2013-06-17 43 1 9 House of Reps 0 0

Monday, 17 June 2013

The SPEAKER ( Ms Anna Burke ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 5737 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Matter of Privilege 5737 10:01 The SPEAKER 83S Just before I call the first member, I do have a matter of privilege to clear up. On 6 June 2013, the Leader of the Opposition raised a matter of privilege in relation to a matter of public importance not being proceeded with earlier on that sitting day. As a background to this matter, on 6 June 2013 I received two proposals for matters of public importance to be discussed: one from the member for Throsby and one from the Leader of the Opposition. As required by the standing orders and practice, I selected the matter I considered should be proposed to the House for discussion—namely, the matter proposed by the member for Throsby. At the time for the MPI, again in accordance with the standing orders, I read the proposed matter to the House. As neither the proposer was in attendance to support it nor an additional seven members standing to support it, as required by the standing orders, the matter lapsed. It was not open to me under the standing orders to propose another matter for discussion. As far as I can ascertain, the only circumstances in which a proposer has not been in the chamber to support their matter of public importance has been where there has been some misadventure or other processes of the House have prevented them from being present. I do not consider the action of a proposer of a matter of public importance in absenting themselves from the chamber, either deliberately or not, when the matter is read out gives rise to any issue of contempt such as would warrant precedence being given to a motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. However, matters of public importance are a significant part of the House's proceedings and I believe that all members should show respect for the processes of the House. These processes allow important opportunities for all members and all members should recognise this. 10:02 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden When the Leader of the Opposition raised the matter of privilege with you, the question he also raised was whether, in the parliament's history, an MPI put forward by the Leader of the Opposition had been denied in favour of one by the government— The SPEAKER 83S The member for Fadden is reflecting on the chair and I ask him to desist. PETITIONS 5737 PETITIONS Asylum Seekers 5737 Bangladesh: Human Rights 5738 Browse LNG 5738 Constitution 5738 PETITIONS 5739 PETITIONS Statements 5739 10:04 Mr MURPHY 83D Reid At this time of the year, I usually provide the House with some details about trends in petitioning and the operations of the committee in the previous six months. The last time I gave the House a statistical update was in November of last year. To date, 2013 has exhibited trends in line with 2012—a steady flow of petitions received by the committee and a similar volume of in-order petitions received in the six-month period as compared with the previous year's figures. This indicates the public's ongoing desire to engage with their communities and their federal parliament through the age-old method of petitioning. In the six months to date, including today's presentation, the committee has assessed 71 petitions. The committee expects to assess in excess of a further 15 petitions this coming week and more again in the last week of this parliament. If this figure were to be extrapolated over the full year, it would bring the total in line with the volume of submissions received in the 2012 calendar year, being 172 petitions. Of the 71 petitions assessed, only 12 petitions did not meet the House's standing order requirements. This out of order rate of 17 per cent is half the rate of the previous two calendar years, and that is a very pleasing result for all involved in this process. It is always disappointing and frustrating for petitioners to learn that, because their petition did not follow the rules set down by the House, their petition could not be tabled and thus could not be referred for ministerial response. Obviously, where the members of the public choose to investigate whether there are rules regarding the petitioning process, what these rules are and whether they plan to follow them is not within the committee's control. But what the committee can do is ensure there are adequate and accessible resources to help citizens correctly prepare a petition. As such, the committee ensures petitioners can access information on the Parliament House website, in members' electorate offices and have direct access to secretariat assistance. In 2007, the House procedure committee recommended in its report, Making a difference: petitioning the House of Representatives, that information about petitioning should be available and visible on the department's website. It also recommended that the contact details of the parliamentary officer dealing with petitioning should be provided. These recommendations were implemented in 2008 along with the establishment of the Petitions Committee. As such, the committee's secretariat now spends a proportion of its time responding to the queries of prospective petitioners about the form and content rules of preparing a petition and about petitioning more generally. One can therefore deduce that it appears that the implementation of the Procedure Committee's 2007 recommendations has made information about petitioning more accessible and has contributed to a lower rate of out of order petitions, and that is a good thing. Thirty-eight ministerial response letters have been received in the six months to date responding to 44 petition concerns. Over the full financial year to date the rate of response has been 74 per cent. This is a particularly strong result, given that 34 petitions of the 105 petitions presented since 1 July 2012 have only been tabled since 27 May in a period of time which would not feasibly enable responses to have been received and presented. Thus, adjusting for these recently presented petitions, the actual rate of response over the financial year sits closer to 100 per cent. What about that? And finally, in addition to the committee's core business—receiving and processing petitions—as mentioned in my previous statements to the House, the committee also conducted three round-table hearings in the last six months: one in Canberra with public servants; and two interstate meetings with principal petitioners. I thank the House. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 5740 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Reference to Federation Chamber 5740 COMMITTEES 5740 COMMITTEES Gambling Reform Committee 5740 Report 5740 10:09 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra As the deputy chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Gambling Reform, it is a great pleasure to speak on the tabling of the committee's fifth report today. This report covered the area of advertising and promotion of gambling services in sport and a related bill. Although the committee heard that children are not directly targeted, the committee is concerned about children being exposed to the advertising for an adult product, the messages being consumed and what effect this may have on future behaviour. It is also concerned about other vulnerable people, such as problem gamblers. The government is well aware of the level of community concern regarding the promotion of live odds. In May 2011, the government announced that it would work with the sporting and betting industries to reduce and control the promotion of live odds during sports coverage through amendments to existing industry codes. On 29 June 2012, the minister announced an agreement had been reached with the commercial and subscription broadcasters to reduce and control the promotion of live odds during sports. Free TV and ASTRA released the proposed amendments to their codes on 22 April 2013 for public comment before 20 May. During this process, the government took additional action to respond to a level of concern in the community, and on 26 May the Prime Minister announced that live odds would be banned. In addition, all generic gambling advertisements will be banned during play. Generic advertising will only be allowed during scheduled commercial breaks, such as quarter or half time and before or after the game. The government has indicated that it will monitor the intensity of generic gambling advertisements and, if it is found to be beyond reasonable levels, will impose a total advertising ban. The industry is on notice to respond appropriately to the level of community concern and to reflect community expectations. In case further steps become necessary, the committee noted the exemption for gambling advertising for sporting programs and recommended that this exemption be reviewed. This process will provide for appropriate consultation with the community and stakeholders and should also serve to articulate and provide greater clarity around the reasons for this exemption and whether it is meeting its intended purpose. The committee noted the need for the industry to be part of the solution. There are other industry codes that could potentially cover this issue, and the committee recommended that government review the self-regulatory action being taken by industry with a view to legislating in this area if industry does not make appropriate changes regarding the promotion of gambling products in an environment that includes children. The link with betting raises issues for the integrity of sport. The committee received a comprehensive briefing from the Australian Crime Commission about the infiltration of sport by organised crime. While the ACC has not conducted specific in-depth analysis of the relationship between organised crime and online gambling, it has nonetheless identified vulnerabilities for the sector, through its broader work on methodologies used by organised crime. The committee was pleased to hear general acknowledgement that the integrity of sport is the overriding concern and that action is underway by the stakeholders to put in place processes to strengthen the environment against organised crime. The committee acknowledges the role of the betting agencies here to alert authorities to irregular betting. I note that in October 2012 the government established the National Integrity of Sport Unit, and it is currently working with sporting codes, the betting industry, state and territory regulators, and justice and law enforcement agencies to ensure that sports have the systems in place to monitor and report on players' and officials' activities; that sporting codes have education programs in place to prevent match fixing; that a betting industry standard for information exchange is developed; that there is a national approach to regulation; that there is consistent criminal legislation being implemented; and that a rapid, nationally coordinated response is available, assisting sports codes experiencing integrity issues. Safeguarding the integrity of sport in Australia is of utmost importance, and the committee supports the current work underway. The committee also noted the importance of ensuring that amateur sport has the resources and tools available to increase awareness by participants of the risks and threats to the integrity of their sport. It has again been a privilege to be the deputy chair of this committee and to see the tabling of its fifth report. I want to thank the member for Denison for very capably chairing the committee and for running the inquiry very smoothly. I would also take the opportunity to thank the secretariat for their exceptional work. I also thank all those who contributed to the inquiry and I commend the report to the House. 10:14 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison Speaker, on behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform, I present the committee's fifth report, incorporating dissenting reports, entitled The advertising and promotion of gambling services in sport: Broadcasting Services Amendment (Advertising for Sports Betting) Bill 2013, together with evidence received by the committee. It is clear that there is considerable concern in the community about the proliferation of advertising for sports-betting services, and I share that concern. Children in particular are being constantly bombarded with advertising for gambling, just about every time they watch sport, even though the wagering organisations say children are not being directly targeted. Targeted or not, our children sure are being exposed, which is normalising gambling for them and resulting in stories like the one the committee heard about young people now not talking about their team's form but, instead, their team's odds. The committee welcomed the announcement on 26 May about the so-called ban on live odds. It is a step forward, but I would quickly add that this is one of the areas where I diverge from the committee report, because I believe that the government's move does not go nearly far enough and has come much too late, given the obvious concerns in the community. In fact, from the time of the first announcement about reform in May 2011 to an industry code amendment being in place, it is likely to take over two years, and that is clearly way too long. The committee's second report concluded that a total ban on the promotion of live odds should be underpinned by legislation. I maintain this position, not least because it was only overwhelming community concern that forced the government to act to ban live odds. This so-called ban is really only the threat of legislation and, in any case, the industry simply cannot be counted on to limit any reform to any more than the minimum that it can get away with. Furthermore, live odds is really only a subset of gambling advertising. Generic advertising will still be allowed during sports broadcasts during the day, even though the current broadcasting restrictions were developed to ensure that gambling and sports-betting advertisements would not be placed in programs likely to have an audience of children. The research shows that it is difficult for children to clearly distinguish commentators and bookmakers, that children are consuming brand messaging and that the brands are becoming part of the way they talk about sport. In line with the public health approach to gambling, we should not wait for more problems to occur but, instead, we should take a cautious approach, particularly as research shows children are so vulnerable to advertising. To the same end, gambling promotion on the uniforms of senior teams should also be banned. The players are, after all, role models to children and the messages on their jumpers are on the screen all of the time, and the net effect on children is mightily powerful. More broadly, the association of sport and gambling draws attention to the need to ensure the integrity of sport, so the committee was pleased to learn that a considerable effort is in fact being expended to ensure that the threat to integrity in sport is being addressed before the problem escalates further. In particular, the committee commends the initiatives being implemented by sporting codes in relation to the threats and vulnerabilities identified by the Australian Crime Commission. The committee was not pleased to hear of the introduction of online gambling on amateur sporting events. For example, there were reports of betting agencies offering live odds on amateur competitions here in Canberra. Clearly, amateur sports are not adequately resourced to address the integrity risks that this brings, so the committee has recommended drawing on the integrity tools and resources being developed by the National Integrity of Sport Unit for professional sporting codes and has recommended resources be, in fact, developed for amateur sport. In closing, I add that the committee's work on sports betting has been a valuable opportunity to learn about the new forms of gambling, which are growing rapidly. Now is the time to reduce the harm before it becomes unassailable. The committee received 52 submissions and heard from a variety of interested stakeholders. I sincerely thank all of those who contributed. I would also like to thank the committee members for their involvement and the deputy chair in particular during this inquiry. I also thank the secretariat who once again provided invaluable support of the highest standard. I commend the report to the House. The SPEAKER 83S Does the honourable member for Denison wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion? Mr WILKIE C2T I move: That the House take note of the report. The SPEAKER 83S In accordance with standing order 39(d), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Report and Reference to Federation Chamber 5743 10:19 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Climate Change, Environment and the Arts Committee 5743 Report 5743 10:20 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin On behalf of the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts, I present the committee's report incorporating a dissenting report entitled Managing Australia's biodiversity in a changing climate: the way forward, together with the minutes of proceedings. The fact that the earth's climate is changing is well documented. Australia and other countries have long run data showing a marked change in the earth's temperature. Although we can be certain that climate change is occurring, its effects on Australia's environment, in particular on biodiversity, is unknown beyond the models and theories that are being used to make informed projections. Australia has a rich biodiversity and many species are only found here. The committee quickly learnt during the enquiry that climate effects varied greatly across species. For some, the increase in the earth's temperature and related effects will diminish their habitat reduce their numbers perhaps to extinction. For others, the changing climate will be to their advantage and their population will increase. The committee received 89 submissions, four supplementary submissions and 60 exhibits. As befitting a national enquiry, the committee held site inspections, briefings and public hearings in each of Australia's states and territories. In the course of these site inspections, the committee received extensive and valuable evidence on the effects of climate change on nationally important ecosystems. As a result, two interim reports were published in May and November of 2012. The interim reports provide a useful platform for this final report. During its investigations, the committee received a great deal of support from not-for-profit environmental groups, natural resource management bodies, state government agencies, research institutions, and landholders. All these organisations and individuals were very generous with their time and expertise and they made important contributions to the report. The committee found that important information is being collated about our biodiversity, that it can better be coordinated and the funding for it should be long term. The policy for coordination is already partly in place through the National Plan for Environmental Information. What is needed is quicker progress for a project that is, admittedly, very challenging due to its innovative nature and broad scope. The Council of Australian Governments can also contribute. The committee would like to see it help develop national environmental accounts as well as a central national biodiversity database which can be scientifically accredited and to which information can be uploaded. The committee received consistent evidence that the usual three-year funding cycle for environmental projects is too short, because it does not allow researchers to build up a baseline for a process that is continuing over decades. The committee heard evidence from an organisation that had to reinvent their project at each funding application so that they could also continue their long-term work. This is counterproductive, and the committee believes that agencies should be able to extend their funding periods when warranted. The committee recognises the important of natural resource management organisations. These bodies have the advantage of operating at the local level and delivery of many NRM programs. However, they have different origins, depending on the state or territory in which they are located. This has resulted in a significant variation in their consistency, standards and quality. The committee supports the regional delivery model but believes there is scope for improvement and has made recommendations in relation to NRM bodies' skills, standards and funding. As in most research areas, there is considerable demand for funding but only limited resources are available. The committee was mindful not to propose a large increase in funding for biodiversity action. Much of the baseline research that would inform this work still needs to be done. However, the committee did make some funding recommendations where the quality and value of the work warranted it. An example is the Atlas of Living Australia. The committee believes that the atlas would be a natural repository for the digitisation of Australia's biological collections and that the Australian government should work with the atlas to develop a sustainable funding model for it. I thank the organisations that assisted the committee during the enquiry through submissions, participating at hearings or assisting the committee at its briefings and inspections. I also thank my colleagues on the committee and the secretariat for their contributions to the inquiry and report. While I am on my feet, I also express my personal concern that some state governments appear to be relaxing state laws which restrict activities in national parks that were purposely introduced to protect natural environmental assets and the biodiversity values of national parks. Lifting restrictions such as to allow cattle grazing and hunting in national parks further puts at risk efforts to conserve biodiversity and create biodiversity corridors and refuges for flora and fauna that are already at risk. 10:25 Dr WASHER 84F Moore It is my pleasure to support Mr Zappia, the member for Makin, on what he has just said. I will not repeat the report, but because I am retiring in a few weeks I will say this: I have been on the environment committee since 2004, which is a reasonable length of time. I was originally chair, then I was deputy chair for a couple of parliamentary terms. We have had some excellent chairs since then: the former member for Throsby, Jennie George, and now Mr Zappia from Makin. I also served on multiple other committees—and I will not go through the whole list of them—but I think the most exciting of all was the environment committee, which has changed its name over time from the Committee on Environment and Heritage, originally, to the Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts, and then to the Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts. The beauty of the committee system is that despite differences in policies committees have a bipartisan focus which allows us to find a common ground and build awareness of national issues. The government plays a key role, as we know, but all members can participate in the committee system. Creating a sustainable future needs to be a priority for all Australians. Australia can lead the way internationally in this area. Thanks to all involved for those many productive inquiries. People ask: what is the benefit of the committee process? The parliament moves amongst the people, so we interrelate with the people, and that is important. Committees in this parliament have a good reputation and people know that they have had their stories heard. These are put into records as a time capsule for what people have told us. We have legacies to celebrate—certainly, committees influence policy. The member for Fairfax, who normally sits behind me, takes claim that the blame game report on the health relationships between federal and state governments, for example, was a platform for the Labor Party's health reforms. He is very proud of that, and the Labor Party did a very good job in taking up the recommendations. Committee reports also raise awareness and they set agendas. We get great bipartisan cooperation, and it is very different to question time. The effects of a hung parliament have been mellowed by good committee cooperation. The problem is: are we going to get adequate funding in the future for committees so they can travel, and will we work more with Senate committees? I have many memorable stories that I will not tell you about the committee system, but the friendships developed on a bipartisan basis are the most important aspects. In the 43rd Parliament the committee reported on Managing Australia's biodiversity in a changing climate: the way forward, which the chair has just spoken about. In the 42nd Parliament we released the report Managing our coastal zone in a changing climate: the time to act is now, which was a very good report. That was when Ms Jennie George, the former member for Throsby, was chair. We did a lot of travelling to look at the seriousness of climate change, sea levels rising, and the effect on our coastal zones, where most people live. In the 41st Parliament, when I was chair, we looked at sustainable cities. The committee provided an excellent report, and everyone agreed with that. It was not reported back on by my government at that time, but a lot of ideas were picked up and taken from that report, and utilised wisely. We also had a sustainability for survival charter, in which we recommended the establishment of a sustainability commission; that did not happen, unfortunately, but it should have. In the last few seconds I have left, I want to especially thank the wonderful Julia Morris and all the secretariat members for the great work and great help they have given me and all the others who have worked on the committee. Chair, I am very proud of what we have done. We have developed some great friendships. Quite frankly, I am going to miss you all. The SPEAKER 83S The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the honourable member for Makin wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion? 10:30 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I move: That the House take note of the report. The SPEAKER 83S In accordance with standing order 39(d), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Report and Reference to Federation Chamber 5746 10:30 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Health and Ageing Committee 5746 Report 5746 10:30 Ms HALL 83N Shortland On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing I present the committee's report entitled Bridging the dental gap: report on the inquiry into adult dental services,together with minutes of the proceedings. The matter was referred to the committee by the Minister for Health on 11 August this year. It is well known that almost everyone will experience an oral health problem at some time in their lives. In Australia today over 90 per cent of adults show signs of treated or untreated dental decay. Those with the capacity to pay can assess treatments through private dental services. However, for those most needy, private dental treatment is simply unaffordable. Across Australia over 400,000 adults are on public dental waiting lists. Some people have to wait months for an appointment. For others, waiting lists are not the problem because public dental services are not available where they live. To address the issues regarding the public dental system the government has committed to a $4.1 billion Dental Reform program. This includes $1.3 billion towards the National Partnership Agreement for Adult Dental Services, from July 2014. Funding under the NPA will help provide additional public dental services for eligible adults across Australia. It should be noted that there is an intergovernmental agreement in place. In its inquiry, the committee considered how the states and territories might use the new funding arrangements to address the most pressing dental needs. This included how to reach people living in rural, regional and remote areas and how to address the long-term dental health needs of many Australian adults. The committee considered how to meet the dental health needs of particular population groups with special needs, including Indigenous Australians, older Australians, people with chronic illness and people with disabilities. The committee heard a wide range of views and experiences regarding the public dental system. The committee heard that Steve, a physically disabled man, had never had his teeth brushed, let alone received a dental check-up. The committee heard that others had to wait 40 months to access dental treatment. Dental practitioners, oral therapists and hygienists explained how they could best provide services for public patients. The committee also heard from not-for-profit organisations which had partnered with state government service providers or with private dental practitioners to improve access to public services. The committee has made a number of practical suggestions for consideration during the implementation of the NPA—for example, the need to improve interactions between public and private providers of dental services, to address workforce shortages and to improve access to services. The committee was told that in the past, dental policy has been characterised by sporadic, short-term and ever-changing priorities. The future of dental services in Australia needs to provide certainty and sustainability—and I emphasise those two things—for public dental patients. To do this, an ongoing commitment to funding of public dental services is necessary so that gains made are not lost. The committee heard that the ultimate goal for dental services in Australia should be a universal access scheme. With a long-term, sustainable and strategic approach, the suite of dental reforms, including the NPA, will be an important step towards a universal scheme. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank those who participated in the inquiry by providing submissions or attending public hearings and roundtables. Their input and insight assisted in shaping the recommendations contained in the report. I would also like to thank the wonderful secretariat and Emma, from the department, who has been with the committee and assisted with the inquiry, because without their work and without their contribution we would not have such a fantastic report, looking at the sustainability of dental services in Australia—something that is very close to all of our hearts and something that every member of parliament has been confronted with in their office when people come to see them about this very important issue. Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues on the committee for their participation and contribution to the inquiry. I commend this report to the House. In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper. 10:35 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I rise to join with the House of Representatives Standing Committee chair on the tabling of the report Bridging the dental gap: report on the inquiry into adult dental services. I also note that some of the secretariat are here and congratulate them for the work and effort they put into the report as well. The terms of reference for the inquiry were to identify priorities and inform the NPA such that it can be framed to meet the particular and localised needs of each state and territory, specifically: demand for dental services across Australia and issues associated with waiting lists; the mix in coverage of dental services supported by state and territory governments and the Australian government; availability and affordability of dental services for people with special dental health needs; availability and affordability of dental services for people living in metropolitan, regional, rural and remote locations; the coordination of dental services between the two tiers of government and privately funded dental services; and workforce issues relevant to the provision of dental services. The report states that although there have been substantial improvements in dental and oral health in Australia over the last century, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's publication, Australia's health 2012, reports that almost everyone will experience an oral health problem at some time in their lives and that over 90 per cent of adults show signs of treated or untreated dental decay. There are many factors that contribute to poor dental and oral health, and the interaction of factors associated with this is complex. The report states that as well as individual factors there is a complex interplay of structural, social and economic factors. Some of these factors associated with poor dental and oral health in adults include possession of a concession card. Concession card holders are more likely to have poorer oral health compared to non-cardholders. This is linked to unfavourable dental-visiting patterns, which include not visiting the same dentist, not visiting yearly and seeking treatment for a problem rather than getting a check-up. Access to public sector dental services' limited funding and workforce shortages within the public sector have been identified as contributing to poorer oral health status of eligible patients. Remote, rural and regional residents have a higher rate of unfavourable visiting patterns at 38 per cent, which increases the risk of poor oral health as compared to urban residents at 27 per cent. Also, individual behaviour, and diet and oral health behaviours contribute to oral health—for example, the consumption of sugary and acidic foods can lead to an increased risk of dental decay. The discipline of brushing your teeth at least daily is a personal responsibility that parents need to encourage. I want to touch on the closure of the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, which was raised as an issue by some submitters who were concerned about the provision of dental services to people with special needs. The CDDS was closed to new patients on 8 September 2012 and to all patients on 30 November 2012. The Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing noted that 76.7 per cent of CDDS patients are also eligible for public dental services and so are expected to be able to receive treatment by state and territory services. The Department of Health and Ageing advised the committee that those not eligible for public dental services are expected to access services in the private system. The Dental Hygienists' Association of Australia would like to see a replacement for the recently abandoned CDDS. The Australian government has not outlined any viable replacement for this scheme. As a result, many chronically ill patients are without a scheme focused on their needs. The committee visited Charles Sturt University at Dubbo and saw a fantastic clinic that would be a good model for regional areas, and this report goes into many facets of what a good system could be and how it should be structured. As with all health issues, the remote, rural and regional areas have fewer resources, and so we see more long-term problems with health in those areas. In finishing, the report states that the AHHA also expressed concern about the inefficiencies and the potential for duplication observing. After many years of minimal involvement by the Australian government in the funding of dental programs, there are now myriad of programs being administered by a range of departments and agencies. There is a significant risk of inefficiency, duplication and waste as a result of an uncoordinated approach to the planning and implementation of new initiatives and integration with existing programs. This report, hopefully, goes some way to assisting the government of the day to achieve better dental and oral health outcomes for all Australians. I also thank my colleagues who attended all the hearings and the committee get-togethers to go through the report. The recommendations are noncontroversial, except maybe for recommendation 3, about which I am sure we will hear back from the industry sometime once the report has been tabled. Again, thanks to the secretariat and also, I commend this report to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the honourable member for Shortland wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion? 10:40 Ms HALL 83N Shortland I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Report and Reference to Federation Chamber 5749 10:41 Ms HALL 83N Shortland by leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 5749 BILLS Competition and Consumer Amendment (Strengthening Rules About Misuse of Market Power) Bill 2013 5749

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Strengthening Rules About Misuse of Market Power) Bill 2013

First Reading 5749 10:41 Mr OAKESHOTT IYS Lyne I present the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Strengthening Rules About Misuse of Market Power) Bill 2013 and the explanatory memorandum. This is the bill that puts to the House sensible extensions of our existing competition and consumer laws to give real results to all industry and business concerned about their ability to compete with the two major supermarkets that have more than 80 per cent of the grocery market in Australia. It is strengthening and empowering competition and consumer laws in Australia, as opposed to attacking them. I was a member of the New South Wales parliament when dairy deregulation occurred at the start of this millennium. I did not like it at the time due to a number of issues, including the loss of the all milk levy and one of the quirks of that meant that we lost the best TV ads going around promoting fresh milk. But, as well, and more importantly, the pressure that deregulation placed on many smaller dairies in regions such as the one that I represent has, nearly 15 years later, seen a large exodus from the industry by many people with generations of commitment to the dairy industry. Those days have now passed. We are now more than 15 years beyond that and since deregulation, I have been approached by farmers continually concerned about their ability to participate still in the fresh milk market. Never have these concerns been more grave in recent times than when the major supermarkets decided to enter into a price war for one litre of milk, slashing the cost and selling it and $1 a litre, which from a consumer point of view, is less than the cost of the bottled water appearing on the very same shelves at the very same time. There has been an inquiry by ASIC, an inquiry by the Senate, a private member's bill for re-regulation of the dairy industry from a colleague and widespread condemnation of the actions of the major supermarkets over this in a loss leader strategy to try to get people in the door to buy the cheap milk as an essential and not realise that other products have gone up on the back shelves, and really prices have not changed at all. It is a nice marketing gimmick that has impacts on the supply chain and on the dairy industry. There have not been sensible regulations that do not impose inflexible rules on a flexible market. In my electorate, I still have a large number of dairy farmers. I have proactive entrepreneurial dairy farmers in my region, dairy farmers who were understandably concerned about the prices on offer—a price war that has not ended and that they now believe is impacting on milk contract prices about to be renegotiated. Farmers from my electorate have joined a new organisation called Dairy Connect. At the beginning of the year, some of these local farmers came to see me. I was impressed that they did not come to me asking for a return to protectionist measures. They wanted real measures to look through deals taking place between supermarkets and large processors and right through the supply chain and the market that they believed was having an impact on their ability to farm. The ACCC under current legislation looks at negotiations between large supermarkets and large processors. There is equity in bargaining power. The consumer certainly wins in the short term. But there remains genuine concern that in the long term farmers will leave the market; competition among them will be destroyed; and the result for consumers will be higher prices. These concerns echo concerns that have come up before—for example, with petrol discounting. The consumer wins in the short term. But, if too many smaller petrol stations leave the market, will this lessening of competition lead to higher prices in the future? Evidence over the last decade seems to suggest the answer is yes. Another example is supermarkets diversifying their business and causing concern about how their power in the grocery market will affect the new markets they are entering. Now, at a retail level in the grab for market share in many communities, the major players are going into anything and everything at a retail level, from video shops to clothing, you name it, the small retail operator is certainly now being directly challenged. There is also own-brand labelling and the drive for all produce to go to larger processors who can label with own-brand; again there are short-term benefits for consumers but a lack of a conversation around the long-term implications for consumers and community. I have always been a big believer in the power of the market, wherever possible, to help itself, but the market always needs rules that work. I am excited about the market in dairy—for example, in my electorate a group of farmers have taken the initiative and collectively bargained with Woolworths. Norco—dairy farmer owned and operated—which sources milk from the Manning Valley, has come to a supply agreement with Coles. That is great proof that, for all markets concerned about duopolies, there are genuine market solutions that do not require a blunt legislative instrument all the time. But—and I do emphasise this 'but'—that is the point of this legislation: Genuine bargaining assumes a level playing field which we definitely do not have. There is still at the very least the perception of inequity and anticompetitive behaviour. These changes to the competition and consumer legislation are about: (1) making sure that tests to be caught by the anticompetitive behaviour clauses in current laws extend to both broader market impacts and future consequences with a 'reasonably likely' test; (2) ensuring that the ACCC can compel the holders of the documentary evidence—that is, the supermarkets themselves—to produce all relevant documents, not just the end stage contracts, and this has been a issue in competition law in the courts for some time; (3) trying to get around what are real issues and what are perception issues by compelling the creation of a supply chain impact statement from those seeking greater market power. I see these as sensible regulatory changes under current law. They do not interfere with markets. They do open up the mystery around contracting and providing opportunity for the big players, if they truly have nothing to hide, to change perceptions. I am putting the broader issue now to both the government and the opposition and certainly look for support in those regards. As well, alongside and in parallel with this legislation, we need broader trade in international market work on behalf of dairy farmers. More work needs to be done at the grassroots level to ensure ways to get our fresh produce, including beef and dairy, into the emerging markets of middle-class Asia, and I think governments across the board can do more on that front. We do need that development of the code that has been talked about for some time, with appropriate ACCC oversight and a broader use of the Produce and Grocery Ombudsman. We do need to look at the use of existing primary production R&D levies and government contributions to ensure development of markets is receiving its fair share of revenue and reviewing the operation of bodies funded by compulsory levies. We do need development assistance programs for primary producers that help them to do what some small groups of dairy farmers have done, and that is explore market solutions to recognise problems. The challenge has been that primary producers are recognised as being absolutely stretched in the operation of their on-the-ground businesses and do not always have the skills, the resources or the capacity to negotiate with the big end of town. So I put before the House this sensible bill that extends the role of the ACCC. Most think they already have the powers to do this when in reality they do not. As a consequence, in the long-term consumers are being let down. I would hope that this 43rd parliament—which has passed so much legislation and a lot of legislation in a bipartisan manner—can look at this legislation, see the sense in opening up these relationships and make this another piece of legislation in the interests of consumers, farmers and suppliers and strengthen our existing competition laws. I commend this bill to the House. Bill read a first time. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 In accordance with standing order 41(c), the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reserve Bank Amendment (Australian Reconstruction and Development Board) Bill 2013 5751

Reserve Bank Amendment (Australian Reconstruction and Development Board) Bill 2013

