation with the OAIC. A draft of this assessment was released for public comment in September last year. The final amendment will list, but not limit, the equipment that can be used for screening. The list contains equipment already in use at screening points in Australia, including metal detection and explosive trace detection equipment, and also includes body scanning equipment to clarify that the use of such equipment in aviation security screening is lawful. These amendments will ensure that Australia continues to enjoy a robust and effective aviation security screening regime. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Obligations and Prudential Standards) Bill 2012 1574

Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Obligations and Prudential Standards) Bill 2012

First Reading 1574 Second Reading 1574 09:13 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I move: That this bill be now read a second time. When most people go on an extended holiday they will find someone they trust to look after their home, a person they have confidence in to do all the things that might be necessary to protect their home while they are away. For most Australians, superannuation will be their second greatest source of wealth after their home but usually we will not know the people we have entrusted to look after this important asset. As participants in a compulsory superannuation system, Australians are entitled to be confident that the governance across the superannuation industry is of a high standard and that their superannuation is being managed efficiently, prudently and in their best interests. However, the Cooper review, which was initiated by this Labor government, found that superannuation governance standards had not kept up with developments in the industry. It suggested there were difficulties for trustees and directors on trustee boards to understand what was expected of them. Further it found that, as the industry consolidated and became more integrated, conflicts of interest could arise more regularly. The Cooper Review also found that there was a need for: … a more finely calibrated capacity for APRA to supervise and regulate the superannuation industry … Consequently, a critically important part of the government's Stronger Super package is reforming the governance and supervision of our superannuation system. This is the objective of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Obligations and Prudential Standards) Bill 2012. A key element of the bill is to close a regulatory gap, by providing APRA with the ability to make prudential standards. APRA already has this in banking and insurance. As Ross Jones of APRA put it recently: That is something we have been after for a long time—10 years—to try to ensure that the quality of supervision in superannuation is what you get in other industries. Prudential standards will allow APRA to develop, in consultation with the industry, targeted rules that improve the management of these institutions. Prudential standards will provide APRA with greater flexibility to effectively adapt to industry developments in superannuation and the ability to provide regulated entities with clearer and more tailored legal requirements. Prudential standards will be able to be made on any prudential matter that includes: protecting the interests of members; ensuring that the conduct of an RSE licensee or connected entity meets the reasonable expectation of members; keeping an RSE licensee or connected entity in a sound financial position; ensuring the conduct of an RSE licensee does not cause or promote instability; the appointment of auditors and actuaries; and the conduct of audits and actuarial investigations. Prudential standards can apply to APRA-regulated superannuation funds, connected entities of those funds, a specified class of fund or connected entity or any individual fund or connected entity. Prudential standards are disallowable legislative instruments. Therefore, APRA must comply with the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 in making any prudential standard, including conducting appropriate consultation with the industry. There will also be new duties applying to trustees and individual directors. New duties for trustees include: exercising the same degree of care, skill and diligence as a prudent superannuation trustee; acting fairly in dealing with classes of beneficiaries and beneficiaries within a class; and where a conflict exists, giving priority to the duties to, and interests of, beneficiaries over other persons. Trustees will have expanded requirements in relation to their investment strategies. In developing an investment strategy the trustee must have regard to valuation information, expected tax consequences and expected costs in their investment strategies, and offer a range of options sufficient to allow members to choose a diversified asset mix. Trustees will have a new requirement to develop an insurance strategy for members of their fund. This reflects that insurance provided by a trustee has a direct impact on the retirement benefits of members. Trustees will have to consider the kinds and level of insurance that is appropriate for their members having regard to the cost of that insurance and whether that cost may inappropriately erode retirement incomes of members. Trustees will also have to develop a risk management strategy and meet a requirement to maintain financial resources, either as trustee capital or as fund reserves, to cover the operational risks of the funds they manage. Duties applying to individual directors of corporate trustees of superannuation funds will be separately identified. These duties include: acting honestly; exercising the degree of care, skill and diligence that a prudent superannuation entity director would; performing their duties and powers in the best interests of beneficiaries; where a conflict exists, giving priority to the duties to, and interests of, beneficiaries over other persons; not entering into a contract that would prevent the director or corporate trustee from properly performing their functions and powers; and exercising a reasonable degree of care and diligence for the purposes of ensuring that the corporate trustee carries out its duties. These new requirements for trustees and directors will improve trustee decisions, fund efficiency and effectiveness, and thereby help grow member superannuation entitlements. However, a trustee's responsibility will be no greater than the responsibility they owe to those members who accept the default MySuper product. Therefore, trustees that are authorised by APRA to offer a MySuper product will also have additional obligations. This reflects that these members have effectively delegated all decisions for their superannuation to the trustee. There will be a primary obligation to promote the financial interests of members of the MySuper product, in particular returns after the deduction of fees, costs and taxes. A primary focus on the returns put into the pockets of members will ensure that members of a MySuper product can have the confidence that they will receive the maximum possible superannuation at retirement. Supporting this obligation, a determination will have to be made on an annual basis whether a fund has sufficient assets and members for both the MySuper product and superannuation fund as a whole to continue to meet the obligation to promote the financial interests of members of the MySuper product. Trustees will also have to clearly articulate a target investment return and a level of risk appropriate to the MySuper product. This highlights a trustee's obligation to focus on the returns to members after the deduction of fees, costs and taxes. I am proud to introduce this bill today as it marks this government's ongoing commitment to improve the superannuation system for all Australians. This is especially so given the government's historic commitment to increase the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent, which combined with existing growth is expected to see superannuation assets in Australia reach $6.2 trillion by 2036. Subsequent tranches of legislation will introduce further Stronger Super reforms that will improve system transparency. Full details of the amendments are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012 1576

Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012

First Reading 1576 Second Reading 1576 09:21 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012 would, if enacted, amend four acts and repeal two acts across three portfolios. This will help to clarify aspects of the Commonwealth’s financial framework. It is the ninth financial framework legislation amendment bill since 2004. It forms part of an ongoing program to address financial framework issues as they are identified, taking a collaborative and whole-of-government approach. The breadth of appropriation, governance and financial management issues across the government compels continued attention. For this reason, the Department of Finance and Deregulation works with all parts of government, in a strong culture of collaboration, to promptly address financial framework issues in legislation once issues emerge and solutions are designed. Specifically, this bill would amend four acts, as follows. First, the bill would amend the Auditor-General Act 1997 to clarify that the Auditor-General may accept an appointment under the Corporations Act 2001 as the auditor of any company that the Commonwealth controls. This will align the Auditor-General Act 1997 with amendments made to expand the meaning of Commonwealth control, which were made in 2008 to the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. Second, the bill would amend the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 itself to: ensure that directors of Commonwealth authorities and wholly-owned Commonwealth companies (other than government business enterprises) prepare budget estimates as directed by the finance minister, rather than the responsible minister, consistent with ongoing practice over many years; and ensure that directors of Commonwealth authorities and wholly-owned Commonwealth companies notify their responsible minister of any decisions regarding certain significant events (such as creating a subsidiary). Third, the bill would amend two minor misdescribed provisions that appear in the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Act 2010, which sought to update the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (to replace references to 'common law and in equity', and 'common law or in equity', with the phrase 'under the general law'). And fourth, the bill would amend the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 to make the following four key changes: first, to clarify the commencement date for determinations for special accounts, and ensure that certain determinations may commence on a day specified in the determination (if that day is later than the last day upon which a disallowance resolution could have been passed by the parliament); second, to focus the operation of drawing rights on payments and remove the penalty relating to drawing rights; third, to insert a new whole-of-government provision to enable the finance minister to set off, in whole or part, an amount owing to the Commonwealth by a person with an amount owing by the Commonwealth to the same person; and last, to increase certain limits around which the finance minister may delegate to officials, in relation to the making of certain legislative instruments. The bill would also repeal two acts that include redundant special appropriations, being the: Appropriation (Development Bank) Act 1975; and Car Dealership Financing Guarantee Appropriation Act 2009. This bill is, accordingly, another step to help ensure that specific areas of the Commonwealth’s financial framework remain effective and up to date. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. TARIFF PROPOSALS 1577 TARIFF PROPOSALS Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2012 1577 09:26 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I move: Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2012 The customs tariff proposal that I have just tabled contains three alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. The first two alterations have previously been given effect through the publication of customs tariff notices in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette during December 2011. Those alterations are now incorporated in this customs tariff proposal. The first alteration extends the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement—SPARTECA—textiles, clothing and footwear provisions scheme until 31 December 2014. This scheme provides duty-free entry for certain textiles, clothing and footwear from Pacific Islands Forum countries covered by the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement. The scheme is administered through item 68 of schedule 4 of the customs tariff. The alteration changes the end date of the item 68 from 31 December 2011 to 31 December 2014. The second alteration in the proposal reinserts subheading 5308.10.00 application in coir yarn into the customs tariff. This subheading was incorrectly omitted from the customs tariff in the Customs Tariff Amendment 2012 Harmonized System Changes) Act 2011. That act implemented approximately 800 amendments to the customs tariff to incorporate changes that resulted from the fourth review of the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System by the World Customs Organisation. The changes took effect on 1 January 2012. The third alteration lists Serbia as a developing country for the purposes of the Australian system of tariff preferences. This listing will accord Serbia a reduction in customs duty on a defined range of goods imported into Australia. This action is consistent with Australia's approach to other states which were formerly part of Yugoslavia. The alteration will apply to goods imported from Serbia or entered for home consumption on or after 1 March 2012. Debate adjourned. BILLS 1578 BILLS Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support and Other Measures) Bill 2012 1578

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support and Other Measures) Bill 2012

Reference to Main Committee 1578 09:29 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter by leave—I move: That the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support and Other Measures) Bill 2012 be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration. Question agreed to. Access to Justice (Federal Jurisdiction) Amendment Bill 2011 1578

Access to Justice (Federal Jurisdiction) Amendment Bill 2011

Report from Main Committee 1578 Third Reading 1578 09:31 Mr STEPHEN SMITH 5V5 Perth by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011 1578

Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011

Second Reading 1578 09:32 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON 8T4 Werriwa Last evening I was turning to the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry. Not to put too fine a line on it, a person who was a student confrere and a close associate of the former Prime Minister was enlisted to carry out this investigation. Millions of dollars of taxpayers' money were expended on an inquiry which resulted—despite all the gruesome detail with which we were daily regaled in the media, particularly by the Sydney Daily Telegraph and co.—in no convictions whatsoever. No convictions emanated from this investigation. It has been very interesting to watch those opposite. They have made no reference to the subsequent inquiry by Justice Wilcox, which, in contrast to the Cole royal commission, was a balanced analysis of what had happened. It called for the continuation of government and judicial intervention in the industry to ensure that there were protections but it came down with a far more neutral, far more balanced approach. Not one opposition speaker has referred to that more recent analysis of what has gone on in the industry. It is interesting to note the rhetoric opposite, particularly that of the member for Mayo, who was an architect of the attempt to diminish people's working conditions in this country, about union thugs, bosses and officials going onto building sites—the theory that, if you give access by unions to their membership so that they have what are internationally recognised rights, in some way the workers are intimidated and forced against their own interest to take industrial action that they themselves would not have undertaken. That is preposterous. And—to show the way that the opposition are totally dedicated to the commercial interest of large corporations—they are doing this in the same week that we have seen them come before this parliament and defend the interests of the private health companies, trying to force, cajole or give incentives to people to buy a product that they just do not want. These people talk about the market et cetera. We have seen them this week come in here and say that people earning millions of dollars should be assisted, subsidised, by the Australian taxpayer to buy a product that they just do not want or might not want. So it is quite hypocritical for them to talk about class warfare as being the motivation of the government in the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011. In the course of the existence of this body that they are so vigorously defending, which they say has been a perfect ideal, we have seen no effective prosecutions. We have seen it bring people before courts. We have seen it try to intimidate individuals and bring them to investigate what happened in regard to meetings about safety and we have seen a fairly unimpressive list of legal defeats for those people who have operated this agency over the period. That is the total outcome. We have heard what the opposition thinks about this—and, as I say, it is a group driven by commercial self-interest, whether it is the tobacco industry or the private health industry. In contrast, we have had views from other bodies. The ILO, a tripartite organisation that represents governments, employers and unions, with far more credibility than those opposite, says that Australia has gone down a road in industrial relations which is perhaps paralleled in Guatemala and Honduras and a few other jurisdictions but in the Western advanced nations is quite extreme. It has talked about the withdrawal of rights for unionists and workers and the fact that there are very strong coercive powers that are very unusual in the Western advanced world, and it has not been backward in criticising the way Australia has gone. We have heard much in the last few months about whether governments have mandates and whether people have backed off on commitments. This legislation has its genesis as far back as 2007, when Labor said that it would not have separate regulations and rules for one industry in particular. Legislation was introduced as far back as June 2009 and, when a direction was disallowed in June of that year, debate was adjourned in February 2010. This legislation has been part of a very long process. It has been discussed. It has been the subject of an inquiry by Justice Wilcox. The background of this is that this existing body has had a strong partisan industrial flavour. It has failed abysmally to do anything about the very serious safety issues in this country. Internationally, a worker dies every second in the world. On ILO figures, 6,300 workers a day die. The annual cost to the international economy is $1.25 trillion. In contrast to US President Obama, who last year was very active around the World Day for Safety and Health at Work, those opposite have no interest whatsoever in occupational safety. If we talk about those international figures, we appreciate that one of the worst areas is in the building industry. Part of what those opposite want to do is erode the rights of union officials to go on to worksites, to have effective working committees and to make sure that safety is a very important aspect of the industry. We could have all the rhetoric in the world from those opposite—that they are neutral in this debate, that they are concerned about safety—but what we have seen manifest in this organisation's operation until now is a studied disinterest in occupational safety and a studied disinterest in sham contracting, which is a major problem in this industry. Just down the road in Canberra we see the other problem evident in this industry: on one building site alone, 30 illegal workers were found to be employed by a single employer who did not know that any of them were illegal. I recommend this legislation. It will bring balance back to the industry, it will give workers back their rights to safety protection and it will ensure that the previous government's attempt to reduce their conditions will be terminated. 09:38 Mr OAKESHOTT IYS Lyne I rise briefly to indicate that I will not be supporting the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011 at this time. I think timing is important, and anyone who follows economic indicators would know that the construction industry is one of the industries under the most pressure at the moment in a changing economy. That needs to be considered for all legislation that passes through this place. I note government is showing a lot of care and concern for the other industry most under threat at the moment—that is, the manufacturing industry. Government is holding jobs forums and providing subsidies to the car industry and to other manufacturing industries. I would hope there is the same consideration, care and concern for the construction industry, which is flatlining at the moment for a number of reasons. Therefore, the timing of these changes is particularly sensitive. I am not buying into the rights and wrongs of the ideology around whether it is fair that one industry or one union is targeted or whether coercive powers are good or bad, but I do think the timing of this legislation is of concern. We therefore need to be sensitive to some of the arguments around how we help the construction industry to improve and grow, rather than burdening it at a challenging time. I note some of the comments made by people such as Heather Ridout from the Australian Industry Group, the Master Builders Australia and the Australian Constructors Association about some of the concerns that have been raised about the particulars of this bill. All of those comments need genuine consideration, particularly in the context of timing. If construction was flying and booming and the Australian economy had gone through change, then issues of fairness around how we deal with particular aspects of the work site might be considered in a different context; but the context of the moment is that the productivity agenda is the agenda for Australia in 2012. There are a couple of industries in particular that are struggling at the moment and that need the special attention of this place as to how we can do all we can to help them through some challenging times. Construction is definitely one of those industries of concern. I do not see this bill helping growth in the construction industry in 2012 in an environment where productivity is important. I see this as a further burden. Therefore, I will not be supporting it this year. 09:42 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I have listened to the contributions made by honourable members to the debate on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011. Before I make my concluding remarks about this bill, there are some fundamental points and misconceptions raised during the debate that need to be answered. The construction industry is fundamental to Australia's future success. It is how we build our key national infrastructure—our hospitals, our schools ,our homes, our roads—how we enlarge our ports, how we span our bridges, and how we make the most liveable country in the world even more liveable and more prosperous. The Gillard government is a government focused on the future. We understand and recognise the importance of the construction industry—the civil construction industry, the mechanical construction industry, the building construction industry—and we understand, and we are focused on, those who work within it. I listened carefully to the contributions of those opposite, but instead of talking about the bill the opposition have used this debate to rehash all their old, tired, union-hating, anti-worker arguments. They have used it to peddle so-called data about the effects of the ABCC. Their data has been shown to be wrong. They used it to peddle misinformation about what actually happens on Australian construction sites. While many of those opposite who made contributions to the debate have probably never set foot on a large construction site, I have. Instead of the picture the opposition try to paint of the horrors and difficulties of working on construction sites in Australia, I can tell the House that all in the construction industry—the workers, the independent contractors, the subbies, the managers, the employers—just want to get on with the job. They want to do a good job, they want to receive good pay and they want to be able to complete quality work on time, so that each night they can get home to their family safely. I can assure the House that that goes for everyone from the labourer and the peggy cleaning the sheds to the site manager, and everyone in between. What disappoints me most is that some in the opposition have used the debate on this bill to again attack the Australian union movement and working Australians who choose to be union members. Australian employees are entitled to participate in the success generated by their hard work—their physical, mental and emotional exertions. Australian employees, if they so choose, are entitled to be represented at work. I, for one, am certainly proud to have spent many years representing working Australians. Australian employees, if they so choose, are entitled to come together to bargain in the workplace with their employer and negotiate conditions and pay through an agreed, constructive, mutual process—just as they did, for instance, at Holden recently. That is a workplace and an employer that deserve to be congratulated, not criticised, by the Leader of the Opposition. The opposition forget that Australia has a proud history of economic and social reforms that have been for the benefit of working Australians, the Australian economy and Australian business. Many of these have been the subject of efforts by union members on behalf of working people. I believe that a modern, moderate trade union movement has a strong and steadfast commitment to building and developing our nation, ensuring that generations of Australians have regular, safe and just employment. Listening to the contribution of the opposition, I have to ask: why does the opposition oppose allowing employers and employees to work cooperatively for their mutual benefit? Why is it that the opposition lends its voice against those who would seek to provide a safe workplace for employees or to ensure that workers' entitlements are paid? Why is it that the opposition never ever back worker pay rises? When was the last time the opposition issued a press release welcoming a pay rise, expressing concern about workplace safety or even acknowledging the efforts of unions to improve workplace conditions? It is one of the fundamental fault lines between us on this side of the House and those opposite. The Leader of the Opposition said on Monday morning about his time as minister for industrial relations that, 'I think the highlight of my record was the establishment of the Cole royal commission into the commercial construction industry. I am pleased to say that the changes from the royal commission did boost productivity in what was previously a very troubled industry and again the studies suggest that those improvements were to the benefit of our economy to the tune of about $5 million a year.' He said that on Monday, 13 February 2012 on 2SM. But, in fact, he was not right, and we need to get some facts into this debate. The government requested the honourable Murray Wilcox QC to review and report into possible regulation for the building and construction industry. Justice Wilcox expressly called on those participating in this inquiry to provide hard evidence to inform his consideration and recommendations. I certainly do not think the contributions of those opposite in this debate would have passed the test. In fact, the Econtech statistics relied upon by the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition were found by Justice Wilcox to be deeply flawed. He said in paragraph 5.48 of the 2009 report that they ought to be totally disregarded. I repeat: Justice Wilcox found the opposition statistics to be deeply flawed and thought they ought to be totally disregarded. It is widely accepted, in fact, that a combination of economic reforms dating back to 1993 and the effect of monitoring and enforcement of these reforms has contributed to productivity improvements in the industry. The new regulator will continue to effectively monitor and enforce fair and reasonable laws for this industry and continue productivity improvements. If you listened to those opposite you would think there were no more coercive powers—another lie, another scare campaign, another day at the office for the opposition. This bill retains a specialist inspectorate for the building and construction industry. The bill retains penalties for contraventions of industrial relations law. The bill retains coercive powers, as indeed Murray Wilcox QC recommended. I acknowledge that many in this place have put strong personal views about this element of the bill. I want to stress to those who are concerned about coercive powers that this bill also includes important safeguards recommended by Justice Wilcox for those who seek to use the powers and those who may be subject to them. The bill also contains a sunset on the use of these powers after three years, but only after a review. Together, these elements are measured and appropriate. I also think it is important to note that the coercive powers were used only once during the ABCC's most recent reporting period to 30 September 2011 and in less than two per cent of ABCC investigations in 2010-11. We heard unfounded opposition allegations about thuggery and violence. Let us be clear: violence at work is unacceptable. It does not matter what industry you work in. The ABCC was never a body designed or empowered to deal with criminal behaviour. Those who suggest otherwise are misinformed and misleading. Criminal behaviour has always been and will continue to be the responsibility of the police. The government's position on the ABCC has been clear for a long period of time. Prior to the 2007 and 2010 elections, Labor made commitments to the Australian people that it would replace the ABCC with a new body to provide a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations in the building and construction industry, a body that is part of the Fair Work system. This bill honours those commitments. The government have consistently stated that anyone who breaks the law should feel the full force of the law. The government will not tolerate an environment in which people choose which laws to obey and which ones to ignore. This goes for all industry participants. The government understand that the industry contains unique challenges for both employees and employers. As a result, we have always supported a strong building industry regulator to ensure lawful conduct by all participants and a strong set of compliance arrangements for the building industry. This bill honours those commitments. We committed to a review of the building industry regulation and we committed to introducing safeguards for the use of coercive examination powers to achieve the balance required to ensure compliance with the law and the fair treatment of individuals. This bill honours that commitment. I also foreshadow that the government intends to move one amendment to the bill. That amendment will ensure that all building industry participants are not subject to multiple proceedings in relation to matters that have already been the subject of discontinued litigation. The amendment will also ensure that the resources of the Fair Work building inspectorate are appropriately targeted to matters which remain unresolved. In conclusion, this is a parliament that should surely task itself to look with optimism and positive ideas to the future of work in Australian workplaces and how to build a stronger economy in the interests of all, not just some. These are complex and substantial topics that occupy the minds of all on this side of the House. But this big debate is not assisted by some of the cynicism, negativity and misinformation that we have seen too regularly in this debate. I commend the bill to the House. The SPEAKER 0V5 The question is that this bill be now read a second time. Bill read a second time.

The House divided. [09:55]
(The Speaker—Hon. Peter Slipper)

 71 AYES Adams, DGH Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Bradbury, DJ Brodtmann, G Burke, AE Burke, AS Butler, MC Byrne, AM Champion, ND Cheeseman, DL Clare, JD Collins, JM Combet, GI Crean, SF Danby, M D'Ath, YM Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Emerson, CA Ferguson, LDT Ferguson, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Garrett, PR Georganas, S Gibbons, SW Gray, G Grierson, SJ Griffin, AP Hall, JG (teller) Hayes, CP Husic, EN (teller) Jenkins, HA Jones, SP Katter, RC Kelly, MJ King, CF Leigh, AK Livermore, KF Lyons, GR Macklin, JL McClelland, RB Melham, D Mitchell, RG Murphy, JP Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neill, DM Owens, J Parke, M Perrett, GD Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Roxon, NL Rudd, KM Saffin, JA Shorten, WR Sidebottom, PS Smith, SF Smyth, L Swan, WM Symon, MS Thomson, CR Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 70 NOES Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Bishop, BK Bishop, JI Briggs, JE Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coulton, M (teller) Crook, AJ Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Forrest, JA Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gash, J Griggs, NL Haase, BW Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Hockey, JB Hunt, GA Jensen, DG Jones, ET Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Ley, SP Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Markus, LE Matheson, RG McCormack, MF Mirabella, S Morrison, SJ Moylan, JE Neville, PC Oakeshott, RJM O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Prentice, J Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE Randall, DJ Robb, AJ Roy, WB Ruddock, PM Schultz, AJ Secker, PD (teller) Simpkins, LXL Smith, ADH Somlyay, AM Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Tehan, DT Truss, WE Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Washer, MJ Windsor, AHC Wyatt, KG 4 PAIRS Gillard, JE Abbott, AJ Marles, RD Scott, BC Rowland, MA Irons, SJ Snowdon, WE Robert, S

Question agreed to.

 Consideration in Detail 1584 10:01 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) and (2) together. Leave granted. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I move government amendments (1) and (2): (1) Schedule 1, item 94, page 48 (lines 19 and 20), omit the item, substitute: 94 Section 73 Repeal the section, substitute: 73 Director etc. must not participate in court proceedings in relation to settled matters (1) This section applies if: (a) either:    (i) the Director (or an inspector) and another party or parties are joint applicants in a building proceeding before a court; or    (ii) the Director (or an inspector) has intervened in a building proceeding before a court under subsection 71(1); and (b) before the court has given judgement in the proceeding:    (i) the matter that is the subject of the proceeding is settled between the parties to the proceeding (or if more than one matter is the subject of the proceeding—one or more of those matters is settled between the parties to the proceeding); and    (ii) a notice is filed in the court discontinuing the proceeding to the extent that it relates to the settled matter or matters. (2) The Director (or inspector) must not continue to participate in the building proceeding to the extent that it relates to the settled matter or matters. (3) A reference in subparagraph (1)(b)(i) to parties to the proceeding does not include a reference to the Director (or inspector). (4) In this section: building proceeding means a civil proceeding in relation to a matter that arises under a designated building law and involves a building industry participant. (2) Schedule 1, page 48 (after line 20), after item 94, insert: 94A Section 73A Repeal the section, substitute: 73A Director etc. must not institute court proceedings in relation to settled matters (1) This section applies if: (a) a building proceeding was instituted in a court; and (b) neither the Director nor an inspector:    (i) was a party to the proceeding; or    (ii) had intervened in the proceeding; and (c) the matter that was the subject of the proceeding was settled between the parties to the proceeding (or if more than one matter was the subject of the proceeding—one or more of those matters was settled between the parties to the proceeding); and (d) a notice was filed in the court discontinuing the proceeding to the extent that it related to the settled matter or matters. (2) The Director (or an inspector) must not institute a building proceeding in a court if the conduct giving rise to the proceeding was the subject of the settled matter or matters referred to in paragraph (1)(c). (3) In this section: building proceeding has the same meaning as in subsection 73(4). The amendments replace schedule 1, item 95, lines 19 and 20 of the bill. The amendments provide that a director or an inspector of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate is prohibited from commencing or continuing civil proceedings in a court where proceedings arise under a designated building law and involve the building industry participant and the matter of the subject of the proceedings is subsequently settled and discontinued by the parties other than the inspectorate. I acknowledge the work of the Greens in proposing amendments to the bill and, in particular, their proposed amendment seeking to limit further proceedings when matters have settled. The government amendments will ensure that all building industry participants are not subject to multiple proceedings in relation to matters that have already been the subject of discontinued litigation as well as ensure the resources of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate are more appropriately targeted to matters which remain unresolved. The SPEAKER 0V5 The question before the chair is that the amendments moved by the minister be agreed to.

The House divided. [10:07]
(The Speaker—Hon. Peter Slipper)

 71 AYES Adams, DGH Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Bradbury, DJ Brodtmann, G Burke, AE Burke, AS Butler, MC Byrne, AM Champion, ND Cheeseman, DL Clare, JD Collins, JM Combet, GI Crean, SF Danby, M D'Ath, YM Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Emerson, CA Ferguson, LDT Ferguson, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Garrett, PR Georganas, S Gibbons, SW Gray, G Grierson, SJ Griffin, AP Hall, JG (teller) Hayes, CP Husic, EN (teller) Jenkins, HA Jones, SP Katter, RC Kelly, MJ King, CF Leigh, AK Livermore, KF Lyons, GR Macklin, JL McClelland, RB Melham, D Mitchell, RG Murphy, JP Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neill, DM Owens, J Parke, M Perrett, GD Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Roxon, NL Rudd, KM Saffin, JA Shorten, WR Sidebottom, PS Smith, SF Smyth, L Swan, WM Symon, MS Thomson, CR Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 70 NOES Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Bishop, BK Bishop, JI Briggs, JE Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coulton, M (teller) Crook, AJ Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Forrest, JA Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gash, J Griggs, NL Haase, BW Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Hockey, JB Hunt, GA Jensen, DG Jones, ET Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Ley, SP Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Markus, LE Matheson, RG McCormack, MF Mirabella, S Morrison, SJ Moylan, JE Neville, PC Oakeshott, RJM O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Prentice, J Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE Randall, DJ Robb, AJ Roy, WB Ruddock, PM Schultz, AJ Secker, PD (teller) Simpkins, LXL Smith, ADH Somlyay, AM Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Tehan, DT Truss, WE Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Washer, MJ Windsor, AHC Wyatt, KG 4 PAIRS Gillard, JE Abbott, AJ Marles, RD Scott, BC Rowland, MA Irons, SJ Snowdon, WE Robert, S

Question agreed to.

 10:07 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1: (1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 9) to page 2 (line 6), omit subclauses (1) and (2), substitute: This Act commences on the day this Act receives the Royal Assent. (2) Schedule 1, items 1 to 104, page 3 (line 4) to page 50 (line 15), omit the items, substitute: 1 The whole of the Act Repeal the Act. There is a problem with the rule of law in this country. The SPEAKER 0V5 Will honourable members be quiet so that we can all hear what the honourable member for Melbourne is saying. Mr BANDT M3C As many of us know, the rot really set in under the former Howard government. Under that government it became normal to treat certain groups of citizens differently, to treat certain groups as having different and lesser rights to others. We saw it in the sphere of immigration; we saw it with the terrorism laws that were rushed through and that removed the very old right to silence; we saw it with Work Choices, where the minister was able to step in and take away people's right to bargain without even a hearing—a provision that, to its shame, the Labor government has retained; and, of course, we also saw it in the separate set of regulations and legislation for workers in the building and construction industry. There is a basic principle that should continue to apply: there should be one set of laws in this country that apply uniformly to all citizens. You should not have fewer rights in this country just because you turn up to work in a hard hat and boots than if you turn up in a suit and tie. I am a firm believer in the principle that you do not make things better and solve problems by taking away people's rights. It is a pernicious attitude that unfortunately pervades through both sides of this chamber far too often. If industrial policemen could walk into an office or if industrial policemen could walk into a shop in this country and take a worker out and require them to go to a secret hearing where they would be forced to name names, there would be an outcry. Yet it seems that this is acceptable in the building industry. We have a unique chance to undo the damage that was done by the Howard government. It may be the only chance that comes around for a long time. We now have enough support on the crossbenches to repeal this legislation once and for all. That is what my amendments will do. If these amendments are not supported, members of this House would be well advised to remember one thing: the person in a hard hat and fluoro vest that they stand next to for a photo opportunity during an election campaign one day could be hauled off for questioning the next. If these coercive powers and this legislation remain and if we continue with two tiers of industrial regulation in this country, where you may have fewer rights because you work in the building industry, it will be purely and simply because Labor wants it to remain that way. I commend the amendments to the House. The SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member for Melbourne. I call the honourable member for Kennedy and then I will call the honourable the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Minister, you may want to listen to all the contributions before giving the government's point of view. 10:11 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy In ancient history there may have been some very serious problems in the area of building and construction. There is a saying in the law that hard cases make bad law. That most certainly would be the case with this legislation. I feel very uncomfortable about the fact that discriminatory laws mean that one group of people is treated entirely differently from others. Those of us with dirt under our fingernails and calluses on our hands—there are very few such people in this place—know that at workplaces there are extremely dangerous situations. As a worker you accept that. We had very high pay at Mt Isa but we had to work in extremely dangerous situations. Where there is weak industrial representation lives can put in serious jeopardy. I do not want to take up the time of the House explaining actual cases at Mt Isa, but I know of such cases recently and a long time ago. Building, particularly high-rise construction and tunnelling construction, is equally as dangerous as mining. That is why workers in those industries get a higher pay and why they most certainly deserve a higher pay. I heard of a series of accidents during the construction of a tunnel in Brisbane. I was put upon to go to a big stop-work rally at the tunnel. I have said this in the House before, but I think it bears saying again: I knew that because of an accident there was a person whose life was hanging in the balance. That occurred after a series of confrontations about safety at the workplace. There had been a series of bad accidents and the workers were saying it was unsafe. Then there was a very serious accident where a person's life was in jeopardy. I went to the stop-work meeting on the principle that the situation was wrong and that laws had to be changed. You cannot intimidate trade union officials in this industry, where there is a risk of accidents, because if you do it there can be terrible outcomes. I do not know whether trade union officials were intimidated, kept away or confronted. I do know that there was a series of confrontations over safety and that a young man was seriously injured. I went there on principle. When I got there I found out that the young man was the brother of one of my very good friends, who will be running for, and will probably become, mayor of one of the towns in my electorate. I had acted on a principle, and I found out that the principal person concerned was someone who I knew. That person subsequently died. I do not know that we have improved the situation there, but I do not want to be inhibiting our protectors any longer. There are a set of laws that apply to everyone in Australia and that set apply to those protectors. If they get a bit carried away with their job as protector and start a Wyatt Earp game, then there are laws in place to restrain that sort of behaviour. But the existing laws that remove the most fundamental rights and freedoms are excessive. The right to remain silent is respected in every single jurisdiction in the world. The only exception to it is here. I have very great pleasure in backing my colleague's proposal. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong ( The SPEAKER 0V5 The question before the chair is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Melbourne be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— The SPEAKER 0V5 As there would appear to be fewer than five members on the side for the ayes in this division, I declare the question negatived in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those honourable members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Question negatived, Mr Bandt, Mr Wilkie and Mr Katter voting aye. 10:23 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy by leave—I move amendments (1) to (10) as circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 23 and 24), omit paragraph 3(d). (2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (lines 27 to 31), omit the item. (3) Schedule 1, item 16, page 5 (lines 4 to 7), omit the item. (4) Schedule 1, items 23 and 24, page 5 (line 23) to page 6 (line 2), omit the items. (5) Schedule 1, item 31, page 6 (lines 23 to 26), omit the item. (6) Schedule 1, items 36 to 39, page 7 (lines 8 to 25), omit the items. (7) Schedule 1, item 49, page 10 (lines 6 and 7), omit paragraph 10(h). (8) Schedule 1, items 52 to 71, page 20 (line 14) to page 39 (line 9), omit the items, substitute: 52 Part 1 of Chapter 7 Repeal the Part. 53 Division 1 of Part 2 of Chapter 7 Repeal the Division. (9) Schedule 1, items 78 to 86, page 46 (line 10) to page 47 (line 24), omit the items, substitute: 78 Section 65 Repeal the section. (10) Schedule 1, item 103, page 50 (lines 1 to 13), omit the item. I will not go into the details of these amendments, because I think most people have made up their minds about which way they are going here. The amendments cut to the coercive powers. There are certain pillars upon which our society is built—habeas corpus, the fact that land cannot be taken from us, section 39 of the Magna Carta. A more modern one is the right to silence. It is accepted in every single jurisdiction in the world that I know of. You cannot have it tortured out of you; we are not the Spanish Inquisition. And that is really what the coercive powers are about: we can grab you, hold you, put you in incarceration and you will talk—and if you do not talk you are breaching the law and we are going to keep you there indefinitely. Does any fair-minded person really believe that that is what should be happening here? The history of this is that there was excessive behaviour at one stage, going back to the days of the painters and dockers. But we have to go back 50 years now in order to quote those sorts of incidents. There may have been some excessive behaviour that sparked this legislation. But it was bad legislation at the start. It was excessive legislation. I go back to that famous legal phrase that hard cases make bad law. We are continuing on with the bad law, all due respect to the government, because this is a cunning little two-step. It was the people on my right who decided we would deregulate the labour market. Ask the farmers about deregulation. Ask them how they fared under deregulation. When the dairy farmers were deregulated and faced these sorts of oppressive powers— Mr Entsch 7K6 They deregulated themselves. Mr KATTER HX4 They did not deregulate themselves. That is a lie, and it is perpetrated by people who tell lies. The SPEAKER 0V5 The honourable member will return to the substance of the amendments. Mr KATTER HX4 Coercive powers are used. We do not live in a jungle. We live in a civilised society, and we must attempt at all times to assert the principle of a civilised society where we do not have coercive powers. Why is it that in no other area of the law do we have coercive powers? In this case we are talking about safety. We are talking about riggers working on steel skeletons 40 storeys above the ground. We are talking about people going down mines, where, if a cable is not properly tied down, the entire roof will collapse. For those who think that does not happen, I was in a taxi in Mt Isa and I asked the driver, 'Why did you leave a job at $200,000 a year as a miner?' He said, 'Because I was asked to do the tie-down cables.' I said, 'But you don't know anything about tie-down cables,' and he said, 'Too bloody right I don't. I told the young engineer, "No way in the world," and he said: "Well, you're the only one who's got any experience here. No way in the world will I touch it." ' Because he did not want to appear to be stupid, this young engineer went off and attached the cables himself. Twelve minutes after crib time the entire roof of the crib came down, and it would have killed 16 people. The SPEAKER 0V5 The honourable member will address the amendments he is proposing. Mr KATTER HX4 What we are proposing here is the removal of those coercive powers now instead of having, in three years time—as the government well knows—this other mob over here coming in. They cannot even spell 'workers' rights'; it means something different to them. To the government I say: fair go; we know what you are up to here. You have appeased all your corporate bonus sponsors and friends. You have made them happy, because it was never really going to happen, because the other mob will get in and of course will never remove the coercive powers. So that is the reason we are moving these amendments today. This is not excessive legislation that we have proposed. It is simply getting in step with the rest of Australia and the rest of the world. As the great Alfred the Great said, 'I want it to be said of we English that we are a civilised people.' 10:28 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I am speaking against the amendments. Whilst I understand the passion in the remarks of the member for Kennedy, the government does not support them. In particular, we do not support the remarks about appeasing corporate donors—although I did find some sympathy for the member's analysis of the coalition. The government's bill reflects the recommendations of the Wilcox— Mr Briggs IYU You shouldn't be talking about donations. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG If the hat fits, member for Mayo. In our bill we are reflecting our election commitments. I also acknowledge the concerns raised during the debate by many members about coercive powers. In accordance with the Wilcox recommendations, the bill retains coercive powers but with important and significant safeguards. These include the requirement that a presidential member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be satisfied a case has been made for the use of coercive powers on each occasion they are to be used; the right for individuals to be represented by a lawyer of their choice; recognition of the right to refuse to disclose information on the grounds of either legal professional privilege or public interest immunity; reimbursement of reasonable expenses, including reasonable legal expenses, for people summonsed for examination; the requirement that all examinations be undertaken by the director or an SES officer; the requirement that all examinations be videotaped; and the requirement that the Commonwealth Ombudsman, informed by the videotapes, monitor and review all examinations and provide reports to the parliament on the exercise of this power. In addition to these and other safeguards, this bill reflects the government's priority in focusing compliance activities where those activities are most needed. Consequently, the coercive powers are subject to a three-year sunset clause in the bill. Prior to the sunset, a review of all matters relating to compliance in the building and construction industry will occur. Any such review would of course be inclusive of all stakeholders. 10:30 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I support the amendments moved by the member for Kennedy. If these amendments do not get up, building workers in this country will have fewer rights than accused criminals. Building workers will be able to be hauled in for investigation, forced to answer questions and forced to name names. I hear the minister point to some of the other amendments, including that building workers will have their expenses reimbursed. I tell you what: I reckon someone would rather have the right to silence than have their taxi fare paid—for a taxi ride to ferry them into a star chamber where they can be forced, in true McCarthyist style, to name names. When this legislation was introduced, Labor were right there standing for the principles of the rule of law, knowing that we should not have a situation where building workers had fewer rights than accused criminals. We now have the opportunity to restore the rule of law, to restore that fundamental principle of the right to silence and to address the situation where building workers have fewer rights than accused criminals. So I heartily support these amendments. The SPEAKER 0V5 The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Kennedy be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— The SPEAKER 0V5 As there are fewer than five members on the side of the ayes, I declare the question negatived in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Question negatived, Mr Katter, Mr Wilkie and Mr Bandt voting aye. 10:38 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I move the amendment on sheet 3: (1) Schedule 1, item 52, page 21 (lines 2 to 12), omit the subsections 36A(1) and (2), substitute: This Part applies to an investigation by the Director into a suspected contravention, by a building industry participant, of an offence against a designated building law punishable by imprisonment for a period of 12 months or more. I note that we have coercive powers remaining in this country. These are the same coercive powers that the United Nations labour body, the International Labour Organisation—of which we are members and of which we have ratified the conventions—has said, on no less than eight separate occasions, contravene international law. When these findings were handed down under the former Howard government there was a massive hue and cry from sections of those who believe in the rule of law, from the trade union movement and from the Labor Party. These provisions are exactly the same, have the same effect and remove the same rights as under the former government. I am disappointed that the last set of amendments moved by the member for Kennedy was not successful and so I move a compromise, which is that we retain these coercive powers only for the most serious of offences. I move that we keep them only for those offences against a designated building law, punishable by imprisonment for a period of 12 months or more. If this amendment is not supported it is the equivalent of saying that coercive powers should apply for the industrial equivalent of a parking fine. It should not be the case that any simple, merely alleged breach of the law removes your right to silence and allows you to be hauled in for questioning. It should only be, at an absolute minimum, saved for those most serious of offences. I am hopeful that this compromise amendment will even get the government's support. 10:40 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I am sorry to disappoint the member for Melbourne. We do not support this amendment. We believe that we have put in important and significant safeguards for the use of coercive powers. We have acted in accordance with the Wilcox recommendations. The safeguards are, of course, that a presidential member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be satisfied on a case that has been made for the use of coercive powers on each occasion that they are used; individuals are represented by a lawyer of their choice; there is the right to refuse to disclose information on the grounds of legal professional privilege, and public interest immunity will be recognised; people summonsed for examination will be reimbursed for their reasonable expenses, including their reasonable legal expenses; all and every examination must be undertaken by the director or by an SES officer; and all and every examination will be videotaped and, informed by the videotapes, the Commonwealth Ombudsman will monitor and review all examinations and provide reports to the parliament on the exercise of these powers. In addition to these and other safeguards we have put in, the bill contains a sunset clause for the coercive powers at the end of three years, which of course will be reviewed prior to the sunset. The SPEAKER 0V5 The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Melbourne be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— The SPEAKER 0V5 As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes in this division, I declare the question negatived in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those honourable members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Question negatived, Mr Bandt, Mr Wilkie and Mr Katter voting aye. 10:47 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne by leave—I move amendments (1) to (70) on sheet 2 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 23 and 24), omit paragraph 3(d), substitute: (d) protecting workplace rights through the prohibition of sham contracting arrangements; and (2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 26), at the end of section 3, add: ; and (f) protecting vulnerable workers. (3) Schedule 1, item 10, page 4 (line 17), omit "59C(3)", substitute "15(4)". (4) Schedule 1, item 11, page 4 (lines 18 and 19), omit the item, substitute: 11 Subsection 4(1) (definition of civil remedy provision ) Repeal the definition, substitute: civil remedy provision has the same meaning as in the FW Act. (5) Schedule 1, page 5, after item 15 (after line 3), insert: 15A Subsection 4(1) (definition of CSC ) Repeal the definition. (6) Schedule 1, item 19, page 5 (lines 13 to 16), omit the item. (7) Schedule 1, item 25, page 6 (line 6), omit "Director", substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman". (8) Schedule 1, item 25, page 6 (line 8), omit "59", substitute "15". (9) Schedule 1, item 35, page 7 (lines 5 to 7), omit the item. (10) Schedule 1, page 8, after item 47 (after line 18), insert: 47A Paragraph 5(1)(d) Before "operation", insert "on-site". (11) Schedule 1, item 48, page 8 (lines 19 to 22), omit the item, substitute: 48 Subparagraph 5(1)(d)(iv) Omit ", whether carried out on-site or off-site". 48A Paragraph 5(1)(f) Omit "purpose;", substitute "purpose." 48B Paragraph 5(1)(g) Repeal the paragraph. (12) Schedule 1, item 49, page 9 (line 3), omit "Director", substitute "Establishment". (13) Schedule 1, item 49, page 9 (line 6), omit "a Director of", substitute ", within the Office of the Fair Work Ombudsman,". (14) Schedule 1, item 49, page 9 (line 9), omit "Director", substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman". (15) Schedule 1, item 49, page 9 (line 9), after "functions", insert "under this Act". (16) Schedule 1, item 49, page 9 (line 31), omit "Director", substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman". (17) Schedule 1, item 49, page 10 (line 5), omit "participants;", substitute "participants.". (18) Schedule 1, item 49, page 10 (line 8), omit paragraph 10(i). (19) Schedule 1, item 49, page 10 (line 9), omit the note, substitute: Note:   The Fair Work Ombudsman also has the functions of a Fair Work Building Industry Inspector (see section 16). (20) Schedule 1, item 49, page 10 (line 12), omit "Director", substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman". (21) Schedule 1, item 49, page 10 (line 13), omit "Director", substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman in relation to this Act". (22) Schedule 1, item 49, page 10 (lines 14 and 15), omit paragraph 11(1)(b), substitute: (b) the manner in which the Fair Work Ombudsman is to perform or exercise the functions or powers of the Fair Work Ombudsman under this Act. (23) Schedule 1, item 49, page 10 (line 18), omit "Director", substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman". (24) Schedule 1, item 49, page 10 (line 23), omit "Director", substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman". (25) Schedule 1, item 49, page 10 (line 24), omit "Director's", substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman's". (26) Schedule 1, item 49, page 10 (line 25), at the end of subsection 12(1), add "under this Act". (27) Schedule 1, item 49, page 10 (line 28), omit "Director", substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman". (28) Schedule 1, item 49, page 11 (line 1), omit "Director", substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman". (29) Schedule 1, item 49, page 11 (line 3), omit "and (3), the Director", substitute ", the Fair Work Ombudsman". (30) Schedule 1, item 49, page 11 (line 4), omit "Director's", substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman's". (31) Schedule 1, item 49, page 11 (line 7), omit "an inspector", substitute "a Fair Work Building Industry Inspector". (32) Schedule 1, item 49, page 11 (line 9), omit all the words from and including "Director" to the end of subsection 13(2), substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman must not delegate his or her functions or powers as a Fair Work Building Industry Inspector". (33) Schedule 1, item 49, page 11 (lines 15 to 23), omit subsection 13(3). (34) Schedule 1, item 49, page 11 (line 26), omit "Director", substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman". (35) Schedule 1, item 49, page 11 (line 29), omit "Director", substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman". (36) Schedule 1, item 49, page 12 (line 2), omit "Director", substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman". (37) Schedule 1, item 49, page 12 (line 4), omit "Director's", substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman's". (38) Schedule 1, item 49, page 12 (line 5), omit "Director's", substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman's". (39) Schedule 1, item 49, page 12 (line 14), omit "Director", substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman". (40) Schedule 1, item 49, page 12 (line 16), omit "Director", substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman". (41) Schedule 1, item 49, page 12 (line 18) to page 14 (line 29), omit sections 15 to 22, substitute: Part 2—Fair Work Building Industry Inspectors 15 Appointment (1) The Fair Work Ombudsman may, in writing, appoint as a Fair Work Building Industry Inspector: (a) a person who has been appointed, or who is employed, by the Commonwealth; or (b) a person who has been appointed, or who is employed, by a State or Territory, or who holds an office or appointment under a law of a State or Territory. (2) The Fair Work Ombudsman may appoint a person as a Fair Work Building Industry Inspector only if the Fair Work Ombudsman is satisfied that the person is of good character. (3) For the purposes of subsection (1), a Fair Work Building Industry Inspector is to be appointed under the FW Act as a Fair Work Inspector but must not perform functions or exercise powers other than: (a) in relation to a building matter; and (b) in accordance with such conditions and restrictions as are specified in his or her instrument of appointment. (4) A matter is a building matter if it relates to building work. Note:   A Fair Work Building Industry Inspector is eligible for reappointment (see section 33AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901). 16 Fair Work Ombudsman is a Fair Work Building Industry Inspector    The Fair Work Ombudsman is a Fair Work Building Industry Inspector by force of this section. 17 Inspectors' power to monitor compliance with Building Code (1) Fair Work Building Industry Inspectors are also to monitor compliance with the Building Code. (2) For this purpose, a Fair Work Building Industry Inspector has the functions and powers under Subdivision D of Division 3 of Part 5-2 of the FW Act that he or she would have if the Building Code were a fair work instrument. (42) Schedule 1, item 49, page 15 (line 1), omit "2", substitute "3". (43) Schedule 1, item 49, page 15 (lines 8 to 15), omit all the words from and including "is to make", substitute: is: (a) to determine:    (i) policies to guide the performance and exercise of the Fair Work Ombudsman's functions and powers under this Act; and    (ii) the priorities of, and the programs to be implemented by, the Fair Work Ombudsman in the performance and exercise of the Fair Work Ombudsman's functions and powers under this Act; and (b) to make recommendations to the Fair Work Ombudsman about any matter that the Minister requests the Advisory Board to consider. (44) Schedule 1, item 49, page 15 (line 18), omit paragraph 25(a). (45) Schedule 1, item 49, page 15 (line 26), omit "the Director or". (46) Schedule 1, item 49, page 16 (line 13), omit "the Director or". (47) Schedule 1, item 49, page 16 (line 16), omit "the Director or". (48) Schedule 1, item 49, page 17 (line 18), omit "the Director or". (49) Schedule 1, item 49, page 17 (line 21), omit "the Director or". (50) Schedule 1, item 49, page 18 (line 2), omit "the Director or". (51) Schedule 1, item 49, page 18 (line 13), omit "Director", substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman". (52) Schedule 1, item 49, page 18 (lines 14 and 15), omit all the words from and including "Director" to the end of subsection 26G(2), substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman and one other member". (53) Schedule 1, item 49, page 19 (line 7) to page 20 (line 8), omit Part 3. (54) Schedule 1, items 50 to 73, page 20 (line 10) to page 42 (line 23), omit the items, substitute: 50 Section 28 Repeal the section, substitute: 28 Building Code to be comprehensive statement    In contracting for building work, the Commonwealth must not require compliance, by a building industry participant, with a requirement that is not: (a) set out in the Building Code; or (b) of a kind specified in the Building Code as being exempt from the operation of this section. 28A Building Code to be consistent with FWA instruments    The Building Code has no effect to the extent that it is inconsistent with an instrument (however described): (a) that has been approved by FWA; and (b) is in force. 51 Chapters 5 and 6 Repeal the Chapters, substitute: Chapter 5—Sham arrangements 36 Sham arrangements (1) A person (the employer) must not engage, or propose to engage, an individual to perform building work under a contract for services where the true character of the engagement or proposed engagement is that of employment. Note:   This subsection is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4-1 of the FW Act). (2) A person (the employer) must not enter into a contract with another person (the contractor) under which services in the nature of building work are to be provided to the employer, if: (a) the services are to be performed by an individual (who is not the contractor); and (b) the individual has any ownership in, or is an officer or trustee of, the contractor; and (c) if the contract were entered into with the individual, the contract would be a contract of employment. Note:   This subsection is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4-1 of the FW Act). (3) The employer's state of mind is not relevant for the purposes of subsection (1) or (2). (4) If a person (the employer) enters into a contract in contravention of subsection (1) or (2), then, for the purposes of determining the rights and obligations of the employer and the individual in relation to the performance of services under the contract, the individual is taken to be an employee of the employer. (5) Subsections (1) to (3) have effect as if: (a) they were included in Division 6 of Part 3-1 of the FW Act; and (b) the term building industry participant had the same meaning in that Act as it has in this Act; and (c) the reference to 357(1) in item 11 of the table in subsection 539(2) that Act included references to subsections (1) and (2) of this section. 37 Effect of other provisions with respect to building work    For the purposes of the application of section 357 of the Fair Work Act 2009 in relation to a person that employs, or proposes to employ, an individual to perform building work, subsection (2) of that section is taken to be replaced by the following: "(2) The employer's state of mind is not relevant for the purposes of subsection (1)." Note:   Section 357 of the Fair Work Act 2009 deals with misrepresenting employment as an independent contracting arrangement. 52 Chapter 7 (heading) Repeal the heading, substitute: Chapter 7—Federal Safety Officers 53 Part 1 of Chapter 7 Repeal the Part. 54 Part 2 of Chapter 7 (heading) Repeal the heading. 55 Divisions 1 and 2 of Part 2 of Chapter 7 Repeal the Divisions. 56 Division 3 of Part 2 of Chapter 7 (heading) Repeal the heading, substitute: Part 1—Appointment (55) Schedule 1, item 74, page 43 (line 1), omit "Division", substitute "Part". (56) Schedule 1, item 77, page 43 (line 8) to page 44 (line 31), omit section 64, substitute: 64 Disclosure of information to the Advisory Board (1) This section applies to information that is: (a) information acquired by the Fair Work Ombudsman in the course of performing functions, or exercising powers, under this Act; or (b) information acquired by a Fair Work Building Industry Inspector in the course of performing functions, or exercising powers, as a Fair Work Building Industry Inspector; or (c) information acquired by a member of staff referred to in subsection 697(1) of the FW Act in the course of performing functions, or exercising powers, as a member of staff in relation to this Act; or (d) information acquired by a person in the course of assisting the Ombudsman under section 698 of the FW Act, or in the course of performing functions, or exercising powers, as a consultant under section 698 of the FW Act in relation to this Act; or (e) information acquired by a person in the course of assisting a Fair Work Building Industry Inspector under section 710 of the FW Act in performing functions, or exercising powers, as a Fair Work Building Industry Inspector. (2) The Fair Work Ombudsman may disclose, or authorise the disclosure of, the information to the Advisory Board if the Fair Work Ombudsman reasonably believes that the disclosure is likely to assist the Advisory Board in performing its role. Note:   Section 718 of the FW Act also deals with disclosure of information by the Fair Work Ombudsman. (57) Schedule 1, items 78 to 86, page 46 (line 10) to page 47 (line 24), omit the items, substitute: 78 Subsections 65(2) to (8) Repeal the subsections. (58) Schedule 1, item 88, page 47 (line 32), omit "Director", substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman". (59) Schedule 1, item 88, page 48 (line 3), omit "Director", substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman". (60) Schedule 1, item 90, page 48 (line 10), omit "Director", substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman". (61) Schedule 1, item 91, page 48 (lines 11 to 13), omit the item, substitute: 91 Subsection 71(1) Omit "ABC Commissioner may", substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman may, with the leave of the court,". 91A Subsection 71(2) Omit "ABC Commissioner" (wherever occurring), substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman". (62) Schedule 1, item 92, page 48 (line 16), omit "Director", substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman". (63) Schedule 1, item 93, page 48 (lines 17 and 18), omit the item, substitute: 93 Section 72 Omit "ABC Commissioner may, by giving written notice to the General Manager of FWA", substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman may, with the permission of FWA". (64) Schedule 1, item 94, page 48 (lines 19 and 20), omit the item, substitute: 94 Sections 73 and 73A Repeal the sections, substitute: 73 When exercise of powers and proceedings must cease FWA matters (1) Where FWA is exercising any powers in relation to an issue that is related to a building matter, it must cease exercising those powers if it is satisfied that the issue has been settled or resolved by the building industry participants involved in the issue. Court proceedings for civil remedy provisions (2) Where there is a proceeding before a Court pursuant to a civil remedy provision, and the proceeding involves an issue that is related to a building matter, the Court must cease dealing with the proceeding in so far as it relates to the issue, if the Court is satisfied that the issue has been settled or resolved by the building industry participants involved in it. (65) Schedule 1, item 95, page 48 (line 23), omit "Director", substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman". (66) Schedule 1, item 96, page 48 (line 25), omit "Director", substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman". (67) Schedule 1, item 100, page 49 (lines 11 to 16), omit section 76, substitute: 76 Court not to require undertaking as to damages    If the Fair Work Ombudsman or a Fair Work Building Industry Inspector is an applicant in court proceedings under the FW Act or the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009, the court cannot require the Fair Work Ombudsman, the Fair Work Building Industry Inspector or another person, as a condition of granting an interim injunction, to give undertakings as to damages. (68) Schedule 1, item 101, page 49 (line 19), omit "Director", substitute "Fair Work Ombudsman". (69) Schedule 1, item 102, page 49 (lines 23 to 27), omit paragraphs (a) to (e) of the definition of protected person, substitute: (a) the Fair Work Ombudsman; (b) a Fair Work Building Industry Inspector; (c) a person assisting a Fair Work Building Industry Inspector under section 710 of the FW Act; (d) a member of staff referred to in subsection 697(1) of the FW Act; (e) a person assisting the Fair Work Ombudsman under section 698 of the FW Act; (ea) a person engaged as a consultant under section 699 of the FW Act; (70) Schedule 1, item 103, page 50 (lines 5 to 11), omit paragraphs (l) and (m). These amendments do different things, but they are very important. One thing they do is to implement the government's election platform: that is, they say that this new entity—which is obviously now well on its way to being set up to be a special secret police in the building industry—should not be the kind of autonomous juggernaut that was established by the former government, the kind of juggernaut that gave the lie to the idea that this is about preserving the rule of law because, when you look at who it turned its attention to, the statistics speak for themselves. In the period between October 2005 and June 2011, the ABCC commenced 86 prosecutions against workers, their representatives and their officials, and five against employers. The situation did not get any better with the change of government because, in the financial year 2009-10, there were 29 proceedings commenced against workers, their representatives and officials, and none against employers. That is why it is so critical that these amendments do what the government had actually proposed in seeking election—that is to say that this new entity will not be a stand-alone, autonomous institution that is able to continue a process of litigating against a particular sector of the community and a particular side of that sector but, instead, will come under the Fair Work Ombudsman as an administrative division of the Fair Work Ombudsman. The amendments do a number of other things. I will not go through them all, but I will draw the House's attention to a redirection of the new inspectorate's activities to some of the real problems in the industry. These amendments would require the new inspectorate to deal with the very real problem of sham contracting, and that is where—and we know it happens, and even the current Australian Building and Construction Commissioner tells us that it happens, and it defrauds the Commonwealth's purse of revenue—someone turns up to work and the employer says, 'We'll give you a job, provided that you incorporate yourself or come back with an ABN, and you won't get sick leave, you won't get superannuation and you'll be responsible for taking out your own WorkCover insurance.' This practice is rife. These amendments will tighten up the definition of sham contracting and require the inspector to pay attention to it. The amendments will also require the inspector to pay attention to another critical issue: the exploitation of overseas labour in this industry. We have no problem with people coming from other countries and working here, but they should be entitled to the same wages and conditions as local workers. We know that this does not happen in the construction industry. We have routinely seen instances over the last couple of years—and it has usually been the union that has exposed it, not a government inspectorate because they are too busy prosecuting the unions—of people being drastically underpaid. It is about time that we redirected the government inspectorate's attention to this serious problem, and that is what these amendments will do. I commend the amendments to the House. 10:51 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I listened carefully to the contribution of the member for Melbourne but I have to advise that the government will not be supporting his amendments. The government's position on the ABCC has been clear for a very long time. We have committed to the Australian people that we will replace the ABCC with a new body to provide a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations in the building and construction industry—a body that is part of our fair work system but which is a specialist body. We have committed to a strong building industry regulator to ensure lawful conduct by all building industry participants, a strong set of compliance arrangements and penalties for conduct in contravention of workplace law. We committed to a review of building industry regulation and we committed to introduce safeguards for the use of coercive examination powers to achieve the balance required to ensure compliance with the law and the fair treatment of individuals. This bill honours our government's commitments. I do acknowledge the work of the Greens in proposing this set of amendments to the bill and in particular their proposed amendment seeking to limit further proceedings when matters have settled. The government understand the policy intent of the Greens amendments in limiting the exposure of the building industry participants to multiple and ongoing proceedings. But, as the House has seen in the last half hour, the government have its own amendments which limit the capacity for the new Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate to commence or continue litigation, but only where the litigation on the same subject matter has been discontinued because the building industry parties have settled their difference. We want to ensure that all building industry participants are not the subject of multiple proceedings in relation to matters that have already been the subject of discontinued litigation, as well as ensuring the resources of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate are appropriately targeted to matters which remain unresolved. The SPEAKER 0V5 The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Melbourne be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— The SPEAKER 0V5 Without wanting to be too pedantic, I remind those honourable members who do not have a jacket on that, while it is certainly in order to come into the chamber to vote wearing whatever you are wearing at the time, it is technically disorderly to remain in the chamber during debate. While I do understand that we have a number of divisions, and I probably should not be too strict on this, I would ask honourable members to note this for the future. I have also had complaints from a number of honourable members that they are not able to hear other honourable members in the chamber because of the strength of the PA system. I have asked the Clerk to look into that matter. As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes, I declare the question negatived in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those honourable members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Question negatived, Mr Bandt, Mr Wilkie and Mr Katter voting aye. The SPEAKER 0V5 The question now is that this bill, as amended, be agreed to. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 1599 10:58 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Amendment Bill 2011 1599

Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Amendment Bill 2011

Report from Committee 1599 10:59 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin On behalf of the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts, I seek leave to make a statement on the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Amendment Bill 2011, in discharge of the committee’s requirement to provide an advisory report on the bill, and to present a copy of my statement. The SPEAKER 0V5 There does seem to be a relatively major problem with the PA system, but I can now hear the honourable member. Leave granted. Mr ZAPPIA HWB Mr Speaker, the committee has endorsed the content of the statement that I am about to make. The Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Amendment Bill 2011 was introduced into the House on 23 November 2011. The following day, the bill was referred by the Selection Committee to the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts for an advisory report. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980 to give effect to Australia's international obligations under the Antarctic Treaty and the Madrid protocol. These amendments seek to establish more stringent arrangements to protect human and vessel safety in the Antarctic environment. Specifically, the bill implements three measures that have been agreed to by treaty parties in recent years. Measure 1, which introduces a liability regime for environmental emergencies in the Antarctic, requires all government and non-government operators to implement measures to reduce the risk of environmental emergencies occurring and to establish contingency plans, maintain adequate insurance and respond properly to any environment emergencies that do occur. Measure 4 requires non-state operators such as tourism operators carrying out activities in the Antarctic to draw up and put in place appropriate contingency plans and arrangements, including insurance, for health and safety, search and rescue, and medical care and evacuation. Measure 15 requires operators of Antarctic tourist vessels carrying more than 500 passengers to refrain from making any landings and, for smaller vessels, restricts the number of passengers that may disembark at any one time. It imposes a minimum guide-to-passenger ratio on groups that do disembark. The measure also requires tourist vessels to coordinate with one another to ensure that no more than one vessel is at a landing site at any given time. The committee understands that the three measures have been agreed to by all parties to the Antarctic Treaty, which are at varying stages of implementing the measures. Importantly, the committee understands that the bill before the House seeks to legislate no more and no less than is required under the measures that have been agreed to. During its inquiry, the committee received a private briefing from the Australian Antarctic Division to discuss aspects of the bill. The committee notes that the Australian Antarctic Division has previously undertaken a thorough consultation process with relevant stakeholders, including Australian tourism operators and other interested parties. The outcome of the consultation suggested general support for the measures from industry, and no significant concerns were raised. As proposed treaty actions, the measures were also examined by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which presented its unanimous report in October 2011. While a variety of organisations were contacted, the treaties committee only received one brief submission, which was supportive of the measures. The committee supported the measures, noting that they would contribute to protecting the Antarctic environment. The treaties committee report also noted that, because the measures would not enter into force until all parties had implemented them, timely action domestically was crucial to Australia maintaining its influence within the Antarctic Treaty system. The committee considers that this last point is particularly pertinent given that Australia will be hosting the 35th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Hobart in June this year. Having this legislation enacted prior to the meeting would improve Australia's negotiating position and help encourage other nations to implement the measures as well. The committee also notes that in most cases Australian tourism operators already have exemplary standards of operation and are largely meeting the requirements of the bill on a voluntary basis. The passage of this bill would therefore merely formalise the arrangements already in place. Given the uncontroversial nature of the bill, the considerable level of stakeholder consultations that have taken place to date and the treaties committee's previous consideration of the provisions of the bill, the committee has determined that a more detailed level of inquiry is unnecessary. The committee therefore recommends that the House pass the bill. I also take this opportunity to note that, while the committee supports the bill referral process of the Selection Committee as a mechanism for improving transparency and consultation around legislation introduced into the House, in this instance it would have been useful to the committee if reasons had been provided for the referral of the bill. The referral of an uncontroversial bill can interrupt the work program of a committee and may delay the passage of legislation for relatively little benefit. It would seem that committees could be more constructive in their consideration of bills if they were provided with a meaningful statement of reasons for the referral of each bill, as was recommended by the Standing Committee on Procedure in mid-2011. On behalf of the committee, I have recently written to the Speaker, Deputy Speaker and Chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure to express this concern. Insurance Contracts Amendment Bill 2011 1601

Insurance Contracts Amendment Bill 2011

Report from Committee 1601 11:05 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, I present the committee's report entitled Advisory report on the Insurance Contracts Amendment Bill 2011, incorporating supplementary remarks, together with the minutes of proceedings. In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper. Ms OWENS E09 by leave—The floods of 2010-11 were a devastating blow to many communities with lives lost and homes and property destroyed. In the aftermath, the tragedy and devastation was made worse when many people found that they were underinsured or that their insurance policies did not provide cover. In many cases, people thought they were insured only to be advised that their policies did not provide for the types of floods that occurred. The discovery that homes were not adequately insured against the floods was devastating for families. The Insurance Contracts Amendment Bill 2011 is part of a suite of measures to address issues associated with flooding. The bill is a technical piece of legislation which introduces, through schedule 1, a standard definition of flood and, through schedule 2, a key facts sheet. Both the standard definition of flood and the key fact sheet are widely supported by both industry and consumer groups. It is clear that consumer groups have wanted these measures and industry groups support them. The National Insurance Brokers Association (NIBA), RACQ Insurance, the Insurance Council of Australia, and the Consumer Action Law Centre all indicated that they support both measures. The bill provides the framework for the introduction of the standard definition and the key fact sheet. Once the bill is passed the regulations prescribing the standards definition and the key fact sheet will be introduced. The Treasury has issued draft regulations on the standard definition and will soon issue a discussion paper on the key fact sheet. The committee's roundtable public hearing provided a constructive forum to gauge the adequacy of the Treasury's performance in consulting on the standard definition and the key fact sheet. The committee is reassured by the constructive dialogue between the Treasury, industry groups and consumer groups, and believes that the technical points raised during the hearing can be successfully dealt with as the regulations are further developed. The committee concludes that the Insurance Contracts Amendment Bill 2011 is an important piece of legislation that should be passed. I commend the report to the House. 11:08 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff by leave—As the Deputy Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, I am certainly pleased to rise to speak to the committee's report on the Insurance Contracts Amendment Bill 2011. Like Labor members of the committee, Liberal members of the committee were also distressed by the widespread damage and devastation that arose as a consequence of the floods in 2011 in Queensland, Victoria and other places. Liberal members of the committee were of the view going into this that we wanted to see action as well. In that respect we welcomed what had been put forward by the government. It is clear that, although there is bipartisan support for the need for a standard definition of flood and for a key fact sheet, and for all that to be also endorsed and supported by industry and consumers, the fact remains that there is a very large process problem with how the Insurance Contracts Amendment Bill has gone about it. The reality is that, although Liberal members of the economics committee have reached the same recommendation as the Labor majority on the committee, we are not reassured in respect of the process that has been undertaken, particularly the level of consultation. Our concern goes directly to the fact that the devil is in the detail with the regard to the common definition and the key fact sheet, and the detail in this particular bill lies in the regulations. Industry and consumer groups made very poignant comments at the roundtable that indicated that, when it even came to the impact on, for example, the pricing of insurance contracts, they were unable to determine what the impact would be in the absence of actually having definitive regulations. It seems a great shame to Liberal members of the committee that, after having gone through this entire process, having garnered to some extent bipartisan support and having garnered to some extent industry and consumer support, the government was unable to provide any clarity around these issues and instead chose to put the hard work in the regulations and simply put in what is commonly referred to as a coathanger piece of legislation. For this reason, Liberal members noted on the evidence that there was, in fact, a view that there could be premium increases as a result of the changes that were being put forward. There was no clarity about the impact that the common definition would have on, for example, seawater inundation of properties. As well, there was no clarity on what the key fact sheet would mean with respect to the issuing of cover notes and a variety of other things very technical and mechanical in nature nonetheless crucial to the successful operation—both for consumers and industry participants—of the issuing of insurance contracts not only in relation to flood but more broadly. For these reasons, Liberal members wrote supplementary comments to the report which are contained in the tabled document. In those we highlight our concern over the process. We believe, frankly, that the government should have done a better job in putting this legislation together as a more complete package. COMMITTEES 1603 COMMITTEES Publications Committee 1603 Report 1603 11:11 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I present the report from the Publications Committee. Copies of the report are being circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Report—by leave—agreed to. BILLS 1603 BILLS National Health Amendment (Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement Initiatives) Bill 2011 1603

National Health Amendment (Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement Initiatives) Bill 2011

Second Reading 1603 11:12 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I rise to continue my remarks in this debate. In my arguments for support of the National Health Amendment (Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement Initiatives) Bill 2011, what I had previously covered was accessibility to the continuation of medical treatment. The second tranche of the bill allows for the supply and claiming of pharmaceuticals based on the standardised medical chart in residential aged-care facilities. I support this initiative because it reduces the administrative burden on medical practitioners and improves patient safety. Often within certain locations across Western Australia, and certainly across Australia, GPs are not readily available for those who are in aged-care facilities. This bill enables continuity of medication. It also enables nursing staff to ensure continuity of treatment. I think access to pharmacies is an important development given the way in which points of access to health care have become necessary. Pharmacies are certainly a first point of reference for many people and there is a high degree of trust. If you look at some of the surveys about whom people in society trust, pharmacies and pharmacists certainly sit high in that consideration. In Hasluck, the bill's proposed changes will enhance care arrangements for constituents within aged-care facilities. For example, there is Amaroo Village in Gosnells, where over 150 people will benefit directly from this initiative. This centre is located in the community of Gosnells. I know from my visits to this particular centre and from talking with David Fenwick, the CEO, that this would be a very welcome initiative. Equally, taking Morrison Lodge in Midland, again there is a number of people who will benefit from this change. They take comfort in knowing that the continuity of medications will be something they do not have to worry about. That reduces anxiety. In Parry Hostel in Lesmurdie there are 40 residents who will benefit. In the Jeremiah Donovan House in Forrestfield, where there are over 50 residents, all of them will take a high degree of comfort from knowing they have that continuity of care. The coalition's proposed amendments will bring the bill into line with the minister's statements and the government's commitments, and they are consistent with the government's stated intent. The coalition is not opposed to the bill but does intend to ensure the Commonwealth assurances are honoured. The amendments proposed firstly require the publication of annual statistics on pharmaceuticals supplied without a prescription as allowed under proposed section 89A(1). They secondly require a review of proposed section 89A two years from commencement and that it be tabled in the parliament within six months of the required review date. I think both of these amendments are commendable as they allow those of us who have a role within our electorates to advocate to have a sense of the level of dispensation processes occurring within the community. It also may highlight the particular needs around primary healthcare services provided at certain points. Certainly within my electorate I would be interested to look at the trends in the review based on the data. That will show trending that will be important in the way in which we consider whether there should be future amendments to the legislation. I think it is beholden on us within this House to ensure that access to primary health care and to the pharmaceutical benefits that are there for all Australians both are consistent and alleviate anxiety that occurs. I have a constituent who is anxious that, when his prescription comes towards the end of its time, his carer is sometimes not available to take him to the pharmacy or, more importantly, to his local GP. The other issue he raised is that sometimes he forgets when the prescription is due and when he rings his GP he cannot get in because of the waiting list and so he forgoes his medication. This measure ensures that he will be able to go to his pharmacy with his carer and access medication based on the regime of treatment that has become standard for him and the new arrangements will enable the pharmacist to ensure continuity of dispensation and treatment occurs. I acknowledge the government's reform in this area and I commend the bill to the House. I endorse the intent of the bill and the consequences that it will have for constituents within Hasluck and for all Australians who require continuity of medicines and medical treatment. 11:18 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh I also rise to support the National Health Amendment (Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement Initiatives) Bill 2011. I think that the Australian public, almost to a person, supports our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS, and the subsidisation of certain medicines for those who really need them but may not be able to afford them. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is one of the cornerstones of our modern, world-class health system—a system that now has a bright future due to the reforms of this Labor government. We saw last year an unprecedented alignment of the states and the Commonwealth with the National Health Reform Agreement, with some $20 billion in additional Commonwealth funding committed over this decade to cut elective surgery waiting times and fund growth in the health and hospital budgets across our nation. One of the central elements to modern healthcare delivery in this country is the maximisation of the healthcare outcomes the public receive for the tax dollars that fund the health system. With all players coming to the table and reaching an agreement, as we saw under the leadership of the Prime Minister last year, we are minimising waste and maximising the health benefits that come from the amount of taxation revenue that is channelled into the health system that Australians love and rely on so much. Health is clearly an area of public policy where the public sees best management, minimal waste and best outcomes for the Australian public. Wringing out every healthcare service and outcome possible for the money that is put into the system is an ongoing theme of this government through negotiations with the states in the running of hospitals and negotiations with the Pharmacy Guild of Australia in the development of successive community pharmacy agreements for the delivery of the PBS. The Community Pharmacy Agreement is central to the operation of the PBS. It is a fundamental part of the operation of the PBS and the dispensing of medicines across Australia at a reasonable cost to the public as a whole. Negotiations between parties to the Community Pharmacy Agreement always strive to achieve the best outcomes for those with health issues at the most affordable cost to the Australian taxpayer. It is very pleasing and reassuring to see that the agreement is not just a deal reached between a funding body and those who implement a part of it. It is not just between the government or the Department of Health and Ageing and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. This Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement was also open, in a sense, to the public through the Consumers Health Forum. The department conducted a broad public consultation process in early 2011 about the initiatives, aided by Medicare Australia and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. This is nothing new. There was excellent consultation carried out in the development of the Community Pharmacy Agreement as a whole. The Pharmacy Guild of Australia has an account of the initial scepticism of the Consumers Health Forum toward the fifth agreement turning to uncompromised praise. According to the Pharmacy Guild of Australia website, in May 2010 the Consumers Health Forum wrote: CHF welcomes the final version of the Fifth CPA. For the first time in the history of Community Pharmacy Agreements, the views of consumers were specifically sought, and some of their concerns appear to have been taken into account in the final version of the Agreement. The Patient Service Charter is particularly welcome. This feedback was to the process up to the point of the signing of the agreement in the early part of 2010. As I have said, community input was also sought in the development of the programs which make up this bill. They were developed, at least in part, subsequent to the signing of the agreement and were commented on by the public in their development toward this legislation and a better functioning system and superior health outcomes. It is in pursuit of superior outcomes—the best health outcomes for those who rely on prescription pharmaceuticals—that the government has introduced the bill before us. This bill will improve the continued supply of medicines to those who need them, improve the treatment people receive by use of the medicines in certain situations where gaining access to a GP to request a new prescription puts the continuance of supply and treatment at risk. The changes are about better access to medicines, better ongoing treatment for conditions and, consequently, better patient health outcomes. The beneficiaries of these changes are those in our communities with chronic conditions requiring ongoing treatment and residents of nursing homes. The situations in which these changes will apply are not broad. There are basically two situations, and the changes are delivered by two programs. The Continued Dispensing of PBS Medicines in Defined Circumstances program will assist those with ongoing, chronic conditions and an ongoing need for prescription medicines who have already had a prescription, where the issuing of yet another prescription cannot be arranged but would have been a formality. Only people being issued with oral hormonal contraceptives for systemic use and lipid-modifying agents used in the treatment of high cholesterol will be covered by the program. Additional pharmaceuticals will be considered for inclusion within the program in two years time. The second situation and the second program are to do with the needs of residents of nursing homes. The Supply and PBS Claiming from a Medication Chart in Residential Aged Care Facilities program will have the ongoing administration of medicines managed through the resident's, or patient's, medical chart, more akin to the administration of prescribed medicines within a hospital setting. The course of treatment is set by the doctor and implemented by other staff. The treatment is ongoing until staff are told otherwise. Again, the changes are about enabling better access to medicines when they are needed, better adherence to the required administration of those medicines and a superior benefit from the treatment that patients require. These implementation dates were agreed to by the government and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia as a part of the fifth agreement negotiations and have been publicly announced. Both initiatives are scheduled to commence on 1 July 2012. I commend the bill to the House. 11:26 Mr BALDWIN LL6 Paterson I rise today to address the National Health Amendment (Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement Initiatives) Bill 2011. This bill has the potential to help a vast array of patients right across my electorate of Paterson. However, it is critical that patient care is the utmost consideration. Any additional powers given to pharmacists must be carefully capped, reviewed and assessed. This bill has two important functions. Firstly, it will allow pharmacists to supply medicines without prescription under certain circumstances. Those require the patient to have been prescribed the medicine for at least six months. The patient must also be taking the medicine immediately prior to requesting a continued supply from their pharmacist. Secondly, the bill will allow residents of an aged-care facility to access their medication, based on a standardised medical chart. They will also be able to claim their rebate directly, for those medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. This move is supported by the Australian Medical Association, as it is hoped to cut red tape for doctors and other health professionals. For my electorate of Paterson, the latter is particularly significant, as we have the fourth-highest median age in the country. Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows that the median age for Paterson residents in June 2009 was 42.6, compared with a national average of 36.8. That figure continues to grow higher in our region, which is attractive to retirees thanks to its proximity to Sydney, beaches, recreational facilities and more. It is actually the perfect sea-change, tree-change environment for people to retire to. The rising median age also means that many of the doctors in Paterson are retiring themselves, and services cannot always be duplicated straightaway. Many rural and regional areas across Australia are also dealing with doctor shortages. As the ABC detailed on 21 November 2011: GP Access says more doctors are choosing to work fewer hours which is adding to the critical doctor shortage in the Hunter. A senate inquiry has been set up to look at the factors affecting the supply of health services and medical professionals in rural areas. GP Access Practice Workforce officer Jenni Scott says historically, doctors used to work around the clock to tend to patients. But she says that is now a thing of the past. "The work life balance that's permeating all workforce scenarios is the same in general practice," she said. "Doctors going into the practice want to go to work, do their work but also go home and be with their families or do other things that are part and parcel of life these days." The role of new 'Medicare Locals' organisations like the Hunter's GP Access will come under scrutiny as part of the senate inquiry. Ms Scott says the doctor to patient ratio in some areas is very concerning. "The preferred GP population ratio usually quoted as approximately 1:1100 or 1:1200," she said "But the relevant ratio for some of our smaller communities is usually 1:2000. It goes without saying that mechanisms like this, which can reduce the pressure on waiting times and costs to constituents and the government alike for simple consultations like those for repeat scripts, could have a positive impact. In my electorate office I receive quite a number of complaints from people who go to the doctor simply for a repeat script to be issued but are charged $50 to $60 for something that takes but moments. There are some doctors who simply run it through a bulk-billing, but the majority of doctors in my area charge the full fee of $50 to $60 just for issuing a repeat script. There are also a number of local aged-care facilities right across Paterson that could stand to benefit, from Largs Lodge in the west to Regis the Gardens in the east, Barclay Gardens in the north and Raymond Terrace Gardens Nursing Centre in the south of the electorate. Having to obtain a prescription for long-term medication can be costly and timely, and there are certain circumstances where this will alleviate the burden on aged-care providers. For example, there is currently a situation in Bulahdelah, in my electorate, where the local GP, Dr Habashi, has had to take sick leave. He has been off sick for a number of months and there is no indication of when he will return, yet there is no permanent replacement doctor. The two closest major centres are Newcastle and Taree, which are 96 kilometres and 75 kilometres away respectively. Doctors in Forster-Tuncurry and Tea Gardens have been working hard to assist, taking what patients they can on top of their own extreme workloads. However, this is not an adequate solution to the problem. As the resident GP, Dr Habashi was also responsible for patient care at the Bulahdelah Nursing Home and the Bulahdelah Hospital. With this legislation in place, many of the nursing home residents would be able to continue to access their medications without having to place further burden on the temporary doctors. The benefits seem quite straightforward. However, with any initiative like this, it is important that ideals of ease and convenience do not overshadow what is the most important thing, that being the patients' safety and wellbeing. That is why the coalition will move amendments to ensure that this new program is adequately reviewed and monitored. The government has already limited the scope of this legislation in the first instance in a bid to ensure safety as the program is rolled out. Those medicines that can be dispensed without a prescription will be limited to oral hormonal contraceptives, known as the pill, and lipid modifying agents, which are drugs to lower cholesterol. Past experience of these two medicines shows they are usually well tolerated and have a good safety profile. Provided the scheme is rolled out successfully, the hope is that other chronic therapy medicines will be added to the list. From personal experience with things like asthma preventatives, I know that Ventolin is available over the counter, but some of the stronger preventatives, which are regular script items, should also be included in this list, provided an asthma management plan is in place. The coalition's amendments would ensure that review mechanisms are included in the legislation. We believe it is vitally important that the program is assessed after two years, with statistics and results made public. The government has given guarantees that it will do so; however, it should be put directly into the legislation. The health of patients is far too important to simply take the government at its word. After all, this is the same Prime Minister who said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Prime Minister Julia Gillard also said she would be more likely to play full forward for the Bulldogs than challenge Kevin Rudd for the Labor leadership. So we have real concerns in trusting this Prime Minister with the health of our nation, placing her word. It is worth noting that some emergency options for pharmacists already exist. Under the current legislation, pharmacists can dispense a medication on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme without a written prescription if they speak to the patient's doctor on the phone. They then need to get a written prescription from that doctor within a week. Proponents of the bill argue that the existing legislation puts pharmacists at financial risk, because a PBS claim cannot be made if that written prescription is not received within seven days. Of course, by that stage, they have already dispensed the medication. Further, state regulations allow pharmacists to supply three days worth of medicine where it is just not possible for a patient to get a script. However, if getting medicine this way, the patient has to pay the full cost rather than the PBS co-payment, and the pharmacist has to break a full pack to provide it. The patient is also back in the doctor's surgery within a couple of days to get a full script. This bill would, therefore, largely prevent these problems from occurring. It could also represent significant cost savings for individuals by ensuring they do not have to pay for a doctor consultation every time they need a script repeated. This would also provide cost benefit to the government, because the Medicare rebate for that visitation would not be required. With the cost of everyday living skyrocketing and the carbon tax set to boost everyday household costs from July this year, any cost savings for the individual will be most welcome. This past year, under the Gillard Labor government, there has been no net job growth for the first time in two decades. That is clear evidence of a struggling economy and tough times for workers and their families. Health is certainly not an issue that people can easily put aside. People cannot do without their medications if they do not have enough money that week. Just one missed blood pressure dosage could result in a heart attack, while one missed pill could cause unwanted pregnancy. The National Health Amendment (Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement Initiatives) Bill has some great potential in the Paterson electorate. In regional areas such as ours, distance, limited travel options, doctor waiting times and cost-of-living pressures mean that access to health facilities is not always easy. Our government should be working hard to cut red tape, and for this I commend it. However, patient care has to always be at the top of one's mind. The government should always be accountable for the decisions it makes with regard to our health system, and it is vital that we review new initiatives like these to ensure that the outcomes they are designed to meet are indeed being fulfilled. With the coalition's amendments, this bill has great potential for my constituents in Paterson, and therefore I look forward to supporting the amendments to the bill. Hopefully, they will be carried, and the bill will be carried as a whole. 11:37 Ms LIVERMORE 83A Capricornia I rise to add my support to the National Health Amendment (Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement Initiatives) Bill 2011, which puts in place initiatives from the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement. This is the first chance I have had to speak on a health related bill this year, so I would like to take the opportunity briefly to offer my congratulations to Nicola Roxon, the former Minister for Health and Ageing, on her promotion to Attorney-General. I would also like to congratulate her on her achievements during her time as health minister. At the national level she oversaw record levels of investment into our health infrastructure and our health workforce. In Central Queensland during her time as health minister, we saw the massive expansion of Rockhampton Base Hospital, including the building work going on right now that will give us a cancer centre capable of providing a much broader range of treatment for cancer patients. Very importantly, it will see the addition of radiation therapy and a more-than-doubling of the chemotherapy chairs that are available for treating people. That is extremely important for people in my electorate, who know that they will no longer have to travel to Brisbane for those sorts of treatments and be away from their family and a familiar environment at such a distressing time. There was also funding in the last budget to build an accommodation facility at the Mater hospital, just down the road from Rockhampton Base Hospital. That accommodation is a long-cherished project in our community and has had terrific support across the community. It was great to see the government add funding to make it a reality. The accommodation facility will give support to people from the broader Central Queensland region who find themselves or their family members needing medical care in Rockhampton, many miles from their home. In Mackay, in the north of my electorate, we are very close to finding out who has been successful in the bid to build the GP superclinic, which will add to services in that very fast-growing city. It was great to see, just before the end of last year, that one of the GP clinics in my electorate in the town of Sarina was given funding under the Primary Care Infrastructure Grants program to expand its services and keep its fantastic work going for the people of Sarina. I am very grateful for the working relationship I had with Nicola in her time as health minister. My constituents can see how well she listened to the representations I made and how well she understood the dynamics of our region, particularly the growth we are experiencing and the need for new and better health infrastructure together with more medical and allied health professionals to meet the needs of our growing population. I also want to congratulate the new Minister for Health, Tanya Plibersek, on her well-deserved elevation to cabinet and to welcome Tanya to the portfolio. Despite the long list of things already delivered by this government, I can assure the new minister that there is still plenty to do in health in Central Queensland, especially in the area of primary health care and the workforce required to deliver that care. Two of our divisions of general practice have merged to become the Capricornia Division of General Practice, covering the urban areas of Rockhampton and Gladstone, and the mining and farming hinterland that make up our region. In recognition of its experience and excellent relationships throughout Queensland, the division has now been handed the responsibility of forming the Medicare Local for our region. Medicare Locals will provide the focus and leadership needed to make sure we get the absolute most out of our primary healthcare sector by placing it at the heart of local planning and decision-making about health care, and by linking the various parts of the sector to better meet the needs of patients. This is an exciting time as we look at how best to coordinate our existing health resources and come up with innovative local solutions to fill gaps in services, and help practices deal with the specific challenges of life at the heart of the mining boom. I know that the new health minister brings great insight into her region as a result of her time as the Minister for Housing and more recently as the Minister for Human Services. I look forward to working with her as Labor's reforms and investments in health continue to deliver real improvements for people in central Queensland. I turn now to this bill, because I do want to speak on the bill and its particulars. I want to do that because it is emblematic of Labor's commitment to reform in the health system and our continual search, in partnership with other players in the sector, for ways to deliver more affordable, more efficient and more timely care for people. That is especially the case when it comes to primary health care. We see a properly coordinated primary healthcare sector as the key to ensuring that health care is patient-centred and affordable, both for individual patients and for the national budget. That means supporting professionals across the primary healthcare sector to operate out of up-to-date infrastructure to facilitate an integrated, holistic approach to patient care. It also means creating opportunities through the education system for more people to gain qualifications and clinical training as GPs, practice nurses and allied health professionals. This bill is a great example of how we have worked closely with an important element of the healthcare system, in this case pharmacists, to see how we can better understand how they interact with other health professionals and how to better utilise their professional skills within a team of professionals providing care to patients and, ultimately, to come up with measures that save money and, importantly, deliver a better service to patients. This bill puts in place two initiatives and a number of technical amendments arising out of the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement. The agreement was signed by the Australian government and the Pharmacy Guild on behalf of its members in May 2010 and commenced on 1 July of that year. The agreement has a life of five years and governs the remuneration and other important aspects of the relationship between the government and around 5,000 community pharmacies across Australia. In all, the agreement provides $15.4 billion over that period in recognition of a whole range of services provided by community pharmacies to consumers and the value that they add to the health system as a whole. The agreement, like those before it, provides the basis upon which the government remunerates pharmacists for their role in dispensing medicines under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, recognising the valuable part pharmacists play in delivering advice and health services to the community. It also underpins the community service obligation under which payments are made to eligible pharmaceutical wholesalers to assist in making it commercially viable for them to supply the full range of PBS medicines in a timely way across Australia. Provision is made in each successive agreement for a range of different programs that cover a variety of professional services when they are delivered by community pharmacies—for example, medication management services. I am pleased to see that the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement continues funding for the rural pharmacy workforce program. This focuses on strengthening and supporting the rural pharmacy workforce so that access to quality pharmacy services is increased for people living in rural and remote parts of Australia. It is hard to overstate the importance to a small country town of its local pharmacist. Together with nurses, they are usually the health professional with the strongest ties to the community and are therefore a trusted source of advice for local people. Their long-term knowledge of individual patients makes them a vital part of any course of treatment prescribed by other health professionals. Investment by the government in assisting rural pharmacies is an investment in the health and wellbeing of rural people. I note the Pharmacy Guild proudly reporting the track record of community pharmacy in rural areas as the only health professional service to have expanded its services over the past decade. The figures depicted in the graph on the Pharmacy Guild fact sheet only show the period up to 2008, but I have no doubt that the kinds of workforce incentive measures and allowances paid under the fourth and fifth pharmacy agreements have continued to encourage pharmacists to look for opportunities in rural and remote areas like some parts of my electorate. The fifth community pharmacy agreement builds on those continuing measures and introduces some initiatives, including the two that are the subject of this bill. Those measures both have long and complicated names, but they are in fact very practical and common-sense improvements to current practices and, as such, have the support of pharmacists and others involved in patient care. The first of those is the Supply and PBS Claiming from a Medication Chart in Residential Aged Care Facilities program. Currently a doctor attending to a resident in an aged-care facility is required to complete the details of the medication he or she is prescribing on the resident's medication chart and then they have to fill out a separate prescription form to allow the medication to be supplied by a pharmacist. It is pretty obvious that that system can be improved and should be improved. The changes in this bill will allow the resident's medication chart to serve as the authority to the pharmacist to supply the medication. As a result of this change, a new medication chart will be developed—a nationally consistent chart to be used in all residential aged-care facilities. The chart will be designed to encourage those prescribing to review the chart in its entirety every time medication is ordered and there will be standard fields included so that the chart in an electronic form can interface fully with other elements within an e-health environment. It sounds so simple, but the benefits are real and very significant. Eliminating the need for the prescriber, either a doctor or a nurse practitioner, to copy the information from the patient's medication chart to a separate prescription form greatly reduces the risk that it will be copied incorrectly and result in inadvertent harm to the patient. Similarly, this allows for the medication chart to become the one and only complete and up-to-date record of everything to do with the resident's medication, from prescription to supply by the pharmacist to administration of the medication by the resident's carers. Everyone involved in the care of the patient is working from the same source of information. It also—and this is very important at a time when demand for GPs to provide services to aged-care facilities is growing ever greater— takes away a disincentive for those GPs. GPs attending to residents of nursing homes want to spend their valuable time on clinical care, not unnecessary paperwork. This streamlined process can help in its way to encourage GPs to maintain their partnerships with aged-care facilities in their area. The second initiative is in the same vein, this time seeking to better utilise a pharmacist's professional judgment to remove an unnecessary and inefficient restriction on their ability to dispense common medications taken on a long-term basis. It is referred to in the legislation as the 'Continued Dispensing of PBS Medicines in Defined Circumstances'. Ordinarily, a pharmacist must not supply a pharmaceutical benefit unless a prescription conforming to the relevant regulations is presented by the customer. There have always been exemptions written into the legislation to deal with the dispensing of medications without a prescription. One such exemption allows for a prescriber to communicate with the pharmacist by phone or by other means, in which case the pharmacist is permitted to dispense as normal. Even then, a prescription must still be forwarded to the pharmacist within a prescribed period of time to authorise retrospectively the supply of that medication. Where a prescriber cannot be contacted, provision is made in legislation for medication to be dispensed according to emergency procedures. In that case, only a small amount of medication can be supplied—perhaps three days worth—and the patient is not entitled to receive any PBS subsidy. They have to pay the full price of the medicine. This bill allows for the relaxation of those procedures and gives pharmacists more power to dispense in certain circumstances and for patients to receive the normal PBS subsidy applying to the medication. The new rules apply to chronic therapy medicines—that is, medicines taken on a continuing, long-term basis. To start with, they will extend to oral contraceptives and some lipid-modifying agents. Pharmacists will be permitted to supply these medications to patients even when a prescription is not presented. They can supply the standard PBS amount and patients will only pay the subsidised price, not the full price imposed under existing emergency provisions. Time will be saved, because the need to chase up owing prescriptions is eliminated and less medication will be wasted, because pharmacists can dispense standard packs rather than breaking into packs to dispense the emergency three-day supply previously required by legislation. Patients benefit because their medication regime is not interrupted simply because they lost a script or were unable to access a prescribing doctor before running out of their regular medication. Those patients still retain the benefit of subsidised medicine. Patient safety is not compromised because professional protocols still apply to the pharmacist dispensing under this system—things like the need to communicate with the usual prescriber that the supply of medication has occurred. After two years the new system will be reviewed to ensure that it operated in the way it was intended and to see whether additional medicines can be added to the initial list. This is a thoroughly common-sense improvement on the current situation and one that continues our reform theme of utilising every bit of professional expertise within the primary health system so it meets patients' needs in a way that is efficient while still meeting the high standards of care. This government has a proud record of reform and investment in health and it is delivering real results for people in my electorate and right across Australia. I commend this bill as another step forward in delivering better health care for those who need it and in a way that upholds the sustainability of our health budget. 11:50 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Herbert I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement Initiatives Bill) 2011. This bill makes two significant changes to the pharmaceutical industry that expands the responsibility of pharmacists. The first of these is to introduce the Continued Dispensing of Medicines in Defined Circumstances initiative. This will allow pharmacists to supply prescription medicine without a script under certain specific conditions. These conditions are that the patient has been prescribed the medicine for at least six months, that they have been taking the medicine right up to the point of requesting the new prescription and that they do not use this continued dispensing provision for consecutive refills. These are important caveats to ensure that safety and medical monitoring continues under this new framework. This set-up will also be used for low-risk drugs, being initially used only for oral contraceptives and cholesterol-lowering drugs. I spoke to a few pharmacists in Townsville about this measure to get feedback from those who will actually be affected by it. Christine Richardson, who runs Poole's Pharmacy at Fairfield Waters, outlined to me her support of this change, stating that it will help pharmacists meet the duty-of-care obligations under which they already act by allowing them to supply these drugs to patients who need them but are not able to see their doctor for a new script. She pointed out that it is important that we continue to bring pharmacists into the healthcare process. They see patients every time a script is renewed—which is more often than a doctor does—and have the opportunity to discuss with them how the treatment is going and to monitor their progress. For example, Christine will often measure patients' cholesterol when they come in to renew their script to make sure there are no problems. As Christine said, given the frequent face-to-face interactions of pharmacists, it is a waste to not allow them to play a greater role where it is appropriate and in areas in which they have been trained. George Fotinos from Terry White Chemists in Stockland was similarly supportive of this measure. He stressed the opportunity it presents for the patient, with people no longer having to go without medication because they ran out and could not get to their doctor in time. As he said, as long as it is done in a controlled environment this increased flexibility is a positive step. Finally, Chris Boyle from Payless Chemists at Willows Shoppingtown pointed out that pharmacists have a detailed understanding of medication and are more than capable of expanding their role. As he said, pharmacists in other countries, like the UK, are doing a considerable amount of prescribing, so this is a logical expansion of the pharmacist's role in Australia. The second initiative outlined in this bill allows for medicine to be supplied to those living in aged-care facilities based on a standardised medical chart. This is an important step in reducing the administrative burden on aged-care facilities so that patients have easier and faster access to the medicine they need. To meet this new provision, the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care has begun its development of a standardised chart, with continued consultation due throughout this year. The Australian Medical Association has come out in support of this measure as a means of reducing bureaucracy for doctors. Any measure that reduces the amount of time medical practitioners have to devote to jumping through unnecessary bureaucratic hoops, without reducing patient care, has to be considered a good thing. The pharmacists to whom I have spoken also threw their support behind this measure, emphasising the removing of red tape and the doubling up where a doctor writes a medication order on a patient's chart but still has to issue a prescription. Those in aged care are usually in a fragile state of health. It can only be a good thing that this measure will allow these people easier access to their medication when they need it. When I talked with George about this particular measure he too gave his support, saying that more was needed to ensure greater uniformity among aged-care facilities in the way they approach standardised medical charts. Some doctors and facilities are able to use an electronic system that instantly transmits any updates to medication back to the pharmacist, while others are still reliant on the more old-fashioned methods. Chris Boyle described this as a long-overdue move. Pharmacists have been doing important work with the elderly in aged-care homes for a long time now. Chris told me about home medicine reviews, in which he and other pharmacists go into the home and do a full review of medication that a patient is taking and has on hand. He said it is common to find that patients are still taking leftover medication from old prescriptions, or that patients have changed brands of a medication and are accidentally taking a dose from each packet of the same medication, therefore doubling their intake. These visits can fix these high-risk problems but also allow a better understanding of a patient's habits and health needs, and how they are living. A pharmacist's visit to the home is able to be more thorough than a patient's visit to a surgery. Allowing pharmacists to work off a standardised chart is a logical next step in taking advantage of a pharmacist's more personal interactions with a patient, which a doctor's position simply does not allow. I have close to 20 pharmacies in my electorate, so any bill that affects their operation is important to me. The consistent message I picked up from speaking to Christine, George and Chris, along with other pharmacists, is that their prime focus is always on the patient and how any change affects them. The message I am getting is that safely increasing flexibility is a positive thing for patients and that pharmacists want to see that happen. It is good to see the government taking these steps with this bill, given its poor record in this area. Until last year the health minister was unable to list medicines on the PBS that were over $10 million. It required the entire cabinet to approve that. Not only did this lengthen the process of making these medicines available to those who needed them but it was completely out of step with almost all previous governments, who were able to make listings based on the advice of the independent Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, or the PBAC. The government last year dealt a further blow to the supply of much-needed medicine when it deferred the list of seven new medicines and a vaccine that had been recommended by the PBAC because of 'fiscal concerns'. It took seven months for them to do the right thing and backflip on this initial decision, which had been made a matter of months after then Minister for Health and Ageing, the Hon. Nicola Roxon, signed a memorandum of understanding with Medicines Australia to provide policy predictability and speed up the listing of new drugs to the PBS. So on one hand they are removing red tape and on the other hand they are backing it up. Given this chequered history, the coalition is putting forward amendments to require a review of continued dispensing, which is to be made publicly available, and to have information on pharmaceutical products that are supplied by these initiatives published annually. As health minister, Minister Roxon outlined that these two measures would take place. But this has not been followed through in this bill and it is crucial that the measures are included. We do support these measures as they will make it easier for patients to safely access medication, but it is important that the government remain accountable and that the information be made available so that we can monitor these changes and make sure patients are getting easier access to their required medication without the compromise of safety. These amendments that the coalition have proposed are needed to make this possible. So I am recommending the bill. It is a good start, but we can do so much more here. I thank the House. 11:59 Mr MATHESON M2V Macarthur The National Health Amendment (Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement Initiatives) Bill 2011 amends the National Health Act 1953 by introducing a number of initiatives agreed between the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and the government in 2010 under the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement. These include the Continued Dispensing of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in Defined Circumstance, which seeks to allow the supply of pharmaceuticals by approved pharmacists without prescription under certain conditions and the Supply and PBS Claiming from a Medication Chart in Residential Aged Care Facilities initiative, which allows for the supply and claiming of pharmaceuticals listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS, in residential aged-care facilities. The bill provides for the use of a standardised medical chart for supply and for PBS claims, rather than requiring a doctor to write a separate prescription. Finally, the National Health Amendment (Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement Initiatives) Bill makes technical amendments through schedule 3 to allow the minister to make determinations in relation to the maximum quantity of, or repeats for, a particular medicine. The continued dispensing initiative, as outlined in schedule 1 of this bill, allows for the supply of pharmaceuticals by pharmacists without a prescription under certain conditions. There are currently some provisions available to allow pharmacists to provide consumers with prescription medication without a script; however, these provisions are cumbersome and expensive for both the pharmacist and the consumer. The first is what is called the 'owing prescription' protocol, under which a pharmacist can supply a PBS medicine after contacting the patient's doctor by phone. This protocol places the pharmacist at financial risk as it relies on the doctor to provide the pharmacy with the prescription within seven days in order for the PBS claim to be made. A second option allowing pharmacists to provide prescription medication without a script is the existence, under state and territory regulations, of emergency supply provisions. These provisions enable a consumer to purchase a three-day emergency supply of an essential medication in circumstances where it is not reasonably practical for that patient to acquire a script. The medicine is not subsidised through the PBS, so the consumer must pay full price. This practice can also result in the pharmacist having to break a full pack to provide three days supply. A number of local pharmacists have complained to me that these provisions can result in a wastage of prescription medication while leaving consumers out of pocket and with only a very limited supply of medication. The continued dispensing initiative will help to relieve some of these issues for medications covered by the initiative. This is very true in regional areas of Macarthur, where patient to GP ratios are above 4,000 patients to one GP. A better solution to this problem would be for the government to deliver more doctors for the Macarthur region. However, this initiative does at least provide patients with a longer window of opportunity to see their doctor if their script runs out. I can report that local pharmacists in Macarthur are enthusiastic about the benefits of the continued dispensing initiative. Unfortunately, there is no real certainty in this bill about which medications will be covered by the initiative. The department's consultation paper and the second reading speech of the previous Minister for Health and Ageing identified two groups of medication which will be covered by this initiative. These are oral hormonal contraceptives—the pill—and cholesterol-lowering drugs. The department's consultation paper claims that these two groups were selected because they are well tolerated and have a good safety profile. However, due to the astounding lack of detail in the bill, the eligible pharmaceuticals items and the conditions of supply are not specified and will be determined by ministerial determination. In addition, this bill should have, at the very least, set out the specific circumstances under which continued dispensing can occur. The department's consultation paper advises that the ministerial determination will refer to the Guidelines for the continued dispensing of eligible prescribed medicines by pharmacists. These guidelines were developed by the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia in consultation with stakeholders and set out the professional standards which must be adhered to under this initiative. The sheer lack of detail in this bill means that ministerial determinations will set out all the circumstances for dispensing under this bill. The minister will also determine the protocols for consumer safety and for the integrity of this initiative, as well as list the items or pharmaceutical benefits which are eligible to be supplied by pharmacists under the continued dispensing arrangements. I would prefer to actually see the draft legislative instruments. The minister's office has promised that this information will be tabled in due course. This is another case of the government providing little to no detail and asking the coalition, hat in hand, to just trust them. At the very least, future changes to eligible pharmaceuticals and conditions should be done by legislative instrument, allowing parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance. I will now speak about the second initiative in the bill, the medication chart initiative, which will allow for the supply and claiming of pharmaceuticals based on a standardised medical chart in residential aged-care facilities. The Macarthur electorate is fast becoming a destination for aged-care and retirement living. Local residents and their families, as well as their doctors, are very excited about this initiative as proposed in the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement. This measure will help to reduce the administrative burden in aged-care facilities and improve patient safety. I hope that this initiative will provide a better outcome for all stakeholders, especially doctors and patients. The Australian Medical Association also supports chart based prescribing in residential aged care as it will 'significantly reduce red tape for medical practitioners'. The Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement will provide $15.4 billion over a five-year period for community pharmacy. Community pharmacy has transformed Australia's pharmaceutical industry over many years, providing affordable pharmaceuticals to communities all over Australia, especially those in remote and regional Australia. The coalition provided solid and stable policy for community pharmacy while in government and we continue that support today. The Pharmacy Guild negotiated with the government in good faith, making a number of large concessions, to arrive at the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement. While I support the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement and the initiatives that have come from the agreement, this bill—schedule 1 in particular—shows the Australian people what a woeful lack of attention to detail this government pays to its legislation. For example, this bill has absolutely no details whatsoever about what an approved pharmacist would be, it contains no details about what would be in place to protect consumer safety and prevent the misuse of this initiative and there are no details about what medications will be available under these initiatives. I hope that we do not see a repeat of the incompetence and deception displayed by the previous Minister for Health and Ageing when she signed a memorandum of understanding with Medicines Australia to provide policy stability in return for $1.9 billion of savings in the PBS. This recent agreement includes speeding up the addition of new medicines to the PBS. It took this government until September last year to list medicines that were deferred from February. It also announced last year that there would be further deferrals in future for new medicines subsidised through the PBS. The lack of detail in this bill does not bode well. All I can say is that this government has a shameful record of failing to keep its promises. I cannot see how this government can see it as being appropriate to deny patients access to their medication, especially the elderly and those suffering from long-term illnesses, at the same time as it sees fit to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on dodgy advertising about the carbon tax—including handing out funding to indoctrinate toddlers and schoolchildren. I will not oppose this bill. However, I believe this government needs to start paying more attention to detail and that it should include more operational aspects in this legislation if it wants to deliver any certainty to the pharmaceutical industry. 12:07 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I thank the members for their contributions to the debate on the National Health Amendment (Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement Initiatives) Bill 2011. The bill establishes the framework that will allow the implementation of the Supply and PBS Claiming from a Medication Chart in Residential Aged Care Facilities and Continued Dispensing of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in Defined Circumstance initiatives. These initiatives are provided for as part of the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement and will assist the government in meeting the objectives of the agreement in delivering patient focused professional services through community pharmacy. The medication chart initiative will address administrative issues faced by prescribers, community pharmacists and aged facilities staff alike in managing a resident's medication. Currently, a prescriber must write a medication order on a PBS prescription and duplicate that information on a medication chart. The initiative will remove the need for a separate PBS prescription and ensure medication charts within residential aged care facilities can be used as a prescription. The removal of this administrative step will result in a number of benefits. Firstly, it will provide more time for practitioners to spend on clinical care rather than filling in paperwork. Further, a standardised national medication chart will be designed to include all elements that are currently required to be captured on a PBS prescription, allowing practitioners to review the chart in its entirety, making it easier for them to complete quality use of medicine reviews whenever a change to medication is made. Residents of aged-care facilities can expect improvements to their safety through the introduction of prescribing, supplying and claiming from a single source. Transcription errors will be significantly reduced as there will no longer be a need to duplicate the medication chart entry. Improvements in the quality use of medicines will also be seen through the pharmacy being provided with timely notice of updates and changes to a resident's medication regime, ensuring that the prescriber's most recent intentions for the resident's clinical care are promptly implemented. Through this bill the Continued Dispensing of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in Defined Circumstance initiative will introduce a new mechanism for Australians to access certain PBS medicines in situations where the patient does not have a valid prescription available. The initiative will introduce supply and claiming mechanisms that allow the provision of a pharmaceutical benefit to a patient in accordance with specific conditions where a patient is unable to present a valid prescription. The decision of the community pharmacist to provide a continued dispensing supply will be governed by a professional protocol and made on the basis of evidence of the previous prescription. The use of a professional protocol by the community pharmacist will mean that the quality in patient safety will not be compromised and that the role of the prescriber continues to be paramount. The protocols will also equip the pharmacist with tools to ensure that a person is on a stable medication regimen before a decision is made to provide ongoing medication. For consumers who are taking medication for the treatment of certain chronic conditions, continued dispensing means that their treatment may not be interrupted should they not be able to synchronise their medical appointments with their medication requirements. Patients will also benefit from not paying the full cost of the medication, as occurs with current emergency supply mechanisms. In the first instance, a continued dispensing supply will be limited to two therapeutic categories: oral hormonal contraceptives for systemic use in the prevention of pregnancy and lipid-modifying agents—that is, statins—specifically the HMG CoA reductase inhibitors for the treatment of high cholesterol. It is important to note that a pharmacist can supply medicines by continued dispensing only under the following circumstances: firstly, there is an immediate and ongoing need to supply the medicine to facilitate continuity of therapy and the patient cannot get to a prescriber in time to get a valid prescription; secondly, the medicine has been previously prescribed for the person and there has been a prior clinical review by the prescriber that supports the continuation of the medicine; and, thirdly, the medicine is safe and appropriate for that consumer. The pharmacist must also provide written communication to the most recent prescriber advising of the supply of the medicine to the consumer within 24 hours. These initiatives will complement already existing emergency or urgent supply mechanisms that are available to the community where a person has lost or run out of their medication and does not have a valid prescription available. Importantly, though, this initiative will ensure patients can get the medicines through the PBS, reducing their out-of-pocket expenses in the circumstances. The Gillard government is committed to the evaluation of new initiatives, which is why it has always been proposed to review this program two years after implementation and to publish the annual data on scripts dispensed under this initiative as part of its annual PBS reporting processes. The amendments that are likely to be moved today are supported by the government; they fit in with the legislation as it was originally conceived. The technical changes proposed in the bill for prescribing certain quantities of pharmaceutical benefits are intended to enhance current policy providing efficiencies and certainty for prescribers and patients. The amendments will continue the government's commitment to its 2010 policy for expanding the criteria for streamlining authority required medicines and will complement the medication chart amendments contained in this bill by accommodating specific conditions in the residential aged care sector. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 1619 12:13 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I move: (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (after line 13), add: (4) The Minister must publish statistics annually for each pharmaceutical item supplied under subsection 1. (5) The Minister must:    (a) cause a written report to be prepared of a review of this section no more than two years from the commencement of the section; and    (b) cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within six months of the commencement of the review. The coalition's proposal will ensure statistics on pharmaceutical supply without prescription under continued dispensing are published annually. I note that the Department of Health and Ageing has advised in response to the coalition's concerns: Scripts dispensed by a community pharmacy under the continued dispensing arrangements and claimed through the usual PBS claiming process via Medicare will be recorded. These items will be clearly identifiable from other medicines dispensed under the PBS. The Department of Health and Ageing intends to publish data relating to the continued dispensing initiative on an annual basis through its existing publication Expenditure and prescriptions 12 months to 30 June.' The coalition's amendment is entirely consistent with this undertaking. It is not unusual, particularly in the health portfolio, for the publication of some statistics to be discontinued. Some stakeholders have expressed reservations with this initiative and it is appropriate that we ensure implementation and appropriation is subjected to appropriate scrutiny. The guidelines for pharmacists will require an appropriate recording mechanism and should provide a comprehensive data set. Therefore, this will not impose any additional compliance burden. The coalition also wants to ensure the government keeps its word on conducting a review and making it available. Minister Roxon, the then Minister for Health and Ageing, stated in her second reading speech that there would be a review after two years. This was also promised in the government's consultation paper and the department's briefing paper. There is nothing presently in the legislation to this effect. I thank the minister for the undertaking in relation to the government's position on this amendment. I believe that the coalition's moving of this amendment strengthens the legislation and, again, the coalition's amendment merely ensures that a future government fulfils the commitment otherwise expressed by the government. 12:15 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney The government is happy to agree to the amendment moved by the member for Dickson. These two measures were always intended—indeed, they came up in the public consultations. They are committed to in the explanatory memorandum. This simply puts into the legislation the intention of the government and we are happy to agree to it. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 1620 12:16 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records Bill 2011, Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011 1620

Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records Bill 2011

Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011

Second Reading 1620 12:17 Dr SOUTHCOTT TK6 Boothby I rise to speak on the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records Bill 2011 and the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011. The coalition has always had a strong track record on investing and delivering in the e-health sphere. Under the coalition government, computerisation of general practice increased from 17 per cent in 1997 to 94 per cent in 2007. We achieved this through a $740 million investment throughout that decade. Significantly, this was an initiative of one of the previous health ministers, Michael Wooldridge, and his successors, Kay Patterson and the current Leader of the Opposition, and it was done through incentives for general practice. When we look to similar countries for comparison, we see that Australia does have a high rate of computerisation of general practice but also that computers are used in practice management and also patient records. For this reason, the coalition is supportive of the concept of a shared electronic health record. We think that it is a good idea in principle. In fact, it was the coalition government that originally started the focus on a shared electronic health record back in 2004. It is for this reason that we will not be opposing these bills before the House. However, we do recognise that there are a number of concerns which have been raised over the way in which the PCEHR is being implemented by those opposite. Unfortunately, despite the direction established under the previous coalition government towards e-health, the previous Minister for Health and Ageing, and Labor's implementation of the PCEHR since taking government in 2007, has received enormous criticism from industry for the poor management of the program's development and progress. In very simple terms, the government was presented with a national e-health strategy in 2008. The recommendation there was to go for incremental steps in the area of e-health, and that is an approach that the coalition would very much endorse. Instead, as we have seen in so many areas with this government, through pink batts and the NBN, the former Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, went for the big bang approach, and I will discuss why we now see some problems with that. Before getting into the technicalities of the bills, I want to touch a bit on the timing of this debate. This legislation was introduced to parliament in the final sitting week of 2011. The opposition referred these bills to a Senate inquiry which is due to report on 29 February. In fact, the submissions to that inquiry have just closed this week. The Senate inquiry in its public hearing last Monday heard testimony highlighting a number of stakeholders' concerns with these bills. A better approach would have been for the Minister for Health and the government to defer debate on these bills until the Senate inquiry had reported on its findings. It is disappointing that, as with so many other bills, the Minister for Health and the government are trying to force through debate without proper scrutiny of the concerns being raised. This government is becoming known for rushing legislation through the parliament without the scrutiny that it needs. This legislation provides the legislative framework required for the management of the personally controlled electronic health records system. The PCEHR is designed to be a secure electronic record of a patient's important health information. This electronic record is designed to be available anywhere there is internet access and at any time. The concept of a PCEHR is to allow for the important health information of a patient to be easily transferred between all of the patient's healthcare providers. For example, it would allow a patient's medical information to be shared between their general practitioner and their specialist, between a hospital and a community setting. Currently, this information sharing is not easily possible, with a patient being required to repeat their medical history and often to repeat results of pathology tests or radiology and diagnostic imaging, and other important information to each clinician they visit. This repetition of information can be hampered by a patient forgetting or confusing certain information, which results in poor information flow between practitioners, unnecessary or duplicated medical tests and potentially errors as well. The proposed electronic health records will contain patient information that will include past and current medical conditions, medication history, a patient's allergies, hospital discharge summaries, Medicare information, as well as a section for any information that the consumer would like to add themselves. Importantly, the system is designed to be purely opt in. It is a voluntary system. It means a person will need to actively apply for a personal electronic health record. If a person does not apply, no record will be created. Once an individual has registered for a PCEHR, they can deactivate or reactivate that electronic health record at any point in time. It is important to note that this opt-in system is enshrined in the legislation before the parliament, and this is a key concession to the privacy concerns which have been raised in this area. While many of the peak health groups have called for the system to be an opt-out system, it is a fundamental basis of the PCEHR design that a user be fully in control and should have a choice whether they have their record created or not. The PCEHR will not be a centralised data collection. For security reasons the system has been designed to link up the data sources around the country that already exist. Information will be stored in a number of secure data repositories that conform with the required specifications. The PCEHR will be viewed through a portal which links up to these data repositories. Most of the information to populate a patient's PCEHR already exists within general practice, chemists, pathology groups and hospitals. Simply put, the current proposed electronic health record system links these data sources and displays them in a single online portal. In touching on consumer control, the system has been designed so that any consumer who registers for an electronic health record should be fully able to choose the settings that control which practitioners can access their record and how much of their electronic health record the practitioner can access. For example, a patient may wish for their GP to view all information contained within their PCEHR but may want to restrict the amount of information available to their dentist or other clinician. The design of the PCEHR system, if implemented properly, should at all times allow the patient to be in full control of who sees what information and when they see it. A patient's data will be protected under both Commonwealth and state privacy legislation. The federal Information Commissioner will also be granted the power to investigate any complaints or potential breaches of privacy. However, I am going to touch on this point in a moment. As I said earlier, it was the coalition that originally started the focus on an electronic shared health record. We have always been in favour of the concept. We are in favour of the concept because of the numerous benefits that this measure, if implemented properly, can achieve. However, we do have enormous concerns about the capacity of this government to implement large, complex projects. A properly implemented electronic health record system and in fact a broader e-health focus can improve patient care. At the heart of all health policy should be the desire to improve patient care. Electronic health records have the capacity to reduce duplications, reduce prescribing errors and improve efficiencies, which will have a positive impact on overall patient care. There is anecdotal evidence that medical tests are often duplicated where previous tests are not available or not known to the current medical practitioner or where new tests are requested because they do not trust the original diagnostic source. The government's own projections show that electronic health records alone will have a net economic benefit of $1.5 billion up to 2025. More importantly, electronic health records will also mean that patients will have their medical history available to them anywhere they travel. For example, a patient who becomes ill while travelling will have their full medical history available to them, their doctor or the emergency department that they visit. In addition, forecasts by Booz and Co. have shown that a comprehensive e-health platform, of which electronic records are a significant part, could save up to 5,000 deaths annually once fully operational. That same report goes on to say that a comprehensive e-health platform could also save up to two million primary care and outpatient visits, 500,000 emergency department visits and up to 310,000 hospital admissions annually. This clearly shows that the e-health record, if implemented properly, will make significant improvements to patient care and patient treatment right across the board. However, like so many of this government's other programs—pink batts, school halls, GP superclinics—the implementation of the PCEHR has highlighted significant concerns. While the coalition is supportive of the concept of electronic health records, a flawed implementation and a lack of forward planning could see this project becoming the government's latest big white elephant. It could be pink batts on steroids. You only need to look at the situation in the UK to see how poor planning and implementation can be financially disastrous. The UK have spent over £12 billion and over 10 years on the summary care record, which is their electronic health record equivalent. This is the equivalent of almost A$18 billion. Late last year the UK declared the program a failure, saying it was time consuming and challenging, with as yet discernible benefits for clinicians and no clear advantages for patients. While this is an extreme example, it highlights perfectly how the long-term costs of government programs can blow out exponentially without proper forward planning. Unfortunately, it seems that those opposite are yet to learn this lesson. Those opposite have been completely silent on the future and long-term expenditure required to promote and maintain the system. Indeed, the previous minister for health has been evasive when discussing the future funding of NEHTA, the National E-Health Transition Authority. NEHTA is funded on a joint Commonwealth-state partnership through COAG but their funding agreement expires on 30 June this year. That is the day before this electronic health record is meant to go live on 1 July. It is my understanding that the Standing Council on Health, a subset of COAG, has agreed to fund NEHTA post 30 June but the government refused to publicly release the Commonwealth contribution. What may be more concerning is that the government have never mentioned their expected costs relating to ongoing maintenance and upgrades or the provision of a help desk or support staff. Like any computer network IT system, technology dates very quickly. Responses to questioning at Senate estimates have shown that this system includes almost $100 million in physical hardware and assets. This hardware will not last forever. At some point it will need repairing, it will need maintaining and it will need replacing. Again, there is no funding set aside for that in this bill post 30 June this year. Not once has the minister for health or anyone on the government benches publicly anticipated the future cost of this to the taxpayer. We know that this is a government who cannot manage their money. It is not a scenario that we can afford to impose on the Australian taxpayer. The minister for health needs to tell this House and come clean with the Australian public and inform the taxpayers just how much the PCEHR is going cost. There is an expectation from the government that it will be a patient's GP who will create the shared health summaries, which make a vital part of any patient's electronic health record. The government expect that a GP will spend additional time and effort creating and maintaining the shared health summaries, with no incentive to do so. This is a complete contrast to the way in which the Howard government approached this issue through incentives for GPs, and that is what saw the revolution in computerisation of general practice. The shared health summary is a collection of the patient's medical history. A frequently raised concern with the government's plan is the lack of any encouragement or incentives for general practitioners to create and maintain these summaries. It is widely anticipated that the driving force behind the successful uptake of the PCEHR will be from general practitioners, yet the government's plan presumes that they will do more work for no benefit. The minister needs to explain her plan again to the House to ensure that GPs will support the PCEHR and be willing to invest the extra time needed to make the PCEHR successful, without receiving any benefit for doing so. A number of stakeholders and submissions to the Senate inquiry have raised the significant privacy concerns about these bills. While the bills provide for patient's data to be protected by the 1988 Privacy Act, an investigation by the Information Commissioner over breaches and complaints has raised concerns about governance and structure. The overlapping and confusing jurisdiction in the privacy arena based on the state-federal divide makes policing privacy within the PCEHR program somewhat difficult. The very large number of healthcare providers that are subject to state privacy laws in both the public and private sectors highlight this difficulty. It remains to be seen how effective the current privacy policing provisions will be and how these concerns will be rectified. It is interesting to note that the Office of the Australian Information Commission, which has been charged with policing this program for privacy breaches, has made its own submission to the Senate inquiry. In fact, the Information Commission itself has called upon the government to strengthen the OAIC's powers under the Privacy Act to investigate breaches. It begs the question: how much did the government really liaise with their own body before deciding to give the task of policing these privacy concerns to the OAIC? More importantly, will the health minister be considering the OAIC submission and the other submissions which seek to strengthen the privacy protections embodied within the PCEHR legislation? Almost all of the submissions to the Senate inquiry have raised concerns about the start date. The government set a start date for the electronic health records to go live from 1 July this year. The minister for health has repeatedly stated that we will be able to register for a PCEHR from 1 July this year. Unfortunately, just repeating it will not necessarily make it come true. There is a widespread belief from the majority of industry experts, peak health bodies and medical practitioners generally that 1 July will not bring the fanfare that we are expecting. These concerns are compounded by the announcement made by NEHTA only a few weeks ago that development of their primary care desktop software at the lead implementation sites had been halted. This development work had been halted due to the discovery of technical incompatibilities across versions, which created a potential clinical risk if work continued. It is not clear how long this will take to be rectified. We are now a little over four months from the 1 July start date, yet the government is only just debating this legislation. Like so many other government initiatives, they have set an ambitious start date and are now struggling to meet their own self-imposed deadline. We saw reports emerge late last year that key technical standards had not been finalised and that 'tiger teams' were being created to bypass the usual standard setting processes. It has been a repetitive comment that stakeholders consider that the minister's arbitrary 1 July deadline is unrealistic at best. The coalition want to see an effective electronic health record but we want to make sure that it is done right. It is counterproductive for this government to rush to meet this deadline for no other reason than to desperately try to get runs on an otherwise bare scoreboard. The bill and the comments I have made expose the underlying program of how this government operates. Those opposite seem to be working on the big bang theory of government: they make a huge, grandstand announcement for the media and then struggle to follow through to implement it on time, on budget or even at all. You only need to look at the former Prime Minister's historic health reforms, which were whittled down to a fraction of the original announcement. Then there was the home insulation saga, which has cost some people their lives and some their homes. Another example is the BER school hall program, which has seen enormous waste and the highest per square metre cost for halls ever seen in this country. You can look back over Labor's last two terms in government and identify countless announcements that have all ended the same way—looked good, sounded good, but just another Labor lemon. That is our deep concern with electronic health records: they sound good in principle, but look at the capacity of this government to manage complex large programs. It is not good. While we do have concerns about the way in which the Gillard government has implemented the PCEHR, we remain committed to the concept of an electronic health record. We recognise the potential benefits a properly implemented PCEHR could bring to patients and practitioners alike. It is for this reason that we will not be opposing these bills in the House. That said, we do remain sceptical about what capabilities will exist when the switch is flicked on 1 July, or even what money will be available for it. It remains to be seen whether this is another classic case of the Labor Party over-promising and under-delivering, a story we hear so much in health and across every avenue of government. This announcement sounds great, but there are problems with the implementation. For this reason, whilst not opposing these bills, we do reserve our right to move amendments, pending the outcome of the Senate inquiry, which is due to report on 29 February. 12:39 Mr ADAMS BV5 Lyons What a dreadful contribution we have just heard—everything was doom and gloom and everybody is opposed to it, but they support the bill. I would have thought that everybody and every professional health worker in this country would be behind this legislation helping us to get it started because it will be in the interests of patients and the general welfare of the health system of Australia to have this system up and running. This bill gives us the opportunity to do that. So, I was very disappointed in that contribution from somebody from the health sector, even though those opposite are going to support the bill. The object of the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records Bill 2011 is to enable the establishment and operation of a voluntary national system for the provision of access to health information relating to consumers of health care. It will, firstly, help to overcome the fragmentation of health information, and we know what that is like. In hospitals in Tasmania we still see orderlies rolling files on big carts around the aisles. It is 1950s stuff, but it is still going on. The fact that we have not been able to upgrade to an electronic system is a real issue and people ought to be looking at why that has not occurred. Secondly, it will improve the availability and quality of health information. When something is electronic much more information is available. How much could that help health care in this country? Thirdly, it will reduce the occurrence of adverse medical events and the duplication of treatment. When someone goes to a doctor and has tests but then a few days later sees another doctor elsewhere, the tests may have to be done again because no record can be transferred from the first treating doctor. These things will make a lot of difference to duplication and cost in the healthcare system. There are many such great things in this bill and they will help us go forward. The personally controlled electronic health record system—the PCEHR system—will enable better access to important health information currently held in dispersed records around the country. It will mean that patients will no longer need to unnecessarily repeat their medical history every time they see a doctor or other health professional. Australia's economic growth, productivity and long-term prosperity are underpinned by the health of its population. A healthy population is influenced by strong social and physical infrastructure and an accessible, safe, high-quality health system. Recent health reform reports recognise that the health system is facing challenges, which are driving increased healthcare service demands and costs. The need to reform the healthcare system has been recognised by all governments. The Australian government is therefore implementing a range of health reforms that are underpinned by improvements to the operation of e-health in Australia. Some of the building blocks for e-health were established following health ministers endorsing the National E-Health Strategy in 2008. One of the key building blocks that has been established is the Healthcare Identifiers Service—HI Service—which commenced operation on 1 July 2010 and allocates unique identifiers to healthcare consumers, healthcare providers and healthcare provider organisations. The use of healthcare identifiers to more accurately identify and match healthcare information is an integral part of the proposed PCEHR system. The then Minister for Health and Ageing, the Hon. Nicola Roxon, released a paper early last year to promote discussion in the community to see what sort of reception such a scheme might have. It covered who was likely to participate: individuals, healthcare provider organisations, information service providers, the operator of the scheme, repository providers, trusted data sources and portal providers. The paper also covered who had access. Access is particularly geared to individuals, who will be able to access their own health information and to have choices about how access by healthcare providers can be managed. It also included privacy type legislation so that any information that is provided about patients is carefully secured and that no unauthorised use of it is made. This includes security of the information. Finally, the paper covered governance options in a framework that included strategic oversight, management and operation and independent regulatory oversight. I can remember speaking about this concept four or five years ago and saying that we as a nation should be moving in this direction. This paper and the legislation have been a long time coming. These discussions have been going on in Australia for 10 years or more. I do not think that I would be wrong in saying that, if you go to an emergency section of any hospital in Australia, you will still see people pushing trolleys full of paper files around the place. That is pretty archaic. You hear of files being lost or filed in the wrong place or information being put in one file when it is supposed to be put in another. That addresses the issue that the last speaker spoke about: looking for some perfect process to replace the present system. The present system has a lot of holes in it. There are a lot of mistakes being made in the present system in the keeping of medical records. These areas are crowded and busy places and the filing systems sometimes do not keep up. I believe that this legislation is a way of removing all those problems by bringing in a faster and more efficient system that will use the modern technologies that we as a nation have available to us. Individuals should be able to have some knowledge about what is in their health file. It is our health, after all. I am glad that we have overcome that argument. Politicians, celebrities and others who hit the press for one reason or another do not seem to have any privacy with their health issues and yet people worry about their health details being held electronically because someone might get unauthorised access. I understand that. However, I think that this will give us more privacy rather than less. It would also allow us to control what information is made public and not have to rely on bush whispers. If we are lying unconscious, at least all our information can be readily accessible wherever we are, with our local GP not having to be woken in the middle of the night in an emergency and asked what medication we are on. There are a lot of good reasons why electronically controlled health records can help streamline the health system. They will allow us quicker access to informed help and give us back some feeling of control over our own health. That last point is important. We are asking people to take more control of and be more responsive to their own health and their own health needs. It is not going to be compulsory to have a PCEHR. People can nominate someone like their personal doctor or carer to have access to their electronic file. There is a choice. I for one would like to have my health information at my fingertips. I note that the discussion paper had proposals to cover minors, those who are incapacitated and others who might find it difficult to access the information easily. The legislation is geared to cover those eventualities while still keeping the confidentiality of the record. There will be an opportunity to complain to a regulatory body if you are not satisfied with the use of your medical information or its privacy. I think it makes a lot of sense to adopt this technology as part of the e-health agenda. It is expected to transform the way in which healthcare providers practise and consumers interact with the health system, and improve the safety and quality of healthcare and patient outcomes. I believe too that it will encourage us to take more responsibility for the state of our health. I am sure that we will seek more information about how our body works and how we can stay fitter and live longer by managing our own health. A lot of people now take more control over their chronic illnesses and we have programs to help them. These are good and positive things occurring throughout our health system. A lot of good people are working hard to achieve things. I believe that this legislation is the start of a revolution in health information and it fits in well with this government's aim of moving our health system into the 21st century and beyond. This will add to the opportunities for health delivery in our nation that will be provided by the National Broadband Network. I support the bills. 12:50 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I rise today to support the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records Bill 2011 and the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011. I believe that this legislation will improve the level of connectivity between the points of access to health services and health care that people use. The Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records Bill 2011 will establish the framework for a national personally controlled electronic health record. It will establish the regulatory framework under which the system will operate and the privacy regime that will govern it. This system will operate in tandem with federal, state and territory privacy laws. E-health is fundamentally the use of modern information and communication technologies to meet the needs of citizens, patients, healthcare professionals, healthcare providers and policy makers. The coalition will not be opposing either of the bills because it has always supported the concept of a shared electronic health record. The coalition has a strong record on investing and delivering in e-health. For example, under the coalition government computerisation of general practice increased from 17 per cent in 1997 to 94 per cent in 2007. This was achieved through a $740 million investment over those years. I am aware that the Howard coalition government in 1999 initiated steps towards the implementation of a national e-health policy with the establishment of the National Health Information Management Advisory Council. This body, in collaboration with government and relevant health stakeholders, conceived a plan for e-health. The Australian Health Ministers Council, in a media release and communiqué issued by Dr Wooldridge's office, stated: Electronic medical records a boon for consumer safety—Health Ministers Australian Health Ministers today considered and agreed to lend their support to a proposal to develop a system of electronic medication records. Speaking at the Australian Health Ministers' Conference in Wellington, New Zealand, Federal Health Minister, Dr Michael Wooldridge, said today's show of support for the proposal in-principle could lead to significant and genuine improvements in health outcomes in a relatively short time. "The Better Medication Management System (BMMS) is a way to bring together currently fragmented medication record systems by using information technology to link patients, doctors, pharmacists and hospitals," Dr Wooldridge said. The new system would be entirely voluntary for all parties—consumers, prescribers and dispensers. The BMMS offers consumers access to their own medication record for the first time. "This affords consumers the opportunity to become active participants in their medication management. It also enables doctors and pharmacists—with patient consent—to make prescribing and dispensing decisions based on knowledge of what has been prescribed for a patient before and what other current medications a patient is taking." It is important to note that there have been two bills that have been discussed in this House which address both these issues. It continues: "An area of potentially great gains will be at the interface with public hospitals, where quick access to a patient's medication record could be life saving." In terms of the broader health IT agenda being discussed at the conference, Health Ministers agreed that the BMMS provides a unique opportunity to apply the principles for HealthConnect in a confined and manageable area of the wider health sector. At that time I worked in health and it was interesting to read one of the reports that was commissioned for the health ministers at the time. Some salient points were made. Our healthcare system is one of Australia's largest and most complex industry sectors, with over 21 million customers, over 750,000 employees, tens of thousands of geographically dispersed and largely autonomous care providers and hundreds of millions of service transactions each year. We face a set of challenges in delivering that, including the increasing incidence of chronic disease, significant discrepancies between health outcomes for advantaged and disadvantaged Australians, an ageing population, increasing consumer demand for more costly and complex procedures and a shortage in the health sector workforce. The information challenges that this bill addresses—and it has to be acknowledged that the sector has invested significantly less than other comparable sectors in information technology over a sustained period of time—include that health information management still being heavily reliant on pen, paper and human memory; the Australian health system containing many thousands of discrete islands of information; consumers not being to access their own health information; significant amounts of health system errors and inefficiencies occurring; and poor support for population health surveillance, service planning and operational-clinical decision making. So there is widespread recognition within the Australian health sector of the importance of e-health in addressing healthcare challenges and that it requires a significant investment in e-health as well as a large and growing number of e-health projects being delivered in Australia across the health sector. There is an urgency to move forward in the way in which information is gathered, managed and is available to the consumer. I acknowledge that this has been an ongoing agenda, as mentioned by a previous speaker. The Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council on 4 October 2007, following a discussion on e-health policy and strategic planning, agreed to the development of a national e-health strategy. All Australian jurisdictions undertook to work towards the establishment of a national integrated e-health system. Since the early 1990s governments have collaborated to develop national information management and technology governance arrangements and common standards to enable interoperability. More recently, they committed significant funding towards accelerating national efforts to identify and develop better ways to electronically collect and securely exchange health information. It is interesting that within the tri-state regions of the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia Aboriginal controlled health services some three or four years ago established an e-health records system so that the movement of Aboriginal people between communities and within those jurisdictions would not prevent access to information relevant to their health needs. That was at the forefront of some of the early work done in the private sector by non-government organisations. The AHMAC e-health strategy said that all jurisdictions were committed to the establishment of the National Electronic Health Transition Authority to undertake work to establish and operate a unique health identifier service, and to work on a business case for a shared electronic health record. The council said it had identified a range of policy and operational issues that required examination and resolution by governments to ensure further development of e-health in accordance with government requirements but, more importantly, community aspirations and the needs of health consumers. It was interesting that on 31 January 2008 at the Melbourne meeting the Australian Health Ministers Conference in their deliberations on this very issue noted the current context and progress towards the development of national e-health infrastructure and envisaged the contribution of e-health to improving health outcomes and health system efficiency, which is important if we are going to provide the quality of health care that is needed in this country. They noted that health ministers were expected to report back to COAG in 2008 on the next steps in the development of a national e-health records system and endorsed development of a national e-health strategy by the National E-Health and Information Principal Committee for consideration by AHMC and as an input to deliberations on health reform by the National Health and Hospital Reform Commission, the COAG Working Group on Health and Ageing and the Commonwealth, state and territory health agreement, which occurred at a time when there was a series of alignments occurring. In each of those I had the privilege of contributing to much of the debate. Again, it was about the consumer and the efficiency of health systems in the provision of services and connectivity, which meant that you did not have to continually repeat the story of your treatment and enabled people to get the type of treatment they had been having. So when they connected with the system there was that flow-through effect. They also noted progress in relation to a business case for a national shared electronic health records service for consideration by COAG. I come to the new national entity to drive e-health. In a joint communiqué, Australian health ministers committed to looking forward to what was achievable, but that would require resources and all jurisdictions transcending their borders and looking at a system that would better serve all Australians. The ministers agreed to establish a new entity as a company limited by a guarantee, governed by a board of directors made up of CEOs from health departments across Australia. So NEHTA became, in effect, a body that drove work on the concept. The ministers noted the need for further cooperation on significant national projects over the coming years. Those included clinical data standards and terminologies, and it is interesting to note the variations in those terminologies within the various sectors; patient, provider and product/services standards and directories/indexes; consent models; secure messaging and information transfer; and user authentication processes. One of the challenges there is the confidentiality of the information. In some of the submissions that were put forward during the work of the Senate committee, people expressed the view that they had not been engaged and that stakeholder engagement had not been comprehensive. As I said earlier, I know from having worked in this area that there was substantial consultation with some key stakeholders who were at the forefront of the delivery of these services and who also reflected their position, as an organisation or a representative body, on all matters that were being progressed within the bill. I think the other serious element that highlights the commitment of government to this whole process was the allocation made in the 2010-11 budget of $466.7 million specifically for the purpose of creating a personally controlled electronic record for Australians who choose to opt into the system. In one sense it is a pity that it is an opt-in. I think that in this day and age records and access to information by medical providers and health providers will ensure that we do not have some of those adverse events that do occur within hospitals and clinics. The history and detailed records of a patient's treatment, regimes and types of investigations that have occurred tell a story. Nothing is worse than having only pieces of the information and all of us as human beings have incredibly selective memories as to what we recall about some of the treatments that we have had. Males in particular are probably worse than anybody else—and this would certainly serve males well. I think the consumer perspective has been gleaned through the consultation processes, and I think we will see a tremendous take-up by Australians as the program is implemented. Certainly after their discussions with medical practitioners and health service providers, we will see more and more Australians setting aside their reservations about the way in which electronic records are kept, given the way in which they will be able to easily access their records regardless of their location. Hopefully, considering the increasing areas of chronic disease and some of those debilitating illnesses that people have, this system will enable them—and also grey nomads and many of us who travel in the course of our work—to move around Australia knowing that should anything happen then there will be different points at which the person treating them will have access to their medical records. I commend the bills to the House. 13:04 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to voice my strong support for the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records Bill 2011 and the cognate bill before the House. I especially thank the member for Hasluck for his wide-ranging contribution given his obvious expertise and experience in this area. I will say from the outset that, like him, I find it slightly bizarre that it has taken so long for the healthcare system to migrate to computer based records, although I was interested to hear of some of the initiatives in the northern part of Australia, across the Western Australian and Northern Territory regions. Not far from where I live there are still hospitals and medical clinics that operate paper based files. Whilst I respect the great work that admin officers and clerical staff do in bringing order to the system, obviously as it is the time of the NBN it is also time for hospitals to make use of the digital revolution. We take for granted computerised systems in finance, transport and retail, but the health system as a whole has been very slow to move, although in a few parts of the health system there has been some innovation and initiative. Clinicians tell us that one of the keys to better health care is sharing health records between clinicians. When patients move from one doctor to another, from one health service to another or from one hospital to another, it is difficult for medical professionals to know what has gone on before. It is difficult for a doctor to know what medications have previously been prescribed. Does the doctor have to reinvent the wheel? Obviously, this can lead to unnecessary or duplicate testing, delays and, sadly, in the worst cases, medical errors. I am advised that up to 17 per cent of tests are unnecessary duplication and up to 18 per cent of medical errors arise out of inadequate patient information. So, clearly, if you apply the common-sense test: it is a waste of money, and sadly it can be injurious for patients and people can die because of the medical errors that arise out of inadequate patient information. By having access to a patient's medical history, healthcare professionals will be better equipped to provide appropriate care. La Trobe University's School of Public Health says medical records: ... should contain sufficient data to identify the patient or client, support the diagnosis or reason for the health care encounter, justify the treatment, and accurately document the results. The university also says: The medical record is vital to the care of the patient as it is a communication tool between all individuals involved in the patient's care, and provides a documented account of the episode to aid clinicians' memories. If we can give caregivers immediate access to key medical information—such as a patients diagnoses, allergies, lab test results, and medications—we can improve the clinical decisions they make. Of course, there are many benefits, including better records management and reporting capabilities, streamlined administration and better support for patients and doctors. So, one to keep the bean counters and accountants happy, but obviously under that bigger umbrella of saving lives and money—and, of course, no more nurses not being able to decipher a doctor's handwriting, if I can succumb to a stereotype. I say that as somebody who made my students endure my horrific blackboard writing for 11 years and also as the son of a nurse! Most significantly, e-health records will ensure better quality of care. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition, when he was health minister, said in August 2005, 'Better use of IT is no panacea, but there's scarcely a problem in the health system it can't improve'—and he was right. Unfortunately, he never got around to turning those words into action, but he did recognise the problem and was no doubt taking steps to address it in that process of removing $1 billion from our healthcare system. By contrast, the Rudd and Gillard Labor governments embraced e-health as major part of our health reform agenda, bringing health care into the 21st century. These bills establish a personally controlled electronic health record system. They authorise the Department of Health and Ageing to manage the system and authorise the collection, use and appropriate disclosure of information. They will enable consumers to have easy access to their healthcare information online and will enable them to share it with their authorised healthcare providers. Summary health information such as conditions, medications, allergies and medical events created by healthcare providers will be included in the summary. The online health records system is not some Orwellian attack on individual liberties. I know people are writing emails to my office about this as I speak. But they need to calm down. This is not about a person's right to privacy, it is not some Orwellian attack; instead, it is about delivering better patient care for all Australians. Consumers and healthcare providers will be able to choose whether or not to participate in the system. If they want to still have the coloured manila folders, that is fine—that is their choice. But consumers will also be able to personally set their privacy settings. I imagine that one of the reasons it has taken so long for health records to go digital is the need for that absolute privacy. These bills contain serious measures to ensure patient confidentiality is protected and maintained. The Australian Information Commissioner is empowered under the Privacy Act to investigate breaches of privacy. The bills also introduce civil penalties for breaches of privacy and criminal penalties for hacking. They also provide robust protection to ensure consumers and healthcare providers can have confidence using the system. Obviously, this system requires sophisticated IT infrastructure to ensure a safe, secure and functional health records system. I understand this infrastructure is being developed and will be ready to go online from 1 July this year. Consumers and healthcare providers will be able to register for online health records from then. Online health records are long overdue, so I welcome the introduction of the personally controlled electronic health record system. And I thank the Minister for Health and her immediate predecessor for having the courage to take this vital reform out of the 'too hard basket'. As we realise the benefits to patient care in the years to come, and the savings, we will all wonder why this did not happen much sooner. I commend the bills to the House. 13:12 Mr BALDWIN LL6 Paterson I rise today to speak in favour of the measures outlined in the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records Bill 2012 and related bill. Although I have certain reservations regarding this government's competence to efficiently administer the $467 million project, I welcome the rationalisation of the more-than 70 estimated Commonwealth, state and territory laws on securities in personal property and the move to put patients at the centre of their own health care. This is an issue that is very important to my electorate of Paterson and in particular to the residents of Bulahdelah, with a population of just over 1,500. The town of Bulahdelah lies along the eastern and northern banks of the Myall River, far from a major urban centre, with Taree 75 kilometres away and Newcastle more than an hour away by car. The town's medical needs were met by a local hospital and by a GP, Dr Habashi, who has private rooms there and also provided on-call medical services to the hospital's emergency department. Unfortunately, in mid-2011 Dr Habashi fell ill, leaving Bulahdelah's residents without a GP to address their ailments and other needs. Patients also no longer have 24-hour access to the emergency department at Bulahdelah hospital. Dr Habashi's unforeseen illness meant that Dr Habashi had not had the time to put in place contingency arrangements. I say on behalf of the community of Bulahdelah: we wish Dr Habashi a speedy recovery. He is a great doctor and a good friend. Despite being in a beautiful part of the world, it is proving exceedingly difficult to attract replacement doctors to Bulahdelah, something that became even more urgent when it was clear that Dr Habashi would be on extended leave and may not be able to return at all. What has this to do with this legislation? If the lack of a GP was not bad enough whilst he was on sick leave, his patients had no access to their medical records and there is no legislation that required this. This meant that when the Hunter New England Local Health Network was finally able to find three doctors to provide some relief to the community and to come once a week to review patients at the local aged-care facility in Bulahdelah, they had no access to the medical histories of those whom they came to see. Despite most medical records now being on computer, these badly needed doctors could not see what had been previously prescribed, what their patients had previously suffered from or even what allergies they might have. Their diagnosis had to rely on not-always-reliable recollections by patients or on starting from scratch. Doctors need to have confidence when prescribing or treating, and this requires access to all relevant medical information. Therefore, this bill does not have implications just for the residents of Bulahdelah or even just for the people of Paterson; it has implications across our nation as a whole. The government's administration of this bill will therefore need to be watched extremely closely. I have to say that the government's performance in the administration of the pink batts program, in which contractors were paid by taxpayers to install insulation in people's homes, only to put people's lives at risk, and then paid to remove such insulation, does not inspire much confidence in the Australian people. Neither did the government's administration of the Building the Education Revolution program. According to the government's own task force, taxpayers' money was wasted, with school halls' building costs inflated by an average of 12 per cent. Now we have the costs of the NBN. When in opposition, the ALP promised a $4.7 billion government contribution towards the cost of high-speed broadband. When in government, they bungled a tender process and embarked on an ambitious $27.5 billion National Broadband Network and program instead, a program whose costs now seem likely to surpass $50 billion, if ever it is to be completed—a cost blow-out more than 10 times what was originally envisaged. My point in relation to this is that we have a $467 million program to roll out electronic health records. It requires competency in the delivery to ensure that individuals' records are maintained with extreme privacy. Obviously this is a government that cannot be trusted with the nation's finances and should never be left alone to implement legislation—in particular, health legislation and the privacy surrounding those records. By contrast, the coalition has a strong track record in investing in and delivering e-health. Under the coalition government, $740 million was invested in improving IT services for GPs, leading to 17 per cent of surgeries being computerised in 1997 and up to 94 per cent in 2007. The coalition have always supported the concept of shared electronic health records, but once the legislation is passed we will be monitoring this government closely to ensure that there are strong safeguards to protect private personal medical information from falling into the hands of a third party that was never designed to see the information. This is a bill that needs to be implemented cautiously. Confidentiality concerns must be addressed and must be paramount. We do not want patients' safety and privacy compromised. It is therefore important that personally controlled electronic health records remain an opt-in system rather than an opt-out system. Let me restate that so that there can be no confusion: it is important that personally controlled electronic health records remain an opt-in rather than an opt-out system. Patients must have confidence that their privacy is protected and is sacrosanct. The system must be implemented to ensure that transgressions do not occur and, if they do, transgressors are dealt with seriously and the penalties are rigidly enforced. While I am talking about the national implications of this bill: my electorate has some of the most outstanding countryside and stunning beaches in Australia and is a popular holiday destination, including Port Stephens, the Great Lakes and Dungog. This means that tourism sees those areas' populations increase quite significantly over the school holiday periods, when we host people from all over Australia. Unfortunately, their holidays are not always without medical incidents, and tourists often have to visit health providers such as Tomaree Community Hospital, whose doctors have to get on the phone to doctors in other parts of Australia to get a visiting patient's medical records. This is inefficient, unnecessary and a not insignificant impost on their valuable and very limited time. The bill will also be of benefit to those of my constituents who visit their friends and relatives or go on holidays elsewhere in Australia, when they need to get their prescriptions or see a health provider. There are also local constituents of mine who have ongoing health concerns that have to be dealt with after hours. Often the doctor they see is not their personal GP, and the doctor therefore does not have their records immediately at hand. This bill will also allow for the health information of a patient to be easily transferred between a patient's GP and a specialist. That is why I support the establishment and implementation of a national personally controlled electronic health record system, so that those patients who choose to opt in can have control over who can see their medical records, which documents they can view and the level of electronic records that can be accessed. However, whether patients will be able to exercise such control is not exactly clear. Although the system has been designed to ensure this, it has not always been the case in either of the wave 1 or wave 2 trials currently underway. We will wait and see whether it eventuates after 1 July this year. The government has repeatedly committed to take user registrations from this date. It is more important, however, that the project is done right rather than quickly. Many IT specialists on large-scale projects advise that such a system always takes years to become fully operable system wide. The coalition hopes that this is not yet another project that the government announces to great fanfare and then struggles to implement on time and on budget. After all, only last week, in a Senate public hearing, a number of stakeholders were raising profound concerns about these bills. Software vendors have their concerns about NEHTA's and their own legal liabilities under the legislation proposed. Stakeholders have also complained about the lack of proper and thorough consultation. Would it not have been more sensible for the minister to wait for the Senate inquiry to publicly report on its findings, with a reasonable period for consideration before proceeding further? The coalition has some issues concerning how overlapping federal and state privacy provisions will come to work in practice. However, Booz and Co. have predicted that measures that reduce duplication and errors, improve productivity and lead to greater use of best practice by doctors could see e-health capabilities result in annual savings of up to $7.6 billion by 2020. The ability for doctors to see a patient's existing medical conditions, including what they have suffered from in the past, past hospital stays and allergies, will play an important role in achieving these savings and benefits, which the coalition would like to see. These benefits will come from the avoidance of unnecessary new tests, with significant savings to the taxpayers; an improvement in the availability and quality of health information by linking up the data sources around the country that already exist; the opportunity over time for patients to contribute and add their own information to the information stored in their medical records; safer coordination and quality of health care provided when patients see different healthcare providers; and, most importantly, a reduction in the occurrence of adverse medical events. The Booz and Co. report outlined that, fully implemented, these measures could see 5,000 annual deaths being avoided, two million fewer primary care and outpatient visits, 500,000 fewer emergency department visits and 310,000 fewer hospital annual admissions. Like everyone in this House I want to see these potential benefits come to pass. But the government needs to raise its game in terms of implementation and administration if they are to be achieved. This would be a huge task for a competent government. One only needs to look at the United Kingdom, which wasted £12 billion on its e-health record equivalent which was scrapped late last year, to understand this. These benefits will only occur with the full commitment and cooperation of health care providers. They will have to spend additional time and effort creating and maintaining these shared health summaries and at the moment it is not clear they will have the incentives to do so. I look forward to hearing the Minister for Health explain what the government is doing to ensure a successful uptake of this program. For my fellow Australians, I hope that they do what ensures that. I do not want the success of this program to become a case of hope over experience. Debate adjourned. BUSINESS 1636 BUSINESS Orders of the Day 1636 13:23 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I move: That the following Main Committee orders of the day, private members' business, be returned to the House for further consideration: No. 14—motion relating to tax reform; and No. 17—motion relating to Srebrenica remembrance. Question agreed to. Rearrangement 1636 13:24 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler by leave—I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following orders of the day, private Members' business, being called on, and considered immediately in the following order: Tax reform—Order of the day No. 14; and Srebrenica remembrance—Order of the day No. 17. Question agreed to. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 1636 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Taxation 1636 Srebrenica Remembrance 1636 13:25 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports by leave—I move: That paragraph (8) be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: (8) the anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide, 11 July, should serve as a time to remember the victims. The resolution may not do as much as Angelina Jolie's forthcoming film to enhance memory of these tragic events, but our resolution will at least give solace to others as they remember 11 July. 13:26 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton As is the case for any single death, words will not make it right for the grieving, but I know too well that silence does nothing. May these few words from the Australian parliament help with the healing, especially in the Bosnian community. I sadly, but proudly, second the member for Melbourne Ports' motion. Question agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. BILLS 1637 BILLS Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records Bill 2011, Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011 1637

Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records Bill 2011

Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011

Second Reading 1637 13:27 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser On 14 December last year, I had the honour of assisting Pat Douglass to sign up to Calvary eHealth as the first patient in the ACT and southern New South Wales. It was a delight to meet Pat Douglass. She is 80, still living independently, a bright person and a wonderful contributor to the north Canberra community. Mrs Douglass had a fall in the street near her home and acquired a brain injury. Her experience of her care and her health records demonstrate why e-health is such an important development. Mrs Douglass was confined to hospital for 10 weeks. After undergoing rehabilitation she returned home, but none of her regular doctors knew that she had been in hospital. None of her doctors knew about her injury or how she had been progressing. Similarly, the hospital was unaware of Mrs Douglass' regular health requirements. Any information on normal medicines or routine check-ups that Mrs Douglass might have required during her time in hospital was not available to the doctors at Calvary. Mrs Douglass told me that she thought it was a bit ridiculous that none of her doctors could share information about her previous conditions or about her current conditions. It all seemed, to her, to be unnecessarily complex. I could not but agree. Mrs Douglass wanted all of her doctors who look after different aspects of her health to be fully informed. They can be fully informed by being connected to one another through e-health records. I am delighted to host in my electorate of Fraser one of the 12 national projects that are pretesting elements of the personally controlled electronic health record system. I personally was so impressed with the set-up that I became the third person to sign up for Calvary eHealth, just after Mrs Douglass and Calvary CEO, Ray Dennis, who also took the opportunity to sign up at the launch in December. I am a great fan of technology. For the time it was in existence I signed up to the Google Health electronic health system. In principle, that was a great idea. But, as Google learned, you need a consistent system and one which is common across patients and doctors. I am excited by e-health and I am also, in general, excited by the possibilities of technology for our healthcare system. The National Broadband Network will improve access to medical specialists, particularly in rural and regional Australia. That will mean people will get better quicker. It will mean that rural and remote communities will have access to better medical care than they did before the NBN. That is a productivity benefit. That is people getting healthier and getting back to work or whatever they were doing before they fell ill. E-health records are a great example of how technology can improve health care. It is an easy way for people to be on top of all their health requirements and an easy way for patients to enable their doctors and allied health professionals to share information. Your GP will be able to know what your dietician has recommended. Your chiropractor and physiotherapist will understand the different types of treatments you are undertaking. You will not need to explain your allergies, medicines and immunisations every time you see a different doctor. E-health records will not contain every single detail but they will contain information people need to be shared between their health providers. A Calvary eHealth record contains the following: a shared health summary, including basic information such as name, date of birth, address, contact details, allergies, immunisations and the medicines the patient is currently taking; a summary of each consultation; medical conditions; referrals; specialist letters; discharge summaries following hospital admissions; diagnostic reports, such as X-ray results; and shared care plans agreed between GPs and participating healthcare professionals. Looking after the wellbeing of Australians through a terrific health system is what the Labor Party does. This is, after all, the party that created Medicare. Because this government cares about the issues that matter most to Australian families we are implementing e-health. That means that when a member of a family becomes ill they can get the help they need from their local hospital, irrespective of their circumstances or location. It is not going to matter anymore if you are out travelling when you fall ill; your e-health record will be there with you. We are continuing today to make health care more accessible and more affordable, ensuring our modern healthcare system upholds the great Labor traditions of equity, fairness and dignity. The Labor Party is the party of reform, and this is as true in the area of health care as anywhere. E-health records are particularly important for a number of disadvantaged groups. They are important for young adults who have moved away from home and are finding a new GP. They are important for older Australians, because we tend to have more complex health needs the older we get. They are important to people with lower levels of literacy, who might have more difficulty relaying information provided by one health provider to another. My electorate is younger than the average Australian electorate. The median age in my electorate is just 33. That is because, in large part, many young people move to Canberra to take advantage of the excellent educational and career opportunities this city has to offer. That also means that many of those young people have moved away from their normal health provider. E-health records will enable them to have their previous GP share the information with their new GP. Older Australians, as was so well illustrated by the case of Mrs Pat Douglass, might be seeing a gerontologist as well as a GP and a chiropractor or other allied health professionals. They might have a fall and end up in hospital. E-health records will help older Australians to better manage the flow of information between their existing health providers to ensure that nothing gets missed. It will also mean that health professionals are aware of exactly what medications people are taking and will mean there is no mistake in prescriptions where a patient is mistakenly prescribed medications that cannot be taken together. For Australians who struggle with literacy, there will be less of a need to fill in complex and confusing forms every time they see a new health professional. Instead, they will be able to let their health professionals see the information in their health record and share their medical history without needing to recall complex details. In fact, e-health records will be of benefit right across the Australian community. I have two young and energetic boys. They always seem to be either catching lurgies or falling off things, so I have spent far too much time over recent years sitting in hospital emergency departments or paediatric wards. If it happens interstate, it is enormously frustrating to have to retell a child's medical history, fill out the same forms again and go back through the same family history that you have gone through with another doctor. Economists know that sometimes the simplest reforms are the most effective. I have spoken before in this place about the reforms to encourage doctors to wash their hands and the many lives that saved in public hospitals. Similarly, the simple answer of sharing information between medical practitioners will lead to better health care. I am told that 190,000 hospital admissions each year are due to medication errors. Better sharing of information about current medicines will reduce these sorts of unnecessary admissions, freeing up doctors and emergency rooms for other life-threatening occurrences. Better information sharing can also lead to reduced time and cost spent addressing avoidable medical errors or avoidable degradation of chronic conditions. As demonstrated by the example of Mrs Pat Douglass earlier, Calvary hospital was unaware that Mrs Douglass was taking additional medications and needed to see her specialist during that time. If Mrs Douglass had had an e-health record, all that information would have been available to her doctors. Economists hate waste and duplication. If our health system is sharing more information, we are reducing the amount of time and money spent on unnecessary and duplicated procedures such as diagnostic testing. Put simply, patients will spend less time explaining and more time getting the care they need from their health professionals. E-health records are also a great development for patients as consumers. It is an opt-in system—I repeat that for the member for Paterson: it is an opt-in system—and that means no-one will be forced to have an e-health record. Opt-in is important for privacy and important for making sure patients understand what they are signing up for. By making the health records personally controlled and managed by the patients, we are giving power to consumers. Consumers are the ones who will be able to take better management of their own health and will be able to decide whether they show their information to family members and friends and what they do to reduce avoidable adverse events. We are getting patients to make better informed decisions about their health care and the access to their health records. Patients can also give family members permission to access and share their health records as necessary. Going back to Mrs Douglass: she might have allowed her children to share her information in the event of an adverse health occurrence such as her fall. This is a great development, but it is a reform that only the Labor Party is brave enough to commit to. The Labor Party is the party of reform and development. We are the party of health reform. We are also the party of equity, making sure that the most disadvantaged in our community are able to access all of the developments technology has to offer. That is true in our rolling out of the National Broadband Network to all Australians and it is true in our providing all Australians with the opportunity to have an electronic health record. This reform is proudly in the Labor tradition. I would like to take the opportunity here to make a point on a related issue on health. On ABC TV's Q&A program last week, the member for North Sydney mentioned the employees of the Department of Health and Ageing as an example of some of the 12,000 public servants he would like to make redundant if Tony Abbott were to become Prime Minister. The concept of e-health records, and the legislation we are debating now, would not be possible without the hard work of public servants from the Department of Health and Ageing using their knowledge and expertise to come up with a system that is appropriate for the Australian context. Making sure the right privacy controls are in place is the responsibility of those public servants. Monitoring the testing sites and seeing where we can make improvements is the responsibility of those public servants. Those opposite have said they are going to support this legislation, but apparently they think you can have e‑health without a department of health. It does not make much sense to me. The member for North Sydney thinks that, just because there might be no patients taken care of by the department of health directly, the people in the department of health are not performing important work. But it is only through their expertise and their willingness to drive reform that we are able to get health reforms that will save money, save time and produce better health care. Important health reform and agreements between the Commonwealth, the states and the territories are only possible thanks to the highly experienced public servants who administer these programs and this funding. Many of the public servants performing this work live in my great electorate of Fraser, and I know how hard they work and how devastating it would be for the broader Canberra economy if the coalition were to come to office and make 12,000 Canberra public servants redundant. We saw in 1996 and 1997 what happened when the Howard government came to office, when the Public Service was slashed and burnt to a much greater extent than had been anticipated by John Howard when he was Leader of the Opposition. I commend the legislation to the House. E-health is an important reform for Australia's future, and maintaining a strong Public Service will ensure that e-health becomes a reality. 13:41 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest I rise to speak on the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records Bill 2011. As a member from a rural and regional area, I certainly understand, as members on this side do, the benefits and opportunities provided by e-health. But the issue facing the government is whether it can actually deliver a workable framework for e-health. A timely warning for the government is the UK experience—£12 billion spent on their e-health system since 2005, and it has since been scrapped. I believe that security, accountability, reliability and transparency are the most important issues we should be considering in relation to this legislation. Both patients and health organisations are dependent on getting the technology and framework right. I know that the health IT industry has expressed concerns about the government's ability to deliver this program by the 1 July target date, as is evidenced by the submissions to the Senate inquiry. For example, the Medical Software Industry Association told the inquiry: There is evidence of a lack of probity, ineffective governance and an inability to deliver targeted programs. It also suggested: The program risks falling into disuse from the very first day of live operation. I believe the risk to the security of patients' information arises from two avenues: firstly, access by unauthorised persons, and, secondly, the broader cybersecurity risk. The government has to guarantee that this system will under no circumstances give other people access to individual or collective—I think that is a real issue—medical records. I am aware that computer experts have said that the technology needed to guarantee security does not actually exist. I note the measures mentioned in the bill focus on managing the process after the records have been accessed and place this responsibility on healthcare bodies. Well, the damage will have already occurred for the patient at that point. I am sure everyone in this place is aware of how important the doctor-patient relationship is and how important the issue of confidentiality is. The AMA's submission to the Senate inquiry said: Confidentiality is regarded as one of the most important aspects of good medical practice. … … … The integrity of the confidentiality of the patient medical record is absolutely essential to developing, enhancing, and underpinning the therapeutic relationship between medical practitioners and their patients. This confidentiality secures the necessary trust and openness that characterises the ongoing communication between doctors and their patients to optimise patient care. There is no doubt that this trust between doctor and patient fundamentally underpins the integrity of our health system. People have to have complete confidence that the personal information they share with their doctor will always remain private. 13:45 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 1641 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Ryan Electorate: Moggill Markets 1641 13:45 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I rise to congratulate the organisers of the Moggill Markets who, on 21 January, celebrated their third anniversary. These markets have developed into an important community event, where growers and producers are able to interact with the local community. Many of my constituents in this part of the Ryan electorate use the Moggill Markets as their primary shopping trip for fresh produce, and I encourage those in the neighbouring suburbs to join us on the first and third Saturdays of each month. After the devastating floods of January 2011, the markets have bounced back well and have settled in to their new home at the Brookfield showgrounds. I pay particular tribute to all of the enthusiastic volunteers who give their time so generously to ensure that the markets run smoothly. All funds generated at these markets are reinvested into the community, and I know many groups, including the Moggill Girl Guides and the Pullenvale School chaplaincy program, have benefited immensely from this event. On the day of their third birthday the markets also celebrated the Year of the Farmer, and many of them, despite a year of enormous challenges, brought wonderful, fresh produce which was appreciated by everyone. The Moggill Markets are a new tradition in Ryan, but I am sure that, with the ongoing support of our residents, they will continue to grow and nourish the local community. Events like these provide wonderful opportunities for everyone and we are fortunate to have several regular markets in Ryan, including Blackwood Street at Mitchelton, Mount Crosby and Ferny Grove. Petition: Automotive Industry 1642 13:46 Mr CHEESEMAN HW7 Corangamite I present a petition concerning the automotive manufacturing industry, which has been approved by the Standing Committee on Petitions. The petition read as follows— To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the importance of the Australian car manufacturing industry to our future. Since the earliest days of the motor car, the industry has enjoyed bipartisan support at all levels of government in Australia. The car industry, and die many industries that supply it, pays the wages for more than 200,000 Australians, It sustains families, communities and regions throughout Australia. It is the cornerstone on which one million manufacturing jobs rest. We strongly oppose the $500 million cut to the car industry's legislated investment demanded by the coalition We are concerned by the coalition's refusal to commit to any assistance beyond 2015, which would deny the industry a further $1 billion in the years to 2020. This policy would not just sacrifice the car industry. It would decimate Australian manufacturing. It would deny our children the opportunities which are their heritage and their future. A sustainable car manufacturing industry must be a partnership between car companies, workers and their unions, and all sides of politics, giving the industry the confidence to make the right long-term investments. We therefore ask the House to remember its obligations to the working men and women of Australia, and call on the coalition to abandon its opposition to the Australian government's firm commitments for the car industry's future. from 3,084 citizens Petition received. Mr CHEESEMAN HW7 This petition very much goes to highlighting the importance of the car manufacturing industry to Australia. The petition calls for a bipartisan approach to the car manufacturing sector because, as we all know, the car manufacturing sector employs some 200,000 Australians nationwide. In the Geelong area, there are more than 2,000 people who work in the car industry. The petition highlights the concern of workers within this industry about Tony Abbott's proposed cuts to the industry program that the government has put in place. We have subsequently learned that Tony Abbott will cut all assistance to the industry post 2015 if the opposition is elected to government. Some 5,000 people have signed this petition manually, and a further 1,300 people have signed the petition online. I urge the parliament to consider the petition and reflect on the importance of the auto sector to the Australian economy. Cowen, Sir Zelman, AK, GCMC, GCVO, QC 1643 13:48 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner After Sir Zelman Cowen's death I spoke to my father, Angelo Vasta QC, who reminisced that, out of all the lecturers during his time at the University of Melbourne, Sir Zelman was by far the most inspirational and interesting. Some lecturers with a high intellect seemed to expect their listeners to grasp complex legal principles very quickly, but Sir Zelman had the unique ability to be able to express difficult concepts in a very simplistic manner. Later my father was further impressed by Sir Zelman's great ability as an administrator during his term as Vice Chancellor of the University of Queensland. In 1988 my parents also had the privilege of attending the first medico-legal conference in Athens with Sir Zelman. My father said that he especially remembered with fondness the memorable bus ride that they all enjoyed to the Delphic Oracle. Recently, I was very moved by the eulogy given by my friend and colleague Josh Frydenberg at Sir Zelman's funeral. His passionate words and moving delivery touched us all. On my own behalf and on behalf of my family, I extend our sincere condolences to Lady Anna and to the wider Cowen family. Our lives were all greatly enriched by having known him. He was a luminary and a truly iconic Australian. Reid Electorate: Aircraft Noise 1643 13:49 Mr MURPHY 83D Reid My constituents, particularly those living in Drummoyne, are crying out for relief from aircraft noise. While noise is inevitable in take-off and landing corridors, this issue again brings into sharp focus the need for a second airport for Sydney. Aircraft noise is increasing for more than a million residents in the inner suburbs of Sydney, particularly in my electorate of Reid, and this must be addressed now. I concur with the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and member for Grayndler who said last year that Sydney needs a second airport sooner rather than later and that without action the national economy will be constrained with a negative impact on growth and jobs. The suggestion from the Tourism and Transport Forum that Sydney Airport should be allowed to grow further in order to overcome the impending lack of capacity is outrageous and a monumental betrayal of the people I represent in this place. Any attempt to increase aircraft movements at Sydney Airport beyond the cap of 80 movements per hour will be over my dead body. Moreover, any attempt to alter the curfew will lead to a revolution by my constituents as well as those in neighbouring electorates. My constituents, and those of my colleague and neighbour the minister for transport, have carried the burden of aircraft noise for far too long, and we have had enough. The Tourism and Transport Forum and like-minded proponents of the expansion of Sydney Airport should be flogged. Moreover, New South Wales Premier Barry O'Farrell's push today for Canberra to be Sydney's second airport is pie in the sky and is an unambiguous message to my constituents that the Liberal Party will never support a site for a second Sydney airport that works. The Liberal Party, too, should be flogged. (Time expired) Macarthur Electorate: National Volunteer Awards 1644 13:51 Mr MATHESON M2V Macarthur Today I acknowledge some hardworking volunteers in my electorate who were recognised in the Macarthur 2011 National Volunteer Awards. I was very pleased to take part in these awards by hosting a ceremony at the Australian Botanic Gardens in Mount Annan on 5 December. I firstly thank all the people of Macarthur who nominated a volunteer from their organisation or local community. Thanks to them, I was able to present 10 special awards to volunteers who have made an extraordinary contribution to my electorate. I have always said that volunteers are the backbone of the Macarthur community, which is why I took part in a nationwide campaign to recognise our most dedicated volunteers. I am very proud to say that, at 80 years of age, Robert McCaughan received the 2011 MP's Volunteer of the Year award for his work with Camden Meals on Wheels, the Camden District Activity Centre, Angus Bristow Retirement Village and Narellan Congregational Community Care. Robert is a fantastic member of our community who volunteers for more than 30 hours per week to help several organisations in my electorate. He is a lovely man who is passionate about helping others, which makes him a great role model for the rest of us. The other award recipients included Sheena Funnell, Andrew Macdonald, Jan Lepherd, Noel Lowry, Peter Standen, Jean Olsen, James Anderson, Helen and Keith Evans and the Macarthur Centre for Sustainable Living volunteer group. I was delighted to be able to pay tribute to all these worthy recipients. I realise that most of them do not give up their time to receive thanks or praise, but it is important to recognise the great things they do in our community. I would also like to thank my fellow judges for helping me choose the winners. They were: David Cadden from the Macarthur Credit Union, Iliana Stillitano from the Camden Narellan Advertiser and Amanda Partridge from the Macarthur Chronicle. With their help it was fantastic to be able to celebrate our volunteers and show them how much our community appreciates them. Conversation on Ageing Forum 1644 13:52 Ms PARKE HWR Fremantle On 15 December last year, I co-hosted a Conversation on Ageing forum at the Cockburn Senior Citizens Centre in my electorate of Fremantle. These forums have provided important opportunities over the last six months for older Australians, their families and carers across the country to discuss the Productivity Commission's report entitled Caring for older Australians and to share in a national conversation about how we can reform our aged-care system so that it is simpler, fairer, more affordable and equitable—a matter which obviously affects us all. I would like to commend the work of the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing and his department and that of the National Aged Care Alliance, which brought together for the first time all of the stakeholders—some 28 national organisations including consumer groups, aged-care providers, unions and professionals—to advocate the need for urgent reform of the aged-care system. I recently met with aged-care workers from the United Voice and Health Services unions, who spoke to me about the challenges they face working in a sector that is severely underfunded and about the roll-on effects this has on their ability to do their jobs and the way in which residents are cared for. They are calling for increased funding for wages and conditions and improved recruitment and retention strategies. I also met with Stephen Kobelke, the CEO of Aged and Community Services WA, the leading representative body for the not-for-profit aged and community care sector in WA. Mr Kobelke described to me the challenges that WA in particular is facing in aged care, exacerbated by the pull of the mining and resources sector on potential aged-care and community sector workers. All Australians deserve an aged-care sector that meets community needs. (Time expired) 70th Anniversary of the Bombing of Darwin 1645 13:54 Mrs GRIGGS 220370 Solomon I look forward to spending time at home in Darwin this weekend where we will commemorate the 70th anniversary of the bombing of Darwin. The commemorations begin with an 8.00 am memorial service at the USS Peary Memorial site. At 9.30 am there will be a memorial and wreath-laying ceremony at the cenotaph. At 9.58 am Darwin will pause as the air raid sirens sound, which is the exact time they sounded 70 years ago, on 19 February 1942. I was pleased that last year the Gillard Labor government finally came on board and supported my motion, which passed unanimously in this place, to recognise 19 February each year as a national day of significance. It is important to Territorians that Australia finally recognises our contribution to defending Australia during World War II. I welcome the Governor-General, the Prime Minister, my colleague and friend the Leader of the opposition, Senator Ronaldson, Senator Macdonald, the member for Ryan and Labor government ministers, who will join me in my electorate to commemorate the 70th anniversary of this important day in our history. It was a day when more than 250 people were killed and many more injured in an attack on Darwin in which more bombs were dropped by the Japanese than in the attack on Pearl Harbour. As I have said before, since entering this parliament I have been determined to raise the awareness of the bombing of Darwin and I am encouraged that Australians are finally becoming aware of the important contribution Darwin made to the defence of Australia in the darkest days of World War II. St Kilda Festival 1645 13:55 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports The St Kilda Festival started in 1980 as a community event for Melbourne and as an opportunity to showcase the cultural side of our sometimes raucous suburb. Thirty-two years later the festival is one of Australia's oldest dedicated music festivals, bringing 400,000 people in Melbourne together and celebrating the best of St Kilda, Melbourne and Australia. The St Kilda Festival is a nine-day event that has evolved over the years and now contains three components: Yalukit Willam Ngargee, a dedicated celebration of Indigenous arts and culture; Live N Local, which features seven days of local bands and local venues honouring St Kilda's culture and history; and Festival Sunday, the festival conclusion, which is Victoria's largest community celebration and one of Melbourne's few remaining street festivals. There are 60 bands, six stages and 400,000 people. Festival Sunday is free, making sure that all Melburnians and visitors can access Australia's best musical talent. The day brings out the eclectic and creative side of Melbourne. I thank the current leader of the city of Port Phillip, Mayor Rachel Powning, the city council and the staff and employees of the city for making this remarkable festival of music and the arts a great success. After standing on a balcony of one of the local hotels last weekend listening to Archie Roach, I can tell members that Melbourne was alive and throbbing. The St Kilda Festival is a major festival of our great city. Latrobe Valley 1646 13:57 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland The Minister for Resources and Energy was in the Latrobe Valley last Friday. The House will be surprised to learn that he did not mention big polluters or dirty brown-coal-fired power stations once in his speech. Instead, he talked about the potential for future investment in brown-coal-sourced products in the Latrobe Valley, but there was not one word about big polluters and how the carbon tax is going to save the planet. He even put out a press release saying, 'The last thing we want to do is cut jobs.' The Prime Minister was also quoted last week saying she wants to run the economy 'in the interest of working people'. Government members: Hear, hear! Mr CHESTER IPZ I hear members opposite saying 'Hear! Hear! This will come as a huge surprise to the power station workers in my electorate because the Prime Minister and every member of this government wants to kick them out of their jobs. Hundreds of power station workers in the Latrobe Valley will lose their jobs under the contract for closure scheme. Those jobs are in the hands of the Australian Labor Party. Those jobs and the futures of those families in the Latrobe Valley are in your hands. The workers whom I speak to do not want your household assistance package, they do not want your transition plan, they do not want your promise of new green jobs—they want the security of the job they have today. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S And if you want the call again, you won't use the word 'you'. Mr CHESTER IPZ When will one of you—just one of you—stand up for power station workers who will lose their jobs under your carbon tax? Whatever happened to this grand old party's support for blue-collar workers? (Time expired) Rogers, Chief Petty Officer Jonathan, GC, DSM 1646 13:58 Ms O'NEILL 140651 Robertson I rise to place on record a very important event that was held in the seat of Robertson over the weekend. The Central Coast subsection of the Naval Association of Australia held a memorial service for the rededication of the memorial to Chief Petty Officer Jonathan Rogers, GC, DSM. At the outset, I congratulate Bruce and Cheryl Bowmaker, Bruce Smith, retiring president of the Central Coast subsection Gordon Clunes and Father Max Sainsbury for their special care in preparing the event for the day. In 1986, the naming of Rogers Park in Woy Woy, New South Wales, recalled Australian Navy's worst peacetime disaster. It was an event that shocked the nation. Chief Petty Officer Jonathan Rogers, a local from the Woy Woy peninsula, was one of 82 men who lost their lives in a collision at sea on the night of 10 February 1964. On the night of that fatal disaster, the aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne and the destroyer HMAS Voyager were conducting exercises off the New South Wales south coast when a terrible incident happened that saw more than 50 men, including Rogers, trapped in the darkness. Chief Petty Officer Rogers took control and brought calm to the situation. From all reports he was more intent on getting the younger chaps out first. He was later posthumously awarded the George Cross, the highest bravery award then available in peacetime, for: … organising the escape of as many as possible and encouraging … those few who could not escape … to meet death alongside him with dignity and honour. I am pleased to put on the record his great bravery. The SPEAKER 0V5 Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members’ statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 1647 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Qantas 1647 14:00 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that 1,500 Qantas jobs are now at risk and the Qantas carbon tax bill is four times its current tax bill. Why is the Prime Minister still in denial about the impact of her carbon tax on jobs and will she now apologise for describing job losses as 'mere growing pains'? 14:00 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor In answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question, first and foremost, as usual he has misrepresented what I have said to the Australian people because he knows if he tells the truth that he will not be able to sustain this fear campaign. On the Qantas job losses announced today, of course I am distressed to hear of any Australian worker losing their job. Of course I am. For those Qantas workers and their families this will be tough news indeed. As is clear from Qantas's announcement, this is about maintenance arrangements and particularly maintenance on different types of planes. For the Leader of the Opposition to say that these job losses today have been caused by putting a price on carbon is wholly untrue and once again contemptuous of the workers involved. When we as a Labor government hear of job losses we certainly share the pain of those involved and our motivation is then: what can we do to assist? What can we do to help? What can we do to get people a new opportunity in the economy? That is what we do as a Labor government. When the Leader of the Opposition hears of job losses, his reaction is to say: 'How can I use this as part of my political campaign? How can I make cheap politics with this?' It is entirely disrespectful to the workers involved. I would also say to the Leader of the Opposition that, perhaps because he is not interested in economics, not interested in facts and not interested in jobs, he has missed the employment statistics that came out today. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that if he looked at those employment statistics what he would see is that the unemployment rate has fallen to 5.1 per cent. The economy has added over 46,000 jobs in January. That means there are more Australians in work today than at any time in our nation's history. On our side of the parliament, we are delighted when we hear that people are getting jobs as these statistics show. The SPEAKER 0V5 The Prime Minister will return to the substance of the question. Ms GILLARD 83L Of course, we understand this has wrecked the Leader of the Opposition's media strategy for the day and of course he is bitter about that. Economy 1647 14:03 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta My question is to the Prime Minister. How is returning to surplus vital for supporting jobs and managing the economy in the interests of working people? 14:03 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I thank the member for Parramatta for her question. She—like other Labor members in this place and like the members on the crossbenches—understands that the ability of working people to build their lives and support their family is defined by their ability to get a job. There is nothing more important to a family than making sure family members can access the benefits and dignity that come with work. As a Labor government we are determined and remain determined to run the economy in the interests of working Australians. That means you always focus on jobs. We focused on jobs during the global financial crisis and saved 200,000 jobs. As a government we are proud that since our election more than 700,000 jobs have been created. Today we see statistics that I believe that Australians will take pride in when they look around the world and see how many nations and how many working people—millions of them—are suffering with unemployment. Let me repeat: today the unemployment rate went down; 46,000 jobs were added to the economy in January. This is at a time when the number of people who were looking for work—the participation rate—went up. This means we saw over 15,000 people who were looking for work find a job. That is a remarkable thing. Just think about it: over 15,000 Australians who were without the benefits of work have found a job. This reinforces that our economy is in a very different position to economies around the world. We are determined to return the budget to surplus and we will, because that is the right thing to do by jobs and growth at this time. Our economy is backed up by a AAA credit rating and our nation can take pride in that. Yes, there are industries where people are feeling the pressures of change. Structural change is happening in our economy and it is particularly pressing on industries like manufacturing. However, we should note that today's figures show that the male unemployment rate has dropped below five per cent. That still means that we have to keep managing the economy for working people. That still means that we need to be working with those industries under pressure and we will. That means too that we need to be building tomorrow's economy so that working people can have opportunity in the future as well as the ability of finding a job today. That is our mission as a Labor government and it is what we will continue to do. (Time expired) Carbon Pricing 1648 14:06 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of the comments of John Hannagan, local chairman of the world's largest aluminium company: China is now the major competitor in both smelting and refining. Future investment will go offshore. Given that the Treasury modelling shows a 61 per cent decline in aluminium production under the carbon tax, how many warnings does the Prime Minister need before she acknowledges that the only way to prevent aluminium jobs going to China is to scrap the world's biggest carbon tax? 14:07 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor In answer to the member's question I would remind him that there was a time when the Liberal Party was more honest with the Australian people about how to achieve change in our economy and how to deal with carbon pricing. I refer the member to the words of John Howard. Mr Hockey interjecting— The SPEAKER 0V5 The member for North Sydney will be more restrained. Ms GILLARD 83L I presume that the modern-day Liberal Party will catcall through the words of John Howard, because they have repudiated him on the question of carbon pricing. Former Prime Minister Howard said: Significantly reducing emissions will mean higher costs for businesses and households, there is no escaping that and anyone who pretends to do otherwise is not a serious participant in this hugely important public policy debate. He has described the modern-day Liberal Party as not being serious participants in this public policy debate. As part of their fear campaign they pretend that you can address carbon pricing without costs. Mr Hunt 00AMV Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: with great respect, the question was about aluminium jobs. The SPEAKER 0V5 The Prime Minister was skating very close to the borders of relevance. I would ask the Prime Minister to return and be directly relevant. Ms GILLARD 83L I am directing my comments to the question on carbon pricing and jobs. I was quoting former Prime Minister Howard, because he was alerting the Australian nation to the fact that when you deal with these big public policy questions you have to be very clear about the best way to do it and be very honest about the costs. We have been very clear about the best way to do it, how to do it at the least possible cost to the economy and how that will mean that our economy continues to grow, that jobs continue to grow, that income per person continues to grow. As we go about this process of change we will be working to support those industries that are on a journey of change, including aluminium. In that regard I would point to today's media release of the relevant minister, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, announcing the terms and conditions of the way $1 billion will be used to help Australian manufacturing move to a clean energy future. In asking the question, the member is assuming that somehow there is some costless way of dealing with climate change. He should be honest about the fact that the coalition has selected the most costly way you can possibly go about it. If he was worried about aluminium, if he was worried about jobs, if he was worried about our economy he would be walking to the dispatch box and recanting the rubbish that is coalition policy today and re-endorsing the words of former Prime Minister Howard. But no-one in the modern Liberal Party will ever do that. Mr Hunt 00AMV I seek leave to table Table 5.7 from the Treasury modelling, which refers to the 61 per cent loss of aluminium jobs in the government's own modelling. Leave not granted. Economy 1649 14:11 Mr SYMON HW8 Deakin My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on today's employment numbers? And how is the government supporting jobs and growth in our economy? 14:11 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley I thank the member for Deakin for that very important question. On that side they do not care about jobs in Australia. They are out there licking their lips over job losses; that is the problem we have in this House. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 0V5 When the House comes to order the Treasurer will continue, and I will ask that the clock be started again. Mr SWAN 2V5 Today's job numbers are a very encouraging start to the year. This is particularly so because of the news from Europe we have received overnight. The European economy contracted in the fourth quarter, and some economies went into recession. We know that some companies here are doing it tough because of events in the global economy and because of the high dollar. But just as we should not hold out false optimism, we should never get carried away with false pessimism—and those on that side of the House are continually talking down our economy. We welcome today's labour force figures. They have shown the creation of 46,000 jobs in January, and we have seen the unemployment rate fall to 5.1 per cent. This is the largest monthly increase in over 12 months, and there are now more Australians in work than at any time in our history. Everyone on this side of the House welcomes that. We celebrate the fact that there are more people in work than in any time of our history—another encouraging start to the year and a really stark contrast to the global turbulence in the international economy on one hand and the strong fundamentals and resilience of the Australian economy on the other. We on this side of the House put jobs as our No. 1 priority. If those people on the other side had had their way during the global financial crisis Australia would have gone into recession and tens of thousands of small businesses would have closed. But because we are so concerned with jobs we put in place the most effective response to the global recession of any developed economy in the world, and the outcome of that is 760,000 jobs over the past year. Here, the fundamentals are good. Unemployment remains low, we have solid growth, we have contained inflation, we have strong public finances and we have record investment. What that can bring to the Australian community is the security they crave from having a job in an economy that is growing, unlike any other developed economy. So these figures are welcomed. The only part of the country that does not welcome them is the people on the other side of the House. There was a disgraceful performance from the Leader of the Opposition this morning. He was out there on the doors, licking his lips at job losses. That is how far they have taken negativity in the economic debate in this country. The Three Stooges saga of their economic team— The SPEAKER 0V5 Does the member for North Sydney wish to raise a point of order? Mr Hockey DK6 May I say something on indulgence? The SPEAKER 0V5 You can have a little bit of indulgence. Mr Hockey DK6 I am offering support to the Treasurer for his support for good jobs figures. But they would be much better without a carbon tax. The SPEAKER 0V5 Indulgence is withdrawn. Carbon Pricing 1650 14:15 Mr BALDWIN LL6 Paterson My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, last night it was revealed in Senate estimates that neither the Department of Tourism nor the Treasury have conducted any modelling on the impact of the carbon tax on tourism in Australia. I remind the Prime Minister that the Tourism and Transport Forum last year said that the carbon tax would reduce revenues in the sector by $731 million and lead to 6,400 job losses. Prime Minister, how could you introduce the world's largest carbon tax without any consideration of the tourism and hospitality sector's nearly one million employed Australians? 14:16 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor In working on climate change and in designing carbon pricing, of course we very centrally considered the future of the tourism industry. Imagine the future of the tourism industry without the Great Barrier Reef. Those opposite might believe that would be a desirable result for this country, but you ask tourism operators about the importance of those icons to the tourism industry. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 0V5 Order! The Prime Minister will be heard in silence by all members for the remainder of her answer to this question. Ms GILLARD 83L I am used to the yelling of abuse about jobs in tourism and jobs in the economy generally. That is what the opposition does, but we are always motivated by jobs. We are motivated by jobs— Mr Truss interjecting— The SPEAKER 0V5 The Leader of the Nationals will remove himself from the chamber under the provisions of standing order 94(a). Mr Pyne 9V5 On a point of order, Mr Speaker: with great respect to you and your position, leaders of political parties, such as the Leader of the National Party, would normally be given greater licence than other members of the parliament. I ask you to review your decision. The SPEAKER 0V5 While it is true that consideration is given to persons holding leadership positions in political parties, there is also an obligation to observe standing orders. The Leader of the Nationals will remove himself as I previously requested. The member for Wide Bay then left the chamber. Ms GILLARD 83L Only the coalition would think that the ability to scream abuse is an inherent part of leadership. Doesn't that say everything about them? On the question of tourism and jobs, about which they have no concern—their conduct whilst I have been delivering this answer has confirmed that—I say to the member who asked the question: we were centrally concerned about tourism and its future. We were centrally concerned about what we could do to tackle climate change—because of the threat it poses to icons like the Great Barrier Reef. We continue to be engaged with the tourism industry every step of the way. Mr Perrett interjecting— The SPEAKER 0V5 The member for Moreton will remove himself under the provisions of standing order 94(a) for the same reason that the Leader of the Nationals was ejected. The member for Moreton then left the chamber. Ms GILLARD 83L Very recently, I personally met with the Transport and Tourism Forum the member referred to, because of my concerns about jobs in the tourism industry. I am therefore in a position to inform the member about what they raised with me as central to the tourism industry. They raised issues about skills. They raised workforce issues—there are job vacancies in some parts of Australia which they find difficult to fill, so questions like working-holiday-maker arrangements are important to them. They raised with me issues about capital—which goes to luxury hotel rooms—and the renewal of our capital stock. They raised— Mr Baldwin LL6 On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I raise the issue of relevance. I specifically narrowed the question to modelling and why no modelling had been done. The Prime Minister has refused to answer. The SPEAKER 0V5 The Prime Minister will be relevant to the specifics of the question. Ms GILLARD 83L I am being very relevant to the specifics, Mr Speaker, and to the very general suggestion at the end of the question that somehow I or the government was unconcerned about tourism. I am specifically addressing that and specifically explaining to the House how I met with the tourism industry very recently and about the concerns that were at the top of their agenda at that meeting. As a result of having that meeting, I can say to the member that he is not in this place representing their concerns and that he is not in this place acting as an advocate for tourism. We will continue to directly engage with the tourism industry on the issues of real concern they identify. I presume that the opposition will continue to delight in job losses and the spreading of fear. Qantas 1652 14:21 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Minister for Workplace Relations. Last year, in the face of Qantas's plan to start cutting jobs and offshoring, Qantas workers were bargaining for job security provisions. Qantas then used an industrial atom bomb to end bargaining by grounding the nation's fleet. Now, 500 Qantas workers are losing their jobs, with more to follow. Minister, do you agree that we need to change the Fair Work Act so that employers like Qantas cannot disrupt the economy as a legal tactic to avoid bargaining about job security provisions? 14:22 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I would like to thank the member for Melbourne for his question, and recognise his ongoing interests in the issues to do with industrial relations. As I have said before, I do consider that the actions of Qantas in grounding their whole air fleet and stranding tens of thousands of passengers and thousands of their workforce all over the world as an extreme action. I do agree with some of the member's question, or the implication in it, that this was a very, very extraordinary action. But I also recall last year that, courtesy of the Fair Work Act, the Gillard government moved swiftly to help Qantas and the parties involved in the dispute resume operations. We asked Fair Work Australia to intervene. Within 36 hours of the grounding of the air fleet Fair Work Australia had, in fact, terminated all industrial action. I can also update the member for Melbourne that, utilising the current Fair Work Act, Qantas and the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association have now reached an agreement—they have reached a workplace determination. I also know that the pilots and the Transport Workers Union are both working through their issues with Qantas. These processes are under the Fair Work Act, and they are working. On this side of the House we understand that people go to work and seek a mutuality of cooperation. They would seek that the enterprise is profitable and they would seek that they receive fair wages and safe work. We understand this. We understand, for instance, that in the last quarter—the September quarter of last year—there were 1,912 agreements reached, of which there was only any debate or disputation in 66 of them. We also understand that periodically parties may not agree. I do not believe that there is a spate of lockouts in this country. Also, I do not believe that there is a spate of industrial disputes and indefinite strike action in this country. I do reject the assumption in the member's question that somehow Qantas's action will be repeated by a range of other employers. We have not seen this to be the case. I believe that the current system does allow people to reach negotiation. We, on this side, believe in enterprise bargaining, as opposed to those on that side, who believe that the management is the enterprise and the workers are the bargain. We do believe that people should have the ability to have their point of view heard at work, and we do believe that employers have rights to pursue their agenda and to pursue their rights under the act. We also believe on this side in this place that, fundamentally, indefinite strike action and lockouts are absolutely the undesirable last resort. But we are not going to ban lockouts and we are not going to ban strikes in Australia because that is the slippery slope to dictatorship. I thank the member for Melbourne, and I know that whilst he is willing to raise industrial relations there are a lot of people opposite who have private views on workplace relations but they have not got the guts to admit what they really think. (Time expired) Employment 1653 14:25 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and Minister for Industry and Innovation. What is the government doing to support jobs and to promote clean technology in Australian industry? Why is this important for the economy, and are there any threats to this support? 14:26 Mr COMBET YW6 I thank the member for Chifley for his question and the interest he always shows in these issues. As I have stated before, this is a Labor government, and jobs and economic growth are top priorities for this government. Of course, that is why we welcome—as the Prime Minister has indicated—today's latest labour market figures showing 46,000 new jobs created in January. It is very good news, and we of course welcome it. But we understand, of course, that some companies are facing challenges in the current environment, and the government is managing the economy to assist in meeting those challenges. Part of that task, of course, is to promote cleaner technologies in industry to support jobs by promoting productivity, innovation and clean technologies, because that will support jobs. Today I launched the government's new Clean Technology Investment Programs. These will provide $1 billion to manufacturers to help them in the purchasing of new plant and equipment which will cut energy costs and reduce carbon pollution. Already, around 3,000 manufacturing businesses have expressed interest in the programs. Cutting energy costs, improving emissions intensity, innovation and cleaner technologies being applied in the workplace will all promote competitiveness and support jobs in those workplaces. And, of course, the announcement of these programs has been welcomed today by the Australian Industry Group. Today, we have also finalised the regulations for the government's Jobs and Competitiveness Program under the clean energy package. This program will provide more than $8 billion in assistance over the next three years to businesses in emissions-intensive industries that face competition internationally as we go about the task of reducing emissions in our economy. Under this program free carbon permits are allocated according to an industry average and according to historical emissions baselines. The importance of that is that because the permits are allocated against an industry average and those baselines, the fact of the matter is that firms that invest in efficiency measures will not only improve their productivity they may well receive more than 100 per cent of their carbon liability in free permits. That is an extremely important aspect of this program because, in other words, in providing that it provides a direct financial incentive for new investment that will support jobs, productivity and competitiveness in those industries. On that side, they want to tear all this down. On this side, we are building an economy for the future and putting in place the foundation stones for future jobs growth, and that is a key priority that they oppose. An opposition member: Inspirational! Mr COMBET YW6 Thank you. Cost of Living 1654 14:29 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Herbert My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister explain why an engineer earning $90,000 a year who is married to a police officer earning $90,000 a year, and with a young child, should have to face a cost of living impact of $944 because of the carbon tax, but receive compensation of only six dollars; and now should be hit with a means test on their private health insurance rebate, costing them at least $315 extra a year? With families feeling the pressures of cost of living rises right now, why is the Prime Minister deliberately making a bad situation worse? 14:29 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor When you are engaged in major reform, when you accept the obligations which come with running your economy in the interests of working people, when you accept the obligations that come with needing to cost policies and work through your budget so that you can return it to surplus, you have to make choices. As a government we stand by the choices we have made. They have not all been easy choices, but there is no magic money tree; there is nothing that enables you to go around promising that you will make changes but then not have to make the figures add up. I understand that is the approach of the opposition, which is why they now need to cut $70 billion away from the services that families rely on. I ask the member for Herbert to contemplate what that would mean for families in his electorate. In terms of the government's policy decisions, we have made sure that carbon pricing will change our economy at the least possible cost. We have made sure that the Australians who need our assistance the most will get that assistance—people like pensioners, who will see increases in their pension that are above and beyond what they will need to deal with the average impact of carbon pricing. Workers who earn less than $80,000 a year will get a tax cut, many of them a cut of $300, and a million people will come out of the tax system as a result of changes in the tax-free threshold. We have made those choices because we think that is the fair way of implementing change. The alternative is to come up with a scheme, like the opposition has, which would impose on every Australian family a cost of $1,300 a year. I ask the member for Herbert to contemplate how the families in his electorate, particularly the ones who are doing it the most tough, could stump up $1,300 a year. In relation to the private health insurance rebate, we have made choices too. We have made the choice that, in making sure that there is fairness in the system, it is right to not ask people who are on lower incomes to subsidise the private health insurance of people on higher incomes. We have made a choice to ensure that we have money available to keep funding the healthcare costs which continue to grow in our nation while of course we return the budget to surplus. On the other side, unfairness is their policy watchword; blowing the budget is second on the list. Economy 1655 14:33 Ms GRIERSON 00AMP Newcastle My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. How is the government managing the economy while building the prosperity of working people and their families? What are the risks to this? 14:33 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I thank the member for Newcastle for her question. She is intimately interested in jobs and I know she is aware of the good news in her own electorate, with 4,000 manufacturing jobs added in the Hunter. Today's Newcastle Herald, kindly provided to me by the Chief Government Whip, draws to our attention that in the Hunter there are going to be five new Woolies, a Coles and a BigW. Well done to those members of parliament involved; they are getting on and encouraging jobs. I am asked about how the government is managing the Australian economy. We on this side of the House understand that we live in difficult times globally. We understand there are problems in Europe; we understand that in North America recovery has been slower and longer than they would otherwise have liked. But we also know, therefore, that we should not automatically be trash talking the Australian economy every time a microphone is put in front of our face. Today we got the latest unemployment numbers, and they show a fall in the unemployment rate since last month, to 5.1 per cent. For those in the parliament interested in statistics, more Australians have a job today than ever before in our history. I do not say that these numbers are not volatile, because they are, and I do not say that the statistics and the news will always be positive, because they will not. I recognise, as everyone in this House does, that there are sections of the Australian economy and companies that are doing it very hard. The truth of the matter is that today we can report that employment has surged by 46,300 jobs. There are 760,000 more jobs than there were when the opposition was in charge of government. The numbers do move around but we do have strong fundamentals in this nation. We hear plenty of stories, and in fact the greatest risk to the Australian economy is the constant negativity of the opposition. Let me put before the House three examples of that and why the opposition is wrong. Honourable members interjecting— Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I am positive about everything except you, mate. Ms Julie Bishop 83P Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not believe we should tolerate these reflections on the chair. It is the second time he has done it and I do not think it is appropriate. The SPEAKER 0V5 Neither do I, and I am sure the minister will not do it again. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I was not reflecting on the Speaker; I was just trying to inject a note of friendliness into an otherwise adversarial situation. The Leader of the Opposition said this morning: We've had an avalanche of job losses since the beginning of the year. Yet IT firm Digital Reality is creating 220 jobs. I have a list of 20 success stories of jobs being created. What the Australian economy needs is a political debate which is not marked by the constant negativity of the opposition. Today's unemployment is good news and I just wish the opposition had the grace to recognise that good news for what it is. (Time expired) Labor Party Leadership 1656 14:37 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of the question that Laurie Oakes put to the foreign minister yesterday, 'Do you think that Julia Gillard was distributing polling against you?' to which the foreign minister replied, 'Well, that is a matter for history and these are events of 18 months ago and I think these are questions to appropriately put to other people.' So I ask the Prime Minister: will the Prime Minister assure the Australian people and her foreign minister that she did not use polling against her former leader? Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 0V5 The Leader of the House will resume his seat. I would ask the member for Sturt to repeat the last part of his question. Mr PYNE 9V5 So I ask the Prime Minister: will the Prime Minister assure the Australian people and her foreign minister that she did not use polling against her former leader? The SPEAKER 0V5 The question is out of order because it does not refer to the Prime Minister's ministerial responsibilities. The member for Page will resume her seat; I am listening to the honourable the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Pyne 9V5 I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that it is in order for two reasons: firstly, because it relates to statements the foreign minister made about the Prime Minister yesterday; and, secondly, it goes very much to the dysfunction evident in the government, which the Prime Minister should want to put to rest. The SPEAKER 0V5 The Manager of Opposition Business has made his point. I call the honourable member for Page. Employment 1656 14:38 Ms SAFFIN HVY Page My question is to the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, and Minister for the Arts. What is the government doing to create sustainable and long-term growth and to support jobs in regional Australia? 14:39 Mr CREAN DT4 Hotham I thank the member for her question. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 0V5 The minister will not commence his answer and the clock will not start until members are able to listen to the minister. The minister has the call. Mr CREAN DT4 Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the member also for her question, because she has been a champion for job creation, and in the first round of the Regional Development Australia Fund, important initiatives were a gain for her electorate, particularly the Ballina airport and the Lismore cultural centre, which will see significant job opportunity. I am asked this question in a broader context, and today's figures are unequivocally good news on the employment front: 46,000 additional jobs created, 760,000 since this government was elected, with Treasury projections that say that, by 2020, we will more than double that—in other words, that amount twice over. Unemployment has come down and the participation rate has gone up. But the question that I am asked goes to what we have been doing to facilitate this fantastic outcome, and that is, we have been investing in those things that drive economic growth and create jobs. We have been investing in the infrastructure of the nation, not the least of which is the broadband rollout for the nation which, at its peak, will be employing 37,000 people. In addition to that, we have invested heavily in the skills base and education base of this nation, with the biggest infrastructure investment ever in the history of the country, driven when the Prime Minister was the education minister, and that is a fantastic legacy upon which we have to build. We are in the middle of the greatest economic transformation the world has ever known. The opportunity that is growing in Asia—in India, in China, in South-East Asia—is what we have got to capitalise on. And the infrastructure that we put in place helps us do it. Mr Laming E0H Lucky we've got you to help us through! The SPEAKER 0V5 The honourable member for Bowman will contain himself— Mr Tony Smith interjecting— The SPEAKER 0V5 as will the honourable member for Casey. Mr CREAN DT4 But we also have to find the way in which the regions of the country, the patches in the patchwork economy, take advantage of those opportunities. Earlier this week I was responding to a question about development in Tasmania. I announced what we had done for the dairy industry. Let me just say what that means in job terms. With the Harcus River Road development, 200 jobs in construction, 135 ongoing in the dairy industry; and, in the aquaculture industry, 40 in construction, 160 ongoing, with the potential to double from 800 to 1,600 the number of jobs in the Huon Valley. That is what the Labor government is doing, by working with communities at the micro level as well as putting in the place the initiatives at the macro level. All we get is opposition from the other side. They should get on board if they believe in the future of this country. (Time expired) Prime Minister 1657 14:42 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP SE4 Mackellar My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of Ms Kim Sattler's statement: 'Before the riot on Australia Day I had more than one phone conversation and more than one text conversation with Mr Hodges.' Given these text messages were sent by the Prime Minister's former adviser on his government mobile phone, will she now request the release of those text messages? 14:43 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor We meet on a day when more Australians are in work than ever before, and this is the kind of question we get from the opposition. Of course, they do not want to talk about jobs. The Leader of the Opposition said at the start of this sitting fortnight, in his best Dirty Harry, 'Make my day' and 'Let's talk about jobs,' and this is the question we get. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 0V5 The Prime Minister will cease answering the question. The Prime Minister is deviating from the substance of the question. I would ask the Prime Minister to return to the substance of the question. The Leader of the House. Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, on a point of order, is it in order for advisers in the advisers box to interject against the Prime Minister while she is giving an answer to a question? Opposition members interjecting— Mr Stephen Smith 5V5 Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 0V5 I will hear the Minister for Defence. Mr Stephen Smith 5V5 Mr Speaker, in addition to the point which the Leader of the House has made, in the course— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 0V5 The member on my left who interjected will remain silent, and the minister will commence his contribution again. Mr Stephen Smith 5V5 In addition to the point which the Leader of the House made, in the course of the Leader of the House's contribution the person from the advisers box was continuing to interject on him. The SPEAKER 0V5 The answer to the question asked of me by the Leader of the House is: clearly, it is grossly disorderly for anyone from the advisers box to interject. I did not actually observe that but I give notice that, if I do, the offending individual will be banned from the advisers box for the duration of my speakership. Ms GILLARD 83L In relation to the member's question, I was asked about these matters yesterday and I indicated to the member then that the opposition, through its legal spokesperson, has written to the Federal Police about this matter. Having written to the Federal Police, I presume that they want the Federal Police to look at it. The Federal Police are doing that. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, on a point of order: with great respect to the Prime Minister, she has not answered these questions at any point about whether she will release the text messages on the government phone between Ms Sattler and Mr Hodges. The SPEAKER 0V5 I do not need the assistance of the Manager of Opposition Business. It was a fairly tight, narrow question, and the Prime Minister will respond. Ms GILLARD 83L My point is this: having asked the Federal Police to deal with the matter, I think that is the appropriate course. 14:46 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP SE4 Mackellar Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. In the light of that answer, how can the Prime Minister expect the Australian people to accept her alibi when she will not release the text messages which will either verify or explode that alibi? Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, on a point of order: that clearly was out of order. The SPEAKER 0V5 I will allow the supplementary question. 14:47 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor This is a very deliberate tactic from the opposition. What we have seen from them over the last two days is the use of the word in the member's question. That is done to create smear when they lack a substantive allegation and they lack any proof. If they have a substantive allegation, then put it; otherwise, of course, they are exposed before the Australian people as the irrelevant smear merchants that they are. Education 1658 14:47 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell My question is to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. Will the minister inform the House of the investment the government has made in education to provide working people with the skills they need for the new economy? 14:48 Mr GARRETT HV4 Kingsford Smith I thank the member for Calwell for that question, because this government has provided more investment in education, on an unprecedented scale, than we have ever seen in this parliament. We have more than doubled the funding that we saw under the previous coalition, and every dollar is intended to make sure that every kid in the country has the skills that they need for the new economy and the opportunity to fulfil their potential and to get jobs into the future. I was pleased to know that the member herself has seen significant investment from this government in projects in her electorate—some 16 libraries under Building the Education Revolution, and a range of other investments. These investments are all geared to making sure that kids in these schools have the skills that they need to succeed and to prosper in life, whether it is the national partnerships, where we are providing investment in teacher quality because we know that the teacher is the most important person in the classroom to help the kids; the investment in the facilities in Building the Education Revolution, because we know that they make a huge difference to the teacher and to the kids in the classroom; or the investment in computers in schools—some $2.4 billion. I am pleased to say that we can say now that we have a delivery of over 900,000 computers for kids in years 9 to 12 right around Australia, who will have access to those computers in this school year and, importantly, will be able to work in the new digital education environment, which will be absolutely central to their job prospects for the future. Previously kids would get into the latter years of high school but in many instances they would not have access to a computer. They might have had one at home, but when it came to the learning that they needed to do, when it came to accessing the information online, on the curriculum—our national curriculum, incidentally, is the first online curriculum of its kind in the world—they did not have the tools to do it. It was this government that provided them with the tools to do it. It is a matter of record that Mr Abbott and Mr Pyne wanted to cut money out of supporting computers for schools— The SPEAKER 0V5 Order! The minister will refer to shadow ministers by their titles or their electorates. Mr GARRETT HV4 and the Leader of the Opposition has made his position quite clear on these matters, because he wants to cut the investment in education. On the other hand, here we are saying that our future prospects as a nation absolutely depend on us investing in education. That is what we have done. That is what we will continue to do. Whether it is trades training centres so that kids can get the skills they need for jobs of the future, computers in schools so that they are able to work effectively in the new digital economy or making sure that everybody has access to a national curriculum and to good teaching, that is what this government is all about. We will deliver for kids in education for the 21st century. Those opposite have nothing to offer. Prime Minister 1659 14:51 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to this statement by her head of communications, John McTernan: The key is to … set out a defensible truth: one that you will not have to expand, modify or resile from. With her defensible truth over the role of her office in the Australia Day riots crumbling, will she now answer the question put to her yesterday: if she has not viewed the text messages between Kim Sattler and Tony Hodges on Australia Day, how has she verified that her statements with respect to this matter are true? 14:51 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I refer the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to my last answer. The opposition wanted to make this a matter for consideration by the Australian Federal Police. Having done so, I would have thought, if they were serious about that, they would then let the Australian Federal Police work through these matters. At no stage, from the tenor of these questions, has the opposition really been serious about it, and I really do wonder what is the opposition's alibi for being completely not interested in the jobs of Australian workers or the employment data that came out today. Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 0V5 I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is quite competent to say that she has a supplementary question. She does not need the assistance of the Manager of Opposition Business. 14:52 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. I refer the Prime Minister to her last answer. The Prime Minister made a statement about this matter on 28 January. If she had not viewed the text messages between Kim Sattler and Tony Hodges, how could she verify the truth of what she said on 28 January? The matter has not been answered. Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the conclusion to her question the Deputy Leader of the Opposition indicated by her own words that this is a repeat of the question that she asked and not a supplementary. The SPEAKER 0V5 I will call the Prime Minister. 14:53 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor In the statement I made on that date I indicated that my office had made inquiries about this matter and then I presented the facts, as they were given to me, to the Australian public. I say to the opposition: after what has been the best part of two weeks of questioning on this matter—I seriously say to them—in circumstances where Mr Hodges made a grave error of judgment and no longer is in my employ, I do wonder what the opposition is on about when they are so fascinated by this and so completely lacking in interest in areas like employment of Australians, health care for Australians, the quality of schooling for Australians— The SPEAKER 0V5 The Prime Minister will return to the supplementary question. Ms GILLARD 83L and the building of the future economy. It does them no credit at all to believe that this parliament is all about smear and derision rather than building the future. Forestry 1660 14:55 Mr LYONS M38 Bass My question is to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Will the minister update the House on the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement and the government's position on marketing campaigns in the Tasmanian forestry sector? How is the government working to support jobs in Tasmania, and are there any threats to the progress? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 0V5 I call the honourable minister for just about everything! 14:55 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I want to thank the member for Bass for his question. He has a strong timber community in his electorate and a very passionate commitment to ongoing forestry in Tasmania. It has been recognised for some time that there are shifts going on in markets in Tasmania. It was recognised, in fact, by both sides of the House when even the opposition went to the last election with a promise for contract exit packages. The losses and job losses that have taken place in the forestry sector long preceded the intergovernmental agreement between the Commonwealth and Tasmania. In fact, in the three years prior to the agreement, forestry jobs fell from 6,920 to 3,460. In an economy the size of Tasmania's, this is a massive shift, and there is a need for us not to simply to pretend the shift is not happening but to help the Tasmanian economy to grow through this and thrive through this. It has been a combination of decisions in the market, the decision by Gunns to exit native forestry, a shift in international demand for woodchips and the shift in the Australian dollar that has helped drive this market change. Even though it has been this issue and the market change that brought the two governments to the table to help Tasmania with the changes that are going on, in recent weeks and months there have been impacts on Tasmania's industry that are not because of market changes. There have been a number of campaigns that have been run which have created a very real impact on the Tasmanian economy and which need to be dealt with directly. While the peak environmental groups have remained at the negotiating table working through future peace agreements, you cannot expect peace at a negotiating table while the battle intensifies in the marketplace. A minority of groups have been involved in these market campaigns but we have seen them as attacks on Harvey Norman, on our contracts with the London Olympics, and on the operations of Ta Ann and Britton Timbers at the precise time that these businesses have been at the table trying to work through a sustainable solution. These campaigns attack Tasmanian jobs and they jeopardise the opportunity for an enduring conservation outcome. If they were successful they would only result in increased demand for unsustainable rainforest timber from overseas. We came to the table to support jobs. We came to the table in the knowledge that because of the changes there may well be significant and one-off opportunities for enduring conservation outcomes. We support jobs and all efforts to end the conflict, but we are unreservedly opposed to the attacks on markets. Gillard Government 1661 14:58 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's declaration that, 'Before you can persuade Australians of your credentials to run the country, you have to show you can run your political party.' With cabinet ministers now banned from taking notes in meetings or daring to talk to editors, hasn't she condemned herself with her own words—that if you cannot run your party, you cannot run the country? Ms Saffin interjecting — Government members interjecting — The SPEAKER 0V5 When the member for Page and others manage to restrain themselves, the Prime Minister will be given the call. 14:59 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor (—) (): I thank the member for Sturt for his question, though I would have to say I am a little bit surprised by it, in circumstances where Niki Savva's op-ed earlier in the week in the Australian newspaper said: Abbott's chief of staff Peta Credlin sent an email to shadows and whips last week reminding them they had to get clearance in advance. The context of that in the previous sentence was: More difficult is keeping MPs away from major media, especially if they are not good at it, or their performances have the potential to cut across an agreed strategy. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 0V5 The Minister for Health is warned. Mr Pyne 9V5 I remind the Prime Minister that she should be directly relevant and, quite frankly, she was not asked about anything other than dysfunction in her own government and she should be relevant to that question in answering. The SPEAKER 0V5 The Prime Minister is aware of the standing orders. The Prime Minister has the call. Ms GILLARD 83L I was asked a very broad question about leadership and political parties. I am making the very simple point that I presume the member is asking the question as a result of some game in the opposition because on his own test from what he said in his question the Leader of the Opposition is ruled out from being Prime Minister as a result of Peta Credlin's gag order. MOTIONS 1662 MOTIONS Prime Minister 1662 Censure 1662 15:01 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I seek leave to move: That this House censures the Prime Minister for presiding over a government that is paralysed by dysfunction and division and is now incapable of addressing the daily challenges facing the Australian people and secondly for the culture of evasion, deceit and sheer incompetence that characterizes her Prime Ministership. Leave not granted. Mr PYNE 9V5 In that event, I move: That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving the following motion forthwith: That this House censures the Prime Minister for presiding over a government that is paralysed by dysfunction and division and is now incapable of addressing the daily challenges facing the Australian people and secondly for the culture of evasion, deceit and sheer incompetence that characterizes her Prime Ministership. Standing orders should be suspended and a motion of censure of the Prime Minister should be debated as this Prime Minister has already been given every opportunity to end the evasion, shiftiness and malevolence and to start the truth telling she so often talks about. In spite of being given the opportunity to do just that, the Prime Minister has again scurried from the chamber into the chief government whip's office for her afternoon cup of tea and Mint Slice because she cannot bear to stay in the chamber and face the truth that her government is in tatters, her reputation is falling apart and her alibi is crumbling. The SPEAKER 0V5 The Manager of Opposition Business will return to the substance of the motion, which is a motion to suspend— Mr PYNE 9V5 That is why— The SPEAKER 0V5 The member will not talk while I am talking. It is a motion to suspend standing and sessional orders and the honourable member will direct his attention to what he has moved. Mr PYNE 9V5 That is why this matter should take precedence over all other business on the agenda today. Standing orders must be suspended to give this matter precedence, because the people have waited to find out when the evasion will end and the truth telling begin. The answer we can give them is never. The Prime Minister is like a bug that twists and turns to break free from the web in which it is ensnared but eventually proves incapable of doing so and simply expires. The words of Oliver Cromwell apply as much to this government today as they did when he said them to another parliament centuries ago. Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask you to bring the Manager of Opposition Business back to order, as I was on six occasions yesterday. The SPEAKER 0V5 It is up to me to enforce the standing orders. I try to enforce them without fear or favour. The Manager of Opposition Business will direct himself to the substance of the motion that he has moved. He does some of the time but then he deviates somewhat, so he will return to the motion. Mr PYNE 9V5 That is right, Mr Speaker. You are correct. Precedence should be given to this motion. I am explaining why this motion is more important than any other business before the House. It is because, in the words of Oliver Cromwell 359 years ago, which apply as much to this government today as they then did, 'You have sat here too long for any good you have been doing. Depart and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.' That is what the Australian people want this government to do—go. The proposed censure motion is the most pressing matter before the House and for that reason standing orders must be suspended to facilitate this debate, because this Prime Minister has traduced and debased the office. She should no longer be tolerated by her party. The Prime Minister came to the office steeped in deceit. Laurie Oakes first exposed it at the National Press Club the week before the election when he asked her if it were true that she had done a deal with the former Prime Minister to leave him in office while her henchmen rounded up the numbers. We had the pitiful story of the Leader of the House breaking into the room where the now foreign minister but then Prime Minister was sitting and saying, 'She's doing you over. Don't you know what's going on?' The poor former Prime Minister said to the Leader of the House, 'Don't worry, mate. We've done a deal. It's all right,' and the Leader of the House said, 'No, she is doing you in.' The reason standing orders should be suspended and this matter should be given precedence is that the information continues to roll out about the dysfunction and the division at the centre of this government, and the soft underbelly of the Prime Minister's alibis and stories about how she came to leadership were exposed dramatically on the Four Corners program on Monday night. We now know that her office was drafting a victory speech two weeks before the leadership change. We know that the ambassador to the United States was called in by the Secretary of State two weeks before the event to ask if things would change under the new leadership, and we know that the Prime Minister in the two weeks before she became the Prime Minister was using secret UMR polling to convince her colleagues that the leadership should be changed. But, incredibly, we are supposed to believe that on the day of the challenge this all came as a complete surprise to the Prime Minister. Standing orders should be suspended and this matter should be given precedence because the Prime Minister gained her office through disloyalty and deceit, and she is going to lose it the same way. The Prime Minister presides over three Labor Parties: the Gillard party, the Rudd party and the anyone else party. Whoever emerges as leader, the blood feud will not end. We know that this week the Minister for Trade has been visiting office after office with a list of numbers, trying to show members that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has no more than 30 votes—on behalf of Bill Ludwig, the union leader from Queensland. The Rudd camp, of course, have been calling him the equivalent of 'Chemical Ali', from the days of the Iraq War. So dysfunctional are they that standing orders should be suspended and this motion should be given precedence, so the Prime Minister can defend herself from the charge that her leadership was infected from the beginning and that the Labor Party, like dealing with a gangrenous wound, is now moving to excise the sick limb. This is the Prime Minister who has built her leadership on deceit and deception—the citizens' assembly, gambling reform, means-testing the private health insurance rebate, the East Timor processing centre, hospital reform, cash for clunkers, the open and transparent government, and, the jackpot of all of them, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' So of course this matter should be given precedence over all the matters on the agenda today. Standing orders should be suspended because the full hideousness of how much the Prime Minister has debauched her office can be seen in her handling of the controversy surrounding the member for Dobell and the cover-up of the role of her office in the Australia Day riots. In both matters, she has been evasive, shifty and malevolent, to use the words of John McTernan, her new head of communications, about the three things she should not be. The Prime Minister has been asked 36 questions about the Fair Work Australia investigation and 18 questions about the role of her office in the Australia Day riot. It is a matter of record that she has answered none of them. The SPEAKER 0V5 If the— Mr PYNE 9V5 That is why precedence should be given to this suspension of standing orders motion. The SPEAKER 0V5 However, this is a motion to suspend standing and sessional orders, not a motion of censure, so the Manager of Opposition Business will therefore withdraw the accusation he made of the Prime Minister that she was steeped in deceit. That is disorderly. Mr PYNE 9V5 I withdraw, Mr Speaker, and I thank you for your guidance. The SPEAKER 0V5 Also, 'malevolent' will have to be withdrawn. Mr PYNE 9V5 I withdraw 'malevolent'. The reason why this motion should be given precedence is that the office of Prime Minister is the most important office in politics in Australia. It is the most important office and it is being debased by this Prime Minister's handling of the Craig Thomson affair and it is being debased by her handling of the role of her office in the Australia Day riots. The caucus, the parliament and the people know that this Prime Minister is simply swinging in the breeze and that the member for Griffith is waiting for his time to cut her down. The Australian people deserve better than that. The Australian people deserve a good and honest government. The SPEAKER 0V5 The Manager of Opposition Business will return to the subject of the motion. Mr PYNE 9V5 And that is why this suspension of standing orders should be given precedence, because nothing is more important than debating the honesty and integrity of the Prime Minister. In terms of the Australia Day riots—let me finish with this—yesterday the Prime Minister spoke honeyed words in this place about good intentions and commitments when it came to looking after Indigenous people, with the Closing the gap report. So how could her office so maliciously and amorally be prepared to manufacture a riot among the Aboriginal people at the Aboriginal tent embassy protest? Even the Aboriginal tent embassy protesters themselves have described their feelings of being used to gain political mileage. On the one hand, the Prime Minister clothed herself in the good intentions to address Indigenous disadvantage; on the other, her office conspired to use the tent embassy protesters to gain political mileage against the Leader of the Opposition. They stand condemned, and the Prime Minister has at no point dealt with this matter or the matter to do with Fair Work Australia. The prime ministership is in tatters, debased and traduced. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 0V5 Is the motion seconded? 15:12 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney I rise to second this important motion. It must be dealt with now. I think there is not a person in this building, be they amongst our colleagues, be they on the opposite side, be they in the press gallery or be they in the general gallery, who does not know what is going on. We have seen over the last fortnight the calcification of the aorta of the Australian government. It goes to the heart of what is going on. Confidence is being undermined amongst the general public because this government is not getting on with the job. It can pass bills through this place but, out there, Australians are looking with bewilderment at the antics of the government in this case. They are looking at the government with bewilderment because the government is dysfunctional. We must suspend standing orders now and have the matter dealt with. The Prime Minister has to rebuild confidence and trust with the Australian people. Jerry Seinfeld said there is no such thing as a day of fun for the whole family. Today we have seen the dysfunctionality of the whole family over there. We have seen the parade of roosters. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations came up and gave us a parade for question time. We saw the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government come up and give us a little parade for question time. The SPEAKER 0V5 The honourable member will return to the substance of the motion. Mr HOCKEY DK6 This is why we must suspend standing orders now. They are wasting the time of the parliament parading for the leadership in what is effectively a primary for the prime ministership, rather than focusing on the best interests of the Australian people. The deceit that the government is engaging in is infecting all of their words—even yesterday, when the Treasurer got up and said that the private health insurance cuts were in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook. Well, none of us could find it specifically identified in that document. But that is the way of the Treasurer, because he is infected with the same disease as the Prime Minister, the lying disease, and it has infected every single part of this government, whether it be on Australia Day— The SPEAKER 0V5 Order! The member will withdraw. Mr HOCKEY DK6 I will withdraw, Mr Speaker. The government has given us broken words on private health insurance, broken words on the carbon tax and broken words in relation to a deal on poker machines, but it has given us unbelievable words on Australia Day, on leadership speeches and on polling matters that go to the heart of the integrity of the Prime Minister. We all know—that is, the Australian people all know—that something is going to happen within the government to bring down the Prime Minister. The SPEAKER 0V5 The member will return to the substance of the motion. Mr HOCKEY DK6 The problem is it is affecting the way this parliament is operating. It is affecting the confidence of the Australian people, so it must be dealt with now. All other matters before this House are, for this moment, insignificant until the matter of the leadership of the Labor Party is dealt with. It must be dealt with because Australians are sick and tired of a dysfunctional government. They are tired. They are bewildered at how a government could be so dysfunctional, so incoherent and so untruthful. The bond of trust between a Prime Minister and the people is sacred, and this Prime Minister on numerous occasions had broken that— The SPEAKER 0V5 Order! The honourable member will withdraw the term 'untruthful'. Mr HOCKEY DK6 Mr Speaker, I withdraw. The bond of trust between the Australian people and their Prime Minister and their government is sacred. Because it is sacred, when that bond is broken Australia reflects that broken trust. Mr Husic interjecting— The SPEAKER 0V5 The honourable member for Chifley will remove himself from the chamber under the provisions of standing order 94(a). The member for Chifley then left the chamber. Mr HOCKEY DK6 Therefore, it is now time for the Prime Minister to come clean with the Australian people. More particularly, it is time for the Labor Party to come clean with the Australian people. No more deals. We know the deals that are going on. We know there was a reshuffle because the minister for employment called on the Prime Minister to put her in cabinet. We know that Senator Arbib was left out and is now negotiating to have the minister for employment become the next Treasurer under Kevin Rudd. We know these things are happening. Now is the time to get good government back in Australia. Get this Prime Minister on her feet and get this matter resolved. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 0V5 I remind the honourable member for North Sydney that he ought to refer to the Minister for Foreign Affairs by his title. 15:17 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I rise to speak to the 40th suspension motion moved by those opposite in the 43rd Parliament. Every single day they come into this chamber and they move a suspension of standing orders that allows them to stand up and heckle, explain their negativity, hector and not put forward anything positive whatsoever. They do not participate in the constructive debates. They do not take the opportunity that question time provides to try to hold the executive to account. They simply stall for time until they can give their preprepared suspension motion, typed out in the morning and moved in the afternoon—day after day after day. What are the consequences if we suspend standing orders? The consequences are that we will knock off the discussion of the matter of public importance from the member for Throsby, which is about jobs, employment, the economy and the manufacturing sector. The member for Throsby cares about jobs and the economy. All those opposite care about is one thing—being able to go from a shadow minister to a minister and from Leader of the Opposition to Prime Minister. That is their only concern. The only job that this man sitting here is concerned about is the position of Prime Minister. He does anything at all—there are no limits to what those opposite are prepared to do—to try to drag down the economy. Today, on a day when we have more Australians in work than at any time in our history, we hear nothing from those opposite. The only people disappointed by today's employment figures are those opposite. There were 46,300 jobs in January— The SPEAKER 0V5 The Leader of the House will return to the motion before the chair. Mr ALBANESE R36 These are the issues that we should be discussing. These are the issues that Australians should be concerned about, and that is why we should reject this suspension motion. The fact is that unemployment has fallen to 5.1 per cent. I heard a prediction this morning on the radio that it would go up. That was the prediction—that is what those opposite were hoping for—yet today we have outstanding figures. It is the largest monthly employment increase in over 12 months. But it is not surprising. We on this side of the House want to discuss the economy. We want to discuss jobs. We want to discuss the future. We want to discuss hope. All those opposite want to discuss is fear, driving everything down. Those are their only concerns—fear and scare campaigns. Today we had the question of Qantas. Any loss of a job is one too many, but Qantas's changes are in its heavy maintenance, which is to do with its international fleet and what is happening with the 747s. Its international fleet is not subject to a carbon price. Of course, we know the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations when Ansett collapsed and 15,000 Australians lost their jobs. That is what he presided over. It is little wonder that those opposite want to avoid a discussion about jobs on a head-to-head basis. It is of little surprise. In the parliament this week we have had important debates. We have had the legislation to make fairer private health insurance carried by this parliament. Today we had legislation on the ABCC, restoring fairness to the workplace. They were opposed by those opposite, like everything else has been opposed. Mr Speaker, 269 pieces of legislation have passed this parliament in spite of the relentless opposition of those opposite and in spite of the fact that they come in here and move suspension motion after suspension motion. The shadow Treasurer actually had the hide to stand up during his contribution to this debate and say, 'They can pass bills through this place.' That is what he said, as if to say 'big deal'. The fact is that we are getting on with important legislation—15 pieces of legislation in the last fortnight, including as I have said changes to make sure that working Australians do not pay for health insurance of politicians and changes delivering on our commitment to have a fair but tough cop on the beat in the construction sector. The fact is that there are choices to be made. There is the choice to be made between standing still and getting ready for the future. The SPEAKER 0V5 The Leader of the House will return to the motion. Mr ALBANESE R36 There are choices to be made between making changes that are better for us and putting off the hard decisions. These are the issues that we want to discuss in this parliament. There are choices between building the future economy and dealing with the $70 billion black hole that those opposite have in their budget costings. This week we saw the debate before this parliament on the PHI legislation, which was resisted by those opposite, who say they will restore it in office when they can. The Australian resources sector, as the Minister for Resources and Energy knows, is pretty innovative. But I tell you, the biggest hole in Australia is not at Olympic Dam; it is in the costings of those opposite. We have choices to make and we want to discuss them. We have choices between helping families make ends meet and clawing back tax cuts. We have choices about whether you deliver tax bonuses to Gina Reinhart and to the other mates they have at the top end of town. They are the issues that we want to discuss. I know that the shadow Treasurer would rather discuss defending the interests of Clive Palmer, but that is not the position that we on this side of the House hold. There are choices to be made between managing the economy for working people and letting it run for the benefit of a select few. There is a fundamental choice between enhancing opportunity and entrenching privilege. Those are the issues that we want to discuss. Those opposite just want to get down in the gutter and discuss personalities. They themselves said that they had asked 54 questions of the Prime Minister—their questions were essentially about issues that are of no concern to the Australian people or their future. Today their lack of discipline was on display. Not only were they interjecting from the front bench and the back bench; they were interjecting from the advisers box. When the appropriateness of having an adviser in the advisers box heckling across the chamber was raised with you, Mr Speaker, they interjected at the person raising the point of order. No wonder there is such concern on their front bench about some of the structures that have been put in place by the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister nailed the answer completely when they were so silly as to come in and suggest that the issue of contacting the leader's office over media was something unique to the Labor Party. That says it all. Fundamentally, we say day after day that those opposite believe that they were born with a right to rule. They think that the prime ministership was stolen from them after the last election, because of their incapacity to negotiate with people. Dr Emerson 83V And their born-to-rule mentality. Mr ALBANESE R36 They have a born-to-rule mentality. Ever since then we have been suffering from the longest dummy spit in Australian political history. We know that the Leader of the Opposition has modelled himself on Barry Goldwater. We know that, because they use the same beginning for their speeches: 'I will offer a choice, not an echo.' The SPEAKER 0V5 The Leader of the House will return to the motion. Mr ALBANESE R36 Those are the issues that we should discuss, because, as the critique of Barry Goldwater said, 'In your guts, you know he's nuts.' That is what Australians know about the challenges that are before us. That is why we should have serious discussion in this House and not this suspension of standing orders. (Time expired) Mr Pyne 9V5 I did not want to interrupt the Leader of the House, unlike the interruptions that I faced. The SPEAKER 0V5 I am sure the Leader of the House appreciates your consideration. Mr Pyne 9V5 My point of order is this: it is highly offensive for the Leader of the House to cast a slur over people with a mental illness, which is what he did in using the phrase he used. It is a slur. As a former parliamentary secretary and then minister for mental illness in the Howard government I find it to be tremendously offensive. I ask you to ask him to withdraw it and not use it again in the future. The SPEAKER 0V5 The question before the chair is that the motion be agreed to. I will put that question. Mr Pyne 9V5 I asked you to ask him to withdraw it. To describe somebody as 'nuts' is unparliamentary. The SPEAKER 0V5 The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Whether what the Leader of the House said was desirable, it was not unparliamentary. The question is that the motion to suspend standing and sessional orders moved by the member for Sturt be agreed to.