First Reading 5751 10:52 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy In presenting the Reserve Bank Amendment (Australian Reconstruction and Development Board) Bill 2013 I pay great tribute to the work of Rowell Walton and all his team, many of whom are down here today—prominent people such as the economist Mark McGovern—and commend them for the first serious movements in recent Australian history to provide a return to a mechanism which is absolutely vital for the survival of agriculture in Australia. This bill proposes a revolving fund and $420 million has been provided. But what we desperately want is for that money to be a revolving fund, so that when it is paid back by the farmers it can then be loaned out again. The bill also provides the board with the power to borrow money. I speak with very great authority in this area, as I was the minister responsible for a number of years in the formative years, in the late eighties, of the State Bank of Queensland, the QIDC—the Queensland Industry Development Corporation being the technical name. In that period of time we were not supine; we were proactive. The head of the bank indicated to me personally in fairly strong and unequivocal terms that 30 per cent of the sugar industry of Queensland should go. It was the biggest industry and the biggest employer in the state of Queensland at the time and to hear someone seriously propose that we should close 30 per cent of it down was extraordinary. It was a most extraordinary assertion. After discussions, which went for two weeks, the person concerned did the honourable thing and stood down and left the bank. We then loaned out to the sugar producers pretty close to $300 million in terms of today's money. I do not mean to be critical of the federal government—I have praised the federal government for its $420 million for Australia—but this was $300 million in Queensland, just for one industry. That will put into perspective how decent government seriously appreciates the rural industries of Australia and how no governments in Australia, state or federal, in the last 20 years have made any expression of interest in the survival of the rural sector. What we are setting up here is a banking-type corporation. Let us not beat around the bush—that is exactly what is occurring here. We have done our homework on the sugar industry. If I had to make this decision six months ago I would not have made that decision for the sugar industry. That would not have been a responsible decision to make because the underpinnings of that industry were not there. But in the last five months China has announced that it is moving to 15 per cent ethanol. As they really cannot produce ethanol locally, I think we will be one source for that ethanol so, once again, I would very strongly back the sugar industry. The wheat industry is in a state of crisis; the cattle industry is in a state of crisis; and the sugar industry is far from out of the woods—we have had a brief three or five years of good prices but before that were a disastrous 15 years. All we need is the ability to get through this period of crisis until the orders roll in from China, where petrol consumption is almost doubling every two years and where they are going to move to 15 per cent ethanol. So we know the markets are there. On the American experience, when ethanol was introduced it drove grain prices up 15 per cent. With the cattle industry, it provided nearly 100 million tonnes of distillers grain—three times more nutritious than ordinary grain with the same calorific value, and then at about half the price. It has gone up since then. That gives our cattlemen some sort of level playing field. And I am not going to talk about the Reserve Bank and the interest rates today; I have spoken many times on this in this House. The work done by the debt crisis summit group in Australia has outlined and brought forward the fact that we have gone from, in Western Australia, a situation where 78 farmers had 78 per cent equity in 2009 but by 2013 that equity had fallen to 61 per cent, which means that the banks are now looking at foreclosing on the average farm in Western Australia. It is not my proposition. I paid for development by Bankwest. But they are saying that the farm position in Western Australia has deteriorated from 78 per cent equity, which is an acceptable level, down to 61 per cent equity which, of course, is disaster level when the banks will have to move. Rural Australia is struggling under an insurmountable debt burden, characterised by low farm income occasioned by a dollar which was driven from 52c to 90c by the Howard-Costello government and then driven by this government up another 20c. Debt on gross value farm production was at 32 per cent in 1980. This has escalated to historically high levels of debt reaching 135.4 per cent in 2012. So we have gone from debt to gross value of farm production of 32 per cent to 135.4 per cent. With escalating debts, many farmers and producers are facing forced closures and with forced sales widening loan value ratios causing a widening of loan devaluations. It would seem almost inevitable that we will move, unless there is serious government action, into a period of fire sales. I had two telephone calls on two consecutive nights last week and I was informed that three station properties in the Charters Towers areas were to be sold up. In the second telephone conversation with a Hughenden cattleman, I was informed that three of his neighbours had already gone—sold up. That was just over two nights last week. In Queensland, the Queensland Rural Reconstruction Authority—QRRA, as it is known—had a debt level some two or three years ago of $0.7 million per farm. That escalated to $1.4 million in October last year and in March this year, it has gone to $1.7 million, so it is breaking away at an ever-increasing rate. To try and stop this situation from further deterioration, there is an absolute necessity to put in place and to quote Rowell Walton again and the debt crisis summit group, they believe that the farm debt at risk in Australia is around $5,000 million. Whilst we deeply appreciate the initiative taken by the federal government with that $400 million in loans—concessional rates of interest; sure it would be nice if the Queensland government lent some of it out—it falls far short of what is required. But if you give us this mechanism as the debt crisis summit group has requested, we can overcome and get through this period and move on to supplying that ethanol to China and bringing— (Time expired) Bill read a first time. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMP In accordance with standing order 41, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reducing Supermarket Dominance Bill 2013 5753

Reducing Supermarket Dominance Bill 2013

First Reading 5753 11:03 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy The Reducing Supermarket Dominance Bill 2013 will create a commissioner for food retailing and other purposes. The commission will not be limited to food retailing but its primary objectives will be in the area of food retailing. Section 4(1): over six years the supermarket chains will be reduced—anyone's supermarket chain—to a 20 per cent maximum market share. We had an error here and a section was left out which reduces any overseas operator to only five per cent of market share. The previous speaker in this place was talking about improving the mechanisms by which the parties can bargain—the dairy farmers and the supermarket chains or the factories. I am afraid that he needs to do a little bit of homework because that is a mechanism which is a joke. I would hate to see him go into a farm meeting putting up that proposition. He would be tarred and feathered, because we know that we now have no alternative but to use a blunt instrument. It came to a state in the United States of America under that great leader President Teddy Roosevelt, who has his face carved up on Mount Rushmore. Only four presidents in all of the United States' history have had their faces carved up there. And why was his face carved up there? Because Rockefeller was screwing down the entire American economy. He had a near monopoly position in the supply of oil, and there came forward a man who had the courage to confront the big monopolist corporation. Every time we talk about a monopoly and oligopolistic pricing powers in this place, we get a lecture on free markets. One thing the national competition policy never delivered was competition. In this country, in the field of electrical generation we are rapidly moving to a situation where Origin Energy and AGL will own all of the supply in the Australian market. Quite frankly, they can charge what they like. In the Enron case there were five or six of them over there and they were able to control the market. John Madigan made some very intemperate remarks about politicians in this place. Here in Australia, to the eternal shame, the history books will read about the people that served in this House from 1991 to 2013 and every single one of them will have their names written in the history books in shame. They sat there on their hands when the most important commodity in any place on earth is food. After water, that is the most important commodity. That commodity, both the price paid to the farmer and the price that will be paid by the consumer, is controlled by two people. When I went to university this was called an oligopoly. Free market mechanisms do not operate in a monopoly. In a free market the price is only determined where there is an infinite number of buyers and an infinite number of sellers. There are tens of thousands of farmers selling to just two buyers. It is envisaged, and the legislation is written in such a way, that this will extend to liquor, hardware and petrol which now are increasingly almost completely dominated by the supermarket chains. They are moving into insurance and other areas as we speak. Newsagents have closed all over Australia. Independent supermarkets have closed all over Australia. In most of our towns you can walk down the street and half of the shops that were there are gone. There are not any butchers anymore, there are not any bakers, there are not any local supermarkets, there are not many florists; there is nothing. They have taken the whole lot and they want the little bit that is left. I would give fair warning to the pharmacists of Australia. There is no excuse for the people in this place—no excuse. They have a report which this parliament actually prepared. That was an all-party committee report Fair market or market failure? A view of Australia's retailing sector, of August 1999. This report, page after page after page, puts out unequivocal evidence that, in 1991, the big two had 50.5 per cent of the market. I will just go backwards for one moment. When this report came out it said that in Japan, the big five—not the big two—had 17.5 per cent of the market. It said that in the United States the big tree had 21 per cent. Even with the rise of Wal-Mart and Costco in the United States, the big two over there—I quote from the Wal-Mart Effect by Charles Fishman—have 23.1 per cent. So the United States in 1998, 21 per cent; by 2013, or 2011, it is 23.1 per cent—virtually no growth. In the United Kingdom, the big three—this is the worst country outside of Australia—had 45 per cent. So it was 15 per cent each on average. In Australia, the big three have 80 per cent. They knew that. The recommendations, page after page in this book, stated what was going on, and not one single member of parliament in this place moved to do anything about it with the exception of the late Peter Andrew, me and, in those days, the honourable member for New England. He may have changed his position these days, but in those days it was, 'Good, God!' The big three no longer have 80 per cent in Australia. That is no longer right—that was in 1998. But, in the year of our Lord, 2002, that 80 per cent for the big three shifted to 76.7 per cent—77 per cent for the big two in 2002. There is an ABS series—and I do not want to be too long or too technical here—that is exactly the same as the ACNielsen series. There is no doubt that there is two per cent a year, so now they are nearly on 90 per cent. Does it matter? When the farmer in Tasmania today gets 29c a kilogram, when in North Queensland he gets 67c a kilogram, and when the giant chains, Woolworths and Coles, are selling for $3.48 a kilogram, there is something clearly wrong in the marketplace. Does it matter? When we had a fairness tribunal there was an 80 per cent mark-up on eggs. When we had a fairness tribunal, the mark-up on milk was 80 per cent. When we had a fairness tribunal, the mark-up on sugar was 80 per cent. After the great wonders of the free market system were imposed upon the sugar men, the dairymen and the egg producers, it went to a 230 per cent mark-up. In the case of dairy, it remained at 230 per cent mark-up for 12 years straight. Coles has been playing some sort of game for two years, but there was no benefit to the consumer, no benefit whatsoever. (Time expired) Bill read a first time. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMP In accordance with standing order 41(c), the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. MOTIONS 5755 MOTIONS Peru and Australia 5755 11:13 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON 8T4 Werriwa I move: That this House: (1) recognises the accomplishments of 50 years of fruitful diplomatic relations between Peru and Australia, the continuing friendship between our nations and the contribution of Peruvian migrants in our nation building; and (2) notes: (a) the reopening of our Embassy in Lima in September 2010; (b) our:    (i) shared democratic values in the context of a strong commitment to transparency, well-established policy credibility and good governance structure and quality of institutions; and    (ii) mutual emphasis on multilateral involvement exemplified by Peru s membership to the United Nations, World Trade Organisation (WTO), Organization of American States, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, Pacific Alliance and Forum for East Asia and Latin America Cooperation; (c) the roles of Herbert Vere Evatt and former United Nations Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar point to our mutual activity; (d) our similar activity on the free trade front and common membership of the Cairns Group, WTO and APEC; and (e) the:    (i) visits to Peru by former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975 and former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in 2008, and the visit of former President Alan Garcia Perez to Australia in 2007;    (ii) November 2011 framework to promote Bilateral Consultations and Cooperation;    (iii) presence at the 2011 census of 8,441 Peruvian born citizens in Australia and attraction of Peru to Australian visitors totalling 30,000 in 2011; and    (iv) longstanding Australian mining endeavours in Peru, the growth of Peruvian student numbers in Australia and 56 Australian companies having an office in Peru or investment in a Peruvian project. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMP Is the motion seconded? Mr Sidebottom 849 I second the motion. Mr LAURIE FERGUSON 8T4 I particularly notice the attendance of the Ambassador of Peru, Luis Quesada, and I also note the extremely active Consul General in Sydney, Elizabeth Castro, who is certainly doing a significant amount of work to make sure that this 50th anniversary is noteworthy in Sydney. I also note that 50 years of diplomatic relations between Peru and Australia has certainly been significantly recognised in Peru itself. On 30 January this year, those 50 years were recognised by an event at our embassy in Lima attended by 480 guests, including the Foreign Minister of Peru, Rafael Roncagliolo. The Congress of Peru on 9 May passed a congratulatory resolution, which was taken to the embassy by Victor Isla Rojas. Today we recognise 50 years of diplomatic relations between the two countries. Obviously, there are many connections. We share borders with the largest ocean on this Earth—the Pacific, which covers 46 per cent of the world's water. We have a strong Indigenous population—in the case of Peru a far higher proportion than our own. Both countries are troubled by the struggle for equity of these people. We are both heavily dependent upon extractive mining, which tends to cause a degree of dislocation in our economies, and we have very strong ties. Through representative diplomats—in our case through Dr Herbert Vere Evatt, the former Australian Leader of the Opposition, and in their case through former UN Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar—we have also had significant roles on the international stage with regard to United Nations activities. Our relations of 50 years involved, on our part, an embassy in Lima from 1968 to 1986. It was closed, but it is pleasing that it was reopened in 2010. It is important not only for Peru but also for large parts of South America with regard to immigration and other matters. In the case of Peru we are the 30th export source and the 39th import source. Peru has a population of 30 million—not that far distant from our own. Both countries have been very strong on international diplomatic fronts: Peru involved in the United Nations, APEC, the IMF, the WTO and the Organisation of American States, and this year it is the chair of the Union of South American Nations. We also bear common membership of the Pacific Alliance Forum. Both countries are heavily dependent on extractive industries. In the case of Peru they make up 63 per cent of the total merchandise exports for that sector. The CIA handbook for the last year said of Peru: The Peruvian economy has been growing by an average of 6.4% per year since 2002 with a stable/slightly appreciating exchange rate and low inflation, which in 2013 is expected to be below the upper limit of the Central Bank target range of 1 to 3%. Growth has been in the 6-9% range for the last three years, due partly to a leap in private investment, especially in the extractive sector, which accounts for more than 60% of Peru's total exports. There is the question of how you finance investment, development and infrastructure in a mining industry, and it is worthwhile noting that Australian companies have $1.7 billion invested in the country, and $5 billion worth of new projects pending. When we hear people talking about foreign countries investing in Australia and what they own with regard to mineral sectors, it is important to note that Australian companies are themselves very active in other nations. We are in the top 10 investor sources for Peru. There are other facets to our relationship, and one of them is migration. There are approximately 6,800 people in this country who claim Peruvian ancestry—a medium group by the standards of Australian migration diasporas—and of those a high proportion were born in Peru rather than being Australian-Peruvians born of parents from Peru. In my own electorate there are only 286. People-to-people relationships are important, and I will talk briefly about three typical people I know who have migrated to this country. Francisca and Felix Grau have been known to me for the last decade or so. They are hardworking people: Felix is a handyman at a private school in Sydney and his wife is a trained teacher. They are people who make sure they try to enhance Australia's knowledge of their country through heavy involvement in music, dance and drama productions that they and friends put on in the Parramatta region. I have also known Isabel Almendrades for approximately two decades. She is a social worker who has been very involved with women's issues and with migrant needs in both North Sydney and Western Sydney. These are typical of migration sources, and typical of people who help build up a country. The relationship between the countries takes many forms. It is worth noting that a very strong accent has recently been on educational efforts. Recently we have had applications for AusAID's Australian award scholarships for Latin America. They opened in February and closed on 30 April. These are very important. We also as a country have the Australia Latin America leadership program taking place in Australia in October this year. Young leaders from Peru and Bolivia between the ages of 28 and 42 with at least eight years work experience benefit from the program in terms of getting to know Australia and Australian participants and working with other young leaders from Latin America. We will select 24 people from both countries to make sure that this exchange between the countries is valuable. Another aspect of relations between the countries is the question of volunteers. Every day of the week you hear about those people who have a change of lifestyle. One of my wife's relatives the other week, a well-paid chef in a London restaurant earning big bucks, suddenly became connected with an African village and was running a small fundraiser in Parramatta the other day to make sure that water and education will be provided. In Peru at the moment there are 12 Australian government-funded volunteers working there and many NGOs and religious orders. For instance, two Sisters of Mercy, Patricia McDermott and Joan Doyle, have just left Peru after devoting 17 years to changing the lives particularly of women and children in Candela, north of Lima. I notice that recently in the Queen's Birthday awards one person in Western Sydney in close proximity to where I live was recognised for those kinds of efforts. We salute today Peru's historic liberation in 1821 from Spanish control. The efforts of Jose San Martin and Simon Bolivar headed a struggle that involved a multiethnic effort to replace the Spanish regime. As I noted earlier, on the world stage in recent years Peru has very much punched above its weight in a variety of international fora. The country also holds attractions for Australia in regard to investments in a number of other industries: energy, airports and traffic systems, agribusiness, sugar, dairy and gourmet foods. Australia is of course aware of Peru's arrival in a big way on the international gourmet cooking front. Agricultural equipment, genetics and veterinary products are also seen by Australia, along with environmental management, as being areas in which there can be development by Australian investment. As of December last year there were 1,700 students enrolled in Australian universities. These are apart from those scholarships I talked about before, being students who have financed themselves. That is another significant way in which we can develop contacts between our two countries. Ex-president Garcia has visited Australia and back in 1975 Gough Whitlam enhanced Australia's contacts with the continent by a visit to Peru. I salute the efforts of Peru since its independence in 1821 and more particularly over the period that Australia and Peru have had diplomatic relations. These are important ties which are part of our wider engagement with South and Central America. Lima is indeed, through the embassy, an important stage post in that relationship. I also recognise that Peru's diplomats in Australia will make sure that that the Peruvian community is aware of these 50 years of ties and has an opportunity to participate in festivities and to drive home the connection between the two countries. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMP I welcome our distinguished guest to the chamber today. 11:23 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I would like to thank the member for Werriwa for bringing this motion before the parliament in recognition of the 50 years of diplomatic relations between Australia and Peru. We enjoy very good relations between our two countries and it stems from our shared common values, particularly in freedom, liberty and the transparency of government. We also share a commitment to global cooperation through membership of organisations such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation, APEC and others. Our relationship has been integral to developing our participation in those bodies. The two nations also share a commitment to tackling such issues as environmental issues, fisheries management, international law enforcement and transnational crime. Madam Deputy Speaker Grierson, you and I are aware of their cooperation in respect of those latter matters, being former members of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Law Enforcement. Among the things I would also like to talk about in the limited time I have today are our educational ties. These continue to grow between our Australian universities through agreements with their Peruvian counterparts. There is certainly a successful scheme in place at present that sees the exchange of post-graduate students. At the moment, our trade in exports is also up from 2011-12 to about $244 million. Like Australia, Peru is also a resource-rich country. Mining is a vital part of Peru's economic development and is a significant contributor to its GDP, much as it is in Australia. In fact, Peru is ranked amongst the top five global producers of minerals and metals such as lead, silver, zinc, tin, gold and copper. That naturally attracts the interest and involvement of companies operating in Australia, such as BHP Billiton and Xstrata. As I understand it, there are about 8,500 Peruvian-born citizens in Australia. Whilst I have the honour of representing the most multicultural electorate in the country, the Peruvian community in my electorate is relatively small, especially compared to the Vietnamese, Chinese and those of Arabic-speaking backgrounds. However, although small this community has a very strong representation in local organisations looking after the interests of individuals and various Latin-American speaking groups in my community. For instance, Community Action Services Australia, CASA, is a local not-for-profit organisation representing Australians with a framework of diverse multiculturalism. I have known CASA over the last few years, have seen them on several occasions and have visited their premises at Fairfield Heights. They provide assistance, guidance and under the leadership of their executive officer Marta Faggiano they aim to assist, particularly, disabled people, those with hearing problems and people from Latin-American speaking backgrounds. In addition to a very comprehensive settlement grants program, this organisation has expanded its services to assist those who are unemployed, families, single parents, aged migrants and refugees. Their concentration is on those people coming from Latin-American speaking backgrounds. Another local organisation offering support and assistance to members of the Spanish and Latin-American communities, including the Peruvian community, is the Spanish and Latin American Association for Social Assistance, known as SLASA. Under the leadership of its president Yvonne Santalucia, SLASA assists migrants and refugees when they settle in Australia. I recently had the opportunity to support this organisation's application for a program to provide Spanish-speaking men in the Fairfield LGA with services and educational activities in relation to health and social issues. As most of us would acknowledge, men are generally known to be a little more reluctant to discuss issues of health, particularly mental health, and therefore this organisation has concentrated on making sure these issues simply do not fall through the cracks and are addressed. I have nothing but praise for the Peruvian community. The fact that they take on leadership not only in Peru but also what they do here in Australia is a credit to them. (Time expired) 11:28 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank my colleagues from across the chamber, Mr Ferguson and Mr Hayes, for the opportunity to speak today about the importance of Australia's relationship with Peru. It is very timely that we are discussing this motion, as we celebrate 50 years of diplomatic relations with Peru in the year 2013. In the time available to me this morning I wish to touch upon three aspects: the first is our investment relationship; the second is our developing tourist trade; and the third is the educational connections between our two countries. Australia is one of the very important investors in Peru. Many in this place would be aware that, since 1997, Australia and Peru have had a bilateral investment promotion and protection agreement. This is indeed very important. Peru has an open investment regime and abundant natural resources—much like Australia—which makes it an attractive destination for Australian investment. Perhaps people would not be aware that there are many Australian companies with offices in Peru, and they are heavily involved in the mining sector. In fact, Australian investment is estimated by our authorities here to be at least $1.7 billion, with around $5 billion in new projects pending. This makes Australia amongst Peru's top 10 investors. This is indeed very significant. We also find Peru to be a very attractive destination for tourism. Any Australian setting out today to do the world tour is lured by that wonderful trek, Machu Picchu. It is usually amongst the top international tourist destinations that many young Australians want to experience. Around 30,000 Australians travelled to Peru in 2011 and 2012, and the vast bulk of those were travelling to see Machu Picchu and all the other wonderful tourist destinations Peru has to offer. The final point I want to raise today, in addition to the investment and tourism relationships that we have developed over time, is that we have had significant cooperation on the issue of education. In 2006, during the previous coalition government, Australia and Peru signed a memorandum of understanding on cooperation in education, and our educational ties are in fact growing. Many would be aware that, in the very beginning, when the founder of the Liberal Party, Sir Robert Menzies, was thinking about our foreign policy, he devised the Colombo Plan, to get the best and brightest from around the world and educate them here in Australia. The current shadow foreign affairs minister, Julie Bishop, has tweaked that plan and we have now in place a policy, a reverse Colombo Plan, to not only educate in our country, in our higher educational institutions, the best and brightest from around the world but also to send our best and brightest out into the world and to help them experience all that the world has to offer. I am confident that, with the plan we will develop in government, there will be an opportunity for some of our best and brightest who wish to study in Peru to do just that. Australia has a very good relationship with Peru. We are celebrating 50 years of diplomatic relations, and I am sure we will celebrate many more in the future. Our investment in Peru is very strong, and our tourist links are growing stronger, as are our educational links. We look forward to continuing strong diplomatic relations with Peru in the years to come. Debate adjourned. Dyslexia 5760 11:34 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson I move: That this House: (1) recognises: (a) dyslexia as a learning disability which, according to the World Federation of Neurology, is ‘manifested by difficulty in learning to read despite conventional instruction, adequate intelligence and socio-cultural opportunity’; (b) the Irlen Syndrome, also known as, Scotopic Sensitivity Syndrome as a specific type of visual perceptual dyslexia; and (c) that school students with dyslexia learn differently to their fellow students; (2) supports the concept of compulsory teacher training to ensure educators have: (a) an awareness of dyslexia and the impact dyslexia has on students; (b) the ability to recognise the symptoms of dyslexia; and (c) the ability to utilise a range of multi-sensory learning methods to engage with students with dyslexia; (3) supports the: (a) concept of compulsory training of pre-service teachers in dyslexia and Irlen Syndrome as well as training in multi-sensory teaching methods for children who learn differently; and (b) ability of teachers to be able to inform parents directly about concerns they have of their children exhibiting symptoms of dyslexia or Irlen Syndrome; (4) requests the Government make changes to National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) to allow school students with dyslexia or Irlen Syndrome to have their NAPLAN test read to them; (5) supports the concept of modified homework for school students with dyslexia to reflect their particular learning difficulties; and (6) recognises that dyslexia would be a significant barrier to learning a second language and supports the ability of school students to opt out of Languages other than English classes. According to the World Federation of Neurology, dyslexia is 'a disorder manifested by difficulty in learning to read despite conventional instruction, adequate intelligence and sociocultural opportunity'. The primary symptoms, according to the Australian Dyslexia Association, are: problems learning the letter sounds for reading and spelling; difficulty in reading single words such as on flash cards and in lists, otherwise known as decoding; a lack of fluency; reading slowly with many mistakes; poor spelling; and poor visual gestalt or coding, or what they call orthographic coding. According to dyslexia testing services, about 16 per cent of the Australian population has dyslexia, making it the most common cause of reading, writing and spelling difficulties. Dyslexia does not discriminate. It affects both men and women alike and equally, as well as people from different ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. I want to stress that people with dyslexia are not intellectually disabled. They can and they do learn. They just learn in a different manner to many others in the community. Like autism or Asperger's, dyslexia occurs on a continuum, with learning difficulties ranging from the mild to the severe. Within the field of dyslexia, there is a specific type of visual perceptual dyslexia known as Irlen syndrome or scotopic sensitivity syndrome. Sometimes when you go into a classroom you see children wearing special coloured glasses to assist their visual perception. These young children battle with Irlen syndrome. As a child I would often write my Bs as Ds and my Ws as Ms and vice versa. But I would pick it up almost as soon as I wrote it down. It was a very mild form of dyslexia and I still have it to this day. But there are others whose dyslexia is at the other end of the spectrum, the severe end. Many of them are children. They are some of the bravest young people that we have out there because of what they face every day in the classroom. Last year, I had the pleasure of meeting a young man, James Spain, who lives in Mackay in my electorate of Dawson. James has extreme difficulty in comprehending words and thus with reading, writing and spelling. That makes life in school pretty much hell for him. But he carries on regardless. That young man is going to have a great future because of his attitude. I seek leave to table an extract of a letter. Leave granted. Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 I want to read you a letter from a young Mackay girl. She is in grade 9 this year, I believe. This letter was relayed to me last year. I ask that the letter be recorded in Hansard as it is written and not as I am going to read it, because I am going to read it with some corrections. I want people to understand the suffering that young people with dyslexia face in the classroom. The letter reads: I hate school becuse I'm get bulled and my teaches are not helping me whith my school work becuse I'm. The stumped one in my class and do you why aim like this becuse I'm am dislexa and I'm always get toled by my teaches that I'm not allowed in ther class my becuse I'm so bum I just wish that I could be at home 24 hours at a day becuse what is the ponit of me being there when I'm dum and put at the bake of the class and not doing anything all school is. For me is hell but I stik it out and go whith and be me butt feel I'm always left out becuse no one blouse not whont to around a girl that is not a Lerner problem my them and you will always find that in me but same time I think that I'm just stooped and Feel really sik and just so be preset and just who ting to kill myself and but when I do have friends all thay like to do is think that becuse I'm stopped that thay can just be mean and say bed thing about me and and that is why I think that smigels and stumpy are my true fernds and thay are always there for me to talk to so that the end. As I found out later, Smiggles and Stumpy are this young girl's two pet horses. How terrible that our education system has let a young girl who suffers a learning disability such as dyslexia fall into such a dark place that she contemplates taking her own life. That is an indictment of us all. The motion that I have before the House is not simply calling on the House to recognise dyslexia as a learning disability and to acknowledge the real problems within our education in dealing with students who have dyslexia; it is also a motion that is calling for action. One of the key solutions to effectively dealing with students who have dyslexia is to ensure that teachers have a thorough understanding of this lifelong disability and know the methods to educate those young people in their classrooms. In my electorate, there is a business known as the Sunbird Education Centre that assists with tutoring. They particularly assist in the field of children with specific learning disabilities such as dyslexia. Vicki Dammerel, who works at that centre, wrote to me and summarised quite clearly the intent of this motion. She said: Teachers and prospective teachers must be made aware of these specific learning differences and be trained in understanding these student requirements and making the necessary accommodations in their classrooms. A dyslexic student's education must be equal to that of other students and most importantly their mental health be taken into consideration in the process. The Productivity Commission undertook a study into the school workforce. There were many submissions to that that highlighted the problem of children with dyslexia and what is happening and is not happening in classrooms. Even the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations in their submission stated that most teachers would have at least one student with a disability in their classroom every school year and they included in that students with learning difficulties. But they went on to say that only 10 per cent of teachers had received the training in teaching methodologies for students with disabilities or learning difficulties. Karen Starkiss, who is from the Dyslexia Assessment and Support Service Organisation, summarised that more succinctly by saying: Every teacher is going to meet students with learning difficulties in every class that they teach. That will happen from the first day they start teaching. We have a major problem. The Productivity Commission, after all of those submissions and after the study that they did, came out with a finding that there needed to be an increase in the emphasis on the learning needs of the educationally disadvantaged students in pre-service teacher training. That is one of the things that this motion is trying to achieve. There was also a Productivity Commission inquiry into the education and training workforce. A senior researcher at the Centre for Adolescent Health at the Royal Children's Hospital and Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Nola Firth, put in a submission to that inquiry in which she said: Currently inclusion of the study of learning disabilities varies greatly across Australia. Many teachers complete their entire training either without ever having heard of the phenomenon or having a very limited understanding of what it means, how to identify the signs of it, and what effective strategies are available to assist these students … She went on to point out that the USA, the UK and Canada have all mandated initial teacher training in learning disabilities. We in Australia are lagging behind in this regard. She pointed to a report of the dyslexia working party that was provided to the then Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services. It strongly recommended pre-service teacher training in the field of dyslexia. The government has responded. I acknowledge that some work has been done. But there is a long, long way to go, and it is three years since that report was delivered. The government in its response talked about a $200 million initiative and more support for students with disabilities. But the fact is that that program does not include children with specific learning disabilities, and the report speaks about those. That includes dyslexia. There is a large gap. In the remaining short time that I have, NAPLAN is also something that we are going to have to focus on. There are a lot of horror stories about young people with dyslexia facing these NAPLAN tests. Teachers report that it is compounding the problems for them. They cannot do the test as it is currently structured because of their learning disability. We need to review that. I am pleased to hear that our shadow education minister is going to do that and look at a lot of the things contained in this motion. I ask the government to do it as well. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMP Is the motion seconded? Mrs Bronwyn Bishop SE4 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 11:45 Mr ADAMS BV5 Lyons I thank the member for Dawson for raising such an important topic in the parliament. However, given the package of education reform that this government is delivering in this country, it is a bit pre-emptive to give any support to this motion. 'Dyslexia' is a sort of a catch-all word for learning difficulties. It is a word that I do not use very much. I had a learning difficulty. I have been through a lot about dyslexia and other learning difficulties. It is a bit of a medical term and I think it sometimes holds back discussions with parents whose children may have a learning difficulty. Learning difficulties are right across the board and there are an enormous number of different reasons why people do not learn. A lot of people find it difficult and we need to continue to find new ways to help people to learn and to move through those difficulties. In 2012, I was an ambassador for the National Year of Reading. I am a great supporter of reading and literacy. Literacy is one of the most important skills a child can learn. It sets them up on a path for the future. It is such an important matter in some of these arguments around Gonski and in other debates around the country about university and primary education. Primary education is critical. If you do not have a primary education how can you get to university? Primary education is a critical factor in the whole education debate. We should be focusing on that end and also on kids before they get to school. For children who suffer from a learning difficulty, the path often seems to be tough, too tough, to climb. Many feel embarrassed that they cannot read and write, or spell as well as their peers. This sets up some real issues for them. This can start a pattern of shame that they often carry through their adolescence into adulthood, and it can lead to other problems. These learning difficulties have taken them onto other paths. I remind the House that jails in this country are full of people who cannot read and write, or who have had learning difficulties. Starting from an early age, as a baby our speech is learned. We often learn to speak from repeating what our parents say and the sounds that are made. For some that does not always come naturally or easily. We learn to use our voice boxes by making all sorts of noises. If parents themselves do not have strong literacy skills then a cycle starts to emerge where the child goes to school without the same level of literacy skills as other children in their class. Child care plays an important part in this. I have been told by a lot of educators that child care makes it a lot easier for kids to get an early start in learning, learning sounds and socialisation. It makes it a lot easier for them having that sort of contact early in their lives. It has also come forward that in houses where books are not readily available, where parents do not read and write freely and do not talk about books, that can set up an issue for young people as well. There have been different programs where mothers, after giving birth, are given a set of books to take home with them. Those sorts of issues are very important. All those sorts of programs can add to helping people get through and get a start. If we start to diagnose at an early age and educate parents in the signs and symptoms that their child might need an extra helping hand with their reading and writing, then we are able to give them the assistance they need at an early age. This is starting to occur—there is a lot of good work being done in that space. There is currently a lot of talk around education and its funding with the Gonski report, with the states that are looking at signing up to the national plan for schools. For me, it is a fantastic thing to see education take priority—and it should, of course—and to see people in my own communities around the Lyons electorate engaging with me on this topic. That is a terrific thing. I feel really good when people want to talk about education. People care about their children's education. They care that they get a good education, that they get a good start, and it is really coming through when you have those sorts of discussions in the community. People are willing to fight for their children's right to a good education and they are willing to fight for their local school. That is terrific to see, and they will always get every encouragement from me. What also strikes me from the discussions I have been having with a number of parents who themselves are not well educated, and who do suffer—and did suffer—from learning difficulties, is hearing them talk about the investment in education and the importance of that. They are talking about how important investment is. That is a wonderful thing, and I see that this government is investing greatly in education. Those parents often admit to themselves that they had trouble learning. When their children learn in our schools, so do the parents, and these linkages continue to come through. I know that community groups around Lyons, in particular our neighbourhood houses and community houses, do a lot of work with adults and with literacy. All that sort of work is coming through more and more now, and the interest in education is starting to emerge more in debates and discussions that I have. I recently visited a local child and family centre, Tagari Lia in Bridgewater in my electorate, for one of the Biggest Morning Tea fundraisers, and I had the chance to speak with many of the local community members. Tagari Lia runs a vast variety of programs that focus on the family and the important role that parents play in their children's lives and also in their education. They teach the parents through various literacy programs but they also notice that they teach the parents through their own children. By getting their children involved in programs run by the centre, the parents learn too and often return to do a course themselves. That is a pretty good way to get involved in education if you have not been involved in it for a long time. They even have a weekly morning chat over coffee and biscuits there. This is a session where parents can share their stories for the week, such as any testing situations they have had and how they got through and managed them. This may not be the standard in the classroom or by the book way for people to study a course—or how a theory would say that somebody should learn—but parents who attend these sessions are learning, and this is a learning process for adults. For those who suffer from learning difficulties, this is often how they most comfortably learn, and there are all sorts of different levels that people learn at. To me, food and reading are also a great way for people to learn and start learning, because they have an interest. Their children, of course, are critical. People often come back to education when they see that their children are starting to learn and may be having difficulties reading a story to them. I commend the member for Dawson for bringing this motion before the parliament. As a nation, I think we can be very proud of all the educational reform packages that this government is delivering. Debate adjourned. DELEGATION REPORTS 5765 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to South Africa and Zambia 5765 11:55 Mr SECKER 848 Barker I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to South Africa and Zambia in April 2013, and seek leave to make some very brief comments. Leave granted. Mr SECKER 848 This was a fairly arduous delegation visit over a short period, thankfully, with only three members of the delegation. There was a lot of hard work and we had to share the same load between three instead of the normal number of five people. I would hope that having three members of a delegation is not the norm for future delegations. I thank the secretariat. John Studholme did a brilliant job, particularly considering that that was the first delegation visit that he had been part of. As noted in the report, the delegation members worked well as a team. In the past I have been somewhat critical of some of the AusAID projects that I have seen while on delegation visits, but I would have to say that, from the projects we saw during this visit, which are noted in the report, I thought AusAID money was being spent very well. So I congratulate those involved in making sure that that money was spent wisely. I think Australia can be proud of the work they are doing both in South Africa and in Zambia. BILLS 5765 BILLS Not-for-profit Sector Freedom to Advocate Bill 2013 5765