The House divided. [15:33]
(The Speaker—Hon. Peter Slipper ]

 70 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Bishop, BK Bishop, JI Briggs, JE Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coulton, M (teller) Crook, AJ Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Forrest, JA Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gash, J Griggs, NL Haase, BW Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Hockey, JB Hunt, GA Jensen, DG Jones, ET Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Ley, SP Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Markus, LE Matheson, RG McCormack, MF Mirabella, S Morrison, SJ Moylan, JE Neville, PC O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Prentice, J Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE Randall, DJ Robb, AJ Roy, WB Ruddock, PM Schultz, AJ Secker, PD (teller) Simpkins, LXL Smith, ADH Somlyay, AM Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Tehan, DT Truss, WE Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Washer, MJ Wilkie, AD Wyatt, KG 71 NOES Adams, DGH Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Bradbury, DJ Brodtmann, G Burke, AE Burke, AS Butler, MC Byrne, AM Champion, ND Cheeseman, DL Clare, JD Collins, JM Combet, GI Crean, SF Danby, M D'Ath, YM Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Emerson, CA Ferguson, LDT Ferguson, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Garrett, PR Georganas, S Gibbons, SW Gillard, JE Gray, G Grierson, SJ Griffin, AP Hall, JG (teller) Hayes, CP (teller) Jenkins, HA Jones, SP Kelly, MJ King, CF Leigh, AK Livermore, KF Lyons, GR Macklin, JL McClelland, RB Melham, D Mitchell, RG Murphy, JP Neumann, SK Oakeshott, RJM O'Connor, BPJ O'Neill, DM Owens, J Parke, M Perrett, GD Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Roxon, NL Rudd, KM Saffin, JA Shorten, WR Sidebottom, PS Smith, SF Smyth, L Swan, WM Symon, MS Thomson, CR Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Windsor, AHC Zappia, A 3 PAIRS Irons, SJ Marles, RD Robert, SR Rowland, MA Scott, BC Snowdon, W

Question negatived.

QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 1670 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Questions in Writing 1670 15:37 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Mr Speaker, under standing order 105(b) I regret to advise that there are 37 questions I have asked that have been outstanding for more than 60 days. I therefore seek your assistance in relation to securing answers to the following questions, to which no answers have yet been provided after more than 60 days: questions 359, 361, 362, 363, 424, 425, 493, 499, 666, 667, 668, 669, 670, 671, 672, 673, 674, 675, 676, 677, 678, 679, 680, 681, 682, 683, 684, 685, 686, 687, 699, 700, 704, 737, 741, 742 and 790. These are all questions to which answers have not been provided within the time limit. I seek your assistance, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 0V5 I thank the honourable member. It is reassuring to know that he can count. I will write to the minister or ministers to whom those questions were addressed in accordance with the standing orders. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 1670 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:38 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 0V5 Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BANDT M3C I do. The SPEAKER 0V5 Please proceed. Mr BANDT M3C Yesterday during debate the member for Higgins made a statement that was untrue. I think she knows it was untrue, and she did not take the opportunity to correct the record when it was brought to her attention. She said, 'The Greens member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, received more than $360,000 across both elections as a direct donation' from certain organisations. That is untrue. I respect the member for Higgins. There is plenty for us to disagree about without her making false allegations. The SPEAKER 0V5 The honourable member has made his personal explanation and has pointed out where he has been misrepresented. The honourable member for Cook was courteous enough to advise me that he had a personal explanation. I advise honourable members who wish to make personal explanations that it would be useful to advise the chair. That means it is less likely that they will be overlooked when they seek the call. 15:39 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 0V5 Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr MORRISON E3L Yes I do, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 0V5 Please proceed. Mr MORRISON E3L In the Australian today an article penned by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, which has otherwise been described as his job application for the position of Treasurer under Mr Rudd, has said the following things— The SPEAKER 0V5 The member will get to where he is misrepresented. Mr MORRISON E3L I will go to the point of my misrepresentation. The SPEAKER 0V5 The member will continue but remember it is a personal explanation. Mr MORRISON E3L I understand. In that article he made reference to comments that I had made regarding the coalition's costing to put a processing centre on Nauru, at less than a third of the costs of the government's proposal, with 600 more beds. He said in this article: We now know the costing was done by a catering company. Morrison's claim that the company had been involved in building the Nauru facility is a blatant untruth. I need to clarify this mistake by the minister, because I assume he did not mean it disingenuously. The coalition costing for re-establishing the processing centre on Nauru was completed by a company— The SPEAKER 0V5 The member has to show— Mr MORRISON E3L He mentioned me specifically, and I will go right through it in detail, and you might want to listen carefully. The coalition costings— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 0V5 Order! If the member abuses the privileges of being given the call as he has, he will not get the opportunity of finishing his personal explanation. Because he does not do it very often, I will allow him to continue, but he must focus his remarks on where he personally—and not anyone else—has been misrepresented. Mr MORRISON E3L I quote from the article where the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship said: Morrison's claim that the company had been involved in building the Nauru facility is a blatant untruth. That was the statement by the minister in the article today. The coalition costing for re-establishing the processing centre on Nauru was completed by a company called DeltaFM, a project management, facilities management, and building and construction company that develops and manages accommodation camps in remote locations and whose clients include Woodside, Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton and the government itself, through the Defence Housing Authority. DeltaFM is part of— The SPEAKER 0V5 I think I know the point the member is making. The member will resume his seat. The member will be expeditious, prompt and direct. Mr MORRISON E3L I am endeavouring to be, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 0V5 Well, not very well. Mr MORRISON E3L DeltaFM is part of the Compass Group Australia, which last year offered to provide bipartisan advice to both the government and the opposition on costings for Nauru. The SPEAKER 0V5 I am going to call the member for Boothby, who has a personal explanation. I will give the member for Cook another opportunity after the member for Boothby, but it must be concise and it must be brief. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 1671 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Questions in Writing 1671 15:43 Dr SOUTHCOTT TK6 Boothby Mr Speaker, under standing order 105(b) I am asking you if you could write to the Minister for Health about the following questions, which have been outstanding for more than 60 days: questions 602, 615, 616, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647, 648 and 784. I ask if you could write to the Minister for Health seeking reasons for the delay in answering those questions. The SPEAKER 0V5 I thank the honourable member. I thought he was seeking to make a personal explanation, but I will certainly write to the minister as required by the standing orders. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 1671 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:44 The SPEAKER 0V5 I would ask the member for Cook not to repeat what he said before but just to precis what he was hoping to say in the balance of what he was planning to mention to the House. 15:44 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Thank you, Mr Speaker. DeltaFM and ESS Support Services Worldwide are sister companies of the parent company Compass Group Australia. During the seven years of operation of the Nauru centre ESS Support Services Worldwide provided security, procurement services, mechanical services, building infrastructure, facilities management, maintenance and cleaning services and catering to the Nauru facility under contract to the International Organisation for Migration. The SPEAKER 0V5 The honourable member will resume his seat. DOCUMENTS 1672 DOCUMENTS Presentation 1672 15:44 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler (): Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move: That the House take note of the following document: Sydney Airport Demand Management Act—Quarterly report on movement cap for Sydney airport for the period 1 October to 31 December 2011. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 1672 COMMITTEES Selection Committee 1672 Report 1672 15:45 The SPEAKER 0V5 I present Selection Committee report No. 44 relating to the consideration of bills. The report will be printed in today's Hansard. The report read as follows — Report relating to the consideration of bills introduced 13 to 16 February 2012 1. The committee met in private session on 15 and 16 February 2012. 2. The committee determined that the following referrals of bills to committees be made— Standing Committee on Economics: Corporations Amendment (Phoenixing and Other Measures) Bill 2012; Standing Committee on Education and Employment: Fair Work Amendment (Better Work/Life Balance) Bill 2012; Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters: Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Protecting Elector Participation) Bill 2012; Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications: Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012; Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs: Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (R 18+ Computer Games) Bill 2012; Marriage Amendment Bill 2012; and Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012; and Joint Standing Committee on Treaties: Treaties Ratification Bill 2012. COMMITTEES 1672 COMMITTEES Membership 1672 15:46 The SPEAKER 0V5 I have received advice from Mr Bandt nominating himself to be a supplementary member of certain committees for the purposes of certain inquiries. 15:46 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler by leave—I move: That Mr Bandt be appointed a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Economics for the purpose of the committee’s Review of the Reserve Bank Annual Report 2011; the Standing Committee on Education and Employment for the purpose of the committee’s inquiry into the Fair Work Amendment (Better Work/Life Balance) Bill 2012; and the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs for the purpose of the committee’s inquiries into the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 and the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010. Question agreed to. PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS 1673 PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS Speaker's Panel 1673 The SPEAKER 0V5 Pursuant to standing order 17(a), I lay on the table my warrant nominating the honourable members for O'Connor, Lyne and New England to be members of the Speaker’s panel to assist the chair when requested to do so by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 1673 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Automotive Industry 1673 15:47 The SPEAKER 0V5 I have received letters from the honourable member for Throsby and the honourable member for Menzies proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46, I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Throsby, namely: The urgent need to maintain support and co-investment in Australia's car manufacturing industry to ensure it, and the hundreds of thousands of people whose jobs depend on it, have a secure future. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:48 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby Over the last hour, this House has been treated to a remarkable spectacle—the opposition drawing upon the learned authorities of Cromwell and Jerry Seinfeld to move a gag motion at question time. The reason they have drawn upon the learned authorities of Cromwell and Jerry Seinfeld to try to gag question time is that they did not want to talk about the economy. They did not want to talk about the economy and they did not want to talk about jobs, because it does not suit them to recognise that today the ABS announced an increase in employment and a decrease in unemployment and that, as the Leader of the House observed, today there are more Australians in jobs than at any other time in our nation's history. I am very proud to come in here day after day and sit alongside MPs who understand the importance of manufacturing. I am very proud to come in here day after day and sit alongside MPs on this side of the House who understand and support the automotive industry. When I sit alongside my colleagues on this side of the House—people who understand and support the importance of the manufacturing industry and the car industry—I look across the chamber and I see an opposition which wants to close down the car industry. We on this side of the House support the car industry because we understand that it is absolutely critical to an advanced economy. If it is true that a country that makes stuff knows stuff, it is equally true that a country which makes cars has access to the engineering know-how which is at the heart of a modern economy. That is why we on this side of the House know that the car industry matters. Australia is one of only 13 countries in the world which have the capacity to fully manufacture, end to end, an automobile. On this side of the House we want to ensure that Australia stays in that group of 13, as opposed to those on that side of the House, who have policy settings which are designed to close down the car industry. We want to be one of the 13 countries because we know that the car industry directly employs over 46,000 Australians and supports their families. On that side of the House they have a lot to say about families, but there are 46,000 families they cannot look in the eye—because they want to do them out of a job. It is not only those 46,000 workers they cannot look in the eye; it is the 200,000 workers in downstream supply chains reliant upon the automotive industry for their livelihood. I am very pleased to see the member for Cunningham in the chamber today, because jointly we represent a region which relies very heavily on the steel industry, BlueScope and OneSteel in particular. We—the member for Cunningham and I—know that the car industry, and the continued viability of the car industry and the car components industry, is critical to the steel industry. That is just one example of the importance of the car industry to the overall economy. We know that over $1.4 billion worth of domestic steel is purchased by the automotive sector each and every year, $1.4 billion worth of steel the sale of which is vital to the economies of regions which rely on our steel industry—the Illawarra is just one example. It is not only steel; it is the polymer industry—over $44 million annually is purchased in polymers by the automotive sector—and research and development. You talk about wanting to be a smart country. Well, the automotive sector is the largest contributing sector to research and development within the manufacturing sector, and the manufacturing sector boxes well above its weight when it comes to its contribution to research and development in this country. So, when you stack all of that up, it is easy to see why these facts are very well understood by each and every member on this side of the House. We understand that the automotive industry is important not only to those 46,000 people who are directly employed in it and the 200,000 workers working downstream but also to the fabric of our country and who we are as Australians. This is not knowledge that is shared by those who sit on the opposition benches. I was very interested to read an article in today's Courier Mail by renowned press gallery journalist Steven Scott, where he is quoting comments by Queensland Liberal Party Senator Boyce. He says: Queensland Liberal Senator Sue Boyce has called for more cuts to taxpayer handouts for the car industry, even if this meant no cars were manufactured in Australia. He directly quotes from Senator Boyce's newsletter, where she said: I've never understood what it is about the car manufacturing industry that makes it so, so special in terms of government subsidies— That says it in a nutshell. They do not understand what it is about the car industry that makes it so special. Of course, it is not just the senator from Queensland who shares those thoughts. There is the well-known columnist, the man who obviously did not get the memo from Ms Peaton that was sent around. He often writes very learned op-eds. I quote from the Australian of 13 October 2011, which quotes the member for Mayo as describing it—this is word for word; I am not making this up, Deputy Speaker. Opposition members interjecting— Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B They think it is funny on that side of the House. They think it is very funny. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S Order! The members for Indi and Casey! Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B They think it is funny because they do not support the car industry. They want to close it down. The member for Mayo nailed it when he said: There is a role for government to assist industries to adapt to changing environments, but taxpayers funding a romantic attachment to a bygone era is not a position the Australian economy can afford or sustain. That is what they think on that side of the House—that it is a romantic bygone era. On this side of the House we totally reject that view. When that is your starting point you are simply incapable of crafting a positive policy which will support not only the automotive sector but also the manufacturing sector in general. We know, because of the commitments, the backflips and the flip-flops they have made, that they are in all sorts of fiscal strife. They have tied themselves in knots, and we know that they have a $70 billion black hole to fill. What is unfortunate is the length they are going to to attempt to fill that black hole. We on this side of the House have committed ourselves to supporting the automotive sector through co-investment and other strategies. However, I quote from a joint press conference the Leader of the Opposition gave in Canberra on 8 February 2011: We are cutting $500 million worth of automotive assistance. This takes the level of automotive assistance back to the level that the Howard government thought necessary in 2007 and it removes the additional assistance to the motor industry that the Labor government provided. There you have it. That is what they think. They think that any assistance to the automotive sector is a romantic attachment to a bygone era. That is their starting point, and they are putting that into practice by ripping $500 million worth of automotive assistance from the Automotive Transformation Scheme. But they do not stop there, because it is not just families who are employed in the automotive industry that they want to do in the eye; it is the families employed in the steel sector as well. When asked whether they would support $300 million worth of assistance to help the transformation of our steel sector, they made it quite clear that they would not. They are quite happy to run around, whack on a hard hat and an orange vest and pose alongside some workers to get a photo opportunity, but when it comes to doing the hard yards of putting a policy in place they run the other way. We saw how they voted. They had the opportunity in this House to vote in favour of the Steel Industry Transformation Plan and they did not. What we know is that BlueScope and OneSteel are in the process of restructuring, making long-term investments and trying to re-equip and retool their plants to meet the challenges of a highly competitive industry. Unless they have certainty about government policy in this area, they simply will not invest. So there is a challenge from those on the other side, and that is to revisit their policy of ripping $300 million out of the steel transformation plan, Because as things stand—and what is obvious to all of us on this side of the House—is that the coalition plan is to fill their $70 billion black hole with the jobs of auto industry workers and steel industry workers. They want to fill their $70 billion black hole with the jobs of auto industry workers and manufacturing industry workers, particularly those in the steel industry. We on this side of the House think that is an absolute disgrace. Contrast that with the policy of the Labor Party, which is to give $3.4 billion worth of assistance to the Automotive Transformation Scheme, which is supporting the production of motor vehicles and engines, research and development, and plant and equipment. That is focused on innovation, because we know that to compete in a very competitive industry, in a very competitive market, we have to have a modern automotive sector with the best technology, the best research and development and the most highly skilled workforce. It is not just the automotive industry that we are helping transform. As I said, there is $300 million of assistance to the steel industry for its Steel Transformation Plan. We on this side of the House think that a capacity to manufacture steel, to retain that heavy manufacturing capacity, is critical to our national economy and our national interests. That is why on this side of the House we are investing in clean technology for the future. I was very pleased that the Minister for Climate Change and Industry was able to announce today the first draft of funds available through the Clean Technology Investment Program. We know this will be very well subscribed—we heard today that there are over 3,000 expressions of interest for funds under that program. There is $1 billion to assist manufacturing improve energy efficiency and pollution. These are the policy settings of a government which manages the economy in the interests of the manufacturing sector and in the interests of working families. We are investing in infrastructure, including filling the $100 billion deficit in infrastructure investment that we inherited. This deficit occurred when the economy was raining gold bars, yet they come into this place and champion the fact that they were able to deliver surplus after surplus—as our rail network was falling to bits, as our ports were being clogged and as our hospitals were becoming a national disgrace. Suburb after suburb after suburb, throughout Australia, could not get access to the essential technology of the future, and that is fast, reliable, high-speed broadband. We are reversing that, and we are doing that while managing the economy in the interests of working families. If you are going to manage the economy in the interests of working families, particularly those who are mortgage holders, you have to adopt policy settings which are keeping interest rates low. Those on the other side of the House like to talk about interest rates but one thing they will not tell you is that interest rates are lower today than they were when we took office in November 2007. In fact, they would have to increase 10 times to reach the level they were when we took office. We are adopting policy settings which are keeping interest rates low, and unemployment is low. We are very proud of the fact that 700,000 jobs have been created since we took office. We are proud of our job creation record because on this side of the House that is what it is all about. We come here week after week to craft policies and advocate programs which are in the interests of ordinary working people, which are supporting the manufacturing sector, and we stare across the chamber at those on the other side of the table who have this new romantic attachment to the manufacturing sector but when you look at their policy cupboard it is bare. All they want is to fill their $70 billion black hole with the jobs of automotive industry workers. (Time expired) 16:03 Mrs MIRABELLA 00AMU Indi How wrong the member for Throsby is. He did not seem to talk much about cars. I would have thought he would get some speaking notes from the Minister for Industry and Innovation—and where is the industry minister, by the way? This is such an important issue for a matter of public importance, but where is the industry minister? Where are the industry minister's speaking notes for the member for Throsby? His contribution was woeful and embarrassing. All we saw from him was a stunt. He always prefers jawboning in parliament rather than jawboning his senior colleagues and telling them to get rid of the carbon tax, telling them to adopt a coherent and visionary industry policy. I remind the member for Throsby that it was only a few months ago that Mike Devereux, the Chairman and Managing Director of GM Holden and the President of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, said when referring to a deal he made with the Prime Minister in 2008: We cut a deal with the prime minister and then midway through ... the rules of the game changed ... it certainly worries a multinational parent when sovereign risk begins to be something that is bandied about in terms of doing business in Australia. Who would have thought this great developed economy of ours would be described as a country with sovereign risk. It is the first time that any of us can remember the car industry specifically raising the issue of sovereign risk in Australia—and that is entirely the Labor Party's own doing. It is because of their own incompetence and untruths. They promised the earth, the moon and the stars to the industry during an election campaign to get elected, knowing they could not deliver on those promises and would be cutting them afterwards. Although people might be drawn to laugh at the member for Throsby's MPI and his lack of knowledge about the car industry, it actually makes you want to cry. He talks in his MPI about a secure future. Surely that is the height of irony. No government in Australian history has left the industry more uncertain about its future than this miserable administration. Under no government in Australian history has there been a greater crisis in Australian manufacturing. Under no government in Australian history has there been a worse rate of manufacturing job losses. Already 130,000 have gone since the middle of 2008, and I am afraid to say more job losses are forecast, particularly if the government persist with their job-destroying policies and the carbon tax. And is it any wonder in such circumstances? In the wake of removal of responsibility in the recent reshuffle, manufacturing policy, for the first time in living memory, was taken out of cabinet. And even Ian Jones, the National Divisional Secretary of the AMWU Vehicle Division—member for Throsby, I hope you are hearing this—said, 'The Prime Minister'—that is, Ms Gillard—'does not understand manufacturing's importance to the economy.' Straight out of the mouth of the AMWU. Those on the other side do not understand the importance of manufacturing. Why would they, Marcel Marceau like, remain silent when the Prime Minister forged ahead with the carbon tax? We see it every day: Alcoa, the cement industry, food processing, the Furnishing Industry Association—anyone you turn to. I cannot hear any industry association saying, 'Horray! Thank you, Prime Minister. You've given us the carbon tax. That's going to secure our future.' They are saying the exact opposite. Let us hear from a recent report, only a few days ago, from the Federation of Automotive Products Manufacturers Chief Executive, Richard Reilly, who said: 'We are going to be impacted by a carbon tax and our competitors won't.' That is pretty simple; that is pretty straightforward. Even someone who only speaks one language, be it English, should be able to understand that. The automotive products manufacturers employ 46,000 Victorians in my home town. This is what they said to warn the government that the industry is in a fragile position: 'Many manufacturers are operating on very narrow profit margins if any at all.' Let us face it: you do not introduce compensation if you do not injure someone. This government is saying, 'Gee, we are going to create all these green jobs.' They cannot tell us how many. 'We will destroy jobs in the meantime. We will impose a $460 million carbon cost on the auto industry, but we will give you compensation.' That is, if you are eligible for it. As we have seen with aluminium today, even if you are eligible, it probably will not cover the full cost of your injury in the first place. Those on the other side ravenously feed on vulnerable Australians' anxiety about job losses. They have got form on this. Let us remember the desperate scare campaign that the likes of the member for Corangamite and the abysmally incompetent so-called minister for manufacturing have been running in communities like Geelong. Let me remind the House what happened during the last election when the member for Corangamite specifically made a claim about a proposed $278 million cut that we had announced. We were being upfront and honest with the industry; we were going to cut the Green Car Innovation Fund by $278 million. And do you know what the member for Corangamite said? 'It is going to destroy Geelong.' The entire city of Geelong was going to be destroyed. But the same member—the very same man—was silent, was mute, when the Labor Party proceeded to smash the $885 million fund only months after the 2010 election. Fancy that. I watched the member for Corangamite and he was again silent, mute, when Labor kept on breaking their promises, and they all add up. And being a diligent shadow minister I had to make sure I added them up so that my colleagues and those on the other side of the House and the Australian public could be aware of the gross extent of the misinformation and broken promises of the Labor Party. They have broken $1.4 billion in promises to the car industry. They have hiked up the luxury car tax and made changes to the fringe benefits tax, and what happens from the other side? Not a word. Labor members must also surely have the tinniest of tin ears to seriously bring this motion on today of all days, after the humiliation and pounding that their colleague Senator Carr took in estimates yesterday, as the whole policy of the car industry was taken apart piece by piece before his eyes. Maybe members on the other side were not following that part of estimates very carefully, but let me inform you what happened. The Automotive Transformation Scheme, the ATS, is the biggest fund from which assistance is given to the auto industry and it is a retrospective scheme. Certain parameters need to be achieved: production outcomes, investment in R&D, investment in plant and equipment. Guess what we found out in estimates yesterday? Unilaterally, without a public announcement, the government has now said: 'It's okay. You don't have to comply with any of these requirements for funding. If there is money left over in the fund, well, it is up to us—if you're nice to us we might give it to you.' That breaks every rule of responsible, transparent government. If you were to extend that logic, you would go to every single government grant and say: 'Oh, gee, there is money left over in this fund. Why don't we just give it to you anyway. Let's go to every single other portfolio.' That is no way to behave, particularly when the government is borrowing $100 million a day and indebting the future generations of this country. What happened at estimates was interesting. Senator Carr was asked, 'Well, when did this all change?' He said, 'Oh, there were parameter changes.' He told us that he thought it was in about November last year in a speech. So I went and took out the speech. It was an address to the Federation of Automotive Products Manufacturers. I had a look. He talks about parameters. He says: I have always emphasised that the New Car Plan is not a set and forget policy. The Plan sets the parameters— blah blah blah. There is no description. There is no explanation that the ATS has changed and now, instead of the department at arms length assessing an application, the government can decide who gets what money out of the ATS. What does that tell components manufacturers who are drafting their application? How do they know what they need to comply with? The minister in Senate estimates could not point to a single criterion on which this funding was based. That is an absolute disgrace. I suggest that members on the opposite side read the Hansard from yesterday's Senate Economics Legislation Committee hearing, specifically the questions asked by Senator Ryan. There is one word missing from this MPI, and that is the word 'effective'. The approach of this coalition to car industry funding has always been, just as it continues to be, that such funding must be accountable and sustainable and deliver long-term benefits to the industry and, equally as important, to the Australian taxpayer. We do not think that taking Australian taxpayers' money and throwing it around just to buy time is the responsible thing to do. Governments do not have any of their own money. It belongs to the Australian people. Where it is given in grants, where an industry or a business has the privilege of receiving a grant, there is a corresponding responsibility to use that money wisely. And the responsibility also falls on the government to ensure that they have the guidelines and parameters to ensure that that money is used wisely. We have heard over the years the Leader of the House mock various rural programs, businesses that have gone under and the rest of it. He uses it all the time. Where is he? Where is he defending transparency in the now ripped apart, debunked ATS? We have provided generous support to the car industry and we do want to see a viable auto industry, but we are going to do it with set parameters and guidelines through a transparent system. We had a plan, devised by John Howard, which was to go from 2002 to 2015, with a Productivity Commission review in 2008. Mr Rudd ripped all of that and in his usual shambolic way went on to make the promises and rip $1.4 billion out of the industry. But it is not just us, it is not just components manufacturers and it is not just the car industry saying that the carbon tax is going to affect them or criticising the manner in which this government throws money, whether it is cheques to dead people, overpriced school halls or pink batts. Last month, from Mr Weatherill's office—this is leaking from state Labor—it was leaked that they said 'Carr was just ready to hand the money over' in grant discussions with Holden and did not care about anything other than that it would tide them over for a while. So as long as Senator Carr can buy a bit of time, perhaps featherbed and line those who are on his side, he is in his element. Well, we will not go down that path. We will have transparency. We want a viable, sustainable industry and that is what we will fight for against this shambolic, disgraceful government. (Time expired) 16:18 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield A funny thing happened the other day. Some of my constituents came up here to Canberra. They work at Holden's. They are just ordinary fellas. They came up here to find out what the government's policy is and they came up here to find out what the opposition's policy is. They had a meeting with the member for Indi and they walked away—like the people in the gallery will walk away and like the public who are listening to this speech will walk away—absolutely clueless about what the alternative government would do to the car industry if they were to be elected to government. We did not hear a single thing from the opposition in that entire speech about their actual policy. We did not hear a single thing. That is the member for Indi's approach: to simply spend 15 minutes bagging the government and not put anything about their alternative approach in there—very, very little policy. That is what they do when they meet with delegates from Holden's; that is what they will tell the people in the gallery and the people listening. They basically think, 'We don't have to reveal our policy about this very important industry which employs 46,000 people and which a further 200,000 jobs rely on.' They do not think they have to come clean with the Australian people; all they have to do is be negative about the government. That is their main approach. We know from the member for Throsby about the attitudes on the Liberal Party back bench. There is the member for Mayo, and I saw the member for Bradfield in here before interjecting about what a tragedy it was to be spending taxpayers' money supporting this important industry. The real face of the Liberal Party can be seen on the back bench. That is where their real policy generators are. Their frontbench are just basically focused on the political task of throwing mud at the government and not revealing their own policies. The reason they do not want to reveal their own policies is that it is going to be a very simple choice at the next election. You can either vote Labor and back Australian jobs, Australian industry and Australian choice for Australian consumers—that is the Labor way—or back the Liberals. The Liberals' way is to undermine Australian jobs, undermine Australian industries and undermine the ability of Australian consumers to buy an Australian car. That is their policy. You can already see their plan in action. They have sent their pointy-headed economists and their troglodytes out there to get stuck into Holden workers getting a pay rise: 'How terrible! Holden's workers are getting a pay rise. What an outrage!' You see them getting stuck into the provision of assistance to this important industry. You see them out there on all the talk shows bagging the car industry. It is all part of a coordinated conservative plan to undermine Australian confidence in this very important industry, to obscure the real facts, to spread lies and misinformation, just as we have seen lies and misinformation in the carbon debate and so many other areas. We know that that is their approach: get out there and use the conservative organs, the newspapers and the like, to undermine people's confidence in this very important industry. The truth is that their plan is to offshore the Australian car industry. They are going to close it down and send 46,000 jobs and more overseas. Their plan is to have all of them driving around in BMWs and the rest of the country driving around in some foreign made, unsafe rubbish. That is their policy. People should be well aware of that. People should understand that the reason the member for Indi does not reveal their policy is that if Australians knew it they would not be voting Liberal at the next election. The conservative position is to offshore the Australian car industry. It is a disgrace. We have to understand the importance of this industry. It is an important industry, and we have to defend it and secure it. It is important that we acknowledge the facts of this matter. Every time the Liberal Party talks about subsidies, the public should be aware of this: in Australia, we provide assistance of $17; in Germany, it is $60; in America, it is $264. A government member: How much? Mr CHAMPION HW9 It is $264. We do not operate in a perfect world. We do not operate in some magical world. We operate in a world where other countries subsidise their auto industries. Other countries manipulate their currencies, and it gives them an advantage. We constantly hear from the opposition backbenchers—that is the honest ones like the member for Mayo—about how terrible it is to provide subsidies, but you do not hear them talking about the subsidy originated by the Howard government and provided to the terribly inefficient private health insurers. You do not ever hear about that subsidy—that is a good subsidy! You do not hear about the $549 million provided to mining, or the $700 million provided to the grain, beef and sheep industries, or the $1.46 billion provided to other primary producers in assistance. You do not hear anything about those subsidies, because those industries support the Liberal Party. They are conservative constituencies, so they are all right—that is all okay then. But, if the car industry gets assistance, suddenly it is a terrible blight on the Australian taxpayer. It is just ridiculous. Their whining about assistance is just a mechanism to undermine Australian confidence in this very important industry. The choice is going to be pretty clear at the next election. Vote Labor and have a car industry and a choice for Australian consumers or vote Liberal and offshore it. I do not think that my state in particular can afford to offshore this industry. The member for Indi was talking about the South Australian government. The South Australian government has a report from the head of the University of Adelaide Business School, Associate Professor Barry Burgan, saying that Holden's Elizabeth plant is worth $1.5 billion to the South Australian economy and that its loss would result in the loss of 16,000 jobs in my state. That is not just people who are directly employed by Holden—people who live in my electorate—but people in retail, hospitality, building, construction, transport and other very important industries. The Liberal Party policy would devastate not just the suburb I was born in but the entire state economy. It would king-hit the entire South Australian economy. That is why it is so surprising to find the member for Mayo being a cheer squad for those who want to outsource the Australian car industry and send those jobs overseas to China, India and Thailand. I think it is disgraceful and it should be opposed. Thankfully, there are sane voices in Australia. Ziggy Switkowski, a prominent and sensible Australian, wrote in the Australian on 9 February 2012: … car manufacturing is special and is an industry where Australia has a hundred years of experience and global connections to build upon. We should be very careful about withdrawing from this industry and I don't think we should. Those are the sentiments of the Australian people. If you go out there and talk to communities—I do not care if that is in South Australia, outback Queensland, Brisbane, Perth or anywhere else—Australians want an Australian choice. They want to be able buy the Cruze. They want to be able to buy the Commodore. They want to be able to buy the Toyota Camry. They want to be able to buy the Falcon. They want to be able to go to Bathurst and watch the Commodore and Falcon battle it out on Mount Panorama. Make no mistake: the Liberal Party policy is about an assault not just on our car industry but— Mr Tony Smith 00APG What! Are you going to Bathurst now in a Commodore? Mr CHAMPION HW9 That is right. How else are we going to get up the hill? Are we going to get up there in Tatas or a Great Wall? Mr Stephen Jones A9B It will be a billycart! Mr CHAMPION HW9 Or a billycart—something like that. The problem with the Liberal Party is that they want to offshore this industry but they do not want to be honest about it. They were not honest with workers who came up from my electorate and saw them in good faith, and they are not going to be honest with the public. People are entitled not to give them the benefit of the doubt and to understand the devastating impact that their policy will have on this industry. 16:28 Mr TONY SMITH 00APG Casey What we have seen today is a cruel hoax by the tactics committee of the government. This MPI moved on the car manufacturing industry has had two speakers opposite who, with a combined speaking time of nearly half an hour, have not once mentioned the carbon tax. As the member for Indi outlined, it is those opposite who will tax at every opportunity. It is those opposite who will tax the car industry and the carbon tax is a crystal clear example of that. The automotive companies in Australia know it. Not only that but the consumers who buy cars know it, because your track record speaks volumes. What you are about to do—what you have voted for in defiance of your personal pledges before the last election—is to impose a carbon tax. I put it to those opposite who have just spoken: you were elected on a lie and you are going to impose a carbon tax— The SPEAKER 0V5 Order! The honourable member will withdraw the term 'lie'. Mr TONY SMITH 00APG I withdraw. Prior to the last election, you pledged not to introduce a carbon tax and you were going to introduce a carbon tax that would put the price of a car by $400, that would add $46 million to the cost of car producers every single year. Mr Champion interjecting— The SPEAKER 0V5 Order! The member for Wakefield might well be sent out for an hour. Mr TONY SMITH 00APG That is what those opposite have chosen. The reason they do not mention it is that they are embarrassed. You ought to go back to your electorates and stand in front of those car workers and say, 'At the last election I was not honest.' Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 1682 ADJOURNMENT Murray-Darling Basin 1682 16:30 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I rise today with a double honour of being a woman and representing the women from my electorate, quite a number of whom, I might warn honourable colleagues, are on their way to Canberra later this month. I also warn the House that not just one woman has been upset but many thousands throughout the Murray-Darling Basin and you are set to hear about it long and loud. You see, the Women for a Living Basin have had enough. They have had enough of being duped by doublespeak and double standards during this current process of reform known as the Basin Plan. I too am from the basin and I can tell you I have been to meeting after meeting. I have heard from farmers, businesspeople, families, schools and councils. I have spoken to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. Thousands of the people whom I represent have tried to speak to the authority and, here is the problem: we do not believe that the authority or the government are really listening. We are not even sure that they are interested in what we have to say. So, instead, the Women for a Living Basin are coming to Canberra and are hoping that some of you will listen to their message. That message is a pretty simple one: we want someone from this government to recognise there are real people and real communities who stand to be decimated by the plan as it currently stands. Being family and fair minded, the women of the basin want a holistic outcome, achieving practical and common sense results for all of the basin, indeed all of Australia. Why is the Basin Plan still so far removed from common sense? Canberra is also part of the basin on the Murrumbidgee River system and the authority wants to take 183 gigalitres from this valley to give back to the environment. To give you a real life idea of that amount, 183 gigalitres is roughly six times the size of Lake Burley Griffin. The authority has not told you how or where that figure will be achieved so, without a better idea, let's say they decide instead to flush all the water out of Lake Burley Griffin to assist the straw-necked ibis, large royal spoonbill and southern bell frog living downstream. Flushing water from the lake behind my shoulder is not, by the way, so fanciful. That is exactly what the authority has planned for Lake Hume in Albury, where I live—to flush the water out of Lake Hume down the Murray to flood wetlands, farmlands and everything in its way to eventually flow out of the Murray mouth eight or nine years out of 10. Let's imagine the Murray-Darling Basin Authority was not based in Canberra but in Albury, Deniliquin, Broken Hill, Finley or Jerilderie—actually that is where it should be based, but that is a debate for another day—out there in the bush, not knowing just how important Burley Griffin was to this city and it was decided it could be emptied six times a year to help out the frogs downstream. Why not? What other function is there for Lake Burley Griffin? It is like saying: stuff Canberra—we need your water for something more important. Down south in the basin, that is exactly how we feel. It is like someone in a high-rise office in Civic saying, 'Stuff you, we need your water for something more important.' It also completely ignores the fact that the basin produces 90 per cent of the fresh food grown in Australia that ends up on your plate. Of course, the authority is not planning to empty Lake Burley Griffin to look after a frog—that would be stupid. It would also impact detrimentally on Canberra and all those who like their lake, and I do too. For the benefit, shall I say, of my male colleagues here in the chamber, let me explain women's intuition. It is when someone of the female gender is clued in on something that has not happened yet but probably will, unless they intervene. That intuition will be on full display here on 29 February and I suggest to all my federal colleagues: ignore these women at your peril. I invite as many members as possible to come and talk and listen to the Women for a Living Basin campaign here on 29 February. I thank those women from my electorate and neighbouring electorates who are making this happen, because, as I said, they have had enough and they want to bring their message, their passion and their commitment to their rural communities here to Canberra. The SPEAKER 0V5 I thank the honourable member for Farrer for that particularly thoughtful contribution. Deakin Electorate: Sporting Facilities 1684 16:35 Mr SYMON HW8 Deakin I would like to relate to the House the opening of a wonderful community facility that I attended on 19 November last year, the Heathmont Pavilion—of course in the suburb of Heathmont—in the electorate of Deakin. The official opening of a new pavilion was a great turnaround for sporting clubs and the ground as well. It is used by both the Heathmont Baseball Club and the Heathmont Baptist Cricket Club. It is probably the only example I know of a local sportsground shared by two sports such as those. That is done because one uses it during summer and the other during winter, so rather than football and cricket this one is baseball and cricket. In August 2009 I was contacted by Mark Le Grew on behalf of the Heathmont Baseball Club. He invited me to come and look at their facilities and to learn a little bit more about their sporting club and the facilities they were using at that time. Although the ground is located next to a main road—Canterbury Road—you would not know from that road that there is a club there. It is hidden behind a big row of trees. I took up the offer and visited the site in September 2009, when I met Mark Le Grew and Councillor Paul Macdonald from Maroondah City Council. I also teamed up with Shaun Leane who is a metropolitan member of the Legislative Council. We looked at the old building that had been constructed way back—many years ago—and that had not had any work done on it since 1981. It also had a very big problem complying with current regulations for disability access and even the provision of toilets for anyone other than males. The rooms were particularly dilapidated. There was only one change room inside the building. On the day I was there, it rained and, on cue, the roof leaked, the wind blew and the galvanised iron roof started flapping around above my head. I pretty much made up my mind at that time that this was one of the worst community buildings I had been in. It did not take a lot more to convince me after that. However, I then looked at the food-serving facilities, canteen facilities and the toilet facilities. 'Agricultural' is probably too kind a word for some of those. They had just been used and used and used and the building had certainly passed its use-by-date. There was a common area for the change room, which prevented the clubs from having womens teams, due to a lack of segregated changing areas. It really was an eyesore. Funding of $246,000 from the federal Labor government and a capital grant from the Maroondah Council of $687,000 means there is now a brand-new facility there that anyone in the community can use and be very proud to use. The new building has a wonderful deck out the front with massive bifold doors. It is a very good viewing area, whereas the old playing field viewing area was pretty much a piece of tin over the top of a small brick and concrete building. The new building is also air-conditioned, which means functions are quite pleasant. Once upon a time they certainly were not. Unusually for Maroondah Council, this was the first building built using prefabricated concrete tilt slab walls. I know this is very common in commercial projects, but it was the first one done by the council. It was done this way for both speed and cost. Not only the clubs use the room and the ground but the whole community. It is very important that in outer suburban areas, such as Heathmont, community facilities are renewed. When they were put there originally they were great, but they decline over time. There were other people there to help me open it, including the then mayor of Maroondah City Council, Tony Dib, councillors Natalie Thomas and Paul Macdonald. It was a wonderful day to recognise this great new facility. The Heathmont Baseball Club has produced many olympic representatives; 25 Australian representatives and currently has two players on full college scholarships in the USA; and two players on professional contracts, one being Australia's highest profile baseballer, Atlanta Braves pitcher, Peter Moylan, who signed professionally while he was still at the club at Heathmont. That is a great wrap for a club that is local and for a sport that is not known by everyone. It certainly now has a great place to call home. Federal-State Relations: Native Title Compensation 1685 16:40 Mr CROOK M3K O'Connor I rise this evening to discuss federal-state relations with respect to native title compensation and the Prime Minister's recent response to this issue. By way of background, for over a decade there has been an arrangement whereby the federal government has compensated the states for the bulk of their native title compensation. This has been evidenced in correspondence between former Prime Minister Paul Keating and the then Western Australian Premier, Richard Court. In this 1994 correspondence Prime Minister Keating discussed the arrangement to fund 75 per cent of the compensation costs arising from native title. In this letter Prime Minister Keating even confirms the Commonwealth's commitment to bear the lion's share of the burden. In 1998, the arrangement was subsequently confirmed in correspondence between former Prime Minister John Howard and then Western Australian Premier Richard Court. In this letter the Prime Minister confirms the offer to pay the government 75 per cent of native title compensation, and it adds: I think it is fundamental to the Commonwealth's approach to native title issues generally that native title is not an obstacle to economic development. I seek leave to table copies of the letter from Premier Richard Court, Prime Minister Keating, on 3 February 1994, along with a letter from Premier Richard Court to Prime Minister John Howard, dated 22 August 1998. The SPEAKER 0V5 I do not know whether the honourable member has shown parliamentary secretary Mike Kelly, as a courtesy, what he plans to table. If he has not, could he show it to the parliamentary secretary and, at the conclusion of the honourable member's contribution, the parliamentary secretary will be in a position to advise whether or not leave is granted. The member for O'Connor continues to have the call. Mr CROOK M3K From my understanding this bipartisan arrangement continued until 2009 when, according to the Western Australian Attorney-General, during the global financial crisis the Commonwealth Attorney-General advised that this arrangement had been suspended. A reasonable person would presume that the suspension of this important financial arrangement was temporary due to the financial crisis. However, it seems possible that the federal government has reneged on this deal and is avoiding questioning on the matter. This issue is very important to our Indigenous peoples, our nation and our states. It is of particular financial relevance to a state like Western Australia, which is heavily exposed to native titles and to native title claims. As such, I decided to ask the Prime Minister during question time earlier this week why she was reneging on this deal. In a very brief response the Prime Minister explained that she had learnt about the Premier's concern via the media and that he had never raised this issue with her personally—not once. In my opinion the Prime Minister's response to the question was very peculiar. Firstly, it was peculiar because it avoided the question altogether. Rather than discussing the federal-state native title arrangements, the Prime Minister merely discussed her interactions with the Western Australian Premier. Secondly, it was incorrect. The Prime Minister had indeed been contacted by the Premier about this matter during 2011. In fact the Prime Minister had even responded to his concerns in a signed letter. I also seek leave to table copies of the letters between Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Western Australian Premier Colin Barnett on this issue on various dates through 2011. The SPEAKER 0V5 Again, if you could pass that on to parliamentary secretary Mike Kelly. When the member is finished I will invite the parliamentary secretary to respond. Mr CROOK M3K Given these issues, on Monday night I requested that the Prime Minister make a further explanation to the parliament on this matter. On indulgence, the Prime Minister clarified that she had indeed received and sent correspondence to the Premier on this matter but again declined to make any further comment. From reading the correspondence, I am concerned that the Prime Minister may seek to rely on a legal technicality to try and escape a longstanding bipartisan agreement. In my opinion, such an act would be grossly unfair. Such an act would also be fervently opposed by both sides of Western Australian politics. In fact, the Leader of the Labour Party in Western Australia has expressly stated that the Prime Minister is wrong for not honouring the undertaking first pledged by Paul Keating. Given the large exposure of Western Australia to native title compensation claims, this could be a huge blow to Western Australia's budget, which has already been under siege by the federal government through the mining tax, the carbon tax and the very unfair distribution of GST. The Western Australian government assesses this as a billion dollar issue. The Treasurer has called it the second largest financial issue facing Western Australia after the unfair distribution of GST. This is not a responsibility that can be sidled out of by a federal government, and it is certainly not a decision that can be made without being answerable to this parliament. I now seek leave to table the documents. (Time expired) 16:45 Dr MIKE KELLY HRI Eden-Monaro I obviously agree to the tabling of the historic correspondence between former Prime Minister Keating and the Western Australian Premier. However, I do not think that the current correspondence between the Prime Minister and the state Premier needs to be tendered. The SPEAKER 0V5 The Parliamentary Secretary for Defence gives leave for the historical correspondence to be tabled but does not give leave for the current correspondence to be tabled. I counsel the honourable member, the member for O'Connor, who is a new member—and this is not a reflection on him—that the chances of getting the government to give leave are much higher if, prior to the conclusion of his speech, the honourable member passes on the correspondence or item that he wants to table to the minister at the table so that it can be considered. Mental Health 1687 16:46 Ms SMYTH 172770 La Trobe I am pleased this evening to be able to provide some details about this government's hit to mental health as it relates to my electorate. We have heard from members on this side the virtues of the government's investment in support for early intervention in mental health. I as a local member am indeed aware of the benefit of that investment and expect that investment to assist young people in particular in my electorate through the establishment of a new headspace unit within the region. We all feel the effects of mental illness in the communities that surround us. I am sure that as individual MPs we are very aware of the impact of mental illness upon families within our electorates. I am familiar with many stories of young people who face chronic mental health problems and they stand to benefit from services such as the headspace unit, which will be developed in the Dandenong-Casey-Cardinia region. That covers part of my electorate and spans some of the neighbouring electorates. In terms of the statistics on mental health, we know that mental health issues often reveal themselves very early in life. We know that some 64 per cent of people who suffer from depression and anxiety do so by the age of 21. That is an extraordinary figure and it is one that this government, through a very significant financial commitment, is determined to try to respond to. We know that one in 40 people will experience severe mental illness, with a third of those experiencing it as a chronic condition throughout their lives. I was very pleased to have been part of the announcement last year of a new headspace unit, which will be established in my region for the assistance of those who are aged between 12 and 25 who live in the Greater Dandenong, Casey and Cardinia area. The area that it will cover has in fact one of the largest youth populations in Australia, a youth population of around 125,000. It is very important for facilities such as this to be available. I know that there are a great many people and a great many organisations within my electorate that are working very hard to implement the headspace unit and to get it up and running within a relatively short space of time. I would like to acknowledge the efforts of the Youth Support and Advocacy Service, the Eastern Region Mental Health Association and the Dandenong-Casey GP Association. In the context of updating on a headspace unit and activities aimed at early intervention for those struggling with mental health problems in my region, it is fitting to acknowledge the life's endeavours of one particular man. He was president of the Eastern Region Mental Health Association. I attended his funeral relatively recently. He made an extraordinary contribution to the activities of ERMHA within the eastern region of Melbourne. Many members of my electorate have been beneficiaries of his advocacy and his relentless push for financial assistance for people with mental illness. ERMHA recorded that Harry Karslake became president of ERMHA in 1986 and that at that stage the association 'shifted gear'. ERMHA said: Harry attracted public funds to fit out and staff group homes because the correlation between homelessness and mental illness was so strong. It is appropriate today to acknowledge, as we reflect on a very significant commitment that this government has made right across Australia and in my electorate, the significant efforts that are going into supporting young people with mental illness. We should reflect on the fact that those efforts are only possible by virtue of the work done by activists like Harry Karslake and organisations such as ERMHA, which operate with perhaps less fanfare than they deserve. Carbon Pricing 1688 16:51 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn It is often reported that Australia currently has a two-speed economy, but in the electorate of Flynn I believe that we have a three-speed economy. The first tier is going gang busters. The second tier is waiting with bated breath to see how the carbon tax will affect their industries. The third tier is Struggle Street. The second tier is Gladstone, Emerald and other parts of the Central Highlands, which are going gang busters. In Gladstone we will be the recipient of four new gas plants, owned by QCG, which is part of British Gas; APLNG, which is owned by ConocoPhillips, an American company; Santos and a Malaysian company; and Arrow Energy, which is owned by Shell, and its Chinese partner. There is also a proposed Wiggins Island project, which will double the berthing of coal ships in the Port of Gladstone; rail substation upgrades; harbour dredging; expansion of the Rolleston coalmine; a huge coalmine at Wandoan; Cockatoo Coal at Baralaba; and Blackwater and Emerald are also getting on the bandwagon of coalmines, with a lot of them at the stage of getting finance—of course, that will depend on what happens in Europe and China, because all these coalmines et cetera have to be funded by Chinese dollars. And the guys who are benefiting from that are the workers who work on these coal projects. The wages are fantastic in anyone's language—between $150,000 and $250,000 a year for trades and non-trades people; their housing is supplied, their food is supplied. Companies like Hastings Deering are importing a lot of Euclids and trucks and big mining machinery from America. That is why our trade balance will always be out of whack with America—because of the importing of heavy vehicles. Hire companies and airlines are all doing very well. On the third tier are companies like Cement Australia, who are competing with the high Australian dollar and imports from overseas. We have three coal fired power stations—one at Stanwell, one at Callide and one at Gladstone. These are under threat, when Bob Brown, the Leader of the Greens, says he does not want coal fired power stations in Australia. Mr McCormack 219646 Disgraceful! Mr O'DOWD 139441 It is a disgrace. These companies employ a lot of people and produce reasonably cheap power at this stage—but we all know, with the carbon tax, the price of it is going to go through the roof, to the extent that Rio has already divested some of their properties, their manufacturing plants, one of which is now called Pacific Aluminium. That is part of the business they are getting ready to sell off. But who wants to buy a smelter which has a high-usage of electricity? And who wants to buy a coal fired power station, when some of the people in this House want to knock it down? It is not a good investment area for those people. The last tier is those on Struggle Street, as I call them. These are people like pensioners and people on fixed incomes; police officers; teachers; salespeople; shop assistants—those type of people who are on incomes but do not own their own houses. The housing rentals in the area, whether it be Moranbah, Emerald or Gladstone have gone through the roof. We have people sharing houses at $300 per week for a room. There are people living in cars, in caravans and so on and so forth, but it is the people who are working in the industries that do not have the ability to make the big money. These are the problems we face in my electorate. Not-for-profit organisations, local fishermen and trawlers are all in trouble. One thing we all have in common in my electorate is that we all lack infrastructure. Infrastructure is what we need from this government. New South Wales Government 1689 16:56 Ms HALL 83N Shortland It is with some reluctance that I bring this matter to the attention of the House. I only do so because of the overwhelming increase in work within my office. Since the last state election in New South Wales my office has been inundated with constituents calling me about state matters. My office has become the local clearing house for department of housing issues, because the state members are not dealing with these issues in a way that the constituents that go to see them need—namely, in a timely manner. Most correspondence with state members within my electorate must be done in writing. I will share with the House something that happened this week. As all members would be aware, the New South Wales government has slashed the money given to pensioners, the $500 to assist them to buy glasses. I was horrified when I heard that a pensioner came into my office and told my staff that he had been advised by the state member for Charlestown that, if he wanted him to look at the issue of him having no glasses, he had to put it in writing. This particular gentleman could not read because his glasses were broken! The simple fact that he was asked to put it in writing made it absolutely impossible for him to do. It was only when my staff rang the member for Charlestown's office and said, 'Do you want us, in the federal office, to sit down with this constituent and write a letter to you', that that state office agreed to see this semiblind constituent to help him. Hopefully, they will come up with some way to assist him to get glasses. But, unfortunately, that is not the only area that has been slashed and burnt by the O'Farrell state Liberal government. I bring to the attention of the House the deplorable situation that existed at the start of this school year, where over 300 children in the Hunter region alone were left stranded because they did not have transport to take them to and from school. It is an absolute disgrace. It is cost cutting in areas where the most vulnerable people are affected. This has been rectified to some degree, but at the time the state government understated it and said there were only 40 students in the Hunter who were affected. Mr O'Farrell really needs to get in tune with what is happening in the Hunter. He needs to get his members out there on the ground talking to constituents and learning just how decisions that are made at the state level impact very much on the lives of ordinary, everyday Australians—be they pensioners, be they families, be they parents with children with disability. One of the other areas where the O'Farrell government have showed their true colours is where they decided they would slash $213 a fortnight from the payment of foster carers who are looking after teenagers over the age of 16—young people with great difficulties, who have had the most horrendous things happen to them; they were even trying to obtain family support from their birth parents. These cuts come at a time when the federal Gillard government is giving $4,200 a year to teenagers. On the one hand you have a federal government giving to families and on the other hand you have a state government ripping away any services from the most vulnerable people in the community. I strongly urge the state members in my area to stand up and be heard. The SPEAKER 0V5 Order! The honourable member's time has expired. I have shown her some benevolence as far as allowing her to have her full five minutes. It being beyond 5 pm the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until Monday, 27 February at 10 am. House adjourned at 17:02  