Not-for-profit Sector Freedom to Advocate Bill 2013

Assent 5765 COMMITTEES 5766 COMMITTEES National Broadband Network Committee 5766 Report 5766 11:57 Mr OAKESHOTT IYS Lyne On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network, I present the committee's final report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Review of the rollout of the National Broadband Network (Fifth report), together with the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. Mr OAKESHOTT IYS by leave—I present the fifth report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network, entitled Review of the rollout of the National Broadband Network, covering 1 July to 31 December 2012 as well as other issues reported after this period. During its fifth review, the committee examined the ongoing National Broadband Network rollout of fibre, fixed-wireless and satellite services, performance reporting, the potential of private equity to fund the NBN, and Telstra workforce issues associated with the retraining funding deed under the Telstra agreement. The committee made five recommendations. During this period, NBN Co. informed the oversight committee that it would revise its corporate plan targets shortly for the fibre rollout to take into account around a 12-week delay. The delay has been attributed to a slower rate of rollout progress on the ground by contractors than was originally forecast and is not expected to delay the overall time frame nor affect the total cost of the project. It is important to repeat that, despite in the short term a 12-week delay, it is not expected to delay the overall time frame nor affect the total cost of the project. In terms of the NBN rollout KPIs, the findings reported were similar to those already included in previous review report—namely, that information provided in the shareholder ministers' report is again presented in a way which does not enable comparison with corporate plan targets without checking against those targets separately. This is proving frustrating for proper oversight and scrutiny. In addition, with the changing KPI categories and the possibility of changes to corporate plan targets without notice, tracking the progress of the NBN rollout is made more complex and reliance is placed on qualitative statements made in the public domain about NBN progress rather than on published quantitative data. Again, for proper oversight and scrutiny this is proving more frustrating than is necessary. Overall, the committee found that, given that the NBN is the largest ever infrastructure project undertaken in Australia, at this early stage of the NBN rollout it is timely that there be greater rigour placed on the public reporting of the financial and physical aspects of the NBN rollout. The NBN Co. stated that it is investing $9.8 billion to connect multidwelling units to the NBN, with the individual cost of connection having fallen to $1,100. The NBN Co. also stated that it investigated making use of the existing copper network to connect MDUs, multidwelling units, but that this approach was not taken as it presented issues in ensuring a high-speed connection and analog voice services for customers. This report also includes commentary on costing alternative NBN models. The committee found that the NBN Co. is best placed to undertake this kind of costing within the framework of its corporate plan and has recommended accordingly. This is important in light of what is still a policy dispute in this parliament and with reports from organisations such as Cisco and Dr Pepper, the vice-president internationally, only recently commenting on issues of policy in regard to the rollout in Australia and internationally. So I would encourage government and this parliament to consider that recommendation closely. The committee's report also looks at the NBN rollout in regional and remote Australia. A combination of the three NBN technologies, fibre, fixed wireless and satellite, is being rolled out now to regional and remote communities. Both major parties in the policy sense have committed to satellite and wireless on exactly the same terms. This is welcome. However, the committee is seeking more from NBN Co. to talk about their work in communities in regional Australia. The committee is interested in how NBN Co. is balancing construction of the network across both metropolitan and regional locations. The committee felt it would be useful to hear more about the regional aspects and made a recommendation to that effect. The committee was also interested in the rollout of the fixed wireless and satellite networks. It noted that in February 2013 NBN Co. announced plans for a new, faster speed tier for its fixed wireless and long-term satellite services for regional and remote communities. It also noted that the take-up rate for NBN Co.'s interim satellite service is challenging in regard to the long-term satellite service to be introduced in 2015 by both sides of the parliament. So the question of the interim service and the provision of its customer cap predicted to be reached in 2014 does not at the moment align with the launch of the long-term satellite service in 2015. The committee has therefore made recommendations on the best ways to deal with that timetabling and transition issue. The report also considered two matters determined by the committee to be of significance at this stage of the NBN rollout: private equity engagement and workforce issues. The committee has investigated the points of entry for private investment in the NBN in all five of its reports to date. The discussion has been in the interests of ensuring the most efficient build of the NBN. The committee recommended that the government continue to consider investor interest in the NBN and the optimum capital structure for NBN Co. This is all about the rate of return for taxpayers. At the moment the current rate of return is over seven per cent. Other options are unknown, including policy changes that NBN Co. themselves may make at any change stage, and a focus on that rate of return on investment to the taxpayer is the guiding light that I hope with the investment of public and private dollars the NBN Co. and government can maintain a focus on. On the matter of NBN workforce issues, the committee continues to be interested in progress under the Telstra retraining funding deed. Under this deed the government as committed to provide $100 million to Telstra to support the availability of an appropriately trained workforce for the NBN and retrain Telstra staff affected by the NBN rollout. The committee also heard that NBN Co. and the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has undertaken a number of initiatives to ensure an appropriately skilled workforce to support the NBN rollout. In this important area the committee recommended that NBN Co. continue to work with contractors to ensure sufficient mobilisation of skilled labour to meet NBN rollout targets. It also recommended that NBN Co. continue to update NBN workforce modelling data to assist with planning for changing NBN training needs and workforce demands. For all the challenges of the largest infrastructure build in our nation's history as well as the policy risks to manage at the September 2013 election, Australians can now be confident the NBN will be completed in some form. It will make a big difference in many lives; it will strengthen our economy; it will promote our cultural identity in a flattening global culture. Overall it will create opportunity and deliver equity for all Australians. The NBN remains on track to deliver a rate of return to the taxpayer of over seven per cent per annum. The NBN in its current form assists greatly in delivering industry restructuring in telecommunications, which many have identified as a historic problem in Australia. On the politics of the moment, part of this upgrade is Telstra management and shareholders improving their pits and pipes, including removing asbestos from old infrastructure; and may they do that safely. The NBN does deliver ubiquity. This means the wholesale platform being built does not discriminate by location. Wherever you live and in no matter what style of residence—whether farm or flat—the speed, reliability and wholesale pricing will have equivalence. The principle of consumer equity is finally alive in Australian telecommunications. All of this is before we explore the personal and business benefits of improved speed and reliability with a technology that is open to higher and higher speeds. It is human capacity, not the technology's capacity, that holds us back on even faster transfers of data. Once it is built, the advancement of its speed will be an exciting challenge for the innovators. I make particular reference to the excellent report commissioned by Google, Culture boom: how digital media are invigorating Australia, which is publicly available online. The cultural boom happening in Australia today, contributing $26 billion per year in export value to our economy, is important and should not be dismissed as merely a platform to access episodes of the television series Game of Thrones. It is an export market. As the report identifies, more Americans today are digesting Australian content than Australians are today with existing poor telecommunications. What an opportunity to promote Australia and expand our export economy by getting this build right. By building the NBN we can unlock this even more than the current cultural boom allows. We promote Australian culture to the world. We show respect to sectors like education as our second-biggest export market and invite it to grow. We play to our strengths by unlocking entrepreneurship in this country. I have personally done what I can to see the NBN completed to the best standard possible. It is, in my view, real nation building. I certainly invite the 44th Parliament and its NBN oversight committee to commit to doing likewise. As this is the final report of the oversight committee, I thank all 60 committee members—there are many here at the moment—in particular, the 15 voting members. We have all got to know each other better through some difficult but important policy discussions. Finally I thank the secretariat. I have often watched them and wondered what they are really thinking when committee members, including me, drift off track, ask a silly question or demonstrate forgetfulness. The secretariat has been a group of quality professionals and the engine room of true oversight. On behalf of all committee members I sincerely thank them. I commend the report to the House and I move: That the House take note of the report. The SPEAKER 83S In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour. Report and Reference to Federation Chamber 5769 12:09 Mr OAKESHOTT IYS Lyne by leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION 5769 PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION Valedictory 5769 12:09 Mrs MOYLAN 4V5 Pearce How does one summarise 20 years in parliament while doing justice to all those who have been so pivotal to that service? I have been deeply touched by the extraordinary generosity at every turn by a host of people too numerous to name individually. But no member could have been better supported and I wish the same good fortune for the new candidate for Pearce, Christian Porter. My staff, past and present, particularly my personal assistant, Jana Allan, and electorate officers Anne Bagot, Simon Hall, Janie Brown and Jess Laidman have been superb. Kirsten Mardardy memorably guided me through the early political turbulence in my first terms, as did my friend Jeremy Buxton. Over the years, I have had several excellent campaign chairs but none were more effective and dedicated than my long-term friend Lane Taylor, ably supported by his beautiful wife, Julie. His good judgement has ensured the smooth running of seven election campaigns. The support of the division of Pearce, led by successive presidents and an army of volunteers, was crucial to our shared success. The staff of the parliament, the clerks and the library have unfailingly assisted me in negotiating the mysteries of the form and function of this place. I acknowledge the contribution of committee secretariats and in particular the Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, of which I am currently deputy chair. It has been a pleasure to work with them and the chair, the member for Moreton. Comcar and the Perth office of parliamentary services have no less smoothed the way. Perhaps my warmest memories of this chamber and this place will always be the deep associations forged with members past and present. In particular, the member for McMillan, has been a great friend, as have the former members for Cook and for Kooyong—and, indeed, the current member for Kooyong. Our friendship was forged in the tough political battle over immigration policy. Equally, the member for Moore, the 'doctor in the House', has administered his special brand of medicine, pro bono, to the entire population of Parliament House and probably beyond. He is a friend without peer. My parliamentary life had its genesis year in 1993. It followed the retirement of the Hon. Fred Chaney, a stellar parliamentary performer and a great mentor and friend. In the beginning, there was neither light nor form in the reputed wasteland called 'opposition'. Yet, like so much in the Australian landscape, there was treasure to be had in the most unpropitious of circumstances. I recall a certain nervousness on entering the chamber and taking my seat within sight and sound of the government benches for the first time. As I confronted the enemy, in its serried ranks, I wondered whether I would acquire the necessary combative spirit. I need not have worried. It was soon plain that I would receive plenty of encouragement—from both sides. It was the beginning of 20 fascinating years. Whether serving on the environment committee or the public accounts committee, or designing a breast cancer campaign, the years in opposition were a symphony of delight and stimulation. As shadow minister I wrote policies for small business and women. Small business was a major plank in the 1996 victorious election campaign under John Howard. Within government, I served as Minister for Family Services and as the first dedicated Minister for the Status of Women. They say that certain portfolios mark a minister so profoundly that he or she never quite recovers their capacity for simple optimism, at the least their lives are irrevocably changed. Family Services is of that order. It brings one directly into contact with those points at which our society shows its most glaring and disgraceful wounds, which, by their very intransigence, challenge and threaten our capacity for empathy and for compassion. I must, though, declare a deep personal satisfaction to have been able, whilst still a member of this parliament, to join in the universal support for the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill, which was enacted on 28 March in a rare display of unity. To paraphrase another epic event of our time it is one small step for the parliament, one giant leap for humankind. I cannot pass without pointing out that the great majority of carers in our community are women. In this, as in so many areas of human endeavour, 50 per cent of our species carries the greater burden whilst submitting to lesser opportunity and still less reward. I remain committed and fiercely proud of the 370-page act over which my departmental colleagues and I laboured so as to reform standards of accommodation and duty of care toward the ageing. There was controversy and opposition aplenty in this House and in the media, indeed so much discord that I was forced to depart the portfolio. Yet, this pales into insignificance against the ongoing satisfaction of observing our older citizens accommodated in facilities that afford them privacy and dignity. I shall never cease to be grateful to Mr Howard for the opportunities afforded by my ministerial experience. My ministry embarked on earnest programs to mitigate homelessness and violence against women, crucial issues back in 1996 and crucial issues still in 2013. The pathologies that beset our society remain impervious to catch-all diagnoses and certainly to simple optimism. Abundance of goodwill and earnest endeavour on both sides of this House are the first requisite. After that, we sorely need new ideas for the social ills of today's brave new other world. The electorate of Pearce, as you may know, is varied and large. One day after a particularly harrowing week in my office, of encounters with sick electors, the truth was borne home to me. Diabetes has fulfilled the direst of medical predictions: tt has become a national epidemic. I had in short order been confronted with blindness, cardiac failure, kidney and liver dysfunction, and limb amputations, to say nothing of the tragedy affecting children with type 1 diabetes, to say nothing of the effects on family life and cohesion, to say nothing of economic hardship, to say nothing of the unaffordability of vital medications. Diabetes affects people from all walks of life, including some distinguished members of this House and their staff. Since its inception in 2000, the Parliamentary Diabetes Support Group has achieved a unique response to community concerns. Our model is being emulated by parliaments abroad. I have been invited to share our experience with delegates to the forthcoming World Diabetes Congress in Melbourne this coming December. They will hear of the difference it makes when sufferers know that in their national capital, at the seat of government, an alliance exists that preaches and cajoles and, when need be, is clamorous on their behalf. One of the unexpected benefits for me has been the pleasure of working closely with colleagues across the benches, the members for Moore, Lyons, Isaacs and Senator Claire Moore, all members of the executive, and of course all the colleagues in this parliament who have been members of the group. In latter weeks, the member for Hasluck has taken the reigns of leadership and the Parliamentary Diabetes Support Group is in very good hands. Former colleagues Cameron Thompson and Guy Barnett were members of the first executive and former health minister Michael Wooldridge gave early support. Equally, our many associations with doctors, researchers and non-government organisations, particularly Diabetes Australia and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, have been fruitful. Who of us can forget Kids in the House and the profound emotional impact that that event had? Then there was the early and notable success of the group securing the listing of insulin pump consumables on the National Diabetes Services Scheme. Then there was the response of this parliament to the pleas of the children participating in Kids in the House when they said, 'Promise to remember me.' And we did, by allocating or contributing $27 million for research to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. I should like to close this farewell speech on an interrogative note. As one leaves the stage of active intervention, there is inevitably heartache, mostly stemming from issues in our body politic that persistently resist amelioration. Poverty is one: 600,000 children are living below the poverty line in Australia today. In some parts of the electorate of Pearce, the impact is devastating. Why have we not been able to do better? Was it not a body blow to the capacity of sole parents and their families to shift them on to Newstart while cutting Job Network funds? Are we not denying them a chance to forge a better future? The 'Fair Incentives to Work Bill'? When will the mythologies stop? Another mythology is privatisation. Is it always the answer to efficient delivery of services? Let us ask those on a fixed or low income about their essential services bills. In general terms, though, the answer is yes. Privatisation can be beneficial, providing due diligence is applied. However, as chair of the Public Works Committee for nine years, let me assure the House that the rush to sell off assets is almost never submitted to impartial cost-benefit analysis. And what is new about that? And what of the level playing field, another mantra? Trade inequities abound, with combined subsidies paid to farmers in the European Union and the United States totalling around $350 billion per annum. Our near neighbours of Japan, Taiwan and South Korea continue to have among the highest subsidies for farmers. Is it a welter of self-hatred that causes us to endanger some of our proudest and most efficient producers? The Australian people have forged by dint of prodigious labour, innovation and stubborn self-belief a peaceful and prosperous civilisation in the most arid continent on the planet. It ought to be a personal agony for everyone here when our economic savants sanction admission of goods from nations that continue to pay subsidies, do not pay decent wages, do not impose occupation health and safety regulations, have no superannuation schemes and do not apply standards of food hygiene and strict controls over additives. Unsurprisingly, these goods enter this country at a cheaper price than we can produce them. But at what cost to our future, social and economic? Day in, day out we dream of being a future food bowl for Asia while simultaneously destroying our existing industries. Meanwhile, frank and shameless subsidies and protections proceed unremarked whilst our own administration has withdrawn subsidies and continues to heap the burden of more and more 'red tape' on the breaking backs of our producers and our manufacturers. Is this pragmatism or an amiable madness on our part? While the House ponders this conundrum, I turn to my six years as Chair of the Australia-China Parliamentary Group. It proved to be miraculously serendipitous. I led several delegations to Beijing, Shanghai and some of the remote regions of the Middle Kingdom. Thus, I was a personal witness to a unique event in human history as China emerged and, to the astonishment of the world, forged for itself the iron mantle of a great economic and military power. With each successive visit, I was led to study a little more of Chinese political history. My impression is that China, with the arguable exception of Tibet, has been averse to pursuing territorial expansion and focuses above all else on improving the living standards of its people through trade. Certainly, in terms of the current economic downturn and with the prospect of alternative suppliers massing on the horizon, our trading relationship with China will need to be culturally sophisticated, intelligent and sensitive. There are also other significant nations sharing with us the great Indian Ocean — a region whose time has come. Our ability to navigate amongst these competing interests will be a test of our political maturity and the efficacy of our educational institutions. Two years ago, I was fortunate to secure a gifted intern from ANU to research a paper on the case for an Australian Cen tre for Indian Ocean Affairs. It makes compelling reading. Commerce and cultural exchange are the enemies of poverty and the great facilitators to peace and growth along the Indian Ocean littoral . Why have we waited so long? But the signs are we may not have to wait much longer. The recent announcement by the s hadow m inister for f oreign a ffairs, the m ember for Curtin, of a prospective re-incarnatio n of the original Colombo Plan is profo undly welcome. If we are to learn anything , though, from the political and social problems of the region it must surely be the necessity to engage with our neighbours t o manage the flow of refugees in the Indian Ocean region. This is not a situation Aust ralia can manage in isolation. It is not. If we are committed to stopping the deaths at sea, in this most intransigent of political arenas, our parliament must find a way to forge a n ational consensus before we can possibly entertain any hope of ac hieving a regional consensus. Th is is the only way we will find a lasting and humane resolution to one of the enduring human horrors of war and civil strife in our midst , and my feelings on this matter have been expressed frequently both w ithin this c hamber and without. I remain stridently opposed to indefinite mandatory detention and the continued detention of children, 2,000 of whom are currently in detention under our management. These practices have gone on in our name and will sta nd as a matter of great shame. In conclusion, I cannot help reflecting that as legislators the m embers of this House exerc ise a glorious responsibility. It is no small thing to contrive, con sider and ultimately create new law for a great nation. It is no small thing to rigorously uphold the separation of powers that tempers the potential excesses of executive government. Equally it is no small thing to defend the sanctity of free speech, especially in that essential organ of democracy, the fourth estate. An abundance of good fortune has attended my political life both in the electorate and in this chamber. I thank the House for the numberless courtesies extended to me since my election in March 1993. Further, I thank the Pearce division of the Liberal Party for its unquenchable optimism in endorsing me seven times. In politics the mind and the heart must move as one, otherwise chaos ensues. For me the Liberal Party has, as it was established by RG Menzies, offered precisely that possibility. It has never failed. In fact, my political survival over these 20 years has depended on the principle that an elected member would always have the right to vote according to their conscience. It has been tested in this place many times and remains the great distinguishing characteristic between the Liberal Party and its opponents, and I am grateful for that. I thank the House. The SPEAKER 83S We thank the member for Pearce and wish her well in her retirement. 12:31 Mr MURPHY 83D Reid On indulgence, I take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Pearce for her great service to her electorate, her great service to the parliament and the great service she has given to our nation. The member for Pearce is someone who has always conducted herself with great grace and dignity and I was a very proud member of the historic delegation that she led to Beijing in November 2003 of the Australia-China Parliamentary Friendship Group where we had an audience with President Hu Jintao. That was a very memorable experience. The member for Pearce has been an ornament to the parliament and I take this opportunity to wish her well in her future endeavours. May she have a very happy, healthy and long retirement. BILLS 5773 BILLS Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill 2013 5773

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill 2013

Report from Committee 5773 12:32 Mr MURPHY 83D Reid On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Broadcasting Legislation, I seek leave to make a statement on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill 2013 in discharge of the committee's requirement to provide an advisory report on the bill. I present a copy of my statement. Leave granted. Mr MURPHY 83D The committee has endorsed the content of this statement. The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill 2013, a government bill, was introduced to the House of Representatives on 21 March 2013. On the same day it was referred to both the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee and the Joint Select Committee on Broadcasting Legislation. The bill was referred to this committee by the House of Representatives Selection Committee and the reason for the referral was: There has not been the opportunity to properly scrutinise the changes proposed in this bill or their potential impacts. The Joint Select Committee on Broadcasting Legislation was established on 14 March 2013 under a resolution of appointment 'to inquire into and report on potential areas for further reform of Australia's broadcasting legislation'. The bill in question deals with telecommunications. Therefore it would appear that it is not within the remit of the terms of reference of this committee. Furthermore, the Senate committee reported on the bill on 13 June 2013. The opportunity for proper scrutiny of the bill has been made possible through the work of the Senate committee. It is the view of the Joint Select Committee on Broadcasting Legislation that to adopt this concurrent inquiry would be an unnecessary duplication of process. This statement discharges the requirement to provide an advisory report on the bill. Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill 2013 5774

Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill 2013

Report from Federation Chamber 5774 Third Reading 5774 12:35 Ms KATE ELLIS DZU Adelaide by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Bill 2013 5774

Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Bill 2013

Second Reading 5774 12:36 Mr ROBB FU4 Goldstein I rise to speak on the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Bill 2013. The bill proposes to replace the existing model for Commonwealth financial management established through the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. It would consolidate under one piece of legislation the governance, performance and accountability requirements for the Commonwealth and relevant entities which are covered currently under both the FMA and CAC acts. The bill would introduce a new financial framework for the Commonwealth, impacting on some 195 entities and around 300,000 individuals who work within them. Such reform must not be taken lightly, nor be driven by undue haste. This bill stems from the Commonwealth Financial Accountability Review, which commenced in December 2010. The existing financial framework was enacted in 1998 and, while it can be reasonably argued that it is unnecessarily complex and fragmented, all agree it remains workable. It has undergone regular, ad hoc amendment in order to maintain its serviceability as issues have arisen and this has added to its complexity. But, with the current parliament nearing its end, there is nothing to necessitate the passage of this bill before it rises. If anything, this is the type of reform that should now be reserved for the new parliament regardless of its colour or stripe. The importance to get this right is underlined by the remarks of the Auditor General, Mr Ian McPhee, when he said there are few Commonwealth laws that have such broad application. Collectively, the entities it would cover manage and account for revenue and expenses of over $350 billion, assets of over $390 billion and liabilities of over $640 billion. Most appropriately, this bill has been subjected to an inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. This process has exposed two fundamental concerns with this bill: firstly, the lack of specific detail about how the new financial framework would be actually applied; and, secondly, the unnecessary haste with which it is being brought before the parliament and the need for additional consultation. During Senate estimates the secretary of the department of finance, David Tune, said he found it frustrating that there was a sense of unease about the bill, but specific areas of concern were not coming through. Well, that is precisely the point. The major issue is that the bill largely represents the direction and principles of reform with much of the mechanical detail to be set out in future rules tailored for individual entities. We have progressively found ourselves debating bills that in many respects give you very little idea of how the objectives of those bills will in fact be implemented. We are seeing bills that have up to 70 per cent or 80 per cent of the objects being framed through the regulations. And here we have in front of us today bills of great consequence. The principles and objectives of these bills are in large part agreed by all parties, but the detail of how these bills will be implemented is the fundamental issue. This practice is increasing, with more and more of the legislation that we are debating being basically a shell—a framework; a set of principles; a set of objectives—when the significant operational aspects are left for others to determine via regulation. We agree that the broad principles behind the bill are not objectionable, namely: government should operate as a coherent whole; public resources are public resources and a common set of duties should apply to all resources handled by Commonwealth entities; performance of the public sector is more than financial; and engaging responsibly with risk is a necessary step in improving performance. We agree with these broad principles. But the major issue is that the bill largely represents a set of directions and principles of reform with so much if not nearly all of the mechanical detail to be set out in future rules tailored for individual entities. It is also argued that a more simplified financial framework is required as 'the deficiencies in the current framework will, over time, become a drag on the performance of the public sector'. A single act would as far as practicable 'apply a consistent principles based framework to all Commonwealth entities'. It should also be compatible with specific enabling legislation that mandates the establishment and functions of public entities. The bill also places a greater emphasis on risk management, something that is said to be deficient in the existing financial framework. In principle, this would be applied in a way that accommodates both autonomy, and also personal responsibility, which would be welcomed. We agree with all of these things; these principles; these suggested guiding objectives. What we have not seen, unfortunately, are the very detailed mechanics that would give effect to these objectives and these principles. For example, according to the explanatory memorandum, 'the bill seeks to bring about cultural change by placing a duty on entities to establish their own appropriate systems of risk oversight and management and by introducing the principle of earned autonomy'. This would draw on the better practice principles for regulators identified by the Productivity Commission, which includes streamlining reporting requirements; risk based monitoring and enforcement; and a graduated response to regulatory and compliance breaches. These are very important requirements that stem from the Productivity Commission. The existing framework is also described as 'very linear' and focused on straight lines of vertical authority which create hurdles to 'citizen-centric service delivery' and to collaborative working practices both across government and between government and other sectors. The framework, it is said, does not seek to alter or impinge the operational independence of entities as set out in their enabling legislation. The RBA, the ABC and the SBS are cited as examples. Again, none of this is objectionable, but what is objectionable is not knowing how or if these principles will in fact be satisfactorily applied. This detail will only be revealed in the specific set of rules, the legislative instruments, that are yet to be drafted let alone sighted by anyone who is being asked to pass this piece of legislation. The general consensus is that these rules will be developed over 12 months. Under sections 101 to 105, the bill affords quite substantial power and discretion to the finance minister to make rules 'necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to this act'. The government has agreed to subject these future instruments to the scrutiny of the Joint Standing Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, as it should. But given the broad reach of this bill it would, at the very least, have been prudent for the government to have produced a comprehensive set of exposure drafts of the proposed rules for the scrutiny of the entities they would affect, broader stakeholders and parliament itself. This has not occurred and it increases the suspicion that the bill has been rushed into the parliament to give this government, which has very little in the way of substantial achievements to point to, a superficial symbol of financial reform. This is no different from what we saw in the first instance with the so-called Gonski legislation—pages of pleasant-sounding objectives and principles, with not one skerrick of detail of how these things would be implemented. We have it again in this legislation. We are also seeing it in the 100-plus bills that are confronting this House and that are mounting up for consideration over the next eight days. The Auditor-General, Mr Ian McPhee, recently told the JCPAA inquiry: We would feel more comfortable with this legislation if the bill had been subject to a more open exposure process, given the number of entities and officials affected by it and because of the fundamental importance of the legislation, as indicated earlier. We have also had no visibility of the complementary rules which, together with the legislation, will establish the Commonwealth's financial management framework and contribute significantly to it. For these reasons, our support for the legislation is more measured than it may have been under different circumstances and with more time. That was the Auditor-General speaking. This is the man who played a very significant part in framing the two bills that this piece of legislation will replace. If the Auditor-General feels uncomfortable and believes that there has been a very limited open exposure process and that the lack of consultation has undermined the confidence in this bill, surely that is a red flag to the government to withdraw this bill and come back with it once the mechanics have been detailed so that we as members of parliament with responsibility for making informed decisions in this House can actually find the detail on which we are making decisions. More significant testimony was given to the recent inquiry. The Auditor-General's view was supported by none other than the Australian Public Service Commissioner, Stephen Sedgwick. His testimony stated: The Public Service Commissioner … is sympathetic to the Auditor-General’s view that it would have been preferable if the bill had been subject to a longer exposure process, given the number of entities and officials affected by it and because of the fundamental importance of the legislation. The ABC is one of the almost 200 entities that would be covered by the new financial framework and, in testimony before the inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer of the ABC, David Pendleton, said: I guess the reservation we have about the haste is around clarity on the rules that sit underneath the legislation and the detail that flows with them. That would be our one caution around the timing of the haste of this. Stephen Bartos, an expert in public sector governance and risk and the former deputy secretary of the Department of Finance and Deregulation, noted in his submission to the inquiry: It is worth reminding the JCPAA that the processes to replace the Audit Act 1901 with the FMA and CAC Acts took around a decade. They involved a number of hearings of the JCPAA, open consultation, submissions from many Commonwealth departments and agencies, and detailed consideration of the pros and cons. The current Bill deserves the same sort of consideration, not a rushed process. In addition, Stephen Bartos went on: The introduction of as yet unspecified rules to give effect to the governance framework relies on a heroic assumption that the Finance Minister (and her/his department) in future will put in place a set of rules that fosters good governance, rather than unnecessary checking procedures and pettifogging compliance. The bill is not reassuring on this score. Finally, he says: The public service is too important to Australia to be reformed without more open and searching investigation of the issues. The JCPAA should seek a remit to conduct such an inquiry. We have just heard the words before this inquiry of the Auditor-General, the Australian Public Service Commissioner, the Chief Operating Officer of the ABC and a former deputy secretary of the department of finance, Stephen Bartos. They have all expressed, as one, their deep reservations about the lack of consultation, the lack of transparency, the lack of any detail. That is the problem. No-one is objecting to the fluffy, furry and acceptable principles that are included in this bill and some of the guidelines as to how the rules will be prepared. About 80 per cent, if not more, of the impact of this bill is in the rules. Here we have major public servants and others who have got or who have had responsibility for these very provisions, for the framing and the operation of these acts, all expressing to a public inquiry deep reservations about the haste and the lack of any detail. Yet the government goes on in the arrogant way that it had been going on in so many areas of legislation in this place. It is like a conveyor belt of legislation going through the guillotine without any opportunity for this side of the House to really have any impact. They have a tin ear, not just to our side of the parliament but to so many of the stakeholders. In this case the stakeholders are the public servants themselves. In many cases none of the departments have had any substantive input into this bill. Certainly there has been no substantive input into the rules which, by their own admission, have not even been prepared yet. This is again another black mark on this government. It is starting to become endemic in terms of the insult that is served up in so many pieces of legislation where we are expected to put our hands up and go along with a whole lot of fluffy, good-sounding sentiments and objectives without the benefit of knowing exactly how these things will be implemented. Invariably everyone is disappointed. If you do not confer, if you do not consult with those who do know the operation and are in fact responsible for carrying out and working within the confines of these pieces of legislation, in this case the public servants, then if you have not conferred with them in a proper manner and it has not had a proper airing and consideration, it is no wonder these things end up being inadequate and not doing the job. A separate transitional and consequential amendments act will also be required to ensure consistency between this bill and existing legislation and regulations which apply to those entities covered. The substantive provisions of this bill would commence on a date to be fixed by proclamation or on 1 July 2014, whichever happens first. The Auditor-General has also suggested that a six-month delay of this bill would not necessarily mean that the start date would have to change. In conclusion, the words of Rob Elliott, the General Manager, Policy, and General Counsel, Policy and Advocacy, for the Australian Institute of Company Directors, are most salient. I quote: When governments are considering new laws there should be appropriate consultation and full transparency of all aspects of the proposal, including for associated regulations. This will ensure that issues of principle, unintended consequences and practical problems can be identified and addressed. Delay seems prudent, given the lack of imperatives for this bill to be passed by this parliament. I would like to thank in particular colleagues Senators Dean Smith and Anne Ruston for their work in relation to the bill on the Joint Standing Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. Their conclusions were widely reinforced by the comments that I have just referred to, and many more in that inquiry. I also thank Senator Arthur Sinodinos and his staff member John Adams for their contribution. This is a very important matter that is before the House. It goes to the administration of the Public Service and related bodies. If it is not passed, nothing will change. It will be business as usual and the entities covered under the existing framework will continue to function without any negative impact on taxpayers in the broader community. We have had what are called 'pious amendments' moved in this place for a long time. They are often moved by the opposition, which is not in a position to lead to a change in policy. They are an expression of intent. So 'pious amendments' have become a common practice in this place for good reason, especially for an opposition which is not the government of the day and cannot impose its will on the parliament. What we have now is what I would call 'pious legislation' starting to become the feature of this parliament. Pious legislation is legislation which is full of fine-sounding sentiments but actually gives no effect to what those objectives seek to give effect to. It is becoming a ridiculous situation; it is irresponsible. It is shifting the responsibility that should be very much that of people in this parliament back to individual ministers and their advisers. It is unacceptable. It is a recipe for bad government and bad public policy. Future administrations of whatever colour or stripe need to be alert to this growing practice of what I would term 'pious legislation' arriving in this parliament. It is for these reasons that the coalition stands opposed to the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Bill 2013 in its current form. 12:58 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Bill 2013. This is a bill which deals with a very important subject matter, which is the performance of the Commonwealth government and its agencies. If you look at the explanatory memorandum there are some very bold ambitions established for the reform program of which this bill forms part. We are told, for example, that 'all governments will need to consider often fundamentally the ways in which public services are delivered and outcomes are measured'. We are told that 'the objective of CFAR'—that is, the Commonwealth Financial Accountability Review—'is to improve performance, accountability, risk management and service delivery across government.' We are also told that the CFAR process: …identified opportunities for reform to remove red tape from the public sector; enhance the public sector's potential for innovation; improve the performance of the public sector in meeting the government's goals; gain the best value for money spent on any particular purpose; promote high standards of stewardship and accountability; and enhance transparency. Nobody could disagree with those objectives. Indeed, on this side of the chamber we think they are very important objectives and we think this is an area where the present government has performed conspicuously poorly, as I will speak about in a little detail in a moment. The fundamental proposition that we put to the House this afternoon in considering the bill the government is asking the parliament to pass today does not live up to these bold and sweeping ambitions. In fact, it presents only a very modest amount of detail. It is largely a statement of sweeping, high-level principle—in itself not objectionable—but it does not do the job which it claims to do. That is the reason, fundamentally, why on this side of the House we are not disposed to support the bill and to support it being passed at this time. We believe that the task in this area is so important that the time needs to be taken to do a proper job. I want to make three points in the time available to me this afternoon: firstly, that there is simply too little detail in the legislation before the House this afternoon; secondly, that there are very few downsides if we delay passing this bill to take the time to get its content right; and thirdly, that the stakes are very high—there is no more important objective than an efficient, productive and highly-performing public sector. We are a very long way away from that now, and if we are to work towards achieving that very important objective then one of the things the parliament needs to be satisfied of is that the new financial accountability and governance mechanisms—purportedly contained in this bill, but in fact the detail is not there—are up to this very important job. Let me turn, firstly, to the fact that what we have before us is lacking in the requisite detail. As Mr David Tune, the Secretary of the Department of Finance and Deregulation told a parliamentary committee, the key element of this bill is the rules, which 'sit below' the general principles outlined in the bill. At the time he was speaking to the committee, Mr Tune admitted that the drafting of these rules had not yet begun and that, with the operational provisions of the bill not due to commence until 1 July 2014, there is plenty of time for further development. That is all very well, but on this side of the House we want to see the further detail. We are not satisfied with some broad, high-level assurances. The subject matter of this bill is so important that we want to see the detailed mechanisms which will apply to give effect to the stated objectives of this bill. We have not seen them and we do not think that is satisfactory. As the Auditor-General noted in his submission to the parliamentary committee: … many of the provisions of the Bill rely on the making of rules to operate effectively. … currently there is no visibility around the content of the rules that will need to be drafted prior to the proposed date of proclamation of the Bill. In other words, the key elements of this bill—the provisions that do the work that it purports to do—are not available to the parliament to consider. On this side of the House we say that that is not satisfactory. Until we can see the detail of how it is going to work we are unpersuaded that the case has been made for this bill to be passed. More importantly, so too would it seem, from the disquiet that they have expressed, are key officers of important agencies and statutory authorities. For example, the Chief Operating Officer of the ABC said: I guess the reservation we have about the haste is around clarity on the rules that sit underneath the legislation and the detail that flows with them. If we do not have the detail that is required for the parliament to give proper consideration to the mechanisms which are proposed to give effect to the worthy stated objectives of this bill, then the question arises: ought the parliament to proceed to rush to pass this bill into legislation? Or ought we to send it back and say, 'Let's take the time to do a thorough job'? In considering that question I come to the second point that I wanted to make in the brief time available to me today, which is that there are very few downsides to delay. If the case has not been made out to rush this through, then you need to ask yourself, 'Well, if we don't do anything, if we pause and say, "No, not good enough; come back when you've done a better job," are there any material downsides from not rushing the bill through in its present form?' The answer to that is clearly 'no'. And do not take my word for it; please take the word of the government, stated in the explanatory memorandum: The current financial framework is not broken, but it does creak at times, … The Auditor-General noted in his submission: … the existing framework remains sound, … In other words, we do not have an urgent, pressing problem needing to be solved. There is no particular case for rushing this through now. We are in agreement on both sides of the chamber that it is timely and appropriate to review the accountability and governance framework that applies to the public sector in this country. We are in agreement! But on this side of the House we say, 'If you haven't done a proper, adequate job, then do not pass it'. Go away and do the detailed work and then come back to the parliament and tell the parliament, 'Here are the provisions which put in place the detail of the accountability mechanisms, and here is the detail on which you as parliamentarians can base some confidence that the claimed improvement in the efficiency and output of the public sector is going to be delivered'. I want to turn, thirdly, to the proposition that the stakes are very high; that efficiency and productivity in government—objectives that we are told will be aided by the passing of this bill—are not where they should be and that any government should have as a priority improvements in this area. We know, for example, that there is steady growth in the size of government. From 2006-07 to the current year, Commonwealth staff numbers are up by nearly 20,000. The number of government bodies is growing. The Australian newspaper recently reported that the total number of Commonwealth agencies has risen from 87 to 107 in the last five years. I have asked every cabinet minister a question on notice: how many new entities have been created within their portfolios since the Rudd government was first elected to office? Not all have responded but, of those who did, there were some 34 different bodies identified with the total staff across them numbering 4,700. I have already referred to a recent report in The Australian. Remarkably, according to that report, the precise number of Commonwealth bodies is currently not even known. The most recent list was prepared by the department of finance four years ago at which point there were 930 federal government 'bodies and governance relationships'. The fact is the public sector size has grown and expenditure in the public sector has grown. Indeed, according to the Review of the Measures of Agency Efficiency report of March 2011, between fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2009, Australia's GDP grew by 64 per cent after correcting from improved terms of trade, while expenditure administered by government grew by 98 per cent—well ahead of the size of GDP growth. The government is growing in its expenditure, the government is growing in terms of the number of people employed and it is growing in terms of the number of bodies and agencies. There is clear and substantial—and under this government—unchecked growth in government. Of course, that does not prove that we have a problem with public sector efficiency and productivity but it certainly raises a suspicion. That suspicion is reinforced by, amongst other things, some of the difficulties that one finds in identifying in one single place a number as to the total number of Commonwealth employees. For example, the Australian Public Service Commission Statistical Bulletin reports 168,500 staff as at 30 June 2012. The budget quotes Commonwealth staff numbers as at this date as 256,000 and that includes ADF personnel and statutory authorities, but even this number does not include contractors and it does not include employees of government corporations such as Australia Post and NBN Co. Another interesting data point that suggests that we have a significant problem with efficiency and productivity in government is the 2010 review of public service arrangements conducted under the chairmanship of the then Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. That review found that there were 63 agencies with fewer than 500 employees and noted that this suggested real scope for rationalisation—for example, through sharing corporate services. It gave one example which I think is quite telling: an agency with an annual budget of $15 million of which fully one-third went on corporate costs such as finance and human resources. The evidence suggests that there are significant problems in the very areas where the bill before the House this afternoon is supposed to deliver improvements: the productivity and the efficiency of the Commonwealth Public Service of Commonwealth agencies. If you are serious about improving productivity and efficiency, then you need to take the time to carefully examine these provisions and examine the entire regime for financial accountability. It is uncontested that what we have in the bill before us today is not a comprehensive regime but only a skeleton, only an overview, with the detailed rules yet to be drafted. Because of the importance of the issues at stake, until we have that comprehensive explanation of the new regime which is proposed, it is unwise and premature to pass this legislation. If you care about the government doing a good job; if you believe that there are some things that the public sector is better equipped to do than the private sector; if you believe that the demands of the community on government are only going to increase, if you believe in a government which serves the people; and if you believe in doing more with public resources for the things we care about, then you must care about the efficiency and productivity of government and therefore the reform direction that this bill supposedly deals with is the first importance. There is no doubt that the demands on the public sector are ever-increasing; for example, a recent Grattan Institute paper argues that there is growing demand for government services in areas like health, the age pension and other welfare programs, and this will significantly increase pressures on government in coming years. There is no doubt that more is expected of the public sector by citizens, not just in Australia but all around the world. To quote from a recent paper by PricewaterhouseCoopers: … the public sector is increasingly required to redefine its role, strengthen its customer focus and build integrated service-delivery models … these models must be based on meeting customer needs more efficiently and more effectively. Another reason we must all care about improved public sector productivity and efficiency—purportedly, the matters that will be secured through the passing of the bill before the House this afternoon—a that of Australia's national productivity agenda. We all know that productivity is not what it needs to be. We need to get productivity growth and yet, remarkably, in Australia productivity measures effectively ignore the public sector. Public sector productivity is assumed to stay constant. Let me quote consulting firm McKinsey which argues: The public sector is the largest employer in all advanced economies, yet its slow productivity growth has long made it a drag on the economy. There is no disagreement on this side of the House that the issues at stake that this bill purports to address are of the highest importance. What we dispute is this: we say this bill does not do a good enough job of getting to grips with the issues of accountability, scrutiny and oversight of the public sector. It is a mere statement of high-level principles. It does not give the detail; we want the detail, so we say, 'Go back, do a better job and come back when you have done that better job'. 13:13 Mr OAKESHOTT IYS Lyne Very quickly, I speak in support of both the process of the formation of this legislation and the legislation itself. The Commonwealth Financial Accountability Review is an important reform for Australia's public sector and it certainly looks to be broadly supported by key stakeholders and political parties, despite some of the words in this debate. I understand we are going to have a division shortly, and my understanding is that that is with regard to a level of nervousness in the timing of this legislation being presented to the parliament and a level of nervousness in the transition from the general concept of reform and the principles based legislative framework that has broad support to that next stage of the detailed rules. I concur with some of the nervousness raised that these stages of transition need to be handled carefully, with ongoing time for listening to and talking to all the 196 affected Commonwealth entities and that that is an ongoing process and priority, also ensuring that this parliament is fully informed over the coming stages. There have been commitments given by the finance minister and the finance department regarding the development of the rules in detail along with ongoing consultation that has many nervous. Those commitments are acknowledged by government and the finance minister. They acknowledge that it will be critical to the success or failure of these important reforms that there is ongoing consultation and ongoing consideration of this transition from the principle based legislative framework through to the detailed stage of rules and regulations. I am not one to stand in this chamber and try to have it both ways. I am not going to stand in this chamber and say there is a problem with efficiency and productivity in Australia's public sector and I am not going to stand here and say I want fewer regulations, I want better regulations, I want better risk management, I want greater autonomy in the 196 agencies in Australia's public sector and then vote against it. I am going to vote for it. I am going to place markers certainly in this chamber to say that, yes, we want to make sure we remain engaged in the process and that all agencies and bodies remain engaged in the process. But the principles are broadly supported by every single person in this chamber and therefore I cannot understand why we are about to have a division. If it is about nervousness then stay engaged in the process of transition. This chamber regularly deals with pieces of legislation that are about the principles, about the framework, with the regulations and the rules that then follow on from that. This is no different. So I would encourage the chamber to stay engaged with this legislation as it passes through this House as the start of the process of a better Public Service, fewer regulations, better regulations, better risk management, greater autonomy and everything that I hear debated in this chamber on a daily basis. Let's stay engaged in that process, but let's not kill the process because of some sort of nervousness that people have not been engaged in the finer detail to date. I say: let's support this legislation and keep government honest in the delivery of it. 13:17 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I thank all members who have contributed to the debate on the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Bill 2013. The bill is the cornerstone of a broader reform agenda that commenced in December 2010 as part of the Commonwealth Financial Accountability Review. The review started because of concerns about the efficiency and effectiveness of the public sector and a recognition that a dollar saved on process is a dollar that can be spent on better services to our citizens. The review process has involved extensive consultation both within and outside of government. These consultations have indicated broad support for the reforms which seek to modernise government and create a streamlined and adaptable Public Service that is able to meet Australia's changing needs into the future. The bill recognises that, while the existing framework was best practice when it was introduced and has served governments well, it is now outdated and our APS is falling behind the expectations of government and the community. We are aiming to put the APS back at the forefront of public sector performance and governance. Specifically, we are putting the management of risk and performance at the heart of government operations. The bill has been amended to take account of the views of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. I wish to express my appreciation to the committee for its speedy review and reporting on the bill to allow for this debate to proceed. I thank the member for Lyne for his contribution as the chair of that committee. As noted in correspondence to the committee from the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, I would also like to reiterate on behalf of the government our commitment to a transparent and accountable process for developing the rules that will underpin this bill. This includes that the government will consult widely on the development of the rules, with extensive consultation within government but also with other sectors and interested stakeholders; specifically, this will focus on the not-for-profit sector and the business sector and also academia and professional stakeholders. Once the rules are settled by government they will be made publicly available for no less than 30 days for public comment and further consultation with government entities to ensure that they are rigorously tested. The rules and explanatory memorandum will be made available on the Department of Finance and Deregulation's website. Following the public consultation phase, the rules will also be made available to the JCPAA for scrutiny. The government will await a report from the committee prior to tabling in the parliament. The government expects and encourages the committee to have a strong and ongoing role in the formation of the rules, reflecting its position in the parliament. This is a more rigorous and transparent process than under current arrangements. Finally, the rules are disallowable instruments and so, following their tabling in parliament, there is a further opportunity for scrutiny. This process will ensure that the workings of this bill are fully accountable to the parliament and that the processes are transparent and inclusive. Parliament's role is further enhanced through the inclusion of a review provision which requires the act to be reviewed after three years. This process addresses a specific recommendation in the JCPAA report. The committee's report has added to the quality of the bill and will ensure that the parliament will have an active role in the review of the legislation and its operation. I commend the bill to the House. The SPEAKER 83S The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. [13:25]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)

 73 AYES Adams, DGH Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Bradbury, DJ Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Butler, MC Byrne, AM Champion, ND Cheeseman, DL 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 Husic, EN Jenkins, HA Jones, SP Katter, RC Kelly, MJ King, CF Leigh, AK Livermore, KF Lyons, GR Macklin, JL Marles, RD McClelland, RB Melham, D Mitchell, RG (teller) Murphy, JP Neumann, SK Oakeshott, RJM O'Connor, BPJ O'Neill, DM Owens, J Parke, M Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Roxon, NL Rudd, KM Saffin, JA Shorten, WR Sidebottom, PS Smith, SF Smyth, L Snowdon, WE Swan, WM Symon, MS Thomson, CR Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Wilkie, AD Windsor, AHC 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 Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gash, J Griggs, NL Haase, BW Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Hockey, JB Hunt, GA Irons, SJ 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 Robert, SR Roy, WB Ruddock, PM Scott, BC Secker, PD (teller) Simpkins, LXL Slipper, PN Smith, ADH Somlyay, AM Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Tehan, DT Truss, WE Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Washer, MJ Wyatt, KG 3 PAIRS Clare, JD Schultz, AJ Collins, JM Forrest, JA Hayes, CP Abbott, A

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

 Consideration in Detail 5785 13:32 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum and a replacement explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (14) as circulated together. Leave granted. Mr BRADBURY HVW I move government amendments (1) to (14) as circulated together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit "110", substitute "112". (2) Clause 5, page 4 (line 17), after "of", insert "governance, performance and". (3) Clause 6, page 8 (line 8), omit "and delegations", substitute ", delegations and independent review". (4) Clause 6, page 8 (after line 17), at the end of the clause, add: (5) Clause 14, page 17 (line 23), before "to officials", insert "or Parliamentary Service Act". (6) Clause 16, page 18 (line 32), after "Service Act 1999", insert "or Parliamentary Service Act 1999". (7) Clause 19, page 20 (after line 10), after subclause (4), insert: Relationship with other laws and powers    (4A) If a Commonwealth entity has enabling legislation, then subsection (1) applies only to the extent that compliance with that subsection is not inconsistent with compliance with that legislation.    (4B) This section is subject to any Commonwealth law that prohibits disclosure of particular information. (8) Subdivision C, clause 32, page 24 (line 27) to page 25 (line 12), omit the Subdivision, substitute: Subdivision C—Officials to whom the Public Service Act or Parliamentary Service Act applies 32 Officials to whom the Public Service Act or Parliamentary Service Act applies    To avoid doubt, the finance law is an Australian law for the purposes of subsection 13(4) of the Public Service Act 1999 and subsection 13(4) of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999.    Note 1: If the Public Service Act 1999 or Parliamentary Service Act 1999 applies to an official of a Commonwealth entity, the official will be required under subsection 13(4) of that Act to comply with applicable Australian laws (which include the finance law). This means that if the official contravenes the finance law, sanctions (such as termination of employment) may be imposed on the official under section 15 of that Act.    Note 2: For dealing with a contravention of the finance law by an official of a Commonwealth entity to whom the Public Service Act 1999 or Parliamentary Service Act 1999 does not apply, see section 16 of this Act (which requires the accountable authority of the entity to implement measures directed at ensuring officials of the entity comply with the finance law). (9) Clause 41, page 32 (lines 16 to 19), omit subclause (3), substitute: (3) The Finance Minister and the responsible Minister are entitled to full and free access to the accounts and records kept under this section. However, those Ministers' access is subject to any Commonwealth law that prohibits disclosure of particular information. (10) Clause 53, page 42 (line 21), at the end of subclause (4), add ", except in relation to the central bank account referred to in subsection (3)". (11) Heading to Chapter 4, page 79 (line 1), omit "and delegations", substitute ", delegations and independent review". (12) Clause 101, page 80 (lines 9 to 14), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) The rules may:    (a) prescribe matters in relation to a particular Commonwealth entity or Commonwealth company, or a class of Commonwealth entities or Commonwealth companies; or    (b) make different provision in relation to different Commonwealth entities or Commonwealth companies, or classes of Commonwealth entities or Commonwealth companies. (13) Clause 102, page 80 (line 29), omit paragraph (g), substitute:    (g) performance. (14) Page 89 (after line 22), at the end of Chapter 4, add: Part 4 ‑3—Independent review Division 1—Guide to this Part 111 Guide to this Part Division 2—Independent review 112 Independent review    (1) The Finance Minister must, in consultation with the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of this Act and the rules.    (2) The review must be conducted as soon as practicable after the end of 3 years after this section commences.    (3) The persons who conduct the review must give the Finance Minister a written report of the review.    (4) The Finance Minister must cause copies of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sittings days of that House after the report is given to the Finance Minister. I wish to speak in support of the amendments proposed to the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Bill 2013, which was tabled by me in the House on 16 May and referred to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit on that day for review. I would like to express my appreciation to the JCPAA for their efforts in reviewing the bill in such a brief period and providing a report to the House which was tabled by the committee chair, the member for Lyne, on 4 June, to allow for debate on this bill to proceed. I also wish to acknowledge the contributions of those people and organisations that took the time to appear before the committee on 24 May and/or provide submissions for the committee to consider. A number of amendments are being proposed to the bill and to the explanatory memorandum as a result of the committee's report and as a result of feedback from those appearing before the committee and through submissions. I wish to note the following four amendments. The first key amendment concerns issues raised during the JCPAA inquiry about the operational independence of entities as provided by parliament. As noted in the second reading speech, there is no intention for this bill to impinge on this independence. As a result, clause 19 is being amended to include a provision at clause 19(6) to remove any doubt that, where an entity has enabling legislation, any requirement to provide information under this clause can only occur to the extent that it is not inconsistent with other legislation. The focus of this clause is on having access to information on the resources of an entity and how they are managed. It does not extend to matters such as the activities of the courts or of the parliament itself. The amendment makes this more explicit. The clause also includes a provision at clause 19(7) to ensure that access to and disclosure of information is subject to privacy provisions contained within other Commonwealth law. The second key amendment relates to a suggestion made by the Department of the House of Representatives. Clause 32 currently recognises that a significant proportion of the public sector is employed under the Public Service Act 1999 and, as such, any breach of the duties under this bill would represent grounds for addressing conduct concerns under the Public Service Act Code of Conduct. As a result of concerns raised by the Clerk of the Department of the House of Representatives, clause 32 has been extended to include staff employed under the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 to ensure consistency with the approach taken for Public Service Act employees. A corresponding note has also been included under clause 16, 'Duty to establish and maintain systems relating to risk and control', consistent with referencing of arrangements for Public Service Act employees. The third key amendment seeks to clarify Commonwealth banking arrangements. In this regard, clause 53 is being amended as a result of concerns raised by the Reserve Bank Governor that the clause may unintentionally restrict the operations of the RBA in relation to the operation of the central bank account of the Commonwealth. The RBA's responsibilities are extensively covered already under the Reserve Bank Act 1959 and, as a result of clause 53(4), have been amended to exclude the central bank account from coverage by rules issued by the finance minister. The fourth key amendment directly addresses recommendation 8 of the JCPAA report. The committee proposed the introduction of a requirement for the finance minister to ensure that an independent review of the bill and related rules is conducted three years after the commencement of its operation. The government supports this recommendation, and a new provision is proposed at clause 112 of the bill that will require that such a review be conducted in consultation with the JCPAA. The review report must be tabled in both houses of parliament. These amendments are accompanied by a supplementary explanatory memorandum explaining the changes being made. In addition, the JCPAA recommended in its report that all relevant documents be prepared in plain English, with the explanatory memorandum being mentioned specifically by the committee chair during the hearing on 24 May. This request has been taken to heart, and a replacement explanatory memorandum has been prepared seeking to more effectively explain the concepts involved in the legislation as well as taking the opportunity to explain in clear words the government's commitments to following through on the implementation of the bill and its supporting arrangements. The combined effects of these changes will reflect the government's determination to make its policy intent clear in terms of the bill itself and provide through the explanatory memorandum assurance of an ongoing commitment to consult with Commonwealth entities. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 5788 13:38 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2013 5788

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2013

Reference to Federation Chamber 5788 13:39 Ms PARKE HWR Fremantle by leave—I move: That the bill be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration. Question agreed to. Higher Education Support Amendment (Asian Century) Bill 2013 5788