Thursday, 16 February 2012

 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) took the chair at 09:30.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 1691 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Petition: Pensioners 1691 09:30 Mr NEVILLE KV5 Hinkler I rise to enter into the record a would-be petition deemed by the Petitions Committee to be out of order as it is not in the appropriate form. The would-be petition was coordinated by the National Union of Retired Workers and records the concerns of 5,981, nearly 6,000, residents of Central Queensland regarding the cost of living for senior Australians. The would-be petitioners call on the parliament to recognise the significant hardship facing senior pensioners as they struggle with the rising cost of living. They also note that many seniors have not had the opportunity to build their superannuation funds like today's workforce and, therefore, are forced to live on the government pension. The signatories ask that the federal government help older Australians by (1) increasing the pension to 35 per cent of average weekly earnings; (2) indexing pensions on a quarterly basis; (3) prioritising health care for pensioners; and, (4), boosting aged care funding, amongst other claims. Because of this government's tax and waste mentality times are extraordinarily tough for older Australians, particularly those on sole incomes through a government pension. The signatories ask that these issues be addressed as a matter of urgency because 'many senior pensioners are suffering significant financial hardship which affects their general health and wellbeing'. Many seniors are on fixed incomes and have little choice but to cut spending, often on essentials, when their water, petrol, registration, electricity, council rates et cetera are constantly going up. We are experiencing a higher cost of living thanks to poor economic management, particularly in the Labor-run states. In Queensland, household power bills have gone up by $700, drivers licence fees have doubled from $73 to $152 and registration fees have gone up by a massive 24 per cent. This is an appalling state of affairs and I can assure the chamber that the claims by the people who have put in this would-be petition are reflected in the interviews I have in my office with people from a broad cross-section of pensioners and self-funded retirees, and also people on Newstart allowance. Seniors have made a lifelong contribution to this country and I think the petitioners have a good case and that we should at least give them a hearing. On that note, Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave of the whip at the table to have this petition taken into the record. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S The member for Hinkler is seeking leave for the documents to be tabled. Leave granted. Australia 1691 09:33 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt It was put to me recently by some very good people that we live in a divided country that has a story that it is not telling right and that is not reflecting its best aspects, a country that has a story of talking about the political minutiae of fighting each day when people have got pretty large concerns outside of this place, like fighting the global financial crisis, dealing with paying their bills and taking their kids to school. In my view, what they are looking for is a united vision from this place for the future of this country, about what it can be, what it could be and what it is. Often when there is reporting about this place in this country it is pretty fragmented. I agree with the Crikey journalist Bernard Keane, who recently said that it is broken down into a 'sub atomic discussion'. Sometimes we need to lift our heads above the parapets of this place and think about what makes our country great. My view is that what makes our country great is our people. In this place, I want to in a small way make a contribution to the national debate by talking about our people. I have done this through various ceremonies, such as the Community Spirit Award. That is awarded before Christmas each year. Fifty schools participate. It is awarded to students who make an active contribution to improving the life of their community. It is a very successful ceremony, with a very large number of people attending. It is the community coming together to celebrate the students that make their schools a better place, working together for the common good. We also have the Holt Australia Day Awards, which are also very successful. Reading the citations that are presented to the community members who we honour on that national day always amazes me. There is an incredible amount of work done, often underneath the radar, often unrecognised. These people do not put themselves forward for recognition; these are people who are achieving in a quintessential Australian way stuff that makes this country great. They are the glue that binds our community and our society together. I figure that what we need to do in this place is talk more often about them, because they are the people who make our country work in many instances. What I am proposing to do as of today but for every week for the next 52 weeks is take a person from my electorate and put their details on Facebook, on Twitter and on my web page. I am going to tell their stories. I do not really care if the national media does or does not like it. It is not their job, but it is my job, and I am going to continue to talk about these people until people understand what makes this country great: its people united together for the common good. Budget 1692 09:36 Mr BRIGGS IYU Mayo I rise to speak about an issue that is concerning my constituents enormously, and that is the waste and mismanagement that is leading to the spiralling national debt we see whenever new budget figures are released. This week, with Senate estimates, we have seen further examples of Labor's waste and mismanagement costing us and future generations as we and they face increasing budget pressures with the intergenerational changes our country will see in the coming years. This waste and mismanagement is going to have a genuine effect on the next generation of Australians when they are trying to make their own way. We have seen this week the set-top box program blowout, one of the top examples of waste by this government. This program was shown on the front page of a national newspaper to be costing up to $700 per set-top box installation when you could go to any electrical retailer and buy a similar product for $100. It is another example of how this government has the wrong priorities and the wrong thinking. This will cost the budget enormously. We have seen the blowout in costs in the department of immigration, with the boats continuing to come. We saw two more boats arrive yesterday. But rather than focus on that issue we note that the minister for immigration this morning had an op-ed in the Australian about the economy. I am not sure why the minister for immigration would be writing about the economy at the moment. It might be an application for the job of Treasurer under the member for Griffith, I suspect. That highlights the incendiary war going on within the Australian Labor Party. While the debt crisis builds, while this waste and mismanagement continues, people in the Labor Party are focused on their own jobs. The op-ed on the economy yesterday by the minister for immigration was a job application for the job of Treasurer under the member for Griffith. And this is just as two boats arrived on our shores. We have also seen another million dollars of waste in the provision of training for toddlers to understand the carbon tax. That came out in Senate estimates this week. The examples are extraordinary. The department of agriculture spent $77,000 to come up with a new identity. These examples are hilarious and they show how bad this government is. But they have a very sinister and serious side to them, in that they are adding to the debt and budget pressures that will challenge our nation in the future. Because of the great work of Peter Costello, we know that the intergenerational challenges coming at us our genuine. This government is focused on itself. Nothing could make that clearer than the minister for immigration writing an application for the job of Treasurer. (Time expired) Throsby Electorate: Broadband 1693 09:39 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby I would like to talk about the rollout of the National Broadband Network to the Illawarra, in particular to Dapto in my electorate of Throsby. It is about to be boosted with a further 8,100 premises and a new rollout to 8,300 premises in the suburb of Corrimal in the neighbouring electorate of Cunningham. It is a fantastic announcement and it turbocharges the determination of the member for Cunningham and me to ensure that the National Broadband Network is available as quickly as possible to every suburb in our electorates. It is fantastic news for Dapto because we are going to be doubling the number of houses and businesses that are going to benefit from high-speed, reliable and affordable broadband through the NBN. That means that the number of houses in Dapto in my electorate is going to double and that they will be very soon enjoying the benefits of the National Broadband Network. I can tell you that they are very excited about this. It is also great news that, in addition to the 5,600 premises that are to be connected to the National Broadband Network in Wollongong, a further 2,800 homes and businesses will also be a part of this initial connection. Now there will also be a further 8,300 businesses and homes in Corrimal included in the early rollout site. This announcement brings nearly 27,300 homes and businesses in both Throsby and Cunningham electorates into the early rollout of the National Broadband Network in the Illawarra. It is fantastic for the communities in our local area to be connected to this transformational technology that will change the way we do business, learn, teach, deal with doctors and develop new skills. In stark contrast to the coalition parties here in Canberra, the Liberal Party in the Illawarra are absolutely championing the rollout of the National Broadband Network. There is a Liberal Party mayor in Shellharbour who has dedicated her future term to extending the National Broadband Network to the local government area of Shellharbour, which overlaps my electorate of Throsby. All I can say to the members here, including the member for Gilmore and all members opposite, is that they should pick up the phone and talk to the Liberal Party mayor of Shellharbour about her enthusiasm for the National Broadband Network. She is actually in touch with the people on the ground and knows that this is going to be a transformational technology for the area. I very much welcome it. It is incredible that, while the member for Cunningham and I are announcing the major extension to the NBN early rollout, the member for Gilmore continues to oppose the NBN and would rip it up if given the chance. Disability Services 1694 09:42 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes On 21 March the federal parliament will play host to a national treasure. Mr Tony Stevens, a child welfare campaigner for more than four decades who turns 88 this year, will be rollerskating to Canberra. That is right: at 88 years of age he will be rollerskating to Canberra pushing a person in a wheelchair. He will be here to launch his book, detailing his life and the course that he has pursued, entitled The Last Gamble and the Years Between, and also to protest at this government's talk about an NDIS but its failure to put any money up. I am sure Tony would want me to acknowledge the Engisch family and their extended family at the Canterbury Bankstown Torch, who have warmly assisted Tony to get his book published, and Clubs Australia, in particular Anthony Ball. Tony and I have shared a common experience of raising a child with a disability. His son Larry was born with Down syndrome, as was my boy Trent. Larry's fight for life and his ultimate death sparked a determination in Tony's soul that stirred a lifelong pursuit to get a better deal for children with disabilities. After 40 years of standing up for those who cannot speak for themselves, a fire still burns, driving Tony in this pursuit in his golden years. I would like to share a passage from Tony's book. This passage outlines the moment when Tony first felt the call to fight for children with a disability as he sat beside Larry, who was near death: I gathered my things from the casualty room, where I had stayed during a forty-eight hour vigil and prepared to leave the hospital. It seemed there was nothing more that I could do. A child that seemed to have no ideal sanctuary in our world would go to his maker; the problem that appeared to have no answer would be solved… a feeling of relief flooded through me. Overcome by grief and remorse I went back to take one last look at Larry, lying at peace, ashamed for thinking that 'death was the only solution' to the problems that arrived with his birth. Kneeling at the side of his cot, appealing to the God that I doubted, asking forgiveness for surrendering my Faith during the turmoil and tragedy, making a 'silent' vow: 'to pledge my life to the cause of children like him as atonement.' A miracle happened. When he recovered, I took him home, determined that he would never again be forsaken and I would build 'a world of their own', that would provide for the specific needs, care and protection for children like him. Tony Stevens will be in Canberra next month on his last gamble, a crusade that began more than 40 years ago. I am pleased to report to the House that I have copy of The last gamble and the years between, for every member of this House to read. I hope you read it and understand, and make a commitment to national disability insurance. Makin Electorate: 25th Anniversary of the Tea Tree Gardens Retirement Village 1695 09:45 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Last month, I joined residents of the Tea Tree Gardens Retirement Village in celebrating the 25th anniversary of the village. An afternoon tea held in the community centre at the village had been organised by residents to mark the occasion. Also in attendance were Tea Tree Gully deputy mayor, Bernie Keane, and local councillor, Graeme Denholm. There was much to celebrate as residents reflected on the past 25 years. The village consists of 270 home units. When it was built in 1987, it was one of the first of its kind to be built as a secure, well designed retirement living estate with a range of on-site recreation facilities, including an indoor swimming pool. Having seen several other retirement villages built subsequently, I have little doubt that the Tea Tree Gardens village served as a model for others to build on. It was also evident that the design and construction standards have withstood the test of time, and 25 years later the village still offers quality housing and amenities. Of course the heart and soul of any community are its people, a point eloquently made by residents committee president, Brian Mitchell, when he addressed the residents. He is absolutely right. On the day, a photographic display and a specially prepared book documenting the first 25 years of the village reflected the spirit of residents and the range of activities, concerts and entertainment held on a regular basis. Time did not allow me to speak to all of the residents present, but, from my other visits to the centre, it is evident that not only do residents take pride in their village but, importantly, there is a wonderful co-operative spirit amongst them. I have little doubt that over the past 25 years many friendships were formed there. The community goodwill of the residents extends beyond the village and many of the community events depicted in the photographic display were organised to raise funds for worthy charities. For example, in July last year, around 160 residents of the retirement village participated in Australia's Biggest Morning Tea and raised $1,300 for the Cancer Council. But it does not stop there. Since moving into the village over 20 years ago, Val Tatt, now 79 years old, has been volunteering her help in the adjacent Gleneagles nursing home. As a result, Val was nominated and selected for a Makin 2011 International Year of Volunteers award. Another extraordinary resident is 81-year-old Fred Wilshaw, who last year swam four kilometres to raise money for multiple sclerosis. Fred swam again last Sunday. What makes Fred extraordinary is that he contracted polio as a child, which resulted in the crippling of his right leg. He also battled chronic arthritis and prostate cancer. It was a privilege for me to join residents in celebrating the Tea Tree Gardens village's 25th anniversary. I thank them for the courtesy they extended to me and to other guests, but more importantly I thank them for what they do for each other and for others outside their village. Canning Electorate: Austin Cove Baptist College 1695 09:48 Mr RANDALL PK6 Canning I rise today to speak on an issue that has caused great grief for an already grieving school in my electorate—that is, Austin Cove Baptist College's inability to obtain a school chaplain. Austin Cove Baptist College is a new school which opened in February 2011. Soon after opening their doors, the school endured two tragedies in a row: the death of 13-year-old Lauren Ames on 12 April 2011, as a result of a car accident while being driven to school on 8 February; and the death of 13-year-old Georgie Spies, in a tent explosion at the Mandurah caravan park on 4 May 2011. Three other family members also passed away in that fire. School principal, Orlando Dos Santos, has teachers performing the duties of a chaplain for grieving students, teachers and parents. The school should not have to sacrifice teaching hours because Minister Garrett will not show some compassion and provide them with a school chaplain under the National Schools Chaplaincy Program. The 2011-12 federal budget allocated an additional $222 million for the National Schools Chaplaincy Program, yet Minister Garrett cannot take control of the situation to grant this school a chaplain. The National Schools Chaplaincy Program was a Howard government initiative and was designed to support schools faced with situations just like the one at Austin Cove Baptist College. This is a classic example of how such a program can bring immense support to a grieving school. I first contacted Minister Garrett on 16 February 2011 and have done so since, on 13 May last year and on 2 February this year. I have written to him three times and raised this in parliament and there has still been no compassion or reasonable response from the minister. I call on the minister to exercise his ministerial discretion to intervene in this case and allocate the school chaplain they so desperately need. Minister Garrett might have been a handy rock star but as a minister of the Crown he is an abject and abysmal failure. He needs to address this issue under his responsibility. Australia Day Awards 1696 09:50 Mr LYONS M38 Bass I rise to speak about the wonderful Australia Day celebrations that I attended in my electorate of Bass. Australia Day is a day when we come together and celebrate our great country. It is a day on which we can all show how proud we are to be Australian. I began the day by attending the Launceston City Council citizenship ceremony whereby we welcomed 54 new citizens to Launceston. This was a special occasion for the new citizens where they met the end of their migrant journey and the start of their new life as Australian citizens. Australia Day is a day on which a lot of new citizens elect to receive their citizenship award, thus reminding us of the richness of the culture within Australia that these new citizens offer. The citizenship ceremony was followed by an awards ceremony. I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Launceston City Council's Australia Day awards recipients. The citizen award recipient was Diane Hayes. There were two sports awards, to Adam Sanders and David Brasher. The young citizen award recipient was Fiona Miller. These four award recipients worked tirelessly in their local community and are passionate, hardworking, inspirational people who are all worthy recipients of such an honour. I later headed to the north-east of my electorate to join the Bridport Fun Day and was on the barbecue for the Bridport Surf Lifesaving Club. There were some great events on the beach that day. Fittingly, the Australia Day Ambassador at the Dorset awards was Olympic basketballer Perry Crosswhite AM. Perry is currently the head of the Australian Commonwealth Games Association and has a long and colourful list of employment and sporting accomplishments. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Dorset Council's Australia Day award recipients who worked tirelessly and contributed greatly to their local community. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Proceedin gs suspended from 09:52 to 10:27 Mr LYONS M38 The Community Event of the Year was the exhibition of the early timber-getters of the north-east of Tasmania. It is a fantastic exhibition. If you get a chance to go to Scottsdale, make sure you call in. The Young Citizen of the Year was Aaron Worker, and the Citizen of the Year was Bruce Scott. The school awards went to: Bridport Primary School, Kiarna Hayes and Alex Bessell; Ringarooma Primary School, Caitlin Cox and Joshua van Eldik; Scottsdale Primary School, Millan Browne and Rebecca Irwin; Winnaleah District High School, Emma Steel and Sam Whelan; and Scottsdale High School, Mikayla Binns and Reid Mountney. Volunteers are the heart of Australia. The West Tamar Council's Community Event of the Year award was won by the Esk Orienteering Club. Congratulations to all involved. Australia Day is a day not only to recognise and be thankful for the great country that we live in but also to recognise the people that make it so great. I congratulate all Australia Day Award recipients around the country, and particularly in my great electorate of Bass, and thank them for their contribution to the local community. It is people like these that help make our country the great one it is. Cornish College 1697 10:27 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I rise to speak about the official opening ceremony at Cornish College, Bangholme, which I attended on Sunday, 12 February, along with hundreds of parents, teachers and students, both past and present, who joined together to celebrate their new school. Before December 2011, Cornish College was a campus of St Leonard's College, Brighton, and was known as the Cornish campus. St Leonard's announced in March 2011 that the Cornish campus was to close at the end of the year. This came as a complete shock to the school community, as the campus had been educating students with great success since 1987. Instead of accepting this outcome, the parents, teachers and wider school community banded together to fight for the life of Cornish, demonstrating what a community can achieve with determination and a united voice. Their efforts resulted in the school being officially recognised as an independent Uniting Church school, receiving government registration in December 2011 and opening for business on 19 December. The college has a bright future, with a dedicated staff and growing enrolment as it moves to become a prep to year 12 school, previously having been a prep to year 9 school. The Cornish College motto, 'Make a difference', encourages students to make a difference in the community and the world that they live in, with a strong emphasis on teaching children to think for themselves and become the creative problem solvers of tomorrow. The school community have well and truly lived up to this motto. By fighting for the survival of the school and succeeding in their efforts, they have made a difference not just for their children but for future generations, ensuring that many young people will enjoy the benefits of being educated in the wonderful surrounds of Cornish College. Cornish College is named in honour of Richard Cornish, principal of St Leonard's from 1971 to 1990. It was Richard's vision that the original campus would be a leader in environmental education, giving young people the opportunity to understand and value the wisdom of living and working more sustainably. Located in the green wedge near Patterson River and the national water sports centre and not too far from the Ramsar listed Edithvale and Seaford Wetlands, this site is the ideal home for a school with an environmental focus. I would like to thank the principal, Kerry Bolger, and the whole school community for warmly welcoming me on Sunday. Kerry has spent 20 dedicated years at the Cornish campus and is now leading the new school as its founding principal. I congratulate Robbie Boag, Georgia Bell, Kathleen Kiddell and Eliza Wilton, who have the honour of being the first student leaders of the new school. I look forward to hearing of the college's successes and wish the students all the best with their studies. University Fees 1698 10:30 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Herbert Thousands of my constituents are heading back to university this week or starting university for the first time. One of them is my younger daughter Abby. Sadly, they will be learning the unfortunate news that they will be slugged with a new tax for services that most are unwilling or unable to use. Thanks to Labor and the Greens, students are now being slugged with a compulsory services and amenities fee, costing up to $263 per year. This is an unwelcome burden for students already struggling to meet rising living costs. Many students who are studying part time or completing a post-graduate degree while working and juggling family life simply do not have the time nor the need to use on-campus services such as the sporting facilities. A number of students have contacted me with their concerns. Simone, a science student, says that she is completely opposed to compulsory payments for services that she will not access. She wants to know why she has to subsidise social activities and cheap food, for example, and why this is considered the responsibility of the university, a higher education provider. She rightly points out that students who are sent away on lengthy placements cannot access such services during that time even if they wanted to. Another student, Drew, said that he is already struggling to pay rent and grocery bills and for textbooks and the like without having another bill to pay. Some will argue that students who cannot afford the upfront fee will be able to defer it to their HELP debt. But this will only end up costing more and more by the time you add interest. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10:32 to 10 : 41 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Before the suspension, I was saying that a student's HELP debt will end up costing more and more when interest is added. I believe there should be a choice. That is why I have launched a petition calling for an end to this unfair compulsory fee, and I urge any student who feels dudded by having to pay this to sign the petition by visiting my facebook page. These compulsory fees seem to be a throwback to the days when you left school and went to university full time. Today's modern university is hugely different, where some people do not actually go to the campus and do their course by correspondence. Student fees and amenity fees should reflect that. I have two daughters at university and I gladly pay their union fees. I think those fees should be paid, but the fees should not be compulsory. That is the key to it. If you use the services and if you get the benefits then you should pay, but you should not make people pay if they do not use the services. My wife is a member of the union when she did her honours degree and she was a great advocate for the union. However it should be voluntary. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10:4 2 to 11:05 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 1699 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012 1699