Higher Education Support Amendment (Asian Century) Bill 2013

Second Reading 5788 13:45 The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 The question is that the bill be now read a second time. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes for this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative 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 agreed to, Ms Gambaro and Mr Alexander voting no. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 As it is now past 1.45 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. 13:49 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler by leave—I move: That standing order 43 be suspended until the finalisation of this bill. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading 5789 13:50 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 5789 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Bennelong Electorate: Granny Smith Day Club 5789 13:51 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong Several weeks ago I joined the volunteers and attendees at the Epping RSL Granny Smith Day Club to help celebrate 30 years of operation. The Epping RSL day club has been open since April 1983 thanks to the dedicated support of a large number of volunteers. Every Friday the volunteers put on a morning of activities for the elderly and isolated at the Chester Street Epping Uniting Church. Essentially it is a social club designed for people who are unable to participate in social activities already established in the community and it generates personal friendships between people who are isolated. A free bus service takes people to and from the venue each and every week. I have visited the Granny Smith Day Club on several occasions and I can attest to the wonderful work that they are doing to provide a warm and inviting environment. I have been told by many of the regulars how much they look forward to Fridays at the Epping RSL Granny Smith Day Club. President John Curdie, Margaret Waddell and John Roddy along with their team of volunteers continue to provide a vibrant program each week of mental stimulation and gentle physical exercise. The program is full of variety and I thank the volunteers for going to so much effort in preparing a diverse array of activities. The volunteers give significantly of their time and energy and, without their efforts, the Granny Smith Day Club would not be the success that it is. I offer them every good wish and hope that the program continues well into the future. Canberra Electorate: Marathon Netball Game 5789 13:53 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra On Saturday I had the pleasure of participating in the Tuggeranong Netball Association's 10-hour marathon charity netball game raising funds for two wonderful Canberra charities—Bosom Buddies and Lifeline. I must admit I am not a netball player so I had the job of cooking the barbecue to feed the hungry players and, of course, of cheering from the sidelines. The game kicked off at 8 am with teams rotating through 10-minute quarters. By the time the final whistle blew at 6 pm, the scores were breathtakingly close, with Team Lifeline on 378 just beating Team Bosom Buddies on 376. Almost $12,000 was raised on the day with each charity taking home around $6,000 in much needed funds. It was a wonderful community event. Over 1,000 people participated in some way, as players, umpires or volunteers. I would like to acknowledge the wonderful Louise Bilston, President of the Tuggeranong Netball Association. Louise and her team put a lot of work into organising this fantastic event. It had to be postponed for a fortnight because the first day was rained out. Its success is a great credit to her and her hardy team of volunteers. I would also like to thank the hundreds of players, young and old, professional and amateur, who took to the court on the day. Aston Electorate: War Memorial Honour Roll 5789 13:54 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston Just over 12 months ago, I launched in conjunction with the major veterans and services organisations a campaign to build an honour roll in the Knox municipality to honour those fallen servicemen and servicewomen from the past. It is something which is missing in our community presently. This will be an honour roll which is full and complete and which properly gives dignity to those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for our nation. I am pleased to report that we have made considerable progress towards our efforts. Just two weeks ago, we heard news that the Knox City Council has approved our plans for the honour roll and they have contributed $35,000 towards its instalment. The state government has committed $10,000 towards the instalment. I would like to thank the Knox Historical Society for all the work they have done to date in performing the immense amount of research to ensure that the names that will go onto the honour roll are accurate and complete. Our objective is to have this considerable memorial established by the time of the centenary commemorations of Anzac in April 2015. I just wanted to update the House of this significant development and commend it to the parliament. Tolputt, Mr Nick 5790 13:56 Mr LYONS M38 Bass I acknowledge illustrious members of the Launceston City Council. Today I would like to highlight Nick Tolputt, a young actor, musician and singer in my electorate of Bass. Nick attended St Patrick's College in Launceston, achieving excellent results academically and is currently studying at the Melbourne Conservatorium of Classical Music. He has been involved in over 20 local musical productions and has won numerous awards for excellence. His is also an inaugural member of the Encore Theatre Company mentorship program enabling coaching with other great performers from northern Tasmania, John De Jong and Di Briffa. Nick is a countertenor, which I am told is one of the rarest of voices. Nick is currently the only one at the Melbourne Conservatorium. Nick was awarded the Dorothy N Glover musical trust scholarship to help fund his higher education in Europe. International countertenor Andreas Scholl has offered to take Nick under his wing and coach him in Switzerland with this scholarship. Nick's mentors tell me that he is driven and he works very hard to achieve his goals. Nick is a fantastic ambassador for the great state of Tasmania and an example of the talent my state has to offer. I look forward to attending his concert in July and wish him all the very best for a brilliant career in the arts. I also thank those who have supported him on his journey, including his family, teachers and mentors. National Security 5790 13:57 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong When the government rose to introduce the budget last year they started with the line, 'Tonight we introduce four years of surpluses.' What has happened is that we have had the five biggest deficits in the history of the Commonwealth. We have had more than 20,000 new regulations. We have had the carbon tax and we have had the mining tax and we have had a fall in investment in this country. Given the pitiful performance of the government in the economy, nothing has been worse than your performance on national security. You have failed to protect our borders. More than 43,000 people have come to this country in an unauthorised manner and we have had a failure to protect Australia's national borders. Moreover, we have had a failure to protect the Defence Force of this country, to maintain defence spending at the number it should be of around two per cent of GDP. Australia's defence spending has fallen to the lowest level since 1938—1.56 per cent of GDP. Shame on you, Labor Party. Shame on you. If you go round the region, every country is spending more on defence. Singapore spends more than 3½ per cent of GDP on defence. In India it is more than two per cent. The Americans spend 4.7 per cent. What are we in Australia spending? It is 1.56 per cent. Shame on you, Labor Party. Shame on you for failing for to protect our borders, for spending less on defence and for ruining the Australian economy. Economy 5791 13:59 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh I rise today to talk about the wonderful economy that we have here in Australia, with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world, and the lowest interest rates for a long time where families are saving over $100 per week per family on average. That makes it $400 per month on average per family. Those are real savings, extra money in the pockets of Australian families. The SPEAKER 83S In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 5791 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:00 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I inform the House that the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Justice will be absent from question time today for personal reasons. The Attorney-General will answer questions on his behalf. The Minister for Community Services, Minister for the Status of Women and Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development will be absent from question time this week as she is attending the 10th annual Women's Affairs Ministerial Meeting in Bangladesh. The Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform will answer questions relating to community services and the status of women. The Minister for Employment Participation and Minister for Early Childhood and Childcare will answer questions relating to Indigenous employment and economic development. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 5791 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Carbon Pricing 5791 14:01 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. I remind her that in the past three years families' electricity costs have increased by 45 per cent. Is the Prime Minister aware that Australians' electricity bills have increased by more under her than they did in the entire 11 years of the Howard government? Will the Prime Minister now reduce the squeeze on families' cost of living by rescinding the increase in the carbon tax due to take effect in just two weeks? 14:01 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I genuinely thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question because it enables me to explain to him something that I explained to the Australian nation last year—that is, what are the real drivers of cost in electricity, including the extraordinary levels of investment we have seen in the poles and wires; including the market incentives that there are in the current system for the so-called gold-plating of the system that then feeds through to the prices that families and businesses pay. Of course, we got the facts out on the table—and I know the facts are something the Leader of the Opposition never likes to hear about because they disturb his world outlook, but facts are facts and they deserve paying regard to. The facts of this, of course, were that well before our nation priced carbon, consumers had had to tolerate increases of more than 50 per cent in their electricity prices because of these other drivers of costs. So we have moved to address those other drivers of costs through a comprehensive reform process we engaged in through the Council of Australian Governments in the last six months of last year, and we did secure agreement at the COAG meeting at the end of last year to regulatory and other changes to put downward pressure on electricity pricing. But of course the Leader of the Opposition does not want to refer to any of that because he does not want Australian families to know the truth about what is driving electricity prices, but that is the truth. And the Leader of the Opposition spent many weeks at the time of the greatest heat in that debate effectively defending Liberal state governments and saying on that area, which would make a real difference to the cost-of-living pressures experienced by households, that he would do absolutely nothing. On carbon pricing, as the Leader of the Opposition well knows, carbon pricing is working to reduce carbon pollution, it is working with our renewable energy target to reduce carbon pollution, and households have been assisted with the price rise that they saw in electricity, which was exactly as we predicted. None of the Leader of the Opposition's fear mongering in any of that came true. So to the Leader of the Opposition, the questions are simple. Why does he want our nation to reduce carbon pollution in a more expensive way? Why doesn't he join with the government in effectively working to put downward pressure on electricity prices through the COAG reform agenda? And why is he insisting on doing things like ripping money out of the hands of families through ripping away basic benefits like the Schoolkids Bonus? That is what the Leader of the Opposition should answer. 14:04 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah Madam Speaker, I ask a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that two-thirds of the increase in electricity prices since 1 July last year is exclusively due to the carbon tax? 14:05 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor Lesson No. 1: do not let the member for Flinders give you a handwritten question. Lesson No. 2: on carbon pricing, what we always said on this side of politics was that putting a price on carbon would increase electricity prices by 10 per cent and we would assist families with those increased costs—and we did. On the other side of politics, the Leader of the Opposition ran around the country on a crazed fear campaign, saying people would not have a job, Whyalla would be wiped off the map, there would be astronomical increases in the cost of living, and members of the opposition were telling us that a lamb roast would cost $100—ridiculous stuff. Ridiculous, mendacious claims from the Leader of the Opposition. Well, now he stands here with all of those claims proven to be untrue. With other conservatives around the world embracing putting a price on carbon as the most efficient way of reducing carbon pollution, there he is with his turkey of a policy that he cannot explain and that does not add up. This government stands for reducing carbon pollution in the most cost-effective way, whereas the Leader of the Opposition stands for shovelling huge burdens to pay for his ridiculous policy onto Australian families. Education Funding 5792 14:06 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. How has the government made sure that parents and school communities have the information and the funding they need to make every school a great school? 14:06 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I thank the member for Greenway for her question. I thank her for her passion for improving schooling in her electorate, because she recognises, like I do, that the future of this country is being made in Australian classrooms today and that we cannot be the strong, smart, fair nation we want to be in the future unless our children get a world-class education. Information is important to getting a world-class education. When this government was first elected and I first became Minister for Education no-one could tell you how children were going at school around the nation and no-one could tell you which were the 1,000 most disadvantaged schools in the country. No-one could tell you any of that information—no-one had bothered to find out. Well, find out we did and we put it on the MySchool website and now you can see on the MySchool website not only the results of literacy and numeracy testing over four years but three years of financial information. Why did we do that? We wanted parents to know. Why did we do that? We wanted the nation to know. We also did that because we then wanted to work in national partnership schools and prove that extra resources combined with new ways of working mean children get a better education. And we have proved that. In our national partnership schools 71 per cent reduced the number of students who were below minimum standards in year 3 reading and 70 per cent reduced the number of students below minimum standards in year 5 numeracy. Put simply, the kids in those schools in those classrooms have got a better education. Now we want to lock this in for 9,500 schools not just for today but for generations and generations to come—for the nation to be able to say to itself that the broken funding model of the former Howard government is gone and that we are funding our teachers, classrooms and children right for generations to come. That is why I am determined that around the country we see every school included in the benefits of our school funding reforms, that we see every child in every school get the benefits of our National Plan for School Improvement. I do not want to see any child left behind. That is why we will be spending the days between now and 30 June calling on premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and working with them to make sure that they put their children first and put the politics second. Australia's children deserve a world-class education and I am absolutely determined that they get one. Carbon Pricing 5793 14:10 Mr TRUSS GT4 Wide Bay My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is the Prime Minister making the world's biggest carbon tax even bigger by imposing a carbon tax on heavy vehicles from 1 July next year? 14:10 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor To the Leader of The Nationals: it feels like they have brought in the question time pack from last June when they were in the throes of the most ridiculous fear campaign we have seen in Australian politics. Here we go again trotting out the false claims, trotting out the ridiculous assertions, trotting out the most mendacious— Honourable members interjecting— Mr Pyne 9V5 Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Mr Hockey interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S The Prime Minister will resume her seat. The member for North Sydney is not being very helpful either. The Manager of Opposition Business has the call. Mr Pyne 9V5 I ask you to invite the Prime Minister to withdraw that false statement that this is a false claim when it is a fact that they are introducing a carbon tax on heavy vehicles from 1 July next year. The SPEAKER 83S The Prime Minister has the call and will return to the question before the chair. Ms GILLARD 83L I certainly will not be taking any lectures about facts and carbon pricing from the opposition after the ridiculous fear campaign they have run around the country. What the Leader of The Nationals should know from our carbon-pricing scheme—it was made very clear at the time—is that we did not put a carbon price on petrol, diesel and LPG for passenger motor vehicles and for light on-road commercial vehicles. It has always been the subject of the scheme that, from 1 July 2014, there would be carbon pricing for heavy on-road vehicles, and that is of course because we wanted to see a situation of consistent treatment for modes of transport. Why did we want to do that? Mr Pyne 9V5 Are you saying it's not true? Ms GILLARD 83L The Manager of Opposition Business is calling away. He might learn something. We believe climate change is real: fact No. 1. That is why we wanted to do it. Fact No. 2: we believe it is caused by human activity. Fact No. 3: we believe that we should get our economy ready for the future and reduce the carbon pollution generated by our economy. We looked around the world and saw other nations doing precisely that. Then of course is the fact that the Leader of the Opposition always finds the most deeply uncomfortable: the cheapest way of reducing the amount of carbon pollution that your economy generates is to put a price on carbon. Leading conservatives around the world know that. Former Prime Minister Howard knew that. The Leader of the Opposition sat in a cabinet that knew that, because they went to the 2007 election saying that they would bring a price on carbon pollution, an emissions-trading scheme, to Australia. None of those facts have changed. What has changed is that the Leader of the Opposition decided to ditch the facts and play the politics. On this side of the parliament we have always believed in those facts. We have always believed that the most effective way of reducing carbon pollution and the cheapest way of reducing carbon was to put a price on carbon. The Leader of the Opposition will never be able to say to the Australian people that he stands for a cheaper plan than ours. He does not, and that is why we will defend this plan up to and including at the next election and in the days beyond, because it is right for the country. 14:13 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah Madam Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. If the Prime Minister always deals in facts, as she says she does, why did she say to the Australian people five days before the last election: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'? 14:14 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor Dear me, they are back to old favourites today. I refer the Leader of the Opposition to my statements during the 2010— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S The member for Cowper is warned! The Prime Minister has the call. Ms GILLARD 83L I refer the Leader of the Opposition to my statements during the 2010 campaign that our nation should have an emissions trading scheme. Indeed, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to get himself involved in the history books, he should look at his own statements in favour of a price on carbon and, if he has still got some time left—heaven knows he must have a lot of time; he does not do any policy work—maybe he could get out former Prime Minister Howard's statements on an emissions trading scheme. Maybe he could look at the documents that the cabinet he sat in authorised for publication, committing the then Howard government—of which he says he was proud to be a part—to putting a price on carbon. Yes, we will get to that emissions trading scheme through a fixed price for three years—what is referred to as a carbon tax. The Leader of the Opposition will never be able to walk away from his track record of having supported a price on carbon; he will never be able to say to the Australian people that his scheme is cheaper per tonne of carbon pollution; and he will never be able to say to the Australian people that, if he was ever Prime Minister, prices would somehow mysteriously go down. It is time for this mendacious campaign to end. (Time expired) Education 5795 14:16 Mr SYMON HW8 Deakin My question is to the Prime Minister. How will schools, particularly those in my home state of Victoria, benefit from the government's plan for better schools? 14:16 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I thank the member for Deakin for his question. It is a very good one for the state of Victoria because we have published new information, for parents and teachers in Victoria to absorb, about what our plan for school improvement means for Victorian schools. But in summary—and I know that the member for Deakin cares passionately about this—what it means is an increase in resources for Victorian schools of more than $4 billion. What that means, on average, for schools is an increase of $1.8 million. What that money will go to is lifting the standards of education of our children—things that make a real difference to children's education: the children that need help with reading and maths getting the help they need through intensive teaching and more teaching time; the kids who are galloping ahead in front of the class, at risk of being bored, given personalised learning plans that continue to extend them; specialised teachers that can make a difference in schools; language teachers; teacher librarians; and student support officers who can help with welfare in schools. We know these things work because we have proven that they work in national partnerships schools around the country. Recently, I was in the electorate of Deakin. In fact, we conducted a community cabinet at Norwood Secondary College. Norwood Secondary College and its 1,000 students, on our best understanding of the figures, stands to gain around $5.8 million over the next six years under Labor's new funding plan. That is a funding increase of over 50 per cent per student by 2019. Now, I do not want to see Norwood miss out on those new resources. I do not want to see Victorian schools miss out on those new resources. I do not want to see students on one side of the New South Wales/Victorian border miss out. I do not want to see schools on one side of the South Australian/Victorian border miss out. I do not want to see Victorian students left behind, which is why it is so important that the Premier of Victoria seize this once-in-a-generation opportunity to make sure that funding is right for Victorian schools. He should not succumb to the pressure from the opposition to play their politics. He should put the children of Victoria first and sign on to our plan for school improvement. Victorian children deserve it. They should have a world-class education and it is time for the Premier of Victoria to sign on to our plan and put his kids first. 14:19 Mr SYMON HW8 Deakin I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has talked about what the government's plan for schools means for Victoria. Prime Minister, how will other states benefit? 14:19 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I thank the member for Deakin for that question because, of course, this is a comprehensive plan for every school in the country. It is moving away from the broken funding model of the past—something acknowledged by responsible conservatives in this country. For example, the Premier of New South Wales and his education minister, a Liberal and a National Party member, have said loudly and clearly that the current funding model is broken. It is broken and it will deny our children a world-class education, which is why I want to see every child in every school around the country have the benefit of our National Plan for School Improvement. New South Wales has signed on, the ACT has signed on, South Australia has signed on, and now is the time for the other premiers, and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, to sign on too. Of course, all of this is at risk because it is so bitterly opposed by the opposition, with the shadow minister for education committing the opposition to ripping these resources away if they are ever elected to government—legislating to take away resources from schools around the country. That is their way but it is not the Labor way. The Labor way is to create opportunity for every child and we are absolutely determined to get this done. Employment 5796 14:21 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of the warning from the Business Council of Australia, and I quote: Our costs are too high, productivity is too low, we haven't invested enough in infrastructure and we're drowning in costly, time consuming regulation. Will the Prime Minister explain— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Order! The Member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Minister for Health is warned. The Member for North Sydney will commence his question again. Mr HOCKEY DK6 My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of the warning from the Business Council of Australia that: Our costs are too high, productivity is too low, we haven't invested enough in infrastructure and we're drowning in costly, time consuming regulation. Will the Prime Minister explain how Labor's 39 new or increased taxes and 21,000 new regulations have made it easier for businesses to secure jobs for working Australians? 14:22 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question and I am very happy to go through it. On the question of tax, on this side of the parliament we stand for lower company taxation than those on that side of the parliament—ask the BCA for a critique of the Leader of the Opposition's plan to jack up company taxes. On regulation, we have worked hard to create a seamless national economy to reduce the burden of regulation for Australian businesses. We have had many successes, but of course there have been times when state Liberal governments, presumably at the political direction of the opposition, have refused to endorse that deregulation agenda because they would prefer to play the politics. Then on productivity, I refer the shadow Treasurer to the facts. I know that the facts and the opposition just do not go together—they are like oil and water; they can never mix. The shadow Treasurer can never focus on a fact—he has caught that from the Leader of the Opposition. But the facts are: productivity has been increasing—I refer him to the figures in recent quarters—and that is very important. Of course, what I have been speaking about in the parliament today—our agenda for human capital, our agenda for school improvement—is absolutely about the future productivity of our nation, as are our record investments in apprenticeships and traineeships, our record investments in universities in research and the training of undergraduates, our record investments in innovation. These are all about increasing productivity for the future. Then the shadow Treasurer asked about infrastructure. The shadow Treasurer might want to sit at a desk quietly for an hour and have a look at this government's infrastructure improvement record, compared with the record of the government of which he was a cabinet member. He might want to do that, because this government has invested in infrastructure at record rates. We actually believe in productivity improvements through infrastructure—things like the National Broadband Network, bringing fibre to the premises; things like major public transport initiatives in our big cities, so people can get to work more easily. All of this is productivity-enhancing. Then the shadow Treasurer referred to costs of doing business. Let me assure the shadow Treasurer—I presume in his mouth that is code for cutting wages and conditions; after all, he was Mr Work Choices—that on this side of the parliament, we will never do that. We do not believe that our future lies in a low road of cutting wages. We believe it lies in a high road of increasing productivity, and that is what we are investing to do. No amount of giggling by the shadow Treasurer changes those facts. (Time expired.) Veterans 5797 14:25 Mr SLIPPER 0V5 Fisher My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. On the Sunshine Coast, we have many service veterans. I am advised that in early March at Rooty Hill, the Prime Minister promised to meet with the leadership of the Alliance of Defence Service Organisations to outline the government's possible solutions to the issue of unfair indexation of military superannuation pensions. I understand the ADSO leadership has been repeatedly told the Department of Finance and Deregulation is supposed to give input. When is the input expected, and when will this meeting with the ADSO leadership take place? 14:26 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari I thank the member for Fisher for his question. I remind the House what this question is about. It is about whether or not the Defence Force Retirement Benefit Scheme, which closed in September 1972, and the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme, which closed in September 1991, are appropriately indexed. They are indexed to the CPI. This matter was reviewed by Matthews in 2008. He came to the view that it was an appropriate method of indexation. Nevertheless, there is an issue which has been created in the community by some people within the ex-service organisations trying to conflate the issue of fair indexation, as you describe it, with indexation of age pensions and other income support payments. It is very, very clear—and we need to comprehend this—that military superannuation retirement pay provides a lifetime guaranteed level of income and indexation, regardless of the person's other income or assets, and is not affected by investment returns. The bulk of the people who have retired after 20 years of service, which they are entitled to do under the schemes, are able to take lump sum payments and in excess of 99 per cent did. It is a good scheme. The benefits after 20 years of service commit up to five times the annual superannuation retirement pay for a lump sum in exchange for a reduction in the annual payment. They give a higher percentage of final salary compared to other Commonwealth schemes and have a government employer contribution of around 30 per cent compared to the current national standard of nine per cent increasing to 12 per cent. This is not and cannot be compared to an income support payment. It is not. Unfortunately, the discussion going on in the community—promoted, I might say, by the opposition—is that somehow or another if you do not index the DFRB and DFRDB payments to the same level as age pensions then you are being unfair. I am very conscious of the issues that have been raised in the electorate. We are continuing to work on the issue. You are right that the department of finance is looking into the issues. We expect we will have more to say in the very near future. Let me finish with the words of the former coalition minister for finance, who confirmed this last year, when he said: This particular claim was properly rejected by the Howard Government, of which I was a member … there is no inherent logic. The SPEAKER 83S Order! A point of order; the minister will resume his seat. My apologies: I thought the member for Fadden was going to seek indulgence at the end and I was not going to give it. The member for Fadden on a point of order. Mr Robert HWT The question had no input or did not ask about any coalition policy, nor coalition policy in the past. It was a simple question to the minister. The SPEAKER 83S The member for Fadden will resume his seat. The minister has the call and will conclude his answer. Mr SNOWDON IJ4 There is no inherent logic to the proposition that a public sector employment related superannuation payment should be indexed in exactly the same fashion as a means-tested welfare benefit, in this case the aged pension. 14:29 Mr SLIPPER 0V5 Fisher Madam Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Order! The member for Fisher has the call! The member for Sturt does not, and this is his final bit of consideration for this question time. Mr SLIPPER 0V5 My supplementary question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Is the government likely to be in a position before the election to be able to announce a fairer indexation system for military superannuation pensions? 14:30 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari I thank the member for Fisher for his question. As I said during my last contribution to the initial question, we are currently examining the issue. The Department of Finance and Deregulation has provided us with advice, and we will have more to say in the near future. Education Funding 5799 14:30 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton My question is to the Prime Minister. What do schools and families in my electorate and across Queensland stand to lose by the state government's refusal to sign on to the national plan for better schools? 14:30 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I thank the member for Moreton for his question and thank him for his passion and interest in education. He is a former teacher and brings to this parliament a real understanding about what it is like to improve the lives of children and to enable them to get a great education. He asked me what Queensland schools can lose because Premier Newman to date has refused to sign on to our plan for better schools to improve Queensland schools and to bring them new funding. I can advise the member for Moreton, and I can advise the House, that what is being put at risk by the behaviour of Premier Newman is an increase in funding for Queensland schools of $3.8 billion. On average, that is $2.2 million per school. That is a lot of new resources to improve the education of Queensland children. I will take just one example of what this can mean for a school. This is, of course, a system of funding designed to bring schools around the country up to a school resource standard, with particular loadings for the kinds of kids who are in that school; and so more resources if children are from a disadvantaged background or are Indigenous kids. If we take the example of Corinda State High School. I met the principal there at community cabinet. Indeed, I understand that the member for Moreton was a teacher with that principal. For that school, the increase in funding would be $13 million. That is a very sizeable increase for those children for that school community. Those are 13 million reasons why Premier Newman should sign on to our plan. But in fact there are 3.8 billion reasons why Premier Newman should sign on to our plan. I want to assure the House that those resources will be put into the kind of work we know improves children's education. We know it, because we have proved it in national partnership schools. None of this has been done quickly. First, we got the evidence and we exposed it to everyone in the nation through MySchool. Then we started the national curriculum development and rolled it out. Then, of course, we improved school buildings and school equipment. Then we showed in our national partnership schools how you can lift standards, joining new resources with very practical changes in classrooms that make a difference for children. It is that plan that we now want to take around the nation to give our children a world-class education. Premier Newman should not stand between the children of Queensland and a world-class education, and the Leader of the Opposition should not oppose a world-class education for our nation's children. Employment 5799 14:33 Mr BILLSON 1K6 Dunkley My question is to the Treasurer. I remind the Treasurer of his promise from 18 May 2011 when he said, 'We are going to see the creation of 500,000 new jobs over the next two years'. Will the Treasurer confirm that Labor has fallen so far short of this promise that 237,000 new jobs would need to be created in the single month of June to prevent this becoming yet another Labor broken promise? 14:34 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley I thank the shadow minister for that question, because the one thing that everyone on this side of the House is proudest of is the creation of almost one million jobs—one million jobs!—in the time that we have been in power. I do want to make a couple of points about this, because almost one million jobs have been achieved during one of the most difficult times in the global economy in over 80 years. Of course, we saw the shadow Treasurer last week when the unemployment figures came out—the labour force was published—and unemployment was at 5.5 per cent. In the context of almost one million jobs being created since we came to power, he described that outcome as 'mediocre'. Well, you would have to be a bonehead to make that sort of statement—a complete bonehead to claim— Mr Pyne 9V5 Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Firstly, in the interests of cordiality, the Treasurer should withdraw that insulting term. But, secondly, he was asked a question about the 237,000 jobs he needs to create in June to meet his broken promise from two years ago, and that is the question he has to answer. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Leader of the House will resume his seat. That was not a point of order; I will, however, ask the Treasurer to withdraw on the previous comment. Mr Melham interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Order! The member for Banks is warned! Mr SWAN 2V5 I do withdraw, Speaker. But this trash-talking of the Australian economy from the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer, the shadow minister over there and the rest of the backbench should stop. It should stop because it is deeply, deeply irresponsible and it does not reflect the underlying strength of the Australian economy. But they go out and do it day in, day out. They talk down the economy. They go out there and exaggerate debt; they go out there and try to cause all sorts of challenges and to take up and use all of the worst rhetoric you could possibly pass on in the face of those sorts of outcomes which everyone on this side of the House is very, very proud of. For Australia to have achieved one million jobs in an environment where jobs have been lost in their millions across the United States and right across Europe—this is something that everyone on this side of the House is extremely proud of. But you get this deeply irresponsible approach from those opposite. And why do they talk down our economy? They talk down our economy, because they use that as the Trojan Horse to justify the savage cuts to the bone that they are planning to put into our economy. But they will not tell the Australian people about what they intend to do. We had the Leader of the Opposition the other day talking about the need for paying for cuts but we have not heard any of the detail. We had the shadow Treasurer the other day refusing to say that they would put out costed policies. All of that is code for vicious cuts to the bone, the types of which have been put in place by Campbell Newman in Queensland, because they too, like Campbell Newman, have got a commission on cuts planned. The SPEAKER 83S The Treasurer will return to the question. Mr SWAN 2V5 I was asked about jobs, Speaker. In Queensland, Campbell Newman, slashed 14,000 jobs following his commission of cuts; not something he told the people of Queensland about before the election in Queensland. We, on this side of the House, stand for jobs and growth. It went to the core of our budget because we believe in our bones that we have to do everything that we can to secure employment and promote growth and provide for the security of the Australian people. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 5801 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 5801 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 5801 14:38 Ms LIVERMORE 83A Capricornia My question is to the Treasurer: why does Australia have one of the strongest economies in the world; and how will the government's plan for smarter and fairer schools make our economy even stronger? Mr Hockey interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S The member for North Sydney is warned! Abusing the standing orders is something that cannot be tolerated. The Treasurer has the call. 14:39 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley I thank the member for Capricornia for that question, because over the past five years our economy has emerged as one of the strongest developed economies within the global economy. All of this has been achieved in the middle of extraordinary uncertainty: the global financial crisis and all of its aftershocks. You only have to look to Europe and what has occurred there in the last couple of months. We have achieved something very special in this area for Australia. It has been done by choice and not by chance because, if those people opposite would have had their way, they would not have moved to support the economy as we did during the global financial crisis. Because of the actions that we took, we supported employment and we avoided the skill destruction, the capital destruction and the destruction of communities that come from high levels of unemployment and the destruction that it causes to small business. All of that was avoided in this country, giving us the strength to invest for the future to make sure we get the prosperity of tomorrow. Let us just look at some of the facts: our economy is 14 per cent larger than it was at the end of 2007. If those people opposite had had their way this economy would have experienced a recession. In our economy there have been almost one million jobs created over the past five years. We have an unemployment rate of 5.5 per cent, one of the lowest in the developed world, and particularly when you look to Europe where the rate is 12.2 per cent. We have strong public finances. We have a AAA credit rating from the three major global rating agencies with a stable outlook—something never achieved by that mob in 12 years—and of course we have low levels of debt. All of these things say that our economy is in good nick. But what we have to do is to make the investments for the future; make the smart investments for the future. That is why we found the savings in our budget to make the investments in education, investments that the Prime Minister has been talking about today. We understand that the future of productivity growth in this economy is dependent upon the investments we make in the quality of our education today and over the next decade. And that is precisely what we are doing; precisely why we are investing in schools, in New South Wales with a Liberal premier and investing in South Australia. We hope to invest right across our country, but what we have seen here is just how negative the Liberals are when it comes to this fundamental investment in the future of our country. Playing politics with the education of our kids, and nowhere is that worse than in my state of Queensland which badly needs the additional money. The additional $3.8 billion to lift the educational standards in our state. Last week, we saw the Benny Hill routine of the Premier of Queensland in and out of state schools, unable to explain why he is being so difficult and negative when the truth is that he and the Leader of the Opposition are in lock step because they do not believe in investing in our schools. We on this side of the House are up for the future investments which will provide for future prosperity. (Time expired) Clean Energy Finance Corporation 5802 14:42 Mr ROBB FU4 Goldstein My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports that the government's $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which is funded with borrowed money, is set to lend $100 million for an existing wind farm 50 per cent owned by a New Zealand state-owned organisation being readied for privatisation. Given commercial banks reportedly were prepared to lend this money but were outbid by your government's corporation, does the Prime Minister believe that this market intervention is an appropriate priority for the expenditure of tax payers' money? 14:42 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I thank the member for Goldstein for his question. It enables me to get some of the facts on the table. Once again I understand that the opposition is going to start interjecting once the word 'facts' is said because they cannot stand facts, cannot deal with them, because of course they always stand in the way of the fear campaign that the member for Goldstein is trying to run at the instruction of the Leader of the Opposition. I would refer him to the following facts: the Clean Energy Finance Corporation was established almost a year ago and it is now carrying out its legislative mandate to look at clean energy proposals which it can begin to invest in from 1 July. When you look at who is making the decisions at the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, of course, you see people with extensive business experience. In raising these criticisms, the member for Goldstein is effectively insulting them. There has been a resounding positive response to date from the market, demonstrating the positive role that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation can play in providing finance for the clean-energy sector. Indeed, it is recognised by countries overseas as an example of a good way to cartelise clean technology investment. We understand that on that side of politics, amongst their very many plans for wrecking the Australian economy, what they want to introduce into our national economic debate is sovereign risk. What they want to say to responsible business people— Mr Robb FU4 Madam Speaker, on a point of order: we are over halfway through the answer and there has been absolutely nothing of relevance so far by the Prime Minister. She was asked whether it is proper to use borrowed money to outbid commercial banks. The SPEAKER 83S The member for Goldstein will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call. Ms GILLARD 83L Thank you very much. I am asked about what is proper and what is not proper. What is not proper is introducing sovereign risk into our national economic conversation, which is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition and his team are endeavouring to do. We have the Clean Energy Finance Corporation working in accordance with Australian law, making responsible arrangements as a finance corporation guided by leading Australian business people. And to that the Leader of the Opposition says: 'Too bad! If I'm ever Prime Minister then I will trash those arrangements, I will hurt private businesses, I will trash our nation's global economic reputation.' The Leader of the Opposition says he will introduce into our global reputation this element of sovereign risk. Well, it is only one way in which the Leader of the Opposition would hurt the Australian economy, hurt jobs and hurt families. I thank the member for Goldstein for asking this question because this should be the focus of public engagement and public debate: the Leader of the Opposition's plan to trash Australia's reputation as a place to invest, ultimately meaning fewer jobs, less prosperity, less opportunity for Australians and their families. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 5803 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:46 The SPEAKER 83S I welcome to the gallery young Indigenous students who are visiting for the Work Exposure in Government Program. I welcome them to the House this afternoon. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 5803 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Education Funding 5803 14:46 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin My question is to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. What will the National Plan for School Improvement mean for South Australian schools? What are the obstacles in getting this investment to these schools? 14:46 Mr GARRETT HV4 Kingsford Smith I thank the member for his question. In his electorate of Makin alone we have seen over $108 million invested in improving school facilities. We have got trades training centres, some seven of which are in his electorate, and he will have seen the additional investment and support that this Labor government provides across the country but particularly in South Australia. So I welcome the question. We do not want to see any young Australian child left behind at school and now the National Plan for School Improvement is being accepted by premiers around Australia. New South Wales has signed, the Australian Capital Territory has signed, the Australian Education Bill has passed the House, and South Australia has also now signed the National Education Reform Agreement. This plan now covers over 60 per cent of students in our schools. It is about delivering reform which makes a difference, improving teacher quality, making sure that the implementation of the Australian curriculum is accessible to all students and empowering school leadership, particularly principals, who know how their schools should be organised and the resources used as well. This is an important agreement for South Australia because it will see an additional $656 million in base funding and, when you add the certainty of indexation which we are providing, a total injection of over $1 billion—in fact, $1.1 billion—extra into schools in South Australia. That will be especially important in supporting regional and disadvantaged schools. This is about making sure that South Australian schools can move into the top five of school systems in the world as well. It is also about making sure that kids in South Australia reach their full potential. I think that is why the Premier, Jay Weatherill, said: This will, in the long term, make an extraordinary difference to the future prosperity of South Australia and the wellbeing of its citizens. I agree with the Premier. I am asked about obstacles. The fact is that the obstacles to us delivering a fairer funding system with more resources to students around Australia lie with the opposition here in the House of Representatives. It is the member for Sturt, who is the shadow minister, and the Leader of the Opposition who are trying to destroy and frustrate these important education reforms. The fact is now that it is up to the Victorian Premier to stand up for the students in his state and recognise— Mrs Bronwyn Bishop SE4 Madam Speaker, on a point of order: it is quite clear from the Practice that the minister, in trying to describe what is opposition policy, is out of order. It is not directly relevant within the new framework and he should either return to the question or sit down. The SPEAKER 83S The minister has the call. Mr GARRETT HV4 I am happy to address the opposition's statements on education because the member for Sturt is on record as wanting to sack one in seven teachers, the Leader of the Opposition thinks that supporting government schools is an injustice and now they are trying to block $1.1 billion of extra support for students in South Australia. That is what this debate is all about: those opposite— The SPEAKER 83S The minister will resume his seat. The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. Budget 5804 14:50 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that her budget confirms that Labor's waste and mismanagement will cause debt to climb to over $300 billion, leaving us with an interest bill of $12 billion every year. Can the Prime Minister explain why it is her government's priority to pay interest at $35 million a day while it cuts the education spending in the budget by $4.7 billion over the next four years? 14:51 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I do genuinely thank the member for Sturt for his question, which may well be— Mr Garrett HV4 A second question on education. Ms GILLARD 83L the second question he has asked on education in this parliament—and doesn't that tell you everything about the attitude of the opposition. When they were in government they never did anything for Australia's children; never did one thing that has endured for the long term. When we came to government what we inherited was a system where no-one knew what was happening in Australian schools. No-one knew where the most disadvantaged schools were. No-one knew and no-one cared. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Order! The Prime Minister has the call and has the right to be heard— Ms Julie Bishop interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Order, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition; I was in the middle of saying that the Prime Minister has the right to be heard in silence. Ms GILLARD 83L When we came to government there was not a list of the most disadvantaged schools in this country because no-one knew, no-one cared and no-one had bothered to ask. It is this government that has changed the information available on Australian schools because we wanted to know, we desperately cared and that is why we asked. We did not keep that information to ourselves. We put it out there on the My School website for the whole nation to judge. Then we commenced a process of investing in Australian schools, the likes of which have never been seen before in Australia's history: more investments for low-SES schools, for the schools that teach the poorest children; more investments into literacy and numeracy; more investments into teacher quality; the rollout of trades training centres, new school buildings— Mr Pyne 9V5 I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker, on relevance. I asked about the $4.7 billion of cuts in the next four years, which the Prime Minister needs to address. The SPEAKER 83S The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call and will refer to the question before the chair. Ms GILLARD 83L and in equipment. And now of course, there is our plan to invest more in Australian schools than has ever been invested before; a new plan for school improvement which means, compared with the broken funding model of today, a $16.2 billion difference in the contribution of the federal government. Now, to that, does the shadow minister for education have an alternative plan? No. To that, has the shadow minister ever articulated an agenda for reform and improvement of Australian schools of any weight or meaning? Never. Instead, what he has done is wander around peddling false figures including in the parliament today. And why is he peddling false figures? He knows that this government is passionately committed to improving the education of every Australian child. Mr Pyne 9V5 I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would ask the Prime Minister to withdraw the phrase 'peddling false figures', when I am quoting from the budget of the federal government of the $4.7 billion of cuts. The SPEAKER 83S Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call. Ms GILLARD 83L The shadow minister is not quoting the budget—that is the point. Why is the shadow minister out with all of these falsehoods? Well, it is part of his campaign, and the Leader of the Opposition's campaign, to put the politics first. What they do when they are not sitting in this parliament is ring up their conservative mates and say, 'Whatever you do, do not sign onto the government's plan for school education. You have got a Liberal Party ticket in your pocket: put the kids last!' That is what the Leader of the Opposition has been doing, and the shadow minister has been doing, and they should be ashamed of that conduct. (Time expired) Mr Buchholz interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Order! The member for Wright should read the standing orders. Workplace Relations 5805 14:55 Ms SMYTH 172770 La Trobe My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, and Financial Services and Superannuation. Minister, how is the government helping to create good jobs and fairer workplaces, and what are the obstacles to this? 14:55 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the member for La Trobe for her question. Like all of Labor, she supports a plan for jobs and growth, as does our Fair Work Act. It is good to get a chance to talk about what the Fair Work Act is delivering in terms of helping Australian workplaces. I can report to the House that business investment in Australia is up. One in every $5 in the Australian economy is business investment. I can report to the House a 25 per cent increase in the number of new companies registered since the Fair Work Act laws have been in place. I can also report that, whilst the Fair Work Act laws have been in place, the ASX has climbed 17.9 per cent. Interest rates are down. There is reasonable wages growth in Australia, but it is moderate. The number of apprentices and trainees is up. The number of Australians completing higher-level qualifications is up. Indeed, unemployment is steady. I am also pleased to report that productivity has been up for the last nine quarters and also, despite the myth-making from the coalition, the average days lost due to industrial action under Labor is half to one third of what it was under the coalition. So I think that any reasonable objective judgement about the role of the Fair Work laws that our Prime Minister brought into place when she was the minister for employment, shows that they are working. But there are obstacles to this, as I have been asked by the member for La Trobe, I am afraid to say. The obstacles in fact are the coalition. Unfortunately, I have to say in putting forward this proposition that the coalition are an obstacle to better workplace laws—have a look at the voting record when they come here. Thursday a week ago, to my disappointment I might add, they voted against new laws to protect people against workplace bullying. They voted against family-friendly provisions to request leave. And to complete a trifecta, they voted against roster protection. All this comes on top of the opposition leader's proposition that he wants to introduce a great big new tax on 3½ million Australian workers where they pay tax on their superannuation contributions because they earn less than $37,000. Unfortunately, it is not only their voting record here; it is their actions elsewhere when they get into power. I have never seen a state coalition government who does not like to fight with their ambulance officers, with their firefighters, with their teachers or with their nurses. The coalition, whenever they get to power, are genetically disposed to attacking their own employees. Of course it does not just stop at their actions or their voting record. Have a look at the instructions that the coalition are receiving here in this place from elsewhere. The cat was belled again today in the pages of TheAustralian by none other than Premier Denis Napthine who basically accused the opposition of not going far enough on industrial relations. That is what you will get if the coalition is successful on 14 September: individual contracts at the heart of workplace relations under the coalition. Asylum Seekers 5806 14:59 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that illegal arrivals by boat are now 1,000 times higher than in 2008, when the Rudd government abolished the policies of temporary protection visas, the Pacific solution and turning back boats where it was safe to do so. Does the Prime Minister now accept that Prime Minister Rudd's decision to abolish the Howard government's successful border protection policies was a mistake, or does she stand by her support for his government's change of policy? 14:59 Ms GILLARD ( 83L Lalor — ) ( ): To the deputy leader's question: what this government does is deal with the advice of experts and deal with the world in which we live. We do not pretend a different world exists. The Leader of the Opposition's policies and plans depend on believing a different world exists. For example, the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have been out pretending to the Australian people that they can somehow turn boats back and get an agreement with Indonesia to do so. Well, since the parliament last sat, the falsehood of this— Mr Abbott EZ5 Madam Speaker, on a point of order: the question was about the world the Prime Minister has created, and she should address specifically that question. The SPEAKER 83S The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Opposition members interjecting — The SPEAKER 83S Order! When I have silence, the Prime Minister has the call. Ms GILLARD 83L Thank you very much. To the Leader of the Opposition's point of order and the deputy leader's question: what the government does is create policies guided by the facts and guided by the experts. We have been guided by people like the former Chief of the Defence Force, Angus Houston. What we have hit in this parliament is the relentless negativity of the opposition that, in choosing between the national interest of Australia and a bit of cheap political advantage, went for the cheap political advantage and voted for more boats. Now what they are doing is peddling falsehoods out in the Australian community. Since this parliament last sat, the Vice President of Indonesia has made it absolutely clear that the false claims by the opposition to have some agreement with Indonesia that they can return boats to Indonesia are simply untrue. Then, even more recently, the former chief admiral, someone who would know something— Opposition members interjecting — Ms GILLARD 83L I know this is uncomfortable for the opposition: a former Defence Force leader, Admiral Chris Barrie, has spoken on turning boats back and has spoken about the dangers for Defence Force personnel. So to the deputy leader's question: what she is asking me to do and asking the government to do is to pretend that you can make Indonesia do things when the statements of a sovereign nation are clear on the record. What she is asking me to do is to reject the advice of senior personnel and former personnel like Chris Barrie about the dangers to Defence Force officers in endeavouring to turn boats back. Well, that world of falsehood lies over there in the opposition. For us, what we would want to be able to do is come to this parliament and get consent from this parliament to fully implement the expert panel's recommendations. But of course the Leader of the Opposition, in the deep embrace of negativity, will continue to vote for more boats time after time after time. Infrastructure 5807 15:03 Ms SAFFIN HVY Page My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government. Minister, how is the government getting on with its plan for nation-building infrastructure, including the Pacific Highway in my electorate of Page, and how does this plan for infrastructure compare with other proposals? 15:03 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question. Indeed, just last week, together we announced more than half a billion dollars for the necessary preconstruction work on the Woolgoolga to Ballina section of the Pacific Highway—just a part of our record $7.9 billion that we have committed. This section of preconstruction is fifty-fifty funded between the Commonwealth and New South Wales. We are also getting on with the job of upgrading the Bruce Highway, and last Wednesday I was also in Queensland. I was there to begin construction on section A of Cooroy to Curra, a vital project—$790 million shared between the Commonwealth and the state government. The Leader of the Opposition asks his deputy, the Leader of the Nationals, whether he was there. No, he was not. He did not turn up to the sod-turn at the beginning of construction, just as he did not turn up at the announcement of funding, the beginning of construction, the completing of construction or the opening of section B in his electorate. So I thought: 'Fair enough. He's probably been pretty busy working on policy.' I saw a bit of policy from those opposite on 14 June—last week. The South Coast Register had the headline 'Abbott show rolls into town'. It says—this is a direct quote: If we are elected we will form an organisation called Infrastructure Australia … Well, there's a thought! There's an idea! Why didn't we think of that? Then he went on to say this: … which will do its best to rationally and scientifically look at the various infrastructure projects and rank the best on public cost benefit … There's another idea! Why didn't we think of that? Melbourne Metro—we did it. It is on the list. Cross River Rail—it is on the list. All 15 out of 15 projects are on the list, and we are funding them, and this bloke is telling state governments: 'No, don't accept the money. Stick with the Bombay solution on Cross River Rail of removing seats so people can stand up.' Mr Pyne 9V5 Madam Speaker, on a point of order: before the Leader of the House blows a gasket, I will slow him down. But, to be relevant, surely he needs to explain whether the NBN underwent a cost-benefit analysis as part of Infrastructure Australia. The SPEAKER 83S The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. That was a complete abuse of a point of order. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S It was not a good point of order, actually; it was an absolute abuse of points of order. Mr ALBANESE R36 This quote goes on: … then all levels of governments will be able to fund what they choose to be the one that makes most sense. So we have cost-benefit analysis. We have Infrastructure Australia. We have the system set up which doesn't say, 'We fund roads but we don't fund rail.' It says you do proper analysis and that you don't have bias according to mode. That is precisely what we have done. It is precisely the good policy structure that we have set up. This bloke has not noticed that we have been funding public transport in our capital cities and urban centres. He also has not noticed Infrastructure Australia; so, to help him, I table the national infrastructure priority list, which has on it the NBN— (Time expired) 15:07 Ms SAFFIN HVY Page Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, could you provide some more detail on the preconstruction works on the Pacific Highway, including other proposals? 15:07 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for that very good supplementary question. Indeed, it gives me the opportunity to talk about the national infrastructure priority list. Those opposite raise issues of what the priorities should be and raise in interjections the NBN. Here is the list of Australia's national infrastructure priorities. What is No. 1? A national broadband network. It is dated May 2009. It was part of our budget proposals, but those opposite do not pay any attention to details, even when it is the Pacific Highway, where the member for Cowper did not bother to turn up to the Kempsey bypass opening—remember that: $613 million of Commonwealth money, not one cent of state government money, and not one cent from the Nats when they were in government. They saved it all for the ad, trying to take credit. The Leader of the Nationals described the Cooroy-to-Curra section that we are funding and for which construction of the next section started last Wednesday as 'the worst road in Australia'. The worst road in Australia is in his electorate, and he did nothing about it. We are getting on with the job of funding infrastructure, whether it be the Hume Highway duplication, the Pacific Highway or the Bruce Highway. Ms Gillard 83L I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. Mr Pyne 9V5 Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under the standing orders, in terms of the time limits for debates et cetera, question time is supposed to finish at 3.10 or after 20 questions have been asked. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was on her feet before 3.10, and 20 questions have not been asked, so on what basis is the Prime Minister cutting off question time? The SPEAKER 83S The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 5809 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:09 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 83S Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HAWKE HWO Yes, I have been misrepresented. The SPEAKER 83S The member for Mitchell has the call. Mr HAWKE HWO During debate on 5 June 2013 the Attorney-General said: The member for Mitchell also made the claim during debate that the government has committed $21.6 million to a campaign to support the yes vote at the referendum. This is simply not true. What the government has committed to—and this is set out in the budget papers—is $10 million to fund a neutral, non-partisan civics education campaign. What I said was absolutely true, and today the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport released a press release where he announced $10 million for the yes case, not for a non-partisan civics campaign, as the Attorney-General said. So, when I made my remarks to the House, I fully and accurately represented the situation in relation to the government's commitment. 15:10 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 83S Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr PYNE 9V5 I do. The SPEAKER 83S Please proceed. Mr PYNE 9V5 Unfortunately, in question time today I was twice misrepresented, first by the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, who yet again claimed that I wanted to sack one in seven teachers. I point out again to the House that the federal government does not run any schools and does not employ any teachers, so it is not possible to do so. He should stop making up this completely false claim. Second, the Prime Minister also in question time today claimed that I was peddling false numbers about cuts to education. I simply refer the House to the budget, where there are cuts of $4.7 billion to education, universities, apprenticeships and training, and early childhood. 15:11 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 83S Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr ROBERT HWT I was. The SPEAKER 83S Please proceed. Mr ROBERT HWT In question time today the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Science and Personnel claimed erroneously that the coalition has no policy in terms of veterans, which includes me. This is the only side of parliament that will index DFO— The SPEAKER 83S The member for Fadden will resume his seat. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 5810 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Reports Nos 43 to 45 of 2012-13 5810 15:12 The SPEAKER 83S I present the Auditor-General’s Audit reports for 2012-2013 entitled No. 43, Establishment, implementation and administration of the general component of the Local Jobs stream of the Jobs Fund: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, No. 44, Management and reporting of Goods and Services Tax and Fringe Benefits Tax information: Australian Taxation Office, and No. 45, Cross-agency coordination of employment programs: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations; Department of Human Services. Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers. COMMITTEES 5810 COMMITTEES Intelligence and Security Committee 5810 Membership 5810 15:12 The SPEAKER 83S I have received a letter from the honourable member for Melbourne Ports resigning his position on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and advice from the Honourable the Prime Minister nominating a member to be a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. 15:12 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Intelligence Services Act 2001, Mr Jenkins be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Question agreed to. BILLS 5810 BILLS Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2013 5810