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012

Second Reading 1699 11:05 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan While I am regularly critical of the Gillard government's poor and reckless financial management, there are some projects which rightfully have the strong support of both sides of the House. The deputy opposition leader and shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Julie Bishop, stated at the National Press Club foreign affairs debate in August 2010: We are committed to the Millennium Development Goals both as a moral obligation and as part of our regional security. However, according to AusAID, our nearest neighbour, Papua New Guinea, is 'unlikely to achieve any of the Millennium Development Goals by 2015.' In a Lowy Institute address in 2011, the shadow foreign affairs minister said: Under the Coalition policy of appointing a Minister for International Development Assistance, I expect that PNG will be the primary focus for that Ministry as we use development assistance and access to our markets to expand opportunities for growth and employment. Ultimately, it will be our actions not our words, that will demonstrate beyond doubt that Papua New Guinea is one of Australia's top foreign policy priorities. In the words of Ano Pala, the foreign minister of Papua New Guinea, Australia and Papua New Guinea are 'friends forever.' The long history of our relationship is well known to most Australians. Born out of the challenges of colonial rule, forged by the remarkable support given so freely by so many PNG citizens during World War II, tempered by the transition to independence, our relationship with Papua New Guinea is that of a family. Papua New Guinea is a close and dear friend and I am delighted to take up the role as deputy chairman of the Parliamentary Friends of PNG. There are those who would say that our relationship has been a testing one. To that I would say: testing on both sides. There are those who are scathing as to their assessment of the future. To them I say the challenge is to assess Papua New Guinea against the context of where it has come from and what its achievements have been. In my maiden speech I spoke of our responsibility to assist our developing friends with a genuine hand of friendship and support. I commented that: The developed world has not found a successful form of providing aid to our neighbours in much the same way as we have much to learn in helping our own Indigenous Australians. In both cases we must persist, because if we fail we let our neighbours down and indeed our first Australians. I travelled to Papua New Guinea last year with the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs. The visit provided a great opportunity to assess firsthand where Papua New Guinea stands today. We met with a range of political leaders, police, businessmen and ordinary Papua New Guineans. The visit provided us with an insight into what is really happening there, not only the challenges by also the genuine opportunities for change. Papua New Guinea is a developing country and it faces all the challenges that developing countries face. It faces the challenge of being a young country, having only achieved its independence in 1975. Its current situation is perhaps best summed up by Don Polye, the current Treasurer of Papua New Guinea, in a speech to the Australia-Papua New Guinea Business Council last year, where he said: Some 36 years ago Papua New Guinea became in independent nation. The world watched and many predicted failure. Despite the pessimism there is much for Papua New Guinea to be proud about. We have a strong economy. We have proud and vibrant people. We are not blind to our challenges. Importantly we are learning to confront them. Our dreams have not progressed perfectly - whose do? Let me be blunt. Our short history has been scarred by tribal warfare and ethnic clashes, shaken by the Bougainville conflict, damaged by the Asian economic crisis, betrayed by systemic and governance failures and shaken by the subjugation of women and children. Yet the true test of a nation is not a recitation of its problems but rather how we work to overcome them. In that candid assessment Mr Polye summed up where Papua New Guinea stands today. There are significant challenges, but we should not assume that PNG will not overcome them. However, it will take time. It will be challenging and it is essential that Australia stand shoulder to shoulder with PNG in meeting these challenges. It is important to note that, in economic terms, Papua New Guinea has seen 10 years of constant growth. In the year just gone, growth was over nine per cent. There are those who predict, after a predicted but small fall-off in 2013, growth in excess of 20 per cent as the ExxonMobil oil search LNG project comes on stream. The current political situation is challenging from Australia's point of view but, for all of the allegations and the recent attempted military involvement, it is significant to note that the question of who forms government is before the courts, taken there by both the O'Neill government and Grand Chief Michael Somare. There is every indication that the decision of the courts will be accepted. Papua New Guinea faces many challenges, particularly in the areas of health, education, guns, the forthcoming Bougainville referendum and, as the Treasurer highlighted, corruption. When one looks at corruption in Papua New Guinea, it is appropriate to acknowledge that in the time Papua New Guinea has been independent there have also been significant findings of corruption within Australia. That does not mean that we should disregard this issue, but it helps to put it in context. There appears to be genuine community concern about this issue, and it is increasingly reflected in the politics leading to the 2012 PNG election campaign. It is also pleasing to see the moves towards free education because, as in all developing countries, education provides a sound road for developing the most valuable resource—the people of Papua New Guinea themselves. There are real issues in the area of health and I highlight three areas. First is the ongoing battle regarding HIV-AIDS. This is something that requires constant attention and constant support from Australia. Second, tuberculosis in Papua New Guinea is a significant issue. TB currently occupies 13 per cent of all hospital bed days in PNG and, of relevance to Australia, is the cause of 11 per cent of all deaths in Western Province, due north of Cape York. This is not only a problem for Papua New Guinea. It also impacts on Australia's northern borders and the people of Cape York. Added to this is the complication of the increasing incidence of multidrug-resistant strains of the TB virus. From Australia's point of view, it is essential that we maintain our previous support for the treatment of PNG nationals in the Torres Strait. There is also a real need to assist Papua New Guinea to build its microbiology capacity around TB to ensure that it qualifies for drug treatments provided by the World Health Organisation. This must be a dual approach. We must maintain our cross-border assistance and at the same time help Papua New Guinea meet the challenge locally. Papua New Guinea has a devastating rate of maternal mortality, with 2008 statistics showing some 250 deaths for every 100,000 live births. That compares with the rate of eight deaths per 100,000 live births in Australia. However, Dame Carol Kidu, the country's only woman member of parliament, is reported by radio New Zealand referring to an even starker death rate of 733 per 100,000. She concludes that the issue should be treated as a national emergency. The United Nations Population Fund representative in PNG, Dr Gilbert Hiawalya, supports Dame Carol's assessment. He said: The maternal deaths, mothers dying from giving birth or giving a life, is not on. The high mortality rate in PNG it is the highest in the Pacific region and the second highest in the Asia region because Afghanistan is the highest, so it's one of the highest in the world and I think it's important the leaders and all sectors of the community take the issue on hand. This is an area where Australia can and must provide continuing support. There are of course other significant issues, and the challenges that confront Papua New Guinea and the Autonomous Region of Bougainville must be borne in mind. Australia, along with New Zealand and other Pacific nations, invested substantial funds, resources and effort in assisting Papua New Guinea to find a solution to the Bougainville conflict. Today, Bougainville is largely a peaceful society. Whilst there are issues in South Bougainville, it is remarkable how former combatants have moved on from the violence of the civil war. Bougainville has largely avoided the post-conflict crime that has dogged other post-conflict societies. The peace agreement requires a referendum in the not-too-distant future. The management of that referendum and its outcome will be of critical significance to the future of both PNG and Bougainville. What is clear is that Australia's contribution was significant and well received. It is also clear that Australia must redouble its efforts to assist Bougainville in building its capacity. Any failure in Bougainville's move to a referendum because of a lack of capacity would raise serious and difficult issues for both Bougainville and PNG. One of the great challenges for Australia is the management of our aid budget. Consistently over recent years we have provided in excess of $450 million per year. Our aid program finds itself torn between the importance of delivering aid most effectively and, at the same time, ensuring that the money provided under our aid budget is actually spent on projects on the ground and avoids corruption. Anecdotal material would suggest that much of our aid budget is spent on the process of managing and protecting aid, thereby reducing the moneys actually available for projects. I accept readily that we must eradicate corruption from our aid delivery systems, but it also strikes me that there is an ongoing need to maximise our expenditure and to make our supervision less costly and more effective. I want to pay tribute to Dame Carol Kidu, the member for Moresby South, the former minister for community development who took on the role as leader of the opposition in the PNG parliament yesterday. Carol has made a remarkable contribution to PNG—a Brisbane girl who moved to Papua New Guinea to marry Buri Kidu, later Sir Buri, Chief Justice of Papua New Guinea. After Sir Buri sadly passed away, Carol was approached by local people to run for national parliament. She has held the seat of Moresby South for a record three terms. She has fought a constant battle to better the lot of ordinary people, particularly those who are disabled and disadvantaged. She has been a strong supporter of the involvement of women in PNG politics. Dame Carol has indicated that she will not stand at the next election and it is appropriate that her enormous contribution be recognised and applauded. Papua New Guinea is our closest neighbour. Papua New Guinea is a good friend to Australia. Papua New Guinea faces significant challenges, but it is a robust, vibrant democracy and a nation that, with our help, will play an increasingly significant role in its own right in the Pacific. It is important that we acknowledge our responsibility to assist our good friend and equally important to acknowledge that we are part of one family. 11:17 Mr CRAIG THOMSON HVZ Dobell I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012 and to recall for parliament's benefit the great infrastructure programs that have been undertaken around Australia, but today I particularly want to talk about those that have happened in my electorate. In fact, it is quite remarkable to look at the history of the Central Coast, in that more has been spent on infrastructure in Dobell in the last four years than in the entire time the seat has existed. We have had a remarkable injection of much-needed infrastructure. One of the things people always used to say on the Central Coast was, 'We always miss out.' We are an area that is between Newcastle and Sydney and we always seem to miss out on infrastructure. This Labor government has made sure that the people of Dobell, some of the poorest people in the state of New South Wales, are not missing out any more. This government has provided some vital infrastructure—some of it very essential and basic infrastructure. As an election promise that I was able to secure back in 2007, it is only this year that a pipeline has been completed which pumps water from Mardi Dam out of the Wyong River up to the big storage dam, Mangrove dam. In itself, this may not sound exciting, but the Central Coast was down to 13 per cent of its water supply. That was all we had left. We were very close to running out of water. This vital infrastructure means that the Central Coast is now drought-proof. In fact, the dam levels are already up to 40 per cent and that is because this pipeline allows the water management authority to harvest the overflows when there is a lot of rain and have that pumped up. This Labor government has ensured that water will not run out. People of the Central Coast are for the first time experiencing a lessening of their water restrictions—something we have lived with for so long that I do not think it is particularly changing people's habits, but it is a great credit that this has actually occurred. One of the other incredible investments that this government has made in my electorate is the $20 million commitment to Tuggerah Lakes. In fact, this was the first large investment made under Caring for our Country. Minister Garrett was at that time responsible for that announcement. Tuggerah Lakes has been described as the jewel in the crown of the Central Coast. But development has occurred around them and the lakes are not in the pristine condition that they were. This government, the only federal government to ever do this, stepped up to the plate and said that the environment of this once pristine lake system needs to be preserved. It is a lake system where professional fishermen still go out on their boats and fish. It is a lake system, though, that was in danger of becoming much less than what it should be. This $20 million that is being spent over five years has contributed greatly to the renewal of those lakes, helping to bring them back to a pristine condition. At this point, it is worth acknowledging the great work that Wyong Council has done in delivering the services to improve the lake. You will not hear this terribly often, but they came in under budget. They delivered the work with a saving of over $2 million. But this government, because of our commitment to the environment and to the Central Coast, reinvested that $2 million back into the lake system to make further improvements. One of the things I am very proud of is the commitment of this government to improving the health system on the Central Coast. We have seen some structural changes to ensure that an area health service that once went from the harbour bridge to the end of my electorate has been redefined to cover just the Central Coast. Decisions in this area on what is best in relation to public health are made by those people living there and they are directing the dollars to where they are needed. One of the other things this government did was bring in GP superclinics. We have one at Warnervale, although it is not yet completed. It should be open in June. Having said that, it opened as an interim clinic almost immediately, and close to 1,500 patients go there each month, clearly showing the need for this particular service. While the permanent home is just some months away, the temporary home opened and was immediately used. That is another thing that is helping to assist in making sure Wyong Hospital, which has the fourth busiest emergency department in New South Wales, has a little less pressure on it, as busy families can now go to an after-hours GP superclinic. This is what governments should be doing: making sure that people who need assistance get access to that. In areas like mine, where there are new suburbs and new developments, often this vital infrastructure is one of the things that planners seem to get to well after the community has been established. That we have put these GP superclinics not just in my electorate but throughout electorates is something that this government and those on this side of the parliament should be immensely proud of. Surf clubs and surf lifesaving are big parts of life on the Central Coast. We have 15 surf clubs on the Central Coast, six of them in my electorate. Soldiers Beach Surf Life Saving Club was the surf club that pioneered the rubber duckies and was instrumental in spreading that particular lifesaving device throughout the country. But, unfortunately, we have seen over the years a lack of investment in these vital pieces of infrastructure that help make sure that surf lifesavers, both professional and voluntary, can do the job that we want them to do—that is, to make sure that people are safe on the beaches. Because of this government, this year we have been able to open up two brand new surf clubs—one at Soldiers Beach and one at Shelly's Beach. They are state-of-the-art surf lifesaving clubs, paid for entirely by this government, providing these vital homes for these two very important surf clubs for the Central Coast. It has had an immediate effect in relation to the membership of the surf lifesaving clubs that have been built. Both of these clubs this year are boasting increases in their membership of over 30 per cent. That means there are more surf lifesavers there to be on rosters, to make sure that people are swimming between the flags, being safe and being able to be looked after properly. Another important thing that this government has done—and I am not going to go into the great efforts that we put into the stimulus package to make sure that people were employed—has been to focus on jobs. We were the first government that actually invested in business enterprise centres, the first federal government to put money into them. In my electorate, over 90 per cent of businesses are small businesses and a lot of them are mum-and-dad businesses. The Business Enterprise Centre at the Central Coast has played an enormous role. One particular story I would like to bring to the House's attention is the enormous success that a business, A Dozen Roses, has become. This was set up by a couple who migrated from Zimbabwe in very difficult circumstances. They basically came just with the clothes that they had on their backs, because of the circumstances there. They decided that they wanted to grow roses in Australia. Not surprisingly, when they were looking for the best place to grow roses, they picked the Central Coast because it is such a great place to do anything. So they came here and got the services of the BEC, and now they have three retail shops, they sell wholesale throughout Australia and are a booming success. The story of Merle and Tony Mann is a story that we should all acknowledge. But it is important—and they always acknowledge the help that they got from the BEC and that this government, in funding the BEC, made that possible. The three Central Coast MPs are very keen, and are lobbying hard, to make sure that that funding continues for BECs, because of the vital role that they play. We will be leaving no stone unturned to convince the minister that this is a worthwhile investment. These are some of the great achievements and infrastructure developments that have happened in my electorate. If one were to listen to the opposition they would think that we had done nothing, we have wasted money and we have put up taxes. Wyatt Roy interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Order! The member will be heard in silence. Mr CRAIG THOMSON HVZ The member for Longman can be given some slack, because he is too young to remember a whole range of things, so I thought it was important to spend what little time I have left to actually educate the coalition on this. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The chair has asked for order! Mr CRAIG THOMSON HVZ This is courtesy of Steve Koukoulas, a well-respected economist, who has made a number of points that are worth repeating here. For example, what years were the highest years of taxation as a ratio to GDP? Of course, it was 2004-05 and 2005-06. The government then was the coalition. The percentage of tax to GDP was 24.2 per cent. In terms of big taxing governments, how many years since 1982-83 has the tax-to-GDP ratio been above 23.5 per cent? Seven times. And guess which government was in place in those seven times. All seven occasions in the history of Australia, since Federation, when the tax-to-GDP ratio has been above 23½ per cent, have been under coalition governments. So we can see quite clearly that the big-taxing governments have been coalition governments rather than Labor governments. Between 1971 and the end of the forward estimates there are only five years where spending has fallen in real terms. And guess what? In all five years where spending has been reduced it has been under a Labor government. How many times has that happened under the coalition? Never. There has never been a reduction in real spending under the coalition. How many times has the tax-to-GDP ratio been below 21 per cent? Since 1982 it has been under 21 per cent on six occasions. How many times for the coalition? Zero. How many for Labor? Six—all six occasions. A myth keeps getting peddled about which governments have been high taxing and which have been low taxing. The facts speak for themselves. Coalition governments have always been high-taxing governments. Labor governments, including this government, have cut government spending so that they can make sure the economy is in the best shape it can be. We also hear about the pressure put on interest rates. It is worth remembering that interest rates at the moment are 4.25 per cent. I will not be so cruel as to say what they were when we came to government. I will be more generous than that and talk about the average interest rates under the previous coalition government. The average was 5.43 per cent, or more than 120 basis points higher. Not only have we provided great infrastructure for the people of Dobell and the people of Australia but we have done it in a fiscally responsible way, in the great way the Labor Party has always managed the economy. 11:32 Mr SECKER 848 Barker I am very interested to hear the member for Dobell using all these figures about GDP. But, frankly, they are shonky because this government does not include the NBN spend. For the first time in Australia's history we have a government that is going to spend $47 billion or $50 billion and not put it on their bank balance. That is shonky. They are massaging the figures. There is no truer saying than 'there are lies, damned lies, and statistics', and that is what is coming from this government. I am very happy to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-12 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-12. We know that this government is wasteful and does not care about regional Australia. Let us have a look at Labor's track record on road funding. In the 2008 budget the government announced an end to en route air service subsidies, threatening the viability of country air services, and earlier in 2008 Labor increased truck registration fees by 69 per cent and fuel charges by 1.37c per litre. I also remember the huge cut they made to the world-renowned CSIRO. They actually had to close a whole CSIRO research division. It was an absolute shame for research and development in this country for CSIRO's funding to be cut like that. The 2009 budget saw Labor cut funding for the AusLink program from the $31 billion promised by the former coalition government to just $26 billion, a $5 billion cut to the absolutely necessary infrastructure that we need to manage our lives. Appallingly, in 2009 Labor changed the criteria for the Strategic Regional Roads Program so they could transfer funding from regional roads and streets, with 82 per cent of funding to be spent in Labor electorates. The same year, Labor changed the criteria for the Black Spot Program to enable funding to be transferred from local roads and streets to national highway projects, which should be able to live on their own funding. The coalition was determined to never see that happen. In Labor's 2010 budget there was not one new dollar for roads. That was a real shame. It was a similar story last year—no new money for roads from this government. There was an announcement of planning, but that was using $1.1 billion deferred from other projects. Late last year the government announced plans to bring forward that $1.1 billion of road funding to the 2011-12 financial year and the money will simply be transferred to the states early, with no new roads actually being constructed. What a mess. It is only there to falsely manufacture a so-called budget surplus in the next year. That is easy—take this year's deficit up, double it, and that way we might get a surplus next year. That is yet to be seen. Labor's track record on road funding is a disaster and I see no change until there is a change of government. I want to tell the parliament about an important road in my electorate that I am fighting to have upgraded. The Dukes Highway is a major gateway from Melbourne to Adelaide. It is the busiest road in South Australia. It is a 189-kilometre stretch that starts in Tailem Bend and extends south-east to Bordertown before continuing into Victoria. The Dukes Highway also meets the Riddoch Highway, linking motorists from Adelaide to the south-east—an important freight route also. There are many important industries based in the south-east that transport goods not only to Victoria but also to the upper south and on to Adelaide via the Dukes Highway. In fact, goods from this area are transported to all places around Australia. The timber industry is a major road user, although if the state Labor government have anything to do with it the south-east timber industry will be starved while the state government's coffers flourish. There are many transport companies based in the south-east, some nationally recognised—Scott's, K&S Freighters, Dohnt's and Whitehead's, just to name a few. Like most Australian highways, the Dukes is unfortunately no stranger to accidents. It is the most dangerous road in South Australia. Most accidents on the Dukes are because it is a highway on which vehicles travel at high speed. There are often head-on collisions or cars run off the road, caused by driver fatigue, as a result of fatigue, but of course if the road was better there would be fewer accidents. There is no doubt about that. The Dukes Highway accounts for 27 per cent of the state's national highway deaths—over a quarter—and 11 per cent of casualty crashes. It is important to note that the Keith hospital is situated on the Dukes Highway, and it is a little known fact that the Keith hospital is the furthest place from Adelaide a helicopter can fly without refuelling. The helicopter is often used at Keith hospital to pick up those involving crashes on the Dukes Highway. Even if they are closer to Bordertown than Keith, they will be taken to Keith because of the helicopter. I point this out as the state Labor government has cruelly taken funding away from the Keith hospital. Despite the fact that I moved a motion in the House and my colleagues in the Senate did the same, and both motions passed without dissent, the federal government has not done a thing to help the Keith hospital—not a thing. It is defying the parliament. So we have a situation where it is important to upgrade the Dukes Highway but also I and the Keith community want the government to restore funding for the hospital. It is too dangerous to have this notorious stretch of road without the support of a hospital. Keith is ideally situated, close to the highway. It is 100 kilometres away from Naracoorte, where the nearest hospital would be if Keith were shut down. I will not rest until the state and federal Labor governments fix the Keith hospital. For as long as it takes, I will keep bringing up this issue because I am committed to getting a better deal for the community and all the people who rely on the hospital, whether it be the employees, the families of employees or of course the patients. At the last election, I committed to the Dukes Highway upgrade and will go to the next election committed to the Dukes Highway. It is not a project that can be completed overnight and if this current government had remained committed to roads, the Dukes Highway could well have been underway already. If a coalition government had been elected in 2007 or 2010, all the final planning and engineering studies would have been done and then of course the funding could have been part of AusLink 3—which would then mean 2014 to 2020. In 2004, we created AusLink. It was Australia's first ever national transport plan. It was actually three times the size in terms of infrastructure in real dollars of the Snowy Hydro scheme. I think AusLink was a fantastic coalition initiative. In the electorate of Barker, the Sturt Highway received $205 million of AusLink funding for the accelerated upgrades in 2006 and the Dukes Highway received $15 million in funding for shoulder sealing to the Victorian border. That is just a snapshot; much more funding has been allocated for Barker under AusLink, which is a great program—and of course the commitments came under a coalition government. Back at the 2007 election, Labor made a commitment to do a focus study of the Dukes Highway. Focus studies do not actually build roads. They do not achieve anything. That is a long way from the sort of upgrade that I am committed to. This government's word is not good enough for the Australian public anymore, because they are so good at breaking promises. I want to see more action on road funding. Recently in Mt Gambier in my electorate, I hosted the Leader of the Nationals and shadow minister for infrastructure and transport, the Hon. Warren Truss. Together we visited some spokespeople and council representatives. During this visit, I reconfirmed the coalition's commitment to the Roads to Recovery program, a highly successful program under the Howard government. We brought in the Roads to Recovery program in 2000. After the visit to Mt Gambier, and I say it again now, we remain committed past the 2014 deadline. There is a point of difference with the Labor government, as they are not committed to the Roads to Recovery program. It would seem that the Labor government do not see the importance of maintaining our local roads. Roads to Recovery has been a program through which the federal government can assist local governments to maintain over 650,000 kilometres of local roads, and it is hugely popular especially amongst councils. I can advise this House that I would travel that distance in about eight years driving around my electorate. Over the past decade, Roads to Recovery has funded around 34,000 projects across Australia. Under this program, I have seen many regional roads upgraded so people can drive down them every day, which was not the case in the past. Some had problems getting school buses and milk trucks down roads, but now they can regularly use them which is obviously very important. When I speak with councillors in my electorate, they say Roads to Recovery is a great program and they would be really lost without it. In fact, in 2006 roads were estimated to cost local government $3.8 billion a year. So Roads to Recovery helped shoulder the cost and enable local roads to be maintained. I think it is a very interesting point that when we were in government this huge Roads to Recovery program was administered by only two public servants. It would be interesting to see how many there are now to do the same job. Some great examples of Roads to Recovery projects in Barker are the Southend Access Road in the south-east, $358,000 in 2007; in 2002 in Robe, $298,000 was allocated; in 2006, Qualco Road in Loxton was allocated $150,000; in 2005, $12,300 for Kulda Road in Meningie; and in 2006, $16,762 was allocated for Trenerry road in Loxton. They were all coalition grants—none from Labor. There were many more roads in Barker that benefited from the Roads to Recovery program. That is why so many councils loved the program and told me that they would not be able to maintain the roads to the same level without it. The coalition is committed to another fantastic program called the Black Spot Program which is, as the name suggests, a program designed to focus on specific areas of concern on local roads. The coalition reintroduced the Black Spot Program in 1996, after it had previously been abolished by Labor. Labor abolished it because they do not believe in keeping rural Australia connected. They would rather spend all their money in the capital cities. The Black Spot Program was another hugely successful coalition program because we know what regional Australia needs to keep growing. Many areas in Barker were successful in acquiring Black Spot Program funding—the Millicent to Tantanoola road was allocated $290,000 in 2006; in the Murray lands, the Palmer to Murray Bridge road received $270,000 in 2007; Light Pass Road between Vine Vale and Tanunda received $120,000 in 2004; and the Loxton to Berri road, one I drive on quite a bit, had $130,000 allocated in 2007. I look forward to many more areas in Barker benefiting from this program when the coalition government is returned to office, because we know that the Labor government does not spend money on coalition seats. I want to come back to the really important motion to do with the Keith hospital that I passed in parliament last year. The government is defying the will of the parliament by not acting on my motion. I call on the Minister for Health, the Hon. Tanya Plibersek, to do what her predecessor refused to do. I call on the minister to do the right thing and help the Keith hospital. We did it when we were in government. The coalition funded the Mersey hospital. This government can fund the Keith hospital. (Time expired) 11:47 Ms BURKE 83S Chisholm I rise today to speak about Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012. I do so with some excitement because some of the measures in this bill will go a long way to assisting with the introduction of the clean energy bills package—something quite welcomed in my seat. While I do not dispute the member for Barker's desire to represent his electorate and to speak forcefully for it, I am sick and tired of my constituency—people who live in the suburbs—being held to ransom and being told that we can no longer spend money in the suburbs. I hate to point it out to everybody, but that is actually where most people live! If you look at proportion of spend, that is where it goes. I can attest that in my years in opposition—all nine of them—the Howard government put no money into my electorate beyond normal program funding. I did not get one spend beyond that—not once. Being in a marginal seat, I always found it quite interesting that they were not trying to attract some votes by funding something. I used to try to get them to fund something in my seat so that they could claim it and we could have it done. But in the nine years of the Howard government where I was in parliament not one additional spend was made—not one sports centre, not one additional road upgrade and no extra money into my hospitals, which are two of the largest in the country. Now, under a Labor government, we have seen spending based on requirements and not just on vote buying. I also want to point out, in discussing these appropriation bills, the quite outrageous hypocrisy and inconsistency of the amendment moved by the member for Goldstein, Andrew Robb, of putting these expenditures on hold. This is at the same time, in the last couple of days of parliament, as we have had those opposite moaning that we have now finally passed the changes to the private health legislation to cap and means test the private health rebate. On the one hand, the opposition is telling us we cannot afford to spend money, but on the other hand they are trying to prevent the government of the day securing better outcomes in health by taking back a proportion of the money going towards private health funds. That money was in no way, shape or form assisting the health system of this country. I want to spend a bit of time on these inequities in the opposition's argument and some of the inconsistencies around the private health insurance rebate. A lot of people in my electorate take out private health insurance, and I commend them for that. I myself have private health insurance and understand how expensive it is. But putting a rebate into the private health system did nothing to repair the health system. Let us look at this: it was money going to an insurance scheme. It was not going to private hospitals; it was not going to patients; it was not going to doctors. It was going to private health funds, to insurance schemes. I said at the time the bills were introduced into the House by the Howard government many moons ago that this was inequitable. It was bad policy. Ask any health economist, any health expert. It was bad and flawed policy because, over time, more and more revenue from the health budget was going to prop up private health funds, insurance schemes. Surely if the coalition had wanted more people to take up private health insurance they would have made their schemes better. I am sure that all of you in this place have had to deal with family members and individuals going to hospital. In the last couple of years my family and I have had to deal with both the private and public systems on many occasions. Tragically, 12 months ago my father died. He spent an enormous amount of time in the public health system. We could not have asked for better care than the care he got. Given the procedure that he needed and the fact that he was then going to spend an awfully long time in ICU, he could only have got that care in the public system. He spent a lot longer in ICU than any of us would have desired and several months ago he unfortunately died. But it was not because of the health care he got in the public system. No private system could have provided that care. A couple of months later my mother ended up in a private hospital, where she was told: 'We can't do that procedure. We're going to put you in an ambulance and send you to a public hospital and we're going to charge you $500 for the joy of being here for the last couple of hours while we assessed that we cannot look after you.' She got nothing back from her private health fund. The inequities in the system are about how the system works, not about throwing more money at it. We have never gone to the crux of it: actually repairing the system. My son has had to undergo surgery on numerous occasions because he was born with fused fingers. This was a very odd thing, a very simple little thing, but I wanted my son to have fingers that he could eventually use. All of this surgery was performed by a private practitioner whom we chose but it was done within the public hospital system. Why? Because the surgeon wanted to perform the surgery at the Children's Hospital because that is where all the care and equipment are that were going to be needed if, touch wood, anything ever went wrong. It never did. But that is where the surgery happened. He could have had all that surgery in the public system and we could have chosen to go as public patients but we elected not to because we could afford not to. It would have been the same surgeon and the same team but we chose not to. We were asked on that day whether we wanted to go public or private. It is about the inequities in the system, not just throwing more money at it and propping it up. Health is a big issue in my electorate. A great proportion of my constituents take out private health cover. A lot of my constituents work in the medical sector. I have in my electorate two of the largest hospitals in the country. Many people from outside the electorate come to these hospitals. Members opposite probably have constituents who have come to Box Hill Hospital and Monash Medical Centre. Monash Medical Centre is a very big hospital that also has a private hospital within it, so it has the two systems working together. I also have Epworth Eastern, a great private hospital that works really well in conjunction with the public hospital across the road. I have some smaller private hospitals that do great work. I have amazing medical researchers at both Monash Medical Centre and Monash University. Health is a big thing in my area. It would probably be the largest employer after Monash University. It is a big issue and it plays an important part. But it is about funding it appropriately. Where should we fund this? I say propping up an insurance system is not the right way to go. Carol Bennett, CEO of the Consumers Health Forum of Australia, wrote in an interesting opinion piece: Contemporary health policy discussions are generally about vested economic interests competing within an antagonistic political system. While these ‘policy’ discussions impact directly on health consumers, they are rarely referenced to real health outcomes. Real health is about how we look after ourselves, our family and friends, our workplaces, our communities and our environments. It is about regulation and safety (seat belts, random blood alcohol testing, OHS, etc.), access to quality food and water and hygienic sanitation, access to preventative health. It is about exercise, nutrition and well-being. It is about belonging. It is about us. Discussions about our health care systems are usually about money and there is a compelling case for adopting this approach. Around 1 in 8 Australians are employed in the health sector, making it the largest employment sector in Australia— On the record, I flag a vested interest because my husband, as many of you may know, works within the health sector as a MICA paramedic. He also lectures at Monash University within that sector and I know it quite well. My father-in-law is a physician. I know there are a lot of people who work in the healthcare sector; I am quite related to it. I will go on with the article: It is also a sector that is growing at a much greater rate than most others—healthcare needs are expanding, as are community expectations from our ageing population to have access to the best possible care. Health is a remarkably resilient economic powerhouse in Australia and around the world. Almost all health policy creates economic winners and losers among the existing players. If a particular drug becomes much cheaper to consumers by being listed on our subsidised Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the drug manufacturer makes more money through increased sales. A higher Medicare rebate for certain procedures allows doctors to charge more and increase their income. Any Health Minister proposing cost saving changes to the health system is going to have to run a gauntlet of opposition from those who will lose money if the policy change is implemented. The article goes on to cite the situation under the last parliament when the then Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, tried to reduce the Medicare rebate for cataract surgeries. The article further states: Cataract surgery rebates is one example cited by Dr Tony Webber, the former head of the Medicare watchdog, the Professional Services Review, in the current edition of the Medical Journal of Australia. Dr Webber argues that billions of dollars of savings can be achieved if the government is prepared to take on vested interests across the health system. He is right. ...   ...      ... Vested economic interests in health care systems will always oppose any change that potentially reduces their income. Oppositions will usually seek to gain political capital by joining any chorus of disenchantment. Unfortunately these two forces currently seem to be the major drivers of our health care system. That is right. It is about the politics, not the health. What we need to get back to are good health outcomes. Let us actually talk about where money should be going: into good health outcomes. The majority of the consumer watchdogs have welcomed the changes to the private health rebate, and there are great needs within that. Many of the players within the sector have welcomed the change because it will put money back into the system, where it is needed, not propping up the rebate. Back in February 2009, the Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association wrote: The $3.5 billion private health insurance (PHI) rebate needs further scrutiny in the light of advice from the Federal Treasury that it does not deliver value for money, according to the Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association (AHHA). The AHHA is the peak national body representing public hospitals, area health services, community health centres and public aged care providers. AHHA has previously called for the PHI rebate to be evaluated to assess whether or not it represents the best use of scarce health resources ... Since the program was introduced by the Howard Government it has never been assessed against its objectives. This is despite the fact that many economists and other health experts have expressed serious concerns that it is an inefficient use of tax-payer funds. That is who is paying for this: the taxpayers. I am not talking about winners and losers or rich and poor. I think that is a spurious argument. I do not think it is about people subsidising others; it is about the best use of the money. It is about assessing where the health dollar can go. Again from the AHHA, yesterday: Means testing the rebate will result in a fairer use of public health funding and not impose any additional burden on public hospitals. AHHA has done extensive modelling on the impact of the proposal and found that only 15% of the insured population or about 1.53 million people will be affected by the changes. For this small group - the wealthiest in the community - their rebate will fall by between 10% and 20%. We know from past experience that price has relatively little effect on private insurance membership. For example, when the rebate was first introduced in 1999, membership grew by only 2% for every 10% reduction in price. The proposed reforms will simply reverse that for higher income people. At an average 14% increase in price, only 31,000 would now be expected to drop their private insurance. This estimation is almost identical to that reached independently by Treasury. Only a small proportion of those who drop it will ever appear in a public hospital setting. So it is about where the best bang for your buck can be found within health. In the short time remaining I would also like to put on the record what benefits my electorate has received from the changes the government has introduced. We have actually seen some infrastructure spending within Chisholm. I have been delighted to go to all of my school openings for the BER and the National School Pride program. I am going to go along very soon to Box Hill High School, where they have had a community partnership working together, to open the SATERN science block, which is a federally funded initiative. I had the delight of going to Ashwood College in my electorate, which was promised money by the Baillieu government. Tragically, Ashwood College has now been hit twice by arsonists and it has not been repaired after either of those fires. Whilst the state member for Burwood went to the election promising that the high school would be rebuilt, nothing has happened. Those children are being educated in an environment that is just appalling. The previous state government had committed the funds to build an entire new school on the site. That has now been scrapped. No money has been given. The only new building that has been opened on the site of Ashwood College is a new science wing built under the BER funding arrangement. It is a testament to what you can do in those schools. It will lift that school and it will help the community greatly. I have had the joy of going to all of my Catholic and private primary schools, who have welcomed, embraced and are incredibly grateful for this funding. It has allowed them to do things they would never have done. Particularly in the Catholic sector there is great appreciation for what has gone on and most of them say, 'We spent the money wisely. We don't know what all the fuss is about.' I have had money go to all of my state, private and independent schools. I have had money go into the two universities and the TAFE within my seat. This will help us into the future in this education space. I commend the bills to the chamber. 12:02 Mr TONY SMITH 00APG Casey In speaking on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-12 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-12, I want to take a detailed look at the economic approach of our current Treasurer. I could not help but notice last week in question time that the Treasurer expressed his admiration for one of his predecessors in that position. The Treasurer confessed to being a great fan of Edward Granville Theodore, who served in the one-term government of James Scullin. There is a reason why the tenure of Scullin as Prime Minister and Theodore as Treasurer was so brief. While Scullin might be neck and neck with former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and the current member for Lalor in the competition for the title of Australia's worst Prime Minister, there is absolutely no doubt that Theodore was the worst Treasurer this Commonwealth has ever seen. I thought it might benefit the House to look more closely at the details of Theodore's record. It was almost 81 years ago to the day that Theodore was down the hill in Old Parliament House scheming to adopt policies that would have inflicted economic ruin on the people of Australia. Policies that would have shattered confidence in Australia's economy and consigned the Australian people to penury, poverty and pain. At the core of those policies lay a piece of legislation entitled the Fiduciary Notes Bill 1931. The bill was crafted as an ill-conceived response to the Great Depression. It was, thankfully, defeated in the Senate. Had it passed, this stimulus‑on‑steroids package would have blown out Commonwealth spending by a whopping 22 per cent over the 1930-31 budget levels. That gives rise to the question of what the result would have been if Ted Theodore's Fiduciary Notes Bill had been approved by this House and the other place and had received royal assent. The answer to that question is hyperinflation. The same sort of massive, out-of-control inflation that ravages the creditworthiness of nations and the livelihoods of individuals. But inflation was not a casual by-product of this legislation. In fact, quite the contrary, it was the core objective. As Theodore openly stated in his second reading speech, the bill was deliberately intended to: 'trigger the upward movement of prices resulting from credits made available'. The Scullin government's mad rush to catastrophe was stopped by a brave Labor man, Joe Lyons, and a handful of other brave Labor souls who put country above party. Lyons resigned from the Scullin ministry and on 11 March 1931 voted no confidence in the Scullin government thus expelling himself from the ranks of the ALP. Lyons's decision to go into political exile was an agonising one. He explained his reasons in a policy speech he delivered during the 1931 election campaign, when he led the newly formed United Australia Party. I would like to quote from that speech. He said: It was not easy for us to break an association which had endured for the whole of our political lives. We made that break solely because we believed that the government, by its financial drift and dangerous inflation schemes, was leading the country surely and swiftly to destruction. As Anne Henderson explains in her magisterial biography of Lyons, it was not so much that Lyons left Labor but that Labor left Lyons. The truly interesting thing about the Fiduciary Notes Bill is the manner of its adoption by Theodore as Treasurer in the Scullin government. At the end of 1930 Lyons was serving as acting Treasurer while Prime Minister Scullin was overseas dealing with the crisis and Ted Theodore had been forced to step down from the frontbench due to a royal commission in Queensland. Acting in that role Lyons faithfully upheld a policy of responsible government finance. But then two things happened. In January 1931 Theodore was reinstated as the federal Treasurer and New South Wales Premier Jack Lang entered the picture of federal politics and policy. Lang was a crude left-wing populist firebrand whose claim to fame rested on the fact that he tried to repudiate New South Wales's overseas debt. In early 1931 Lang began pushing those same policies of default upon the Commonwealth. Lang's political power extended not only to his state political colleagues but to the New South Wales Labor contingent in Canberra as well. So when Lang spoke Scullin and Theodore began to wobble. While they did not do what Lang demanded, they did dramatically change course because of him. Scullin and Theodore threw Lyons under the proverbial bus and abruptly swerved Australia towards a future of debt and deficit, funny money and inflation. The historical record makes it crystal clear that this diametric shift of policy was not motivated by high-minded ideals or a crisis of confidence. No, the historical record demonstrates that Theodore's shift from responsibility to recklessness was motivated by weak political expediency. When the minions of Lang menaced the stability of the Scullin government, Theodore cast fiscal sobriety adrift in order to neutralise that political threat. But that is not the worst of it. In October 1931 Theodore introduced the Debt Conversion Bill No. 2, legislation that essentially constituted a raid on Commonwealth and state bond holders. Through legislative fiat, that bill would have forced bond holders to forfeit 22.5 per cent of their investments. It was an arrogant act of confiscation. Oblivious to all the objections and heedless of any dissent, Theodore intended to deploy the coercive power of the state to trample roughshod over the private property rights of Australian people. Lyons spoke out forcefully against the nature of the Debt Conversion Bill describing it as being 'of most objectionable character, the most extraordinary thing ever done by any government'. The most telling condemnation of Ted Theodore's economic policies came from within the Labor's own ranks. South Australian Labor Senator Harry Kneebone took no prisoners in his denunciation of Theodore's Debt Conversion Bill. On 4 November 1931, during the Senate debate on the bill, Kneebone said: People are sent to gaol for things much less criminal than what this bill proposes. … In my opinion we are not justified in passing such a deceitful piece of legislation. … We are asked to commit an act of injustice which will redound to the discredit of the Parliament for many years to come. Despite such principled opposition from some Labor people, the Debt Conversion Act was accorded royal assent on 7 December 1931. Thankfully—only twelve days later—this misconceived legislation and the misbegotten government that spawned it were swept away by the victory of Joe Lyons and the United Australia Party at a federal election. And what a victory it was. In a landslide of historic proportions, Labor was reduced from 46 seats in the then 75-member House of Representatives to a mere 14. One of Lyons's first acts as Prime Minister was to repeal the coercive provisions of the Debt Conversion Act. The 1931 federal election was a decisive repudiation of both Theodore's economic policies and of Theodore the politician. He lost his suburban Sydney seat of Dalley. But he has not lost his place in the heart of the current Treasurer, the member for Lilley. And the member for Lilley is not the only Theodore-groupie amongst those on the Labor side. Just yesterday the member for Wakefield approvingly described Theodore as a 'stalwart of the union movement'. The historical and economic illiteracy of some of those opposite never ceases to amaze. There is no doubt that those opposite devote much time and effort to mythmaking and rewriting history to camouflage their party's record of economic failure. But the current Treasurer's hero worship of Ted Theodore can be explained by one of only two possible options—ignorance of the facts or ignorance of economics. It is entirely possible that the current Treasurer is not educated on the topic of Ted Theodore's disastrous reign of error. Or, alternatively, the current Treasurer knows all about it and actually believes Theodore' s approach was the right way to go. Those are the only two choices. It must duly be noted that the Labor Party does have form when it comes to the glorification of economic wreckers. Case in point: the incomprehensible reverence shown towards Jack Lang by another former Labor Treasurer, Paul Keating—despite the fact that Lang was sacked as Premier over his insistence that New South Wales should default on its debt obligations. From our vantage point eight decades on, we see the decisive verdict of history on the question of who was right—Lyons or Theodore. After his resounding victory at the polls in December 1931, Lyons had the opportunity to put his policies into practice, until his untimely death in 1939. Lyons practised fiscal restraint, and restored confidence in the Australian economy. As Anne Henderson points out, from 1929 to 1940 Australia's real GDP grew by almost 17 per cent. Compare that stellar figure to the paltry 1.6 per cent growth rate over the same period in America, where Keynesianism reigned supreme under FDR's New Deal. On the question of unemployment, in the Australia of Joe Lyons the jobless rate had dropped into the single digits by 1936. By contrast, despite hyper-spending by the Roosevelt administration, American unemployment remained in the high teens well into the 1940s. Those figures speak volumes. But I fear they speak a language that the current Treasurer, the member for Lilley, finds unintelligible. Ted Theodore was the wrong man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. At a critical juncture in Australia's history he failed to meet the challenge. With all the great figures who loom large in the annals of our nation, it is puzzling that the current Treasurer has chosen Ted Theodore as his icon of admiration and emulation. The member for Lilley would be well-advised to seek a more appropriate object of hero worship. In fact, I would suggest Anne Henderson's magnificent biography of Lyons might be a good place to start. He could then remember a true labour person who stood up for Australia in its hour of need. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83D The question is that the amendment be agreed to. I call the member for Hughes. Mr Melham interjecting— 12:14 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I welcome the interjections from the good member for Banks. I rise to speak on the appropriation bills Nos 3 and 4. What is most significant about these bills is what is not in them. Last year I had the privilege of attending the National Disability Awards ceremony in the Great Hall of our federal parliament. It was a truly inspirational night to celebrate the achievements of those who fight daily to overcome disabilities and to recognise the struggles of their carers. During the night the Prime Minister waltzed in and gave a speech. These are some of her words: …in the final analysis, the disability support system in Australia needs more than tweaking at the edges. It is a system that no longer adequately serves our community. A system that has been characterised as: Unfair. Underfunded. Fragmented. Inefficient. Not the kind of system we would wish for ourselves or those who are dear to us. …   …   … Certainly your pleas fell on stony ground for many thankless years. That happened, I think, because disability confronts us with our own worst fears and how easily fate could separate us from our easy, comfortable certainties. …   …   … … too many generations of parents have gone to their graves not knowing what the future held for their child with disability as they grew to middle age. So I say this as your Prime Minister tonight: Not another generation will face that agonising choice. …   …   … Let there be no mistake. The decision I announced in August is a not just a preliminary hint or an aspiration. It is the green light for a National Disability Insurance Scheme in this country. …   …   … The time for words is over. The time for action has come. We will get this thing done. …   …   … … the NDIS … will be a defining achievement of this term of government … Naturally such an ironclad commitment to make the National Disability Insurance Scheme the defining achievement of this term of government was met with rousing applause. The Prime Minister left the stage to the cheers of hundreds of disabled Australians and their carers, not only those gathered in the room that night but also those thousands listening in their lounges. The Productivity Commission has put the price tag of the National Disability Insurance Scheme at $6.5 billion. Given the Prime Minister's unambiguous words: … The time for action has come. We will get this thing done. …   …   … … the NDIS … will be a defining achievement of this term of government … I am sure that everyone who was listening to the Prime Minister's words that night would have left with the impression that the funds for the NDIS had been secured. But less than two weeks later, when the forward estimates were released, it was revealed there was not one single cent, not one solitary brass razoo, that had been set aside to cover the cost of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It is one thing to mislead the Australian public on the carbon tax. It is one thing to mislead them on maintaining the health insurance rebate or to promise cash for clunkers or to promise the East Timor solution et cetera. It is one thing to shaft the good member for Denison, to mislead him on pokies reform and then leave him hanging out to dry when he is no longer needed. But to stand up at the National Disability Awards night, in front of a room full of disabled people and their carers, and to promise in regard to the $6½ billion NDIS that 'the time for action has come', the 'NDIS will be a defining achievement of this term of government' and 'we will get this done' when not a single cent has been allocated in the forward estimates makes the Prime Minister's statement nothing more than a cruel hoax upon the most vulnerable members of our society. This was a most shameful deception, 100 times worse than the broken promise on a carbon tax. Shame, Prime Minister, shame. Mr Melham 4T4 What's your leader's position? Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 If the Prime Minister were being honest and if the member for Banks were being honest, she would have stood up at the National Disability Awards and simply said sorry to our nation's disabled and their carers. Sorry that her government has engaged in such wasteful and reckless expenditure that it has pushed the goals of the NDIS further and further away. Sorry that her government has made so many expensive policy blunders. Sorry that the Rudd and Gillard regimes have not only frittered away the $40 billion in the bank they inherited from the Howard government but also run up $140 billion on the national credit card, and that does not even count the NBN. Sorry that, as a nation, we now need to find every year $6.5 billion to pay the interest bill on the national credit card, year after year, until we start paying this debt down—coincidentally, the very same amount as the $6.5 billion annually we need to fund the NDIS. And sorry that her government has not allocated a Jatz cracker for the NDIS in the forward estimates, and they do not have a clue how they are going to find this money in the future. But, instead of the truth, we had the Prime Minister engaging in a cruel hoax upon the most vulnerable members of our society. While this government has not been able to find a single cent of new money to start to pay for the costs of the NDIS, let's have a look at what this government thinks is a greater priority. This week, under questioning in Senate estimates, the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency let it slip that hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars are being used to indoctrinate toddlers on the benefits of the glorious carbon tax revolution—money to brainwash toddlers to support the carbon tax, but not a single cent to fund the NDIS. Now we have the Labor government spending $11 billion of taxpayers' money for an advertising campaign to justify its broken promises on the health insurance rebate, but not one cent to fund the NDIS. Then there was money for the 20-page propaganda booklet mailed to 9.8 million households back in August last year at a cost of $4.2 billion, simply to peddle Labor's carbon tax and the global warming theory, which the Auditor-General found contained facts which were not properly sourced and had no less than seven breaches of financial management regulations. But, still, there was not one cent to fund the NDIS. Then there is the $3.9 billion—that is 'B' for billion—price tag that we have for the Labor government reversing the border protection measures of the Howard government, but, still, not one cent to fund the NDIS. Then there were the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the so-called set-top box program, which looks like it will cost an average of $698 for each set-top box they have given away when you can buy the same thing at Kmart for 19 bucks, but, still, they cannot find one cent to fund the NDIS. I could go on all day about the appalling waste and the things that this government has been able to find money for when they still cannot find one cent to fund the NDIS. Perhaps the most telling example of the priority that this government has given to the NDIS is the millions that they are now spending on something called the Flannery Centre, named after the bloke who claimed that Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains because global warming had made the soil so hot that 'even the rain that falls isn't going to fill our dams and river systems'. The Flannery Centre is being built in Bathurst. You would think it would be a good name for a comedy club. Its website claims that, once finished, it will provide 'training and education about sustainability', 'a community response to climate change and sustainability', and 'clarity about the issues we face'. When there is no money to fund the NDIS, we have at taxpayers' expense the Flannery Centre, providing to the good citizens of Bathurst hours of training on how to compost and build worm farms. That is the priority of this government. We have the Flannery Centre's claim that it will provide 'clarity about the issues we face'. This appears to simply be code for supporting the carbon tax. I wonder if the taxpayer funded Flannery Centre, in providing clarity about the issues we face, is going to tell the truth about the latest measurement of average global temperatures, measured by satellite. As for January 2012, the last month, it recorded that average global temperatures were the same as they were 32 years ago. The IPCC predictions—their prophecies—on warming are simply not coming true. As for the Flannery Centre wanting to provide clarity about the issues we face, perhaps it should detail the environmental damage done by hopelessly inefficient wind farms, which are doing nothing other than driving up the cost of electricity in Australia faster than anywhere else in the developed world. The American government estimated that in 2009 wind turbines alone had been responsible for the deaths of 440,000 birds, including golden eagles, swans and geese, that had either been decapitated or had their bodies smashed by the blades. The vice-president of the American Bird Conservancy, a not-for-profit organisation whose mission is to conserve native birds, said: Bird deaths from wind power are the new inconvenient truth. The total number of birds killed and the amount of bird habitat lost will dramatically increase as wind power build-out continues across the country in a rush to meet federal renewable energy targets. For some reason I think these facts will be missing from the Flannery Centre account. If the Flannery Centre would like to provide clarity about the issues we face, perhaps it will highlight the delusions of Professor David Viner, a senior research scientist at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who 12 years ago claimed that within a few years winter snowfall would become 'a very rare and exciting event'. Just look at the weather in Europe last week. Many towns in Europe recorded their coldest temperatures since records started 100 years ago. The record cold weather in Europe has killed more than 400 people—frozen to death—and caused thousands more to seek medical help for frostbite and hypothermia. Even the canals in Venice have frozen. But it is not only in Europe; it is right across the world. In Seoul, Korea, last week temperatures plunged to minus 17 degrees, the month's coldest temperature since 1957. In Alaska in January they recorded their coldest ever month on record. On 12 January this year even Canberra recorded its lowest January temperature ever, beating the previous record low set back in 1956. These are facts that are unlikely to be told by the Flannery Centre. These facts are hardly consistent with the dangerous global warming theory. If the Flannery Centre really wants to provide clarity about the issues that we face, perhaps it could print up copies of the 470-page official government report entitled Transport energy futures: long-term oil supply trends and projections. In George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four the totalitarian government used memory holes to make politically inconvenient documents and records disappear. That is exactly what has happened to report 117. Fortunately we were able to find a copy of this official Australian government report on the website of a private French citizen. This report warns that Australia's liquid fuels, which we need to run our cars, trucks, farm equipment and planes, the very lifeblood or our economy, are running out. The report warns that we have three options: 1. Oil is replaced with other (equally rich and abundant) energy sources (opening the whole debate about alternative fuel sources, e.g. gas-to-liquids, coal-to-liquids, electricity, hydrogen). 2. Improved energy efficiency results in energy use per unit of GDP declining markedly to match the shortfall— the third option is the worst of all and the one the government seems intent on— 3. GDP declines to match the shortfall. With our declining oil supplies we have to look at the problems this is going to cause in the future. I go firstly to our trade deficit. By 2015, in less than three years time, because of declining oil supplies here in Australia and our growing reliance on imports, we will have to find at least an extra $15 billion a year to purchase oil from overseas. This threatens to cause a massive blow-out in our trade deficit. The second problem is that we are now in breach of our International Energy Agency agreements. Under these international agreements Australia is required to maintain a strategic petroleum reserve equivalent to 90 days of last year's net oil imports. The purpose of this is to provide economic and national security during an energy crisis, a wise insurance policy against a complete economic meltdown caused by a disruption in our liquid fuel supplies. In the past, with our supplies from Bass Strait, we have been able meet this. We no longer do. In fact, at current prices we would need to spend $300 million to buy the fuel to meet our obligations and by 2015 this sum will blow out to $1.5 billion and will grow from there every year. That is just to buy the oil, not to store it or provide the holding facilities. (Time expired) Debate adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 1719 ADJOURNMENT Battle of Timor 1719 12:30 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I rise to speak— Mr Melham 4T4 Still going. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 on a most important anniversary, and I think you would like to listen to this, member for Banks. On 19 February 2012 we mark the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Timor. This sometimes forgotten military event, falling in the shadow of the bombing of Darwin, occurred on a landmass just 500 kilometres from our doorstep. It is an important part of the history that defines the role and character of Australia's special forces and commandos. In December 1941, the Australian Defence Force landed a makeshift unit called Sparrow Force on Timor to deny the Japanese military use of airstrips on the strategic islands from which to launch air raids on the Australian mainland. The small force was made up of members of the 2nd/40th Battalion and a few hundred members of the 2nd/2nd Independent Commando Company. On 19 February, the Japanese sent several ships and 8,000 troops to occupy Timor and displace Australia's Sparrow Force. Overwhelmed and outmanned, Sparrow Force put up a brave resistance, eventually surrendering after a few days of fierce fighting. But the members of the 2nd/2nd Independent Commando Company took to the hills to avoid capture. They regrouped and reorganised and, over the next few months, carried out guerrilla raids against the enemy while completely cut off from command back in Australia. This ragtag commando unit, eventually reinforced by a second commando unit, the 2nd/4th, tied up some 15,000 Japanese troops at a time when the enemy could least afford it. The dogged fight put up by our brave commandos and the resources that the Japanese needed to put into the fight contributed to the overstretching of the Japanese military and their eventual collapse after having occupied almost all of South-East Asia and the Pacific. The record of our soldiers is a proud one. The lads of the Independent Commando Company stationed on Timor showed that they fought and lived under the motto that would later be taken by the 1st Commando Regiment: to 'strike swiftly'. For the loss of just 40 brave Australians, they inflicted over 1,500 casualties against an overwhelmingly superior force of Japanese that had massed on the island of Timor and bogged down the Japanese military in a fight they did not anticipate. The courageous and inspiring efforts of the 2nd/2nd and the 2nd/4th Commando Companies remains a source of pride in a section of our military that defines our nation. Our soldiers of the Australian Special Forces are the best in the world and their tradition is steeped in the history of our boys who held the line in Timor, aided by the local population, who were endeared by their fight against all odds. The lads of the Independent Commando Company in Timor, who included among their numbers Tom Uren, later the federal member for Reid, which I am sure that Mr Deputy Speaker will know, are the natural forebears and inspiration of the 4th Royal Australian Regiment, 4RAR, and now the 2nd Commando Regiment, which are an important unit at Holsworthy barracks and amongst the broader Holsworthy community in the seat of Hughes, which I represent. The independent commando companies that fought for Australia in World War II were made up of volunteers from all branches of the Australian military. They received their training skills in raids, demolition, sabotage, subversion and organising civil resistance. Initially they were intended to serve on the Middle East front but were moved to Northern Australia as the Japanese threat to the Australian mainland grew. The independent commando companies served across the Pacific, establishing outposts to warn of the approach of Japanese forces. Their mission was then to remain behind and harass the invading enemy forces. They served across the Dutch East Indies, now Indonesia, and at New Ireland, Manus Island, Bougainville and elsewhere among the islands to the immediate north of Australia, and of course in the two-year guerrilla campaign in Timor. The commandos of the independent companies and their successors in the Australian military maintain their close bonds to the Australian Commando Association. The New South Wales Branch President, Mr Barry Grant, is a constituent of Hughes. He is someone I am proud to call a close friend and whose advice I seek and listen to most earnestly. I look forward to attending the commemorative service of the Battle of Timor at the Commando Memorial in Martin Place on Sunday, and I will be representing the Leader of the Opposition with some pride on this most important occasion. Closing the Gap 1720 12:34 Ms GRIERSON 00AMP Newcastle In 2008 the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered the historic apology to the stolen generations. Four years ago this week, he called the apology, so correctly, 'unfinished business'. It was a momentous day, a 'national tear-fest' that truly brought us all together. It is important to reflect upon that symbolic moment of reconciliation. It was important on the first sorry day, and it remains important now, to confront the history of displacement, disconnection and despair experienced by the stolen generations. I am pleased that the government has provided more than $26 million over four years to establish the ATSI Healing Foundation to support community based healing initiatives. The Stolen Generations' Testimonies website, which records the lives and experiences of more than 30 stolen generation members, was also launched this week. But it is important too to look forward with hope, and that is why closing the gap of disadvantage for Indigenous Australians is central to our government's endeavours. In her Closing the Gap Report the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, said this week: 'Closing the Gap targets are not meant just to challenge us to do more; they are designed to hold us accountable to our ambitions.' We are on track to halve mortality rates for Indigenous children under five by 2018; halve the gap for Indigenous students in academia; halve the employment gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians; deliver early childhood education to every Indigenous four-year-old by 2013; and halve the gap in the number of Indigenous students passing year 12 and its equivalents by 2020. More than 90,000 additional jobs were won by Indigenous Australians over recent years. Indigenous unemployment has fallen from 31 per cent to 16.6 per cent—still staggeringly high. Year 12 retention rates are up to 47 per cent, from an abysmal 30 per cent in the 1990s. In Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory, Indigenous mortality rates have fallen by 36 per cent and additional Indigenous health workers are keeping up the fight against breast cancer, diabetes, heart disease and mental illness. For many years, though, there was underwhelming investment in the lives of Australia's Indigenous people. So we are investing more than $5.75 billion over the next three years to make beneficial long-term impacts on the lives of Indigenous Australians. This includes $5.5 billion over 10 years towards the construction and refurbishment of housing and infrastructure under the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing. We have also committed $564.6 million over six years towards the development of young people through the National Partnership Agreement on Indigenous Early Childhood Development. I could go on, but these are just facts and figures. We all know that the money, and where we target it, is critical. But it certainly takes a lot of effort and a long time to see the change we would all like to see. Real change, the transformation of people's lives, is only effected through collaborative understanding and committed action by all Australians, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous. In reality, it is not all good news. While much of the focus of media attention is on remote areas, for me local action and local progress in cities like Newcastle is vital. In January this year the Newcastle Herald reported 'Hunter indigenous health hits worst levels in decade'. With over 34,000 Indigenous Australians, the Hunter-New England Area Health Service has the largest Indigenous population in New South Wales. The Herald reports data from the past decade showing a 50 per cent increase in smoking related admissions, a doubling of diabetes related admissions and an increase in alcohol related admissions by 30 per cent. While increases in the same diseases were also reported in the non-Indigenous population, the Indigenous rates were about three times higher. That is the scale of the problem that we have to confront. I am very pleased, though, that GP Access—now Medicare Local Hunter Urban—has been part of trying to improve those statistics. They have employed an outreach worker and an Aboriginal health program officer. My hope is that the new Medicare Local will identify this as a real area of need and fight hard for the funds that are so necessary to make a real difference to closing the gap. Four years have passed since the apology to the stolen generations, but there is still a tough road ahead in terms of improving the lives of all Indigenous Australians. Closing the Gap is a long-term challenge that this government is committed to. (Time expired) Climate Change 1722 12:39 Mr SIMPKINS HWE Cowan The Australian people continue to be concerned about the Labor-Green government's carbon tax and they have every right to be concerned. An economy-wide carbon tax that exceeds the plans of every other economy in the world is reckless and destructive for Australian jobs and interests. The carbon tax was, as we know, specifically ruled out by the current Prime Minister and the Treasurer before the 2010 election and then deceitfully brought back after all the deals were done with the Greens and the Independents. It remains a disgrace and a blight on the democratic principles of our nation. Unfortunately the carbon tax deceit is an all-too-familiar hallmark of this Prime Minister and this government, all pretty much par for the course. They will be long remembered for these low standards. I have spoken before about the carbon tax and I am not afraid to say that I am no adherent to the theory of anthropogenic global warming. I have made that point many times before in the parliament. Unlike those on the other side, I am not prepared to listen to the Prime Minister, the former Prime Minister and others whose justifications for the carbon tax betrayal are based upon the assertions that the science is settled or other great lines that begin with, 'All credible scientists agree' when the statements are just not true. Recently Fritz Vahrenholt, a German electricity utility executive, holder of a doctorate of chemistry and author of Diekalte Sonne, said in an interview with Der Spiegel that the official United Nations forecasts on the severity of climate change are overstated and supported by weak science. Dr Vahrenholt has been noted as a real champion of renewable energy, so he does deserve to be listened to. In an interview, he states: I want new scientific findings to be included in the climate debate. It would then become clear that the simple equation that CO2 and other man-made greenhouse gases are almost exclusively responsible for climate change is unsustainable. It has not gotten any warmer on this planet in almost 14 years, despite continued increases in CO2 emissions. Established climate science has to come up with an answer to that. He went on to say: In my experience as an energy expert, I learned that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is more of a political than a scientific body. As a reporteur on renewable energy, I witnessed how thin the factual basis is for predictions that are made at the IPCC. For the IPCC and the politicians it influences, CO2 is practically the only factor. The importance of the sun for the climate is systematically underestimated, and the importance of CO2 is systematically overestimated. As a result, all climate predictions are based on the wrong underlying facts. The Labor government is claiming that a carbon tax will reduce carbon output. As I have said previously, we know that carbon dioxide makes up around 395 parts per million in the atmosphere. But 97 per cent of that is naturally occurring, so human produced CO2 accounts for just three parts per million in the atmosphere or just 0.00001185 per cent of the atmosphere. But that is not the bottom line for this country, because Australia produces just 1.8 per cent of that figure. That means Australian production of CO2 amounts to 0.0000002133 per cent of the atmosphere. That is the figure against which this failure of a government wants to apply a multi-billion-dollar tax, to reduce that figure by just five per cent. This Labor government's multi-billion-dollar tax will result in the reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere by 0.000000010665 per cent. This is just another example of the failure of a policy that will do nothing for the environment and will only damage this country and reduce the standard of living for Australians. Obviously the Greens and many in the Labor Party are true believers and very keen to redistribute the wealth of this country and not just attack the big employers in Australia but ensure that the downstream effects of the carbon tax will impact through every house, all for absolutely no effect on the environment of the world. In fact, the world's biggest carbon tax reaching across our economy will have no impact. What it will impact upon is the jobs of Australians and the competitive standing of so many of our industries. It will make it harder for businesses to expand or to continue to operate at current levels, making them more likely to lay off workers as they struggle to compete. Again, there will be no impact on the world's climate, nothing at all. It is all very well for this government to seek to indoctrinate children through a grant to the children's TV program dirtgirlworld via state owned media, but North Korean tactics do not make up for the reality that human induced global warming is not a proven theory and that many questions remain unanswered, or perhaps they are unanswerable. I remind the government that Australians are not stupid. They are smart and they question the differences between what they see happening in the real world and what is pushed out to them in slick and emotive advertising campaigns by this low-credibility and untrustworthy government. Calwell Electorate: Hume City Council Australia Day Awards 1723 12:45 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell I had the great pleasure this year again to be involved in the Hume City Council's Australia Day ceremony, which annually involves the conferment of citizenship for many people who live in my electorate. It also involves the conferment of awards to the local community. As always, the event takes place at the Broadmeadows Town Hall. I always value the opportunity to celebrate Australia Day and the Australian story with my constituents. In celebrating the Australian story and Australia Day in Calwell—a very diverse and multicultural community—I acknowledge and pay respect to the traditional owners of the land on which we find ourselves in Calwell—the land of the first Australians, the Indigenous Australians. I pay my respects to their elders past and present. Our community has a very high regard for the Gunung-Willam-Balluk people's living culture and their unique role in the life of modern Australia. This year's Hume City Council Australia Day celebrations saw the awarding of the annual Hume Citizen of the Year award. This year, for the first time, it was shared between two very deserving female recipients. The Hume Young Citizen of the Year award was also rewarded to a very deserving female recipient. I would like to say a few words about these three very worthy recipients, who play a significant role in our local community. The recipients of the Hume Citizen of the Year award, in recognition for services to the local community, are Zahra Baho, a resident of Roxburgh Park, and Elwyn Davis, who is a resident of Sunbury. Zahra arrived here some 21 years ago as a refugee and settled in our area. She is a sole parent with three children. In the time she has lived in the area she has managed to raise her family and establish an early learning centre. She has assisted many women who, like her, are from refugee backgrounds, to undertake courses to better themselves. She has been a very active participant in many of our local communities. She is by nature a very active person who is very much a volunteer. In all that time she has also managed to better herself by completing an MBA. She is an inspirational character and a very worthy recipient of the Hume Citizen of the Year award. Elwyn Davis, a long-term resident of Sunbury, is the founder of the Sunbury Action Group. She has been heavily involved in local community organisations. Elwyn says that her main passion is her commitment to charity work. She has raised money and awareness for a leprosy mission. She is one of the driving forces behind the local historical society. The Hume Young Citizen of the Year is 20-year-old Nadine Kotob from Craigieburn. She is a very impressive young lady who has a passion for community work. She is a very young person who has already made an incredible contribution and if that is any indication of what she is going to do in the future I think I have spotted a future leader in my community. Nadine is committed not only to her local community but to the broader global community. She has been an active participant in campaigns to eradicate poverty from the world. She is very much a global citizen—a young person who sees her role as not only making her mark in her local community but also in the global community. I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of former Hume Divisional Superintendent Jack Blayney, who was one of 33 police officers from across Australia to receive an Australian Police Medal. Our local police work tirelessly to assist our community and I want to commend Superintendent Blayney for his work and congratulate him for his achievement. (Time expired) Australian Year of the Farmer 1724 12:50 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland As we commemorate 2012 as the Australian Year of the Farmer, I want to take this opportunity to emphasise the Nationals' support for farming families and to highlight some key issues facing the agricultural sector. The organisers of the Year of the Farmer should be commended and I wish them well in their efforts to promote the vital role that Australian farmers play in feeding, clothing and providing building materials to house us all. The Year of the Farmer will remind all Australians about the critical role our agricultural sector plays in the wealth and prosperity of our nation. It will also remind us of the unique cultural heritage of our pioneering forefathers. When you consider that Australian farms and the businesses which support them generate more than $400 billion each year or 27 per cent of our nation's GDP, you begin to appreciate the enormous contribution made by and the importance of our rural industries. It is worth reminding those opposite about those numbers because this government has not been good for our farmers. Sometimes I wonder if it is deliberate or just plain ignorance. In any case, this government has failed to demonstrate a true appreciation for the importance of our farming communities. I do not want to dwell on all of the issues now, but its handling of the live export industry was a debacle, the treatment of mountain cattlemen in Victoria has been a disgrace and the failures in areas such as biosecurity and water security for the irrigation sector will undermine the future viability of many farm businesses. On top of all that we have the carbon tax. The government likes to claim that agriculture is exempt from the carbon tax but the reality is very different and the Australian farming community knows it. The carbon tax will cascade through the economy like a toxic waterfall. It will add costs to all of the inputs into farm businesses and make Australian farmers less competitive on world markets. Take, for example, a dairy farmer in my electorate of Gippsland. The Australian Dairy Industry Council claims the combined impact of a carbon tax on electricity, fuel and input costs could result in an increase in average dairy farm costs of $5,000 to $7,000 per annum. It begs the obvious question: what impact will that have on the competitiveness of Australian dairy exports? This government does not seem to care about regional Australia. I do not believe it understands regional Australia. Regional Australia does not have a voice at the highest level of this government. Not a single Labor cabinet minister lives in regional Australia. I believe that to understand regional Australia you have to live there. To really care about the future of regional Australian families you have to make the choice to live among us. You need to have a passion for the future of regional Australia. Hopefully, the Year of the Farmer will stir some passion in those opposite and give them cause to reflect on the importance of all rural industries. There are many challenges facing farming families—intrusion by government policies is just one of them. One of the biggest issues in Gippsland is the ageing nature of the agricultural workforce and the fact that many young people are not choosing a future on the land. I was interested to read a comment piece in today's Herald Sun by the editor of the Weekly Times, Ed Gannon. Ed comes from good rural stock. I remember playing footy against Ed when he was a young bloke growing up in Newry in my electorate. He makes the point that there is an overall decline in tertiary education in agriculture at the same time as there is a decline in young jackaroos and jillaroos gaining practical experience on the land. That is a major issue and he points to the image problem that farming has—long hours, low pay and the remoteness of rural life. These are things we need to turn around and governments have an important role to play in that regard. The Nationals' plans for primary production and food security are all about giving agriculture the central place it deserves in our national identity. We want to protect fertile agricultural land and allow for expansion of food production where appropriate. We support the maintenance of targeted assistance for producers hit with major drought, flood and fire events because we understand that our farmers may be resilient but every now and then they need a helping hand to keep them in the business of providing for our future national food security. The Nationals also support investment in infrastructure in regional areas to assist farming communities to get their products to market. We want to see additional resources for quarantine, customs and inspection services. But perhaps the biggest thing we can bring to the agricultural sector in the Australian Year of the Farmer is a healthy dose of respect. On this side of the House, we respect Australian farmers. We know they are world-class producers of the finest food and fibre products. We in the Nationals want to work with regional communities to help them prosper and we respect the role that farming families will play in fulfilling that aim. I acknowledge that we have some huge challenges ahead of us. We need to make sure that young people growing up on farms can see a future for themselves on the land, that they invest in their own skills and recognise opportunities to earn a decent living. We need them to have the skills to meet the challenges of the modern generation of the agricultural sector, as it becomes more high-tech and as more productivity demands are placed upon them. This is so that they can still see for themselves the prospect of earning a decent living and of paying off the debt that goes with a farming business. Succession planning and providing for the next generation to take on the farm will only occur if young people can see a decent future for themselves. This year, the Australian Year of the Farmer, will provide a chance for a national discussion about the importance of farming, and it should be followed by real action to help farmers prosper in the future because our nation depends on them. (Time expired) Malaysia 1726 12:55 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports I have not yet had an opportunity in the parliament to welcome the freeing by a Malaysian court of my friend Anwar Ibrahim, the leader of the opposition in Malaysia. The cooked-up trial against him, the second one for alleged sodomy, was clearly bogus. The gentleman who made the allegations visited Malaysian Prime Minister Najib's family home before he went to the police station. It is great progress to see that in Malaysia the courts now feel sufficiently independent to throw out these obviously bogus charges. Anwar Ibrahim and the Malaysian press are speculating that an election will be held very soon in Malaysia. I was surprised recently at the Economist saying that younger people find 64-year-old Anwar untrustworthy. I remember at the last elections, in 2008, that Anwar was able to contest his coalition won 50 per cent of the seats in the Malaysian peninsula. I certainly hope that that will be the situation again. It will be wonderful to see from an outsider's point of view a peaceful democratic transition in Malaysia from one party to another. It has happened in Indonesia. It is to the great benefit of Australia that a democracy in Indonesia has seen people transfer from party to party in presidential elections and in parliamentary elections in an entirely peaceful way. The economic progress in Indonesia, together with its democratic process, shows that what someone said were 'Asian preferences militating against elected democracy' is untrue. Malaysia also has a tradition of the rule of law. Obviously the justices have decided to overcome some of the other problems they have in Malaysia that nearby Indonesia does not have, with its freedom of the press. Anwar Ibrahim and the opposition parties in Malaysia have identified that they have no ability to project their views in the Malaysian media prior to elections there. Indonesia is much better than Australia with its diversity of media. The raucous nature of the Indonesian media is something that all Democrats should celebrate. I know my friend Bambang Harymurti, who was the editor of Tempo and who now runs his own TV station, is constantly chasing corrupt politicians, institutions and bureaucrats in Indonesia, and that is something to be encouraged and supported. Political parties in Malaysia have different altitudes to the proposal of the Australian government to send people who are not regarded as refugees to Malaysia and for us to take people from the back of the queue who have come to that country. There are more than 90,000 people registered by the UNHCR in Malaysia, and that country is having a great burden placed on it. I think it would be very good for Australia to take some of that burden on our rich, strong and wealthy shoulders. It is not something that the opposition has supported. There are many people in the media who would normally be strong supporters of Mr Abbott and the coalition who think that it is disgraceful that the Liberal Party is lining up with the Greens to oppose a regional solution to these kinds of problems. With the Malaysian government, even with the character of Mr Najib, running a policy of engagement with Australia, I think it would be very good if the Australian media and the UNHCR were able to observe these arrangements in place. I am sure that would keep the Malaysians very close to the mark. I think it is farcical when you look at the speeches of all of the people in the opposition who spoke about these matters of caning and about their alleged concerns for human rights that they had never once, prior to opposing Labor's policy, raised the human rights convention or the issue of caning in Malaysia. I have been through all of their records and, unlike me and other members on the government side, those opposite had not raised these issues, except in order to sabotage a very good policy for a regional solution to a difficult issue of asylum seekers. (Time expired) Question agreed to. Main Committee adjourned at 13:00   QUESTIONS IN WRITING 1728 QUESTIONS IN WRITING Consular Services: Outstanding Debts (Question No. 542) 1728 542 Ms Julie Bishop 83P asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 18 August 2011: What is the accumulated sum of outstanding and written-off debt from consular assistance rendered since the publication of Helping Australians abroad: a review of the Australian Government’s consular services (Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, 1997, Canberra). Mr Rudd 83T The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The current sum of outstanding debts from consular loans is $1,425,256 (as at 31 August 2011). To provide information on all written-off debt would entail a significant diversion of resources and in these circumstances I do not consider the additional work can be justified. Foreign Affairs and Trade: Travel Expenditure (Question No. 628) 1728 628 Ms Julie Bishop 83P asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 22 September 2011: What was his department's total expenditure on travel in 2010-11, and of this, what sum was spent on (a) first class air travel, (b) business class air travel, (c) economy class air travel, (d) international air travel, and (e) domestic air travel. Mr Rudd 83T The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: For the department's expenditure on travel refer to the 2010-11 DFAT Annual Report page 284, Financial Statements 2010-11, Note 3B. Following is a breakdown of the air travel booked in Australia through the department's Travel Management Company: Foreign Affairs and Trade: Departmental Expenditure (Question No. 630) 1728 630 Ms Julie Bishop 83P asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 22 September 2011: In 2010-11, what was his department's total expenditure on (a) information and computer technology, (b) consultancy, (c) external accounting, (d) external auditing, (e) external legal services, and (f) membership and grants paid to affiliate organisations, and for each category, what was the program breakdown for this expenditure. Mr Rudd 83T The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Total expenditure for 2010-11 in each of the requested categories is detailed below: (a) Refer 2010-11 Annual Report, Section 5, page 284. (b) Refer 2010-11 Annual Report, Section 4, Appendix 12 – Consultancy services, page 232. (c) External accounting: $0.056 million. (d) External auditing expense: $0.467 million. Of this $0.45 million relates to a notional charge for the annual audit conducted by the Australian National Audit Office. This is reported in the Financial Statements at Note 12 within the 2010-11 Annual Report (Resources received free of charge). (e) External legal services: $3.080 million. (f) Refer 2010-11 Annual Report, Section 4, Appendix 11 – Grants and contributions, page 229. The department does not itemise expenditure at the level of detail sought. To fully report expenditure at the level of detail asked would require a significant diversion of resources and I do not consider the additional work can be justified. Australian International Airports: Staffing (Question No. 739) 1729 739 Mr Baldwin LL6 asked the Minister for Home Affairs , in writing , on 21 November 2011 : How many Australian Government staff are currently deployed at each of Australia's international airports, what are their roles and what sum did these officers cost the Government in (a) 2007-08, (b) 2008-09, (c) 2009-10, (d) 2010-11, and (e) 2011-12 (to date), including their salaries and other costs associated with their work. Mr Clare HWL The answer to the honourable member' s question is as follows: Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (a) The number of Customs and Border Protection FTE deployed at each of Australia's international airports as at 30 November 2011 is: (b) These staff are deployed to efficiently and effectively manage end-to-end passenger and crew processing that supports legitimate travel and the interventions needed to prevent the illegal movement of people and goods across the border. Customs and Border Protection staff currently perform a range of activities which include: Primary processing of travellers into and out of Australia; Risk assessment of travellers and goods, including pre-flight screening; Secondary examination of travellers, their baggage and goods; Searching aircraft and vehicles; Monitoring airport operations and persons of interest using Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) equipment; Conducting patrols of Customs and Border Protection controlled areas; Assessing and collecting revenue; and Processing Tourist Refund Scheme (TRS) claims. (c) The costs associated with these staff performing the above duties are: *Note : 2011/12 are Year To Date figures at end November 2011. Australian Federal Police The number of Australian Federal Police staff deployed at each of Australia's international airports on 31 October 2011 was 644 staff. A breakdown of these figures is provided in Table 1 below. The role of AFP members at airports is to deliver a sustainable, efficient and effective law enforcement capability focused on deterring and responding to acts of terrorism, the provision of uniformed policing and the investigation of serious and organised crime in the aviation stream. Table 1: Number of Australian Federal Police staff deployed at each of Australia ' s international airports N.B. The above data excludes Hobart Airport and Alice Springs Airport which are not designated International Airports. Table 2: Cost of Officers to the Australian Government Explanatory Notes: All data is actuals as per cost centre reports from SAP Financial System. Costs attributed to officers (staff) include the following expense categories: Employee, Communications, Motor Vehicle, Staff, Operational Costs, Training, Travel, Sponsored Activity, Security (including Aviation Security Identification Card access). Full-time equivalent data as at 31 October 2011 includes AFP full-time equivalent and Supplier paid State Airport Uniform Police secondees. The above data includes Uniformed Police which are comprised of Airport Police Commanders, Officer in Charge, Police Aviation Liaison Officers, Team Leaders and Team Members. For 2007-08, Perth and Sydney costs were higher because there was a larger contingent of State Police. The above data excludes costs attributed to Headquarters staff, Aviation Security Officers and Enhanced and National Canine members. Treasury: Corporate Credit Cards (Question No. 778) 1731 778 Mr Briggs IYU asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 24 November 2011: In (a) 2007-08, (b) 2008-09, (c) 2009-10, and (d) 2010-11: (i) how many corporate credit cards were issued to departmental staff, and (ii) what was the total cost of all transactions made on these corporate credit cards. Mr Swan 2V5 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (i) (a) 46 (b) 43 (c) 32 (d) 33 (ii) (a) $704,459 (b) $874,301 (c) $1,132,145 (d) 1,111,762