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2013

Reference to Federation Chamber 5810 15:13 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler by leave—I move: That the bill be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 5810 BUSINESS Days and Hours of Meeting 5810 15:14 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler by leave—I move: That the resolution agreed to on Thursday, 6 June 2013, relating to the time for the sitting tomorrow, Tuesday, 18 June 2013, be varied to provide for the House to meet at 12 noon, and for the Federation Chamber to meet from 12.10 p.m. I do that at the request from the opposition because the government is always happy to accommodate reasonable requests from the opposition on the infrequent occasions in which they come. Question agreed to. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 5811 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS National Road Safety Strategy 2011-20 5811 15:15 Ms KING 00AMR Ballarat by leave—Today I give my second annual statement to the House on progress in delivering a vital national initiative—the National Road Safety Strategy 2011-20. The strategy aims to cut the annual number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads by at least 30 per cent by 2020. It is an ambitious target. Australians recognise the absolute importance of achieving this target, and this understanding underlies the commitment of all Australian governments to delivering the strategy. The Gillard government is proud to have played a major part in forming the strategy in 2011 and to have a major role in delivering it. The strategy is multidimensional, because there is no single solution to improving road safety. The strategy covers 59 priority action items in four cornerstone areas: safe roads, safe speeds, safe vehicles, and safe people. These themes encompass the need for both the safer design of roads and vehicles, and the safer behaviour of drivers, passengers, pedestrians and other road users. The Australian government is responsible under the strategy for allocating agreed infrastructure resources to the national highway and local road networks, and for regulating safety standards for new vehicles. Minister Albanese and I emphasised at the launch of the strategy that this target of a 30 per cent reduction in fatalities, and also—equally importantly—a 30 per cent reduction in serious injuries, was challenging but achievable, and it remains so. In 2012, 1,309 people died on Australia's roads—2.5 per cent more than the number of road deaths recorded in 2011. The 2012 increase is incredibly disappointing. However, I do want to emphasise that it runs counter to the long-term downward trend in national road fatalities and still represents a significant 8.2 per cent reduction relative to the strategy's baseline period of 2008 to 2010. Furthermore, all states and territories achieved reductions in road fatalities compared with the strategy baseline, and road deaths decreased across most age groups and road user categories. Unfortunately, the main exception to this pattern involves people aged 60 years and over. In 2012, fatalities among this older group were up by 19 per cent, relative to the baseline period, and while it is premature to see this as an emerging trend, it is clearly an issue that warrants further examination. Despite the encouraging gains overall, the level of death and injury on Australia's roads remains unacceptable and underlines the need for continuing efforts by all governments to implement the priority actions of the national strategy. I particularly want to take the opportunity to recognise in this place the role that local government played last night at the Australian Council of Local Government awards. We recognised, at the ALGA awards, that the Dungog, Maitland and Port Stephens councils received not only the national road safety award for local government, but also the overall national award for some fantastic work that they have done in their local communities on motorcycle safety. In fact, during the six months that they have had the program in place, they have not had a single motorcycle accident, and I want to acknowledge that. I now want to turn particularly to the progress the Commonwealth has made in our specific areas of responsibility under the strategy. Over many decades, the Australian government has administered the Australian Design Rules, which have underpinned the safer design of Australian road vehicles. All road vehicles, whether newly manufactured in Australia or imported as new or second-hand vehicles, must in general comply with the relevant ADRs at the time of manufacture and supply to the Australian market. As part of its commitment under the strategy, the Australian government is pursuing significantly improved road vehicle design in several areas. We have streamlined the harmonisation of the ADRs with international standards, and we will continue to work closely with our international counterparts to ensure we progress improved safety measures in vehicle regulations that can be applied internationally. Until recently, this has been a position supported by both sides of the House. In addition to improving the safety of vehicles through changes to national standards, the Australian government continues to support complementary safety measures—particularly since becoming a member of the Australasian New Car Assessment Program, ANCAP, in May 2010. Labor is proud to be the first federal government to join ANCAP as an actual member. We have provided ANCAP with $4.95 million in the period 2009-10 to 2013-14, which aims to increase ANCAP's crash test program and research and development. I think it is a tribute both to the funding and to ANCAP's work that it has become the driver of consumer concerns in safety and one of the components that people look for on the purchase of a new vehicle. On recent figures, around 98 per cent of the vehicles rated by ANCAP have four or five star ratings. The Australian government has also mandated seatbelt reminder systems, set requirements for ISOFIX child restraint systems and improved the standards for electric bicycles. Our work is now focused on mandatory electronic stability control and brake assist systems. In April this year, I released for public comment a proposal to make ESC compulsory for new light commercial vehicles, such as utilities and goods vans, and to make BAS standard in light passenger and light commercial vehicles. In parallel with these efforts, the Australian government's work on the introduction of anti-lock braking systems for heavy trucks, trailers and buses is now well advanced. This work, which forms part of phase 1 of the National Heavy Vehicle Braking Strategy, is an important step in bringing more modern braking systems into Australia's heavy vehicles. It is also very encouraging that peak industry bodies are developing a code of practice to help operators optimise the performance of different braking technologies when combining trucks and trailers together. Consistent with the National Road Safety Strategy, the government envisages that the next phase of the National Heavy Vehicle Braking Strategywill consider even more advanced braking technology such as ESC systems. While we often and understandably think of road safety mainly in domestic terms, it also has important international dimensions. Australia's National Road Safety Strategy coincides with the UN Decade of Action for Road Safety, and around 90 per cent of the world's road fatalities—which exceed 1.2 million—are suffered by low- and middle-income countries. Australia is seen as a world leader in road safety for our significant achievements in reducing road trauma over several decades. Countries in our region often look to us for assistance and expertise in developing their own responses to this immense public health issue. Australia is the largest donor to the World Bank's Global Road Safety Facility. We contribute to regional road safety measures through international forums such as APEC, and we are delivering safety improvements through our aid-funded infrastructure programs in developing countries. Australia has also participated very strongly in the development of international vehicle standards by the United Nations World Forum on Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. Australia has led the development of a Global Technical Regulation on Pole Side Impact—the first time Australia has led development of an international vehicle standard. It is one that impacts on Australian motorists very heavily. Side impacts with poles, trees and other narrow objects account for over 20 per cent of the Australian road toll and for a large number of serious head injuries. This new standard will require strong protective measures for vehicle occupants, including curtain airbags, which will be beneficial in all side impacts. I am confident that the GTR will be adopted by the UN forum and that it will be incorporated into future Australian design rules. Infrastructure Investment Improving safety through investment in the nation's road infrastructure is a critical element of the strategy. The Australian government has made major investments in Australia's highway and other road infrastructure under the Nation Building Program. The government's expenditure on roads between 2008-09 and 2013-14 will total over $20.5 billion. This investment has built and upgraded around 7,500 kilometres of road, resulting in a marked improvement in the condition and safety of our highways. The Australian Automobile Association considers that the proportion of the National Road Network rated 'high risk' has fallen substantially since 2007. The second phase of the Nation Building Program will maintain the momentum of this investment. The Black Spot Program, which targets road locations with recurrent crashes, will continue as part of the Nation Building Program until at least 2019. An amount of $300 million will be provided over five years from 1 July 2014. Since 2008-09, more than 2,000 sites have been approved for funding, and this extension will fix a further 1,200 black spot areas. The Australian government established the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program as part of the Nation Building Program, to improve the safety and productivity outcomes of heavy vehicle operations across Australia. Funding has been applied to a range of projects to provide new or upgraded heavy vehicle rest areas and new or upgraded parking or decoupling bays, and projects which enhance the capacity and safety of roads and bridges and also saleyards for livestock to allow better access by heavier, high productivity vehicles to the road network. The 2013-14 budget provided a further $100 million for heavy vehicle related projects under the next tranche of the Nation Building Program. This will bring total funding between 2012-13 and 2018-19 to over $250 million. Seatbelts on Regional School Buses The strategy also calls for governments to address the risks to children on school bus routes. For its part, the Australian government runs the highly successful Seatbelts on Regional School Buses program, which aims to increase the number of school buses equipped with seatbelts for students in rural and regional areas. The program provides school bus operators with funding to fit seatbelts to new buses or to retrofit existing buses. I am pleased to see some movement from state governments on this issue. In April this year, I approved grants for a further 115 buses under the government's scheme, which has now provided total funding to date of $7.5 million to install seatbelts on 421 buses across bus routes in regional Australia. Driveway Safety One issue that has been very dear to my heart has been the problem of children being killed or injured by vehicles around the home. It is a matter of particular urgency. My department is working with a wide range of stakeholders to produce a set of voluntary building design guidelines to help protect young children—in particular—from the risk of vehicle run-overs in home driveways and related areas. I am planning to release a public discussion paper on this work by the end of June. Yesterday I also announced that my department is now undertaking the first stage of an international study into the effectiveness of reversing cameras as a means of reducing reversing crashes, including those leading to driveway deaths and injury of young children. National Road Safety Forum In August last year I also had the pleasure of hosting a very successful National Road Safety Forum at Parliament House in Canberra, engaging with a wide range of stakeholders in a national discussion on road safety issues. Ministers of the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure have since agreed to convene the forum annually. The 2013 forum will be held in Hobart next month and will focus on vulnerable road users, including pedestrians and motor cycle riders. Implementation Progress The Commonwealth and other jurisdictions are closely monitoring progress in delivering the strategy against high-level outcome measures and specific performance indicators. In November last year, transport ministers published a report on the implementation status of the strategy. The report found that there was a considerable amount of work underway to implement the strategy, and that good progress had been made in several areas. These areas include improving safety standards for new vehicles; the delivery of infrastructure programs addressing major crash problems and vulnerable groups; and stronger speed enforcement and compliance programs. However, we still need to strengthen efforts to ensure that sufficient action is being undertaken to deliver the strategy. At the most recent meeting of the transport ministers in May, I called on all governments to reaffirm their commitment to improving road safety by strengthening all of their efforts to implement the key priority action areas highlighted in the strategy. Ministers noted that progress remains limited in a number of key areas including the introduction of point-to-point speed camera enforcement for all vehicles, which is highlighted in the strategy as a very effective road safety measure. At that meeting I also raised concerns about the continuing lack of national data on serious injury crashes, due to major inconsistencies in the way states and territories define a serious injury crash. This significantly limits our capacity to properly monitor and analyse national road safety trends. The Bureau of Infrastructure Transport and Regional Economics within my department, in cooperation with state and territory agencies, has developed a national road crash database to support measures of progress against the targets for both fatal and serious injury. This national crash database was used in the last implementation status report for the strategy to produce fatality measures against most of the strategy's indicators. There is in-principle agreement among transport ministers to include serious injury measures once an adequate source of national serious injury data is established. I encourage all states and territories to continue with that work. A comprehensive review of the national strategy and progress towards the target will be undertaken in 2014. The review will be an important element in ensuring we stay on track to achieve the aims of the strategy and reduce fatalities and serious injuries by at least 30 per cent over the decade. I am pleased to have been able to bring a number of developments in that vital area to the attention of the House. I present a copy of my ministerial statement, and I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Gippsland to speak for 15 minutes. Leave granted. Ms KING 00AMR I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Gippsland speaking in reply to the minister's statement for a period not exceeding 15 minutes. Question agreed to. 15:30 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland In rising, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the ministerial statement on the progress of the National Road Safety Strategy. In doing so, I would like to stress the largely bipartisan nature of the political debate right across Australia in relation to the urgent need to reduce the impact of road trauma in our community. In that spirit of bipartisanship, I would like to congratulate the minister on her appointment as the Minister for Road Safety. As others in the industry have remarked, it will certainly help to elevate the issue of road safety to a new level in the Commonwealth and I commend the minister for her efforts in that regard. As a regionally based MP, something I share with the member for Ballarat, I think we have a shared concern about the disproportionate number of rural and regional road users who continue to die or are seriously injured on our roads, both on our regional highways and on our local road networks. I think it is also a source of enormous anguish for you, Deputy Speaker, in your regional electorate that people in our regional communities continue to suffer a disproportionate amount. It troubles me deeply that although the overall road toll has reduced across Australia in recent years, the regional road toll has not responded at the same rate. This is despite not only the very good efforts of community groups and local government, which the minister referred to in her report, but also of state governments and now the federal government. I think it remains an enormous challenge for us all to confront in this place, but particularly the regional members on both sides of the chamber. The minister was right to make the point that the issue of road safety is not a simple one. It is not just about increased enforcement activities by police, although that is important. It is not just about improved driver behaviour, although we do know that distraction, excessive speed, use of mobile phones and so forth, and drink-driving are all important issues. And it is not just about building safer roads or having safer vehicles. It is a combination of all of these factors and about making sure we do as much as we possibly can do right in the interests of reducing road trauma wherever possible. There is a very complex equation or sequence of events that can contribute to a road accident occurring—or can contribute to a road accident not occurring through prevention measures that have been put in place in the first place. On top of that, there is the equally complex equation that will decide how serious the injuries are of the people who have been involved in that accident: whether there has been an appropriate road treatment put in place to minimise the level of damage to a vehicle, whether there are emergency services available in a time effective manner, whether in fact there are mobile phone services available for people to seek help in the first place. These are all part of this complex equation about whether we can prevent accidents and, when they do occur, how we minimise the damage—obviously to the people involved but also to the broader economy. It is by no means a simple issue that we are talking about here today and there are no simple answers or silver bullets in relation to the road toll. As the minister indicated in her progress report, there has been some good news and some bad news in relation to the key target of the National Road Safety Strategy to reduce the annual number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads by at least 30 per cent by 2020. In 2012 more than 1,300 people died on Australian roads, which is a 2.5 per cent increase in the number of deaths that were recorded in 2011. Thankfully, it is contrary to the longer term trend of reductions in the overall toll. But the obvious question for this place is: are the reductions, are the improvements, happening fast enough? Are we doing everything we possibly or reasonably can as a nation to save ourselves from that enormous economic cost of road trauma, which is estimated at more than $27 billion per year—and that is quite aside from the very significant social costs as lives are shattered and loved ones are left to grieve. Personally, I believe we can do better. In fact, we must do better if we are to reclaim our place as a world leader on road safety. That is not just my view; to quote from the National road safety strategy 2011-2020: Over the past several decades, Australia has earned an international reputation as a model country in many areas of road safety intervention. But the overall performance in recent times has not kept pace with the achievements of other developed countries, and there is a need for a major shift in thinking by governments and the community. Against international levels our relative performance has fallen. If there was a road safety Olympics, we would not win a medal at the moment. That is a concern for a nation that has a very proud record in relation to road safety. If we had a road safety Olympics right now, Australia would not feature in the medals. I am not by any stretch trying to disparage the efforts made by this government or by people in our community, but I believe it is time for us to reset the clock on the road toll and to raise our aspirations. That is our challenge here today: how are we going to implement the programs and projects that we know work, and also when are we going to encourage innovation to make improvements wherever possible? I fear that, as a community, we have become perhaps complacent or perhaps just accepting of the road toll. We seem to be almost resigned to the fact that accidents will always happen and there is not much we can do about it. I beg to differ, and I think there is more we can do and we must never rest in that regard. That is also the view of industry stakeholders, who I am sure the minister has met with and discussed this issue with. They have the view as well that there is more we can do to reduce both the prevalence of accidents and the severity of those accidents when they do occur. I have had the opportunity to meet over the past two years with peak motoring bodies and leading researchers in this space, and they argue to me there is more we can do and that we must do more in reducing the toll, particularly that severe economic impact of $27 billion per year to the national economy and obviously, as I said earlier, the severe emotional impact on people who have lost loved ones on our roads. I stress that my comments are not intended in any way to be a criticism of the minister or the current government at a federal level. As I said at the outset, I believe the minister's appointment has helped to give prominence to this issue at a national level, but I think we can do more. I am confident that if there is a coalition government after September it will aim to continue to provide national leadership on road safety with a focus on, as the minister correctly said, building safer roads, supporting the rollout of safer vehicles and promoting improved driver behaviour. While the nation's road toll has steadily fallen from nearly 2,900 deaths in 1982 to 1,300 in 2012, I want a new coalition government to recognise that more needs to be done to reduce that road toll and to reduce the number of serious injuries from vehicle accidents. I have taken the advice of key stakeholders across the nation and I share their view that there must be a more holistic approach from governments to reducing road trauma in recognition of the social and economic impacts we have already referred to across the entire community. Across the broad range of government departments there needs to be renewed focus on reducing the public health impacts of road trauma and leading the public debate on road safety initiatives with a partnership approach across all levels of government, the research agencies, community groups, vehicle manufacturers and other stakeholders. At the moment I think we see the issue of road safety through the paradigms of the new Minister for Road Safety or through the ministry of transport but there is no doubt that the issue of road safety plays out across a whole range of government departments, including the department of health, and there are issues that should be dealt with by the minister for youth and issues that need to be dealt with by the minister for Indigenous affairs. We need to take a more holistic approach and develop strategies to ensure that all government departments and ministries with a relevant role in road safety take up the responsibility and take up the challenge of reducing the impact of the road toll on our community. I am concerned that at the moment there is too much confusion and duplication of effort in relation to road safety. I recognise that different jurisdictions have the right to have different approaches to road safety but there is confusion within our community at the moment relating to the inconsistency in the graduated licensing system, the safety messages across state borders, the enforcement programs and the road laws themselves, which vary too much across state borders. I would be hopeful, if not confident, that in the future it may be possible for us to do the research and develop a best practice model in relation to road safety and then encourage all jurisdictions to roll out the best practice model in a coordinated and cohesive manner. As it stands today, if Australians move across state or even territory borders here in the ACT, they face a confusing range of laws, regulations and penalties, particularly when it comes to the systems adopted for learner and P-plate drivers. There is an inconsistency between the ACT and New South Wales about the speeds that learner drivers are allowed to drive at. It is ridiculous that in the 21st century we cannot come up with a best practice model and ensure that it is implemented right across our nation. I take up the minister's references earlier to the government's record in relation to improving the safety of roads because the coalition itself also has a proud record in terms of investing in the safety of our road network. It was the coalition that initiated the Roads to Recovery program more than a decade ago. Also the coalition took a policy to the last election for bridge renewals, which I think is an important initiative. We support the government in its efforts in relation to black spots and its commitment to invest in more rest areas. These are policy commitments that the coalition has made and the government has also been implementing over the past five years. I think it is foolish for any minister—and I am certainly not referring to the Minister for Road Safety—to stand in this place and suggest that previous governments did nothing. The coalition government did invest in improving our road network. I find it sometimes reckless of ministers, like the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, to claim that the coalition did nothing in relation to investing in the road network. No government ever does nothing. No government ever sets out to not improve the lot of the Australian people. I think it was reckless for the minister for transport to make those types of claims because I know that the former minister for transport worked diligently in his role to improve road safety across the nation within the confines of the budgetary circumstances he was faced with. I also note the campaign by various Australian motoring organisations. I am sure many other members in this place have been inundated with demands from their constituents for more funding for road improvements. I support those associations in their efforts because we recognise that investing in safer roads and improving the safety of the road environment will save lives. I commend the government for the improvements it has made in that space and recognise that the former coalition government worked diligently in that regard as well. I recently made some comments in this place—and I think the minister may have made some thinly veiled reference to this in her report—in relation to the message we need to send to international vehicle manufacturers. I think a couple of weeks ago now I referred to the fact that I consider it important that any future coalition government sends a message to vehicle manufacturers throughout the world that we consider safety to be the highest priority when it comes to new vehicles. It remains my personal view that we should ban the importation of any vehicle that is sold in volume in Australia that does not achieve a minimum of three-star—preferably four-star—ANCAP safety rating. The current government has quite rightly moved to a position where its own fleet of light passenger vehicles must achieve a five-star ANCAP safety rating. I congratulate the government for that move because we know that having safer vehicles on our roads can lower the road toll. I think we should be sending a signal now to the international vehicle manufacturing market that in a specified time in the future we do not intend to keep allowing the importation of vehicles that have comparatively low ANCAP safety ratings. It is a view that some in the industry have strongly endorsed since I made those comments. I note that the minister herself in her comments here today strongly endorsed the fact that safer vehicles do matter. I commend the work the government is doing in relation to its support for ANCAP, which will allow the authority to test more vehicles, and the government's desire to see the rollout of new technologies, such as the electronic stability control system and the brake assist systems. I am concerned about the relatively poor performance in terms of safety ratings of some of the vehicles that are on sale in Australia at the moment. I believe we can send a message to the international market that in the future Australia will be encouraging all vehicles on sale in Australia to achieve a higher ANCAP safety rating. As the minister rightfully acknowledged in her progress report, there are 59 action items in the National Road Safety Strategy across the four cornerstone areas of safe roads, safe speeds, safe vehicles and safe people. It is important that the minister come to the House and report on the success or otherwise of the strategy because everyone in this place has a genuine concern for the amount of road trauma in our communities and what steps are being taken at the federal level to reduce that wherever possible. In conclusion, I finish where I started. I believe that elevating the issue of road safety in our national debate is an important measure. I commend the government for the work it has done in that regard. I welcome the minister's progress report. I commit the coalition to continuing to work in a bipartisan manner wherever possible to further the goals of the National Road Safety Strategy in the interests of saving lives and in the interests of reducing trauma and delivering economic benefits to all Australians. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HVY I thank the honourable member for Gippsland for his contribution and the Minister for Road Safety for her statement. COMMITTEES 5820 COMMITTEES Corporations and Financial Services Committee 5820 Report 5820 15:44 Ms O'NEILL 140651 Robertson On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Regulatory framework for tax (financial) advice services, previously Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Bill 2013 Schedules 3 and 4, together with the evidence received by the committee. In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper. Ms O'NEILL 140651 by leave—This inquiry was based on schedules 3 and 4 to the first reading version of the Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Bill 2013. These schedules proposed amendments to the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 that would bring financial advisers who provide tax advice into the tax agent regulatory regime overseen by the Tax Practitioners Board. The proposed amendments that the committee has been tasked with reviewing will be an important regulatory change. It is clear that bringing financial advisers who provide tax advice into the existing regulatory regime will strengthen the overall regulatory environment that applies to tax advisory services. The changes would mean that all tax advice that is provided for a fee or other reward would be consistently regulated, regardless of whether it is provided by a tax agent, a BAS agent or a financial adviser. This is important because consumers of these services simply expect to go to the service providers within that sector and find a standard that is consistent, regardless of who it is they interact with. The enactment of these measures will complete a process that has been many years in the making. It will end the need for the financial advisers' carve-out from the Tax Agent Services Act which has been in place since 2010 and reviewed on an annual basis. The most important outcome of the changes, however, is the further protection for consumers they will provide. If the proposed measures in this report, and in the bill, are enacted, financial advisers who provide tax advice will need to meet a new standard of relevant qualifications and experience. Accordingly, consumers of tax advice can be confident that the standard of advice they receive is of a similar professional standard to that provided by registered tax agents. It needs to be recognised that these measures have not suddenly been announced and thrust onto the industry, despite what may be said in the explanation of the dissenting report. It is clear that there has been ongoing consultation with the industry since the measures were first proposed in 2010. For those who would like to find the detail, we have very clearly set out the dates when that period of interaction occurred in our report in a quite full and very clear tabled manner. Importantly, the measures include a generous three-year transitional arrangement, with the full regime not commencing until 1 July 2016. The transitional arrangements mean that, for an 18-month period from 1 July 2013, financial advisers could effectively continue to provide services in the same manner as they do today. I do want to stress that the length of the transition period is three years, so any sense of creating alarm about a sudden change here is misrepresenting the reality of what this legislation seeks to do. It is also important to be aware that industry participants are genuinely supportive of the overall policy intent. The Financial Services Council, which certainly did have some reservations, stated in its submission that the FSC is supportive of the amendment of the Tax Agent Services Act to create a specific and appropriate type of tax adviser which is congruent with the tax advice a financial adviser gives in the context of financial planning. The FSC is supportive of the regime on the basis that increased advice-provider competency is a public good. It will enhance the quality and value an advice provider delivers to their client. The Financial Planning Association of Australia also noted the benefits that the regulatory changes will have. At the committee's public hearing, the FPA's chief executive officer stated that: The FPA understands and supports consumer protection objectives of the tax agent services regime, which include firstly that providers of tax advice are appropriately and adequately trained; secondly, that proper complaints handling and redress is available to consumers; thirdly, that enforceable ethical and professional conduct requirements are imposed on providers; and, finally, a strong regulatory oversight in relation to the Australian tax law system. While the industry accepts the policy intent, the committee acknowledges that the industry had some concerns about the detail. After taking evidence from key industry organisations and Treasury at a public hearing, the committee has made some recommendations in its report that are intended to minimise any burden on industry participants during the three-year transition period that lies ahead. These recommendations, and the evidence provided by Treasury and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, should help allay concerns about any of the measures in the bill. The committee has recommended that the measures be reintroduced into the parliament and passed. The committee would also like to highlight the urgency that is required in this regard. If the current regulatory exemption from the Tax Agent Services Act that exists for financial advisers expires on 30 June—this month—without a suitable replacement being enacted, a significant burden will be imposed on the industry. As the chief executive officer of the Financial Services Council, Mr John Brogden, told the committee: The worst outcome of all would be if the legislation did not proceed in any form, because that would leave the financial advice industry in a perilous situation where an enormous number of advisers simply would be in breach and be unable to comply. That is not an acceptable environment for Australians and their financial advice. The committee shares Mr Brogden's view that such a result would be unacceptable. The enactment of these measures prior to 1 July 2013 not only would prevent this clearly undesirable outcome but also would commence a three-year transition to a better regulatory environment, one that is absolutely and clearly focused on consumer protection and ensuring the provision of quality taxation advice. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the organisations that lodged submissions and the witnesses who gave evidence at the committee's public hearing, particularly given the short period of time in which the inquiry was conducted. I stress once again the general agreement across the profession about the need for this legislation to go forward and for care in the transition period to be attended to, if necessary through amendments and certainly through consultation and ongoing discussion with relevant agencies and regulatory authorities. I commend the report to the House. 15:53 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield by leave—I am pleased to rise to make some brief comments in relation to the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services into the provisions which were previously to be schedules 3 and 4 of the Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Bill. This is yet another episode of a disorganised government in a desperate scramble to get legislation through before a deadline which it has known has existed for three years. Indeed, this is also another inglorious episode where the government's standards of consultation with industry have been highly deficient. The only reason that this inquiry into this bill was held was that the coalition pointed out some of the serious flaws in the schedules to the bill as they were going through the House of Representatives a couple of weeks ago. The government reluctantly agreed to excise the schedules and allow time for a committee inquiry by the corporations and financial services committee. Coalition members of the committee have only had our concerns increased through the consultation that we have done through the committee process. It is our view that the burden of proof, which the government would need to discharge if it were to demonstrate that it is prudent to rush ahead with the provisions in their current form, should be adopted. That burden of proof has not been discharged. We are in the unfortunate position where there are now less than two weeks to go before the changes proposed by the government, which would move financial advisers into the Tax Agent Services Act regime, and yet there remain some very serious questions about the provisions of the legislation. I will briefly highlight some of the most serious of those concerns. The first is that there has been insufficient consideration by and consultation with industry. Although it is now more than three years since the Tax Agent Services Act took effect, for much of that period there has been very little consultation occurring. A time line provided by the Financial Planning Association showed that no material consultation occurred in either 2011 or 2012. Draft legislation was exposed for the first time for consultation in February 2013, but it was only when the schedules were tabled in the bill before parliament on 29 May 2013 that industry participants were able to see key provisions, including a definition setting out the scope of the advice which would be the subject of the regulatory regime that would take effect by reason of the passing of this legislation. It is uncontested by witnesses with different perspectives that there remains considerable work to be done before the details of this legislation are nailed down. For example, Mr Drum of CPA Australia said to the committee last week: Some of the matters raised here quite rightly identify that every issue has not been— The chair intervened at that point to offer the words 'perfectly resolved'— Mr Drum responded: Correct. There are still a lot of unanswered questions. In the coalition's view, if there are a lot of unanswered questions that raises very serious issues about proceeding with the bill in its present form. We were equally concerned that there does not appear to have been an adequate cost-benefit analysis conducted of these measures. One group of stakeholders, the Financial Services Council, informed the committee that they were not aware of any Treasury cost-benefit analysis being conducted, and they had not been asked to contribute to such analysis. Treasury officials, when appearing before the committee, were asked whether there had been a cost-benefit analysis. Oddly, they indicated that there had been and that we could find it on the Department of Finance and Deregulation website. It also became clear in the exchange with witnesses from the Treasury that the kinds of cost components which the Treasury had thought appropriate to include in the cost-benefit analysis excluded a number of cost categories that industry members were very concerned about. That is perhaps not surprising if the cost-benefit analysis was conducted without consultation with industry participants. Another reason my coalition colleagues and I are very concerned about the provisions of this legislation—and we have made our concerns clear in our minority report, our dissenting report—is that this bill, if it were to pass into law in its proposed form, would impose extra cost burdens on the financial sector at a time when very substantial additional costs have already been imposed on this sector thanks to the torrent of regulations which the present government has introduced, much of it done in a chaotic, disorganised and last-minute fashion. Regrettably, this is all too consistent with this government and this minister, who I am confident did not, when he was at school at Melbourne's exclusive Xavier College, rejoice under the nickname of 'Details Shorten'. I very much doubt that that was his nickname. Another concern to coalition members is that no evidence was persuasively presented that there would be any particular adverse consequences if this legislation were not to proceed in its present form. Witnesses who were arguing that legislation should proceed—and there were one or two of them—were given the opportunity to explain the dangers which they believed were present if the legislation did not go ahead with effect from 1 July 2013 in its present form. Their explanations, I have to report to the House, were unpersuasive. Concerns were also raised about the breadth of the present definition in the bill. Industry participants, pleasingly, informed the committee that they had worked together to come up with another definition, and that has been agreed upon by the Financial Services Council, the Tax Institute and a range of other participants. That is a very impressive piece of work by the industry. Coalition members and senators on the committee certainly encourage the government and the Treasury to consult carefully with industry on the amended definition which so many stakeholders have come together to prepare. In conclusion, the view of coalition members and senators of the corporations and financial services committee is that it does not make sense to allow passage of these schedules into law at this time. A much better course of action, and the course of action which we recommend, is that the current exemption which financial planners and advisers enjoy from the Tax Agent Services Act—an exemption which has been in place for three years—should be extended by a further 12 months so that the work can be done of properly analysing these provisions, taking account of the recommended changes to the definition and getting the job done right rather than rushing it at the very last minute. BILLS 5824 BILLS Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill 2013 5824

Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill 2013

Second Reading 5824 16:01 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill 2013. At this stage the coalition will not be supporting this bill and will be seeking to refer it to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for further review, to clarify the economic impacts and to ensure that there are no unintended border control consequences that arise from this legislation. As we see it today, we believe this bill is an attempt to regulate overseas workers participating in offshore resources activities by bringing these people into Australia's migration zone and thus requiring them to hold a valid visa under the Migration Act. Our concern is that this is just yet another union-placating exercise from this government and from this minister, particularly since this minister took hold of the portfolio earlier this year. This is the same minister—who, sadly, is no longer with us at the table now—who shouted from the rooftops that there were 10,000 rorters in the 457 visa system while his department tripped over itself to distance itself from that claim. Clearly, that was a claim that was completely made up by the minister at the time. This is the same government that in their attacks on the 457 visa program for months have been demonising skilled workers—skilled migrants—and the contribution they have made, and continue to make, to building this nation. This is an extraordinary thing to see; that after decades and decades of bipartisan support for skilled migration in this country this government would launch into the attacks that they have against skilled migrants in this country, who contribute from day one. Now Labor have set their sights on resource projects. We have noticed that there has been quite a pattern since Minister O'Connor came into the revolving door of the immigration portfolio. First, there were these claims that I mentioned about the 457 visa rorting that no government agency and no report have been able to confirm. Perhaps, they came from his brother, the National Secretary of the CFMEU. He is well-known to the minister, obviously. Remember, this is the same CFMEU that donated more than $6 million to the Labor Party over the last decade. We know that Minister O'Connor simply made this figure of 10,000 up. He plucked it right out of the air and was later forced to admit that this had been the case when the department did not provide, or was certainly not willing to provide, any evidence to back the claim up or to own any advice that went to him on that matter, because there was none. The officials told the Senate inquiry in no uncertain terms: We certainly did not provide advice around a number of 10,000. Not only that but one of Australia's most respected demographers, Professor Peter McDonald, a member of the government's own Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration, called the Prime Minister's rhetoric on this attack on 457s as 'nasty'. 'Nasty' is what he said about the Prime Minister's attacks on skilled migration. Now we have this bill, which is clearly designed to appease the Maritime Union of Australia. This is the same union that recently boasted celebrating 114 years of union militancy. This is the same union that has given Labor $3 million since the 2010 election. This Labor government cannot face their failures on our borders, so they go off on these distractions and diversions orchestrated by their union masters to distract the attention of the Australian public. But it is not working, because the Australian public knows and can see through this. The minister is simply doing the bidding of his union mates, the same unions who bemoan 457 abuses but who I am advised have not actually reported one of those alleged abuses to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship's investigation team. This is not surprising, given that the government has been cutting the funding of the investigatory capacities of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for years now. That is how seriously they take these concerns. So concerned are they about 457 workers that they employ them themselves. And so concerned is the Prime Minister about 457s that she employs 'Aussie' John McTernan on a 457 in her own office. Apparently there is a shortage of media people prepared to work for the Prime Minister. This bill is not subtle. In his second reading speech the minister is inferring that somewhere beyond our shores and beyond the reach of the Migration Act, wealthy resources companies have sent their Australian workers packing and chained foreign workers to their oil rigs and installations to slave away around the clock, overworked and underpaid. That is the sort of imputation that this minister is putting out there in the way that he has characterised these measures. The bill is not subtle, and all it is trying to do is increase the reach of the union movement. That has been a core agenda item of this minister since he has taken over the role. If only Labor were as concerned about protecting our borders as they are about protecting the interests of the union movement. Perhaps then, we would have had in question time today an honest response from the Prime Minister when asked about whether she continued to support the decision of former Prime Minister Rudd that has caused such havoc on our borders—to abolish proven measures, and the chaos, costs and tragedy that resulted. Perhaps if this government were as keen about protecting our borders as they are the unions then she would have responded honestly, like Mark Latham did—a former Labor leader—just last week when he said it was wrong; just plain wrong. And it was wrong that the Prime Minister not only did not take that opportunity to do that today in obfuscating in her answer but also, by implication, she stands firmly behind that decision of Prime Minister Rudd. If Prime Minister Rudd were to return as a prime minister again in that capacity—when the government has worked through yet again the latest act of this soap opera that continues to unfold on their side of the House—then he would have to simply answer one question: was he wrong to abolish the measures of the Howard government that has led to the chaos, cost and tragedy that has resulted on our borders from that decision? The former Prime Minister, when he lost his job, said on the eve that the new prime minister, if she were to become prime minister, was going to lurch to the right. I can only assume that, if Prime Minister Rudd were to come back as Prime Minister, he must be going to lurch to the left and compound even further the grave problems that have occurred on our borders as a result of this government's poor decisions. There are many problems on so many levels with this bill, and I can run through them. It is worth noting upfront the rank hypocrisy of this bill because when the resources industry has come to this minister, and previously to his predecessor, seeking visas for their workers these requests have been strung out for months on end. They have tied Australian businesses and foreign investors up in union red tape and bullied and belittled skilled migrants. Labor has created sovereign risk and damaged our international reputation by continually changing the rules and moving the goalposts whenever they feel like it. Enterprise migration agreements are a case in point. These agreements were first announced in May 2011 and were supported immediately by the coalition because, in principle, they are good policy. Yet, to date—despite the then minister announcing one on the very day with the Roy Hill Mine project, implying that this thing had been done—there is no such agreement, even to this day. There is no deed of agreement for an EMA for the Roy Hill Mine project even to this day. This is a policy that has been stillborn by this government—a government that never really believed in it in the first place. With the passing of Minister Bowen and the former minister for resources, the member for Batman, any hope that there would be any genuine follow-through passed on that this quite worthy policy would be given any serious attention by a government who is basically opposed to skilled migration in these forms. Enterprise migration agreements are a good policy and the coalition continues to support it. Three applications were deemed by the department to be complete on 11 September 2012; yet, it was confirmed in Senate estimates that none have been approved for commencement. The government's farcical and incompetent handling of EMAs has created sovereign risk and threatened vital resource projects in the pipeline. The mishandling of the Allseas Construction Contractors Australia issue which goes to this bill and this bill put forward before the House, has only created further confusion and threatens to deliver another blow to Australia's reputation. The industry group, Australian Mines and Metals Association., argue that this bill would impose a further level of suffocating regulatory burden on the offshore resource sector for no appreciable social or other gain, and at likely high economic cost. Moreover, AMMA fear that this bill would put at risk the viability of current projects and weigh heavily against the commencement of future projects. This is a government that is held hostage by the unions simply tying up resource projects, installations and pipelines with yet more union red tape, stifling business and investment. This bill was drawn up by the government in response to the federal court's decision on the matter of Allseas Construction in May 2012. The court found the two pipeline vessels were not Australian resources' installations, within the meaning of the act, while they were wholly or principally engaged in operations relating to the installation of offshore pipelines. The court ruled that the vessels and noncitizens working on those vessels were not working within the migration zone as defined by subsection 5(1) of the act. As a result, overseas workers on board those vessels did not require a visa. But this minister thinks he is above the law and above the court. The bill is an unashamed attempt to get around that court decision, because it is inconvenient for the Labor Party's union masters. The irony is that Allseas only went to court to begin with because the department of immigration had failed to provide them with the clarification they had been seeking for years. Over a number of years, the AMMA sought clarity from DIAC as to how they interpreted the migration zone with respect to workers on offshore construction vessels. The responses they received were often, 'contradictory, vague and lacking in a rigorous examination of the relevant provisions of the migration act'. Finally, Allseas gave up and went to the Federal Court to try and obtain clarity. The justice on that case confirmed on 22 May: Allseas has endeavoured to pursue in good faith and openly, firstly, the correct interpretation of the Act from the Minister and, secondly, the obtaining of relief of a declaratory nature to clarify its obligations in those serious and imminent circumstances. The court decision did not create a loophole; it created clarity—a clarity that was being sought by industry on these matters because clarity had not been provided. Labor and the unions may not like the clarity, but nevertheless it has been provided. Global law firm, DLA Piper, noted in response to the court decision: If however amendments to the Act are mooted it will be interesting to see how the legislature proposes to overcome international law and jurisdictional hurdles that may be placed in front of them. The coalition are not satisfied that these changes overcome those jurisdictional hurdles. Moreover, the coalition is not convinced that the ramification of these changes proposed by Labor have been thoroughly worked through and resolved. This bill could have significant implications for business, for investors, for the resources industry, for matters of border protection—which I will come back to—not to mention the threat of potential litigation and jurisdictional conflict with international law and conventions relating to sovereign rights in international waters. We need to look before we leap—not something this government is used to doing—and be certain that the changes that Labor is seeking to make, for the sake of placating their union mates, will not unwittingly create serious unforeseen consequences from the first day this bill is introduced and operative. Concern has been expressed by industry groups, including the AMMA, that any attempt to regulate who may work or the employment conditions on foreign ships in international maritime zones off Australia's coastline would exceed our jurisdiction under international law as found by the Federal Court in relation to the scope of Migration Act. Nations may exercise limited sovereign rights in international waters under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but there is also a caveat on sovereign rights contained in article 56(2) which states: In exercising its rights and performing its duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have due regard to the rights and duties of other States and shall act in a manner compatible with the provisions of this Convention. This is already a heavily legislated and regulated space at international, federal and even state level, but too much regulation is rarely enough for this government. There are overlapping areas of complex national and international jurisdiction, and any attempt to try and assert Australian law in defiance of existing legal precedents or international conventions must be carefully considered. Vessels and installations are also regulated under the Maritime Labour Convention 2006. Industry groups argue these conventions suggest that EEZ and ECS ships should be entitled to freedom of navigation and that any matters relating to labour conditions on board foreign ships are matters for the flag state. This would seem to be echoed in regulation 1.15D of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 which states: … the Act does not apply in relation to all the waters … on the landward side of the outer limits of the territorial sea of Australia, including such waters within the limits of a State or Territory to the extent to which its application would be inconsistent with the right of innocent passage or transit passage being exercised by ship other than— a licensed ship or a majority Australian crewed ship. Furthermore, 1.15E notes that the extension of the Fair Work Act to ships in the EEZ or above the continental shelf is subject to 'Australia's international obligations relating to foreign ships and the concurrent jurisdiction of a foreign state'. On that basis, the Migration Act cannot be seen to apply as a blanket rule across the board to all vessels in the territorial sea, the EEZ or the ECS. Clearly, there are exceptions that need to be looked into meticulously. The coalition recognise the importance of the offshore resources industry, which is precisely why the government should not be charging into this like a bull in a china shop without due consideration of the impacts on business and projects in the pipeline. Australia is the world's ninth largest energy producer, and each year our oil and gas industries make up 2½ per cent of GDP, generating $28 billion in revenue. These industries also contribute about $9 billion in direct tax payments and supply 58 per cent of Australia's primary energy needs. An inquiry by the Inspector of Transport Security into offshore oil and gas resources sector security found that companies are 'increasingly recruiting personnel from overseas due to skill shortages in Australia'. The government has said that estimates as to how many people are employed on these rigs without visas are sketchy—not like the minister's own claim about 457 abuses. This is convenient to the minister and his smear campaign on these arrangements, although I am surprised he has not produced another magical number like that 10,000 figure of 457 abuses in the system that I mentioned before. We do not know how many overseas workers are currently employed on these installations without visas. The minister admitted that much in his speech when he said that the government has an 'incomplete picture' of the number and identity of foreign workers in Australia's offshore maritime zones—but this has not been sufficient to stop the minister from charging in with his legislation and regulation on behalf of the unions who have encouraged him. Surely that would be the first piece of information that you would think you would attempt to gather if you were serious about reforms in this space. The very report the minister referred to, undertaken by the Department of Infrastructure and Transport, noted that whilst companies are having to rely on personnel from overseas to overcome skills shortages in Australia, usually these employees are granted a 457 visa under which an applicant must be sponsored by an employer. The report went on to note that the overseas workers must demonstrate they have the skills to meet the requirements of the nominated position. Many working arrangements on resource installations or vessels are fly-in fly-out operations, and if companies want to be able to move their workers back to the mainland to another worksite or even just transit through an Australian airport or move into a different region of our waters, they require a valid visa for entry. The report concluded that, realistically, 'there is a limit on the extent to which work visa style vetting arrangements could be tightened or extended'. The department of transport inquiry estimated there were 70 oil and gas facilities operating offshore within Australia's exclusive economic zone in 2012 and that, together, Australia's offshore oil and gas industries employed about 20,000 people in 2010-11. It is critical to note here what the minister has omitted to say—that whilst the Federal Court found the Migration Act may not have the reach to certain offshore installations or vessels, these workplaces are not operated in secret. In addition to the international conventions, the offshore resource industry is already subject to complex and overlapping regulatory systems imposed by various pieces of federal, state and territory legislation. Under Australian law there are mechanisms in place to safeguard those who work on board installations or vessels in Commonwealth waters. Many installations operate under the purview of the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, which has responsibility for the regulation of the occupational health and safety of workers on offshore facilities, wells and well operations in Commonwealth waters and in waters where state powers have been conferred. By law, offshore petroleum activities cannot begin before NOPSEMA has assessed and approved a detailed risk management plan, including how an organisation will manage risks to worker health and safety. In 2012 this organisation had oversight of 36 operators, over 151 active facilities including pipelines and production platforms, 25 titleholders across 223 petroleum titles and 257 wells, and 36 activity operators of 110 petroleum activities including drilling and seismic surveys. In 2012 it conducted 99 inspections covering a total of 156 facilities, and these visits included meetings with the health and safety representatives. During the same calendar year, just 13 complaints were made to the organisation relating to health and safety issues—the lowest recorded in seven years. This included anything from work procedures, culture, work environment, noise, heat, pollution, equipment, services, galley and accommodation to fatigue, shifts and rosters, work procedure methods, practices of management, bullying and intimidation. If the minister has evidence to demonstrate the size of the problem he is trying to point to then by all means produce it, but the parallel between this issue and the minister's attacks on 457s is hard to miss. The coalition look forward to the investigation by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Affairs Committee, as they perhaps may be able to shed a little more light on this, as the minister has failed to do so himself in putting forward this bill. The coalition as a result cannot lend our support this bill in its present state. The case has just simply not been made by the government. We will not be party to another Labor attack by imputation on either the resource sector or skilled migrants. We will not sign up to another episode of Labor's incompetence that could land Australia in direct confrontation with international law or legal precedent, nor will the coalition support the creation of unnecessary union red tape for business. The resources industry in Australia not only competes for skilled labour, it also competes for a very limited pool of international investment capital for which there are many alternatives. The way this government speaks about the minerals and resources sectors you would think we had a mortgage on the capital market when it comes to investment in these sectors. We do not. We have very serious competitors and, increasingly, day by day those competitors are getting the better of us. We need to be making ourselves most attractive as an investment opportunity, but this government continues to do its best to scare business off as they continue to parrot their union mantra. In Western Australia alone there are currently $187.5 billion in major approved projects of which $107 billion are LNG projects. Another $50 billion of LNG projects are awaiting a final investment decision. This bill jeopardises the $50 billion in unapproved LNG projects by increasing the administrative burden, not to mention the costs for engaging overseas skilled workers in this project. This bill has the potential to inflict great pain for very little, if any, gain that can be demonstrated by the government in bringing this matter before the House. But there is another area of this that is of great concern to the coalition, and that is the unforeseen consequences for border management. The Department of Infrastructure and Transport inquiry report also notes that on some facilities a particular threat is potentially posed by the crews and passengers of SIEVs, suspected illegal entry vessels, and by international fishing boats operating close to and approaching offshore facilities. Certainly, there have been circumstances where illegal boat arrivals have tried to present at oil rigs or resource installations at sea. Currently, all Australian sea and resource installations are defined as excised offshore places so if an IMA reaches an oil rig they are not taken to have arrived in Australia's migration zone and can be processed offshore. However, there is a risk that, if this bill is not properly considered, it may undermine those arrangements. And, despite the minister protesting and saying that he is happy to guarantee these matters, I frankly cannot trust those guarantees. We need to be sure that this would in no way present any further compromise to our borders beyond what this government has already done. Any definitional changes to Australia's migration zone requires thorough investigation to prevent the occurrence of unintended consequences that may result in litigation or override the power of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to grant or refuse a visa. In this instance, there is also Federal Court precedent that must be taken into account. Again, this is another reason why the bill should be referred to a committee. The coalition cannot support this bill unless assurance can be provided with substantiation other than the 'just trust us' claim that is currently made. Fundamentally, this comes down to a matter of trust, and this government's trust bank is empty when it comes to border protection. There is nothing in that account upon which this government can draw. They are not just in deficit fiscally; they are in deficit when it comes to trust. When the coalition left office in 2007, there were just four people in immigration detention who had arrived illegally by boat. That figure today is over 23,000. More than 44,000 people have turned up on boats and more than 6,000 of those were children. A government that has failed so terribly on our borders and, under Prime Minister Rudd completely abandoned the measures that worked under that government, and to this day continues to refuse accountability and acknowledgement that that set in motion the cost, chaos and tragedy that we have now seen unfold in our borders, is not a government deserving of trust on anything. This government cannot be trusted to protect our borders. They can be trusted to protect the interests of unions. They demonstrate that in this bill, and they have demonstrated that in other bills they are seeking to rush through the parliament as we consider these matters in these final weeks of the sitting of this parliamentary term. Whether it is Mr Rudd the member for Griffith, the former Prime Minister, whether it is the current Prime Minister, or whether it is the previous ministers for immigration or the current Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, none of them have earned the trust to come into this place and say, 'Trust me, it will be okay on our borders,' because the carnage that has followed from their decisions on this is there for everyone to see, and we do not trust them. It does not matter who leads the Labor Party, this Labor government will never be trusted on our borders because they have been such a hopeless failure. So whatever prevails in the acts that follow on the sideshow that is occurring on that side of parliament, the one issue of trust on borders will remain in the negative. It will remain in the negative from now until the election, and the Australian people will have the opportunity to make a decision about that on 14 September. That is why at this stage the coalition is not prepared to support this bill. We will seek to have it referred to committee in the other place where some of these matters can be tested. This government operates from a very low bar when it comes to its substantiation and evidence to support their claims, and the coalition will apply an appropriate and responsible bar. The government has a long way to go. 16:27 Mr KELVIN THOMSON UK6 Wills I am astonished that the opposition which professes to be concerned about protecting our borders does not support this Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill. The shadow minister claims to be concerned about protecting our borders but shows no interest in supporting Australian maritime workers. It is disgraceful that the opposition shows no concern about the prospect of foreign flag vessels using foreign workers to extract Australian resources without their having any Australian visas whatsoever. It is a remarkable and scandalous disregard for the interests of Australian workers. The opposition is so deeply and wholly owned by and hostage to large corporations that it will not protect the interests of Australian workers and is happy to see foreign workers exploited in the cause of driving down wages and conditions. The shadow immigration minister's remarks made the ridiculous claim that the government here is acting above the law. What the government is doing is coming into this parliament with legislation. That is precisely what the rule of law is all about. He also made the claim that the Allseas decision gives clarity. The fact is that we have never had this situation before. This bill gives all members of the House the chance to show which side they are on—Aussie maritime workers or large foreign corporations. The shadow minister for immigration has made it all too clear that the opposition is on the side of large foreign corporations, not on the side of Australian maritime workers. The shadow minister implied in his remarks that this bill was directed at skilled migrants. It does nothing of the kind. It is not about skilled migrants. What we are talking about here with the Allseas case is workers who have no visa at all, not skilled migrants. The amendments in this bill will regulate foreign workers participating in offshore resources activities by bringing these persons into the migration zone and therefore requiring them to hold a specific visa under the act. Of course, skilled migrants by definition already hold a visa. The bill represents the government's response to the Federal Court's decision in Allseas Construction SA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in which the Federal Court found that foreign workers on pipe-laying vessels were not in the migration zone and therefore did not require visas. In particular, the bill provides that a person is taken to be in the migration zone while he or she is in an area to participate in or to support an offshore resources activity in relation to that area. On 15 October last year the former Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, the Hon. Chris Bowen, announced that the government would legislate to amend the act and clarify the situation around workers in Australia's offshore maritime zones to address the decision in Allseas and also in fulfilment of a commitment in the ALP platform: Labor will ensure that all Australian employment and industries are regulated under Australian law, including those located on the landward side of the outer limits of the territorial sea of Australia, in the Exclusive Economic Zone, or in the waters above the continental shelf. To this effect, Labor will review the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) with a view to ensuring that the definition of the 'Migration Zone' encapsulates all offshore Australian employment and industries. The Federal Court decision found that by the operation of section 5(13) of the act two pipe-laying vessels, the Lorelay and the Solitaire, were not Australian resources installations within the meaning of the act while they were wholly or principally engaged in operations relating to the installation of offshore pipelines, thus explaining why the foreign workers on these vessels were not within or working within the migration zone and did not require a visa. The decision also meant that foreign-flagged vessels operating in Australia's exclusive economic zone were beyond many of Australia's laws, creating a loophole that could be exploited to the detriment of Australian workers. The Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers expressed concern to me that some of the operators of vessels in the offshore oil and gas sector had taken the view that they could use foreign workers on these foreign-flagged vessels without any requirement to obtain anything more than a holiday visa to transfer through an Australian airport—that is, they could work without even having a 457 visa. There are a large number of foreign-flagged vessels operating in Australian waters which are not engaged in international trading voyages or in interstate trading voyages. The clearest example of this category of vessel is the offshore oil and gas industry fleet. In this booming sector, a large majority of vessels are already foreign-flagged vessels. At any time, there are up to 200 vessels servicing the offshore oil and gas industry in Australia's exclusive economic zone. The majority of these vessels are foreign-flagged vessels—over two-thirds according to the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers. These vessels spend the majority of their time in Australia's exclusive economic zone. Indeed, some of them have spent years in Australian waters. Minister Bowen established a review within the department of immigration to examine how best to amend the Migration Act to extend the migration zone to all offshore resource industry workers. The shadow immigration minister said that the government had been a bull at a gate and that the minister had been charging in. Neither of these things was true. There was a Migration Maritime Taskforce comprising departmental subject matter experts with legal, operational and policy backgrounds. This was developed to conduct this review and explore options to determine the most appropriate way to ensure that foreign workers in Australia's offshore maritime zones come within the ambit of the act. The Allseas decision reduced the number of workers in the offshore resource industry captured by the Migration Act, and this, combined with other limitations in the act's operation offshore, has left a significant gap in Australia's ability to regulate the conditions in its offshore resources industry and to regulate which foreign workers are employed on these valuable national assets. Under the current legislative framework, we have an incomplete picture of the number and identity of foreign workers in Australia's offshore maritime zones. This is in part due to the absence of a regulated visa scheme to capture those engaged in Australia's offshore maritime zones and provide the corresponding migration information. This incomplete information has security ramifications. You would think the opposition might be concerned about security issues, but you would be wrong. The June 2012 report of the offshore oil and gas resources sector security inquiry recognised that visa security checks are one of the only ways Australia is able to examine noncitizens in this security-sensitive industry. While it is recognised—and I think we all agree—that visa character checks have their limits, in their absence the government has no information at all about some of these workers. You would expect that the opposition might be concerned about this, but apparently not. The task force recommended that all workers should be covered, as these are Australian resources and Australian jobs. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea gives Australia the jurisdiction to do this, as it provides sovereign rights with respect to the exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of Australia's exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. There has been extensive stakeholder consultation about this problem with the offshore resources industry, unions and other Commonwealth agencies. More recently, the government has consulted on the findings of the task force and the issue, which informed our decision to implement the recommendations of the task force. More consultation will follow as we engage with stakeholders to develop supporting regulations for this change. There has been a lot of discussion on the best way to effectively address the problem of unregulated work in Australia's offshore resources sector. This bill deals with the practical actions that are necessary to create real, effective tools to deal with this problem. The bill implements the key recommendations of the task force. The task force found that any question as to whether a person was in the migration zone or not should not be solely dependent on where that person was physically located but should also be dependent on the sorts of activities that person was conducting. The amendments in this bill will regulate foreign workers participating in offshore resources activities by deeming them to be in the migration zone, which enlivens the requirement for them to hold a visa under the Migration Act. The bill will amend the Migration Act to provide that a person is taken to be in the migration zone while he or she is in an area to participate in or to support an offshore resources activity in relation to that area. The bill will define 'offshore resources activity' as an activity administered under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006, the Offshore Minerals Act 1994 or under a law of the Commonwealth, state or territory determined by the minister in writing. The amendments in this bill will bring offshore persons into the migration zone and thereby require them to hold a visa under the act. In addition to these two acts, the bill will create a power for the minister to make a determination in writing for the purposes of defining 'offshore resources activity'. This will provide the minister with flexibility to declare certain activities administered by other regulatory schemes as offshore resource activities for the purposes of the new deemed migration zone. This would include projects that take place within areas that are within the coastal waters of the states and the Northern Territory which are regulated under state and territory laws rather than their Commonwealth equivalents. The legislative measures will supplement the current framework under the act, which defines as part of the migration zone Australian resources installations and Australian sea installations. Together with the existing provisions in the act, this new, comprehensive framework will ensure that workers in Australia's offshore resources industry are regulated under the act and are required to hold specific visas. Individuals who engage in offshore resources activities in Australia's offshore maritime zones will be subject to existing compliance measures in the act that address breaches of work and visa conditions. The government is working with industry and with the relevant unions to establish a specifically tailored visa pathway which will ensure that industry has the flexibility it needs while maintaining protection for Australian working conditions. It is proposed to prescribe this visa in the migration regulations of 1994. The new visa pathway will need to be in place before the requirement to hold a visa offshore commences. At this stage it is envisaged that the bill will commence in early 2014 with the intervening period used to develop the new visa arrangements. I think it is important to implement these changes as soon as possible to give certainty to the offshore resources industry and to workers, and the government understands that industry need certainty as they develop commercial contracts and run their businesses. Where there are skills shortages and where the Australian workforce cannot provide the required labour in Australia's offshore resource activities, there will be a need for foreign workers; however, this need should not be allowed to undermine Australian working conditions and should not happen without the oversight of Australian law as is currently the case. These are Australian resources and Australian jobs. The resources are governed by Australian laws, and the jobs should be too. It gets down to the simple proposition that whilst operating in Australia foreign companies should comply with Australian laws. The current legal structures applying to the Australian maritime industry do not deliver this objective. It is critical that we as a parliament attend to the anomalous situation created by the Federal Court's decision in the Allseas case by amending the Migration Act. We believe that there is a principle at stake here. These are Australian jobs which should be subject to Australian law. The government should act to exercise Australia's sovereign rights over the exclusive economic zone, and people working in the exclusive economic zone should be covered by Australia's laws just like people who work on the land. I commend the bill to the House. 16:41 Mr RANDALL PK6 Canning I am pleased to speak on the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill 2013. I do so because I have a strong interest in this issue, given the fact that much of this activity that we are talking about happens off the coast of Western Australia, the state in which I represent the electorate of Canning. At first blush, on looking at this bill, one would think that this government was interested in some motive that was highly commendable for protecting our borders. It says here that it is not uncommon for illegal maritime arrivals to present at oil rigs and resource installations in the ocean. Currently, these ocean installations are not defined as part of Australia's migration zone. Consequently, if an illegal maritime arrival reaches an oil rig presently, they are not taken to have arrived in Australia's migration zone and could be processed offshore. The rest of this bill does not properly consider that they may undermine the offshore processing arrangements. How altruistic. But this is not what the bill is about. This bill is about a further grab for union control of the Australian workforce. Let's have a look why. The fact of the matter is that this bill was introduced into parliament by Minister O'Connor on 30 May this year. We want to understand why it was introduced by Minister O'Connor and not by former Minister Bowen. Minister O'Connor has form in this area. You have to understand the history of somebody coming into this place with the agenda that he has. You have to know where they have been to know where they are going. We know that this minister was an Irish citizen born in England who migrated to Australia and eventually found that his best form of employment was to involve himself in the union movement—which is fine. I was a union rep myself in my previous days as a schoolteacher. Collective bargaining is not such a bad thing if it protects the rights and conditions of workers. But this is not what it is about. This is about a power grab by the unions to control the resources sector. Not only does this minister have form from his previous working history; his brother is one of the big bosses in the CFMEU, Mr Michael O'Connor, who I understand is a very close friend of the Prime Minister. As a result, he has been sent into this place on a number of bills while there are over 200 bills that we have waiting to be passed in the next eight days in this parliament—7½ now. Why is this so important to get through in the dying days of this Gillard government? It is about shoring up one's base. It is about shoring up the financial support and support for tenure in one's seat among those in the union movement. We know that Michael O'Connor has a lot of influence. That is how his brother became a member of parliament: he had his backing. This is payback time. This is real payback time in terms of this minister and the final days of this parliament. Last week, another bill was brought into this parliament. It was called the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013. It was meant to talk about bullying, but it was actually about rights of entry and about people being able to enter the crib rooms on worksites to sign up members on spurious safety concerns. I spoke on that bill, and this is no different. This is about allowing union representatives to fly onto areas offshore—in terms of our continental shelf and our resources zone, which is about 200 kilometres—and to fly onto these rigs, these production boats, with the same rights of entry into offshore facilities. As I said on the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013 last time we were here, what people do not understand is that this right of entry provision that is in this bill forced the owners of the construction and resource sites to pay for the transport and accommodation costs of the union people coming onsite. It was predicted that it could be up to $30,000. For example, you could fly from Perth to Karratha, you could get a helicopter out to a rig, you would be accommodated on the rig and then you would be flown back. The cost of all this could be up to $30,000 per person, and who is bearing the cost? This is all about right of entry onto our resource projects. Is it any wonder that we are now becoming uncompetitive with the rest of the world in terms of developing our resources projects and they are going offshore. Further to this, people complained about James Price Point being established onshore in the Kimberleys, for a whole range of reasons—some environmental. Broome was split down the middle over this issue. Their solution was to bring the gas from the development of this gas field by pipeline down to the LNG plants in Port Hedland. Not a bad solution. There was another solution around instead of developing Inpex in Darwin, taking the pipe from the Timor Sea and that northern area there as well. The problem is that the boats that are laying the pipes and servicing this particular industry are generally manned by people with offshore companies. We do not have the resources. Earlier in this parliament, the Labor Party were successful in essentially locking out foreign flag vessels from our ports unless they received the same terms and conditions of payment on their ships. You cannot compare like with like—and we will not go down that road—but, at the end of the day, if you are flagged out of the Philippines and you arrive in Australia, and the Filipino average wage is $100 a week and it is $1,000 a week in Australia, you are essentially stopping Filipino boats coming into Australia. Ann Pickard from Shell has decided that, instead of developing James Price Point, they will have an offshore gas facility with a massive refinement and production facility on a huge boat. Most of the skills that are on these sorts of facilities are highly specialised. Many of these people are not to be found in Australia, so you get the argument about 457s and those sorts of things. In the interim, until we do skill our workforce—and I agree with the member for Wills that we should have Australians doing these jobs—we should not stop the good job from going ahead because we do not have an Australian to do it. As a result, rather than have the project go ahead with the use of some foreign skilled workers, they are saying that you cannot have them at all. That is what this migration amendment bill is about. It is not about illegals tying up to oil rigs, it is about stopping people from coming to Australia. It is stopping people from flying through Australia and landing, for example, in Karratha, catching a helicopter out to the rig or the production platform and working on that rig so that it can produce or drill. What the minister is doing in this bill is saying, 'We want them to now get a visa if there is a flight through Karratha.' The previous speaker—the member for Wills, Kelvin Thomson—said: 'This can be worked out. Just trust us. We'll give you a temporary holiday visa.' It does not work. You cannot get a temporary holiday visa to go and work on an offshore platform. As we have already heard, previous companies have been held up and in court for a long period of time trying to get their workers here on these so-called 'temporary visas'. He says that there needs to be certainty and that this legislation will bring certainty. It will not bring certainty to the workers and it will not bring certainty to the projects; it will only bring certainty to the unions, because they want these blokes to join a union. As I said, there is nothing wrong with joining a union, but most of the people who are coming to these offshore facilities are not Australians, because they are owned by foreign companies. What happens as a result? A tug tows a platform from South Korea down to Australia and drops it into the water off there, and then Labor says, 'Hang on, we want someone from the union and the migration department to go out and check that they have got a visa.' They are not even going to touch the mainland, in many cases, and they want them to enter into a visa arrangement. It is just impractical. That is why the shadow minister, Scott Morrison, has said, 'This legislation shouldn't be before this House until it has been through the Senate committee.' There are a whole lot of unintended consequences in this bill that should not be allowed to happen. There are flow-on effects that could happen, for goodness' sake, with us trying to unpick them. The cant and hypocrisy about all this is that, in terms of right of entry in the bill last week, the Independents said, 'We are not going to allow this through this place unless it is bipartisan, because we don't think it is in the Australian interest to allow these sorts of last-minute changes to happen to the Australian workforce without proper scrutiny and in a rush in the last days.' Surprise, surprise: the member for New England found some way not to be here so that the bill passed by one vote. So much for sincerity and genuine behaviour. He let it through. They are saying, 'Trust us.' It is the same on this right of entry provision—they are saying, 'Trust us.' 'More consultation,' the member for Wills said. 'There needs to be more consultation, which will follow, so trust us.' How can we trust this side of the parliament with anything when they have done to our borders what they are doing now? Why are we talking about this bill? This Gillard-Rudd government have been in power since 2007 when they changed the migration laws. We have since had 44,219 people—and probably more because this was given to me a few days ago—and the total number of boats since 2007 has been 723 boats. I cannot keep it updated in case somebody else has arrived today. They are not coming by small boats. They are coming by ferries now. Ferries carry 200 people or more. That is how many are arriving on certain boats. They are in a rush because they know that this side of the House will stop that terrible behaviour. The government should be concentrating on stopping these people fraudulently getting to Australia. We saw on the front page of the Australian newspaper today about the lies that have been told. You do not tell a genuine story. You make up a story so you can get past the migration officials when they assess you. The officials have actually stopped assessing people now. I think the minister said we have something like 13,000, or is it 19,000, parked in the Australian community because they cannot be processed. The next government are going to inherit this problem. Whatever the figure is, it is thousands and it is a disgrace. So do not tell us about trusting you on border protection. Here we are, trusting the minister. He said there are 10,000 rorts—and I am going to speak on this tomorrow—with 457 visas. I did a report on this which I will talk about tomorrow. It was a bipartisan report which found none of this and suddenly the minister said 10,000 and then he said he was only guessing and he was not sure. On this case, he said there are a whole lot of rorts in this activity. So in 2012 there were 99 inspections covering 156 facilities. Have a guess how many complaints they had. There were 13 complaints. They are bringing in legislation for 13 complaints when there are 13,000 people parked in the Australian community taking the resources and the welfare from the likes of the Salvation Army that could be giving it to hard done by Australians. Don't tell me this is important legislation that has to get through. I am sure the Independents will pass this as they do everything. They are going to finally ingratiate themselves in the last eight days. Hopefully their electorates in New England and Lyne are hearing that they are going to help get this sort of legislation through because any future government that has to unpick it will have all sorts of problems because they have landed it through the Senate. At the end of the day, this is not legislation that is important. Out of all the legislation that needs to come through this House, this is one of the least important pieces. The Labor Party is holding up this parliament and trying to ram this through. They have even changed the agenda—the speaker list—to get this through ahead of other legislation. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Asian Century) Bill 2013 was meant to be before this. So much for Gonski. This is Minister O'Connor paying back his union brother and his union mates in the dying days of this government because they know if they do not they will be in trouble in terms of their funding and their preselections. I hope people see this for what it is worth. It is a payback at the very last moment and this bill does not need to be through this House. It needs to be scrutinised properly in a committee of the Senate which was agreed to earlier and it has not been done. As a result, of course we will not be supporting this legislation. 16:56 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong It is my pleasure to rise in this House to follow what was a very passionate and thoughtful contribution by the member for Canning, as well as that by my colleague the member for Cook. This Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill 2013 will see foreign workers on overseas resource installations fall within the migration zone of Australia, thereby requiring a visa. That is what this is all about. It follows on from a Federal Court decision in May last year called the Allseas Construction case which found that two pipe laying vessels and the workers on them did not fall within the migration zone. We cannot support this bill because, firstly, we know what its motivations are about. The member for Canning explained to this House that this is all about improving the ability of the unions to recruit workers. This is all about payback. Secondly, there has not been a rigorous analysis of the economic impacts of this bill, because it is going to increase the burden on one of our most productive sectors in the economy—namely, our resources industry. Thirdly, we do not know what the impact is going to be on our border protection system. What happens if somebody goes onto these offshore resource rigs and starts to seek asylum that way? Do they fall within the migration zone of Australia as a result of the bill? That is a legitimate question. Given this government's absolute failure to protect our borders, where we have seen more than 43,000 unauthorised arrivals come in just the few years that Labor have been in government, we cannot take them at their word. We cannot trust this government to protect our borders, let alone to protect the resource industry which does so much for the economic growth of this country. What we are proposing today is that this bill goes to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, where the proper questions are asked, the analysis is undertaken and, ultimately, the best interests of the Australian people and the Australian economy will subsequently be served after we have had a full debate about the merits of this bill. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, you do not have to take my word for this. You have to hear from companies and industry bodies that are engaged in the sector to hear what they think about this government bill before us. The Australian Metals and Mines Association has said that this bill will impose a 'further level of suffocating regulatory burden' on the offshore resource sector for 'no appreciable social or other gain and at a likely high economic cost'. The member for Goldstein, the shadow minister for finance, who is sitting in this chamber, knows all about what it takes to get the productivity of our country moving. And when he hears the words of the Australian Mines and Metals Association talk about this bill in the most derogatory terms, he knows as well as I do that this is bad news for the Australian economy, an economy which, after 14 September, he will hopefully have his hands at the reins of. This body has also said that this bill would 'put at risk the viability of current projects and weigh heavily against the commencement of future projects'. Why is that important? That is important because currently there is a pipeline of projects in Australia that is above $100 billion just for the resource sector alone. But we have seen, under this government and due to the policies of this government, significant resource projects, both onshore and offshore, either postponed or cancelled because Australia is in danger of becoming a low-productivity, high-cost economy. We all know about Olympic Dam, that $30 billion project in South Australia, and the Port Hedland extension. We know of a number of our major energy companies—I saw the Oakajee project has now been put on hold by Mitsubishi. All of these projects that would deliver untold economic benefits and employment benefits to our country have now been put on hold because of the costs of doing business in Australia. And there you have the Australian Mines and Mines Association making it abundantly clear that the legislation before this House is putting those projects in jeopardy. We are the ninth largest energy and oil producer in the world. This is a multibillion dollar industry in Australia that contributes up to 2.5 per cent of GDP on an annual basis, and it is growing. In our region there are more than three billion people who will be entering the middle class between now and 2050. We have China, 1.3 billion people; India, another 1.3 billion people. Those people in those countries, together with Vietnam and Indonesia, are moving rapidly into the middle classes. As a consequence of that, they are demanding energy. They are demanding energy to build their economies, to put new infrastructure in place, and to provide for the homes and the services that we have all come to take for granted here in Australia and in other advanced economies around the world. So Australia is in a perfect position to service those countries as a net energy exporter to support those people as they go up the value chain and enter the middle classes. We can do that only if we are a cost-effective place in which to do business and in which to produce energy. I said at the start we cannot support this bill because we know that it is an explicit, unashamed grab for power by the union movement, by the masters of the Labor Party in the Maritime Union and in the CFMEU. If it is not good enough to provide millions of dollars to the Labor Party, it is good enough for the unions to get 50 per cent of all Labor votes at federal and state caucuses. And to get 100 per cent of the Labor caucus being a member of the union. Now, why is this an issue? This is an issue because in the Australian economy today, in the private sector, only 13 per cent of the workforce belongs to a union. And when you take into account the public sector, it rises to 20 per cent. But the unions are dominating the legislative agenda of this government, and this is setting back the economic priorities for Australia. We had the former head of the HSU, Kathy Jackson, say of the member for Maribyrnong, who is the minister for workplace relations in this country and the former secretary of the AWU, that he is 'Dracula in charge of the blood bank'—and boy, is he that. The member for Canning referred in his speech to the Fair Work legislation that this parliament debated a couple of weeks ago. The right of entry provisions will ensure that no worker around this country will be able to eat their lunch in peace and quiet anymore because what this House passed was right of entry provisions that will see unions enter during the lunch hours of workers right around the country to try to recruit them to their unions. And what is more, when these union reps have to travel far distances, they will be sending a bill to the employers to pay for their travel expenses. How crazy a system has this become? There are more than 120 provisions in the Fair Work Act, which those opposite have passed, that have increased the power of the unions at the expense of the employee and at the expense of the employer. And it is no wonder that industrial disputes have more than doubled under this government. It is no wonder that this government has abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission and all that that did to create billions of dollars in new wealth and productivity improvements in our economy. It is no wonder that you have launched a war on the 457 system, and it is all because you are paying back your union mates. The 457 visas are very relevant to this debate. The 457s are about foreign workers, just as this debate is about foreign workers on overseas resource installations. A government member interjecting— Mr FRYDENBERG FKL You have said that you do not want people on 457s coming to this country. That is effectively what you have said. And this is despite former minister for immigration Chris Bowen saying in January that you, as a government, have got the balance right on 457s and the Prime Minister of this country, Julia Gillard, saying in China when she was visiting there just recently that the balance is right on 457s. This is despite the number of people on 457s in this country dramatically increasing to the record high number of 125,000 today. This is despite half the members of the Transport Workers Union, including Tony Sheldon's own personal staff, being here on 457s. This is despite the Prime Minister's Scottish 'Svengali' John McTernan also being here on a 457. You have put aside all of that evidence and the fact that people coming to this country on 457s are filling voids in our labour force in information technology, engineering, health services and the resources sector to confect an argument against 457s based on what you are being told by your union paymasters. This is not good for this country. We have seen a government become totally beholden to the power of the union movement. This bill before the House is just the latest example of it. This bill before the House is the latest instalment in an attack on foreign workers and an attack on the most productive sectors of our economy. It is very funny that on the 457s the Prime Minister said: We inherited from the previous government a 457 temporary foreign worker visa program that was totally out of control … If it is so out of control, why did you see the number of foreign workers coming to this country increase dramatically to today's record high number of 125,000? You did it because you understood back then that 457s were an important part of the economy. Even Chris Bowen said: … migration is shaped by Australia's economic needs, and the Temporary Business 457 visa is a key pillar in this approach. The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, said: … we will need skilled migration. I believe we’ve got the visa settings right particularly with short term 457 visas. So we know that you started a war on 457s for the very same reason you are starting a war on those foreign workers working on offshore resource activities and doing so to improve the economic management of those resource companies that produce export dollars for the Australian economy and help grow our system. That is the key issue here. In conclusion, we cannot support the bill before this House because there has not been the rigorous consultation with the industry, because there has not been an assessment of the economic impact this higher regulatory burden will have and because of the complicating factors it may have for our border protection policies and our ability to protect our borders. Most of all, we cannot support this because this is just a payback to the union movement by the Labor Party. Debate adjourned. Australian Capital Territory Water Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 5841

Australian Capital Territory Water Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2013

Reference to Federation Chamber 5841 17:11 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler by leave—I move: That the bill be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration. Question agreed to. Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill 2013 5841

Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill 2013

Second Reading 5841 17:12 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I have listened to all of the opposition speakers who have spoken on the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill 2013 and all I heard from each and every one of them was an attack on the unions, an attack on the minister, talk about refugee policy, which has nothing to do with this bill whatsoever, and talk about border protection. Not once did any member opposite specifically address the substance and the merits of this bill, which seeks to ensure that Australia's interests in offshore projects are indeed protected. I commend the member for Wills, who pointed that out so well and so clearly in his contribution to this debate. Coalition members would like to see the multinationals that control the resource industry in Australia, both onshore and offshore, continue to operate without any restrictions and responsibilities. It is time that that came to an end. There is no logical reason whatsoever why the resources that are found offshore should be treated differently to the resources found on land in Australia and why workers who work on those resources on land should be treated any differently to the workers who are dealing with the resources found in the oceans. This legislation arises from the Federal Court decision in the Allseas v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship case. The court found that the foreign workers in that case—those on board the two pipe-laying vessels Lorelay and Solitaire—were not within the Australian migration zone and therefore did not require Australian visas. As a result of that decision, a task force was convened. I make it clear that that was done by the previous minister for immigration, not the current minister, whom members opposite seek to condemn and criticise because of what they refer to as his self-interest in this matter. The task force was asked to consider a response to the Federal Court decision so as to ensure that those projects did in fact fall within Australian jurisdiction. I note that the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea gives the Australian government the jurisdiction to do exactly that, and to implement the control that is required in order for Australia to protect its sovereign rights with respect to those mineral, oil or gas exploration projects that fall within Australia's economic zone. I also note that these amendments will ensure that areas currently in coastal waters and administered by the states and the Northern Territory will also be included in the Australian migration zone. Again, I believe that is appropriate. If these amendments are passed it will mean that foreign workers, working from ocean vessels within Australian zones, will require a visa in order to do so. It is no different to a foreign worker working on the mainland. In my view there is no logical reason, as I have said earlier, why job-creation projects offshore, but within Australian jurisdiction, should be treated any differently to jobs created on the mainland. This becomes even more relevant when we know that offshore petroleum, mineral and gas exploration and development provide Australia with huge economic potential. Other speakers have talked about $100 billion of projects in the pipeline and I am sure that those figures are, in fact, correct. That means there will be many jobs created as a result of those investment decisions—investment decisions that are made under the jurisdiction and control of the Australian government. But what we currently have is a situation where, once the investment is made, the jobs that are likely to arise from those investment decisions do not go to Australians. They go to, in most cases at the moment, foreign workers. This legislation, contrary to what those opposite would have you believe, is not about preventing foreign workers from working in Australian maritime zones, because where Australian workers cannot be found to fill these jobs then, just as is the case with all of the jobs we have in Australia, people will be entitled to apply to have foreign workers come in and do the work. In fact, this government currently has a skilled migration program that accounts for about two-thirds of all migrants that come into this country. It is very much the case that this government welcomes foreign workers coming into this country to fill the skill shortages we often have and which would otherwise prevent businesses and investments from proceeding—so we are very much for supporting that need when it arises and is clearly justified. Presumably this also means that, when we have people working in those maritime zones and they fall within Australian government jurisdiction, they will also fall within, and be covered by, Australia's industrial relations laws. That is, the workers—be they Australian workers or foreign workers under 457 visas or any other type of visa—will be entitled to fair work conditions, fair remuneration and fair work entitlements. Of course that is not something that coalition members ever speak about; and not once in this debate did I hear any of the members opposite speaking about fair work conditions, fair remuneration or fair entitlements. Yet we know from past experience that some of the worst cases of worker abuse and appalling work conditions have occurred on board foreign flagged vessels operating within Australian waters. We spoke about this at length when we passed laws relating to the maritime industry in this place a couple of years ago, laws which have improved those conditions immensely, but laws which previously allowed work conditions in those industries to occur, within Australian waters, on foreign flagged vessels that we would never, ever agree to for the mainland—laws which resulted in lives being lost and environmental disasters occurring not only in Australian waters but around the world. We know that there was no supervision, no accountability and no oversight of the conditions that those workers were made to work under or the work they were carrying out—whether it met or complied with any standards. The fact is there were no standards. This legislation is not only about supporting Australian jobs, something that we on this side of the House are very proud to stand up and do, but also about ensuring that—whether those jobs are for Australians or for foreign workers—we are also supporting fair work conditions. Members opposite talk about economic development, and how this is going to stand in the way of economic development, but never once about how this might stand in the way of safety at work and all the other issues I have referred to. What they are clearly interested in is protecting the profits of multinationals, rather than the jobs of Australians or the working conditions of all who will ultimately work on these projects when work begins. If these projects do not go ahead, it is not because of the working conditions and fair rates of pay that perhaps the workers are going to be entitled to; it is simply because world commodity prices are not where they need to be in order to make the projects viable. It has nothing to do with working conditions. The working conditions simply allow workers to be exploited and more profits to go into the hands of those multinationals. This legislation does complement other legislation that the minister introduced into the House recently, and quite rightly so. The legislation says that, if there are jobs to be created in Australia, then the first consideration for filling those jobs should go to Australians. Where that is not possible then of course we will look for foreign workers to come in and assist, because we do not want to hold back or stall projects. But where it is possible, Australian workers ought to be given the first right to work within those waters. It is also important to ensure that where work is carried out, it is carried out under the standards and conditions that we have in Australia, which we all know far exceed the standards that apply to many, many other countries. This is good legislation, because it is responsible legislation protecting our nation's assets and the rights of working people around the world. I commend the legislation to the House. 17:22 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I rise to make a few brief comments in support of the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill 2013. I, like many others, was quite disturbed when reading the Allseas decision and understanding the implications of it. The essence of the Allseas decision of the Federal Court, which correctly applied the law, was that if you are working on a vessel that pulled up near but did not in some sense connect with an offshore resource project and then moved away again, you were not in effect covered by Australian law and therefore it made it harder to attract the protection of Australian labour law. That is a result that many people would have found odd: here we had, within Australia's exclusive economic zone, resources that are being exploited, and people could be performing work in connection with that, but simply because they never set foot on a particular project or they always stayed on a ship, they were not going to attract the protections of Australian migration and labour law. Of course, the consequence of that is that as soon as we start carving out, within Australia's economic zone, pockets where our law does not apply, you encourage a race to the bottom on wages and conditions. For some time we have been urging the government to act in relation to the Allseas decision, and I am pleased that the legislation is now before the House. The intention of the legislation is one that no-one could object to, and that is that if we have labour conditions and standards in Australia then they should apply uniformly. It is a principle that I hold dear that there is no objection to people coming in from overseas and working here. But, firstly, we should be exploring to make sure that there is no local labour available to do it. Secondly, if having explored that there is no locally available labour then we have to make sure that the people who come here and work, especially on our projects, get the same wages and conditions as an Australian worker working alongside them. If they do not, it is bad for everyone. It is bad for the worker who has come here because they are probably in a situation where they do not know their minimum entitlements; they do not know how to access the basic rights that Australian workers have. It is also bad for the person working next to them, because you are introducing, as I said before, a race to the bottom when, because they are entitled to those basic protections of Australian labour law, they are always going to be undercut by someone else who can be brought in to work more cheaply. For a number of years, having worked in this area of the labour law before entering parliament and since being elected, I have heard a number of quite hair-raising tales about what is happening, especially in the shipping industry. The shipping industry is, by its nature, very mobile. It is quite easy to bring people in from overseas, because that is what ships do: they go from one country to another. I have heard tales of people—engineers, for example—going to work on a ship to find that the crew had already signed up to an agreement before leaving their home countries, and that agreement covered conditions that were substantially less than the conditions that apply here, but that agreement was legally binding and that engineer could do nothing about it. That gave cause for concern. The fact that a lot of this is happening in connection with our resources sector should be especially concerning, because these resources are owned by all Australians. You only get one chance to dig up these resources or extract them from the ground and they can only be sold once. Once they are gone, they are gone. We are entitled to a fair return on those assets, and Australian workers are also entitled to share in the benefits of those resources. One thing that always strikes me is how mean-spirited are some of the largest corporations in this country and multinational corporations. They have absolutely no problem aggregating profits to themselves, but when it comes to sharing those profits with the workers and the people of this country who also have an ownership stake, they are the first ones to say they want the right to find the cheapest labour from anywhere around the globe. I am pleased that this bill is being brought before the House, because I think it fixes a problem that became apparent with the Allseas decision. One of the issues that I have with the bill is a technical issue. We will pursue this issue when it comes to the Senate. We will make sure that, with respect to operations within Australia's exclusive economic zone, this bill closes the loophole in the way that it purports to. In particular, we want to make sure that the problem identified in Allseas—namely, when you have a ship that might not touch another installation—that loophole is fully closed and these changes also cover people working on vessels dredging, for example, a step removed from the laying of the pipes, where they may be moving between what are counted as areas for the purpose of the bill. That will be a crucial issue for us when the bill comes before the Senate. This issue has been raised with the minister's office. I understand it is an issue that the minister's office will look at, and I thank the minister for agreeing to look at it. The Greens will want to see this issue satisfactorily resolved before the bill passes the Senate. It is something we can look at and discuss because it is really a technical issue that is completely consistent with the intention of the bill. I commend this bill to the House. 17:29 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I am very happy to sum up the debate on the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill 2013 and I thank all the members for their contribution. The member for Wills—who is still here—and the member for Makin spoke cogently, compellingly and relevantly on the bill. They actually went to the bill in detail. The members for Cook and Kooyong were passionate but just spoke on another bill. The member for Melbourne has raised an issue and has foreshadowed a potential change to the bill and, as indicated, I am very happy to entertain a discussion around that to see whether there needs to be any change to the bill. I remind the House that the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill 2013 amends the Migration Act to ensure that foreign workers in Australia's offshore resources industry are covered by the migration zone and are required to hold visas. This bill is aimed at ensuring all Australian jobs are regulated under Australian migration laws. The Federal Court's May 2012 decision in the Allseas case reduced the Migration Act's coverage of the offshore resources industry. In response, my predecessor established the Migration Maritime Taskforce within my department to examine how best to reform the Migration Act's application to the offshore resources industry. This bill implements the task force's recommendation. The task force's work revealed that the Migration Act relies on old law to govern the offshore resources industry. The provisions governing the offshore resources industry were inserted in 1982, before the exclusive economic zone was established. Together, the Allseas decision and the out-dated Migration Act provisions represent a significant gap in Australia's ability to regulate its offshore resources industry and to regulate which foreign workers are employed on these valuable national assets. Without this bill, the government cannot tell if foreign workers in the offshore resources industry are being underpaid or exploited. Without this bill, the government cannot tell how many foreign workers are working in Australia's offshore resources industry. Every other business in Australia needs visas for its foreign workers. Every other business in Australia needs to pay Australian wages. Most companies operating offshore are doing the right thing—just like most companies onshore do—but the Australian people expect the government to regulate jobs. Underpayment and exploitation reduce work opportunities for Australian citizens, for permanent residents and for foreign workers who do the right thing and hold the right visa. Exploitative hiring practices also put businesses that engage workers with the right visas at a competitive disadvantage. Competitive disadvantage provides a perverse incentive to stage more development offshore to avoid the requirements of the visa system. We cannot extend the migration zone to the whole EEZ, because international law does not allow that. Foreign ships have a right to free navigation of the high seas and they need to be able to pass through the EEZ, and we cannot require their crews to hold visas. The migration zone cannot be extended into territorial sea for the same reason: there is a right of innocent passage for foreign ships under international law. Because of international law, in most cases, the migration zone stops at the lower water mark. If you go swimming in the ocean, you have probably left it. A ship 50, 20 or even 10 metres offshore is most often not in the migration zone. Put a gas refinery on that ship, and as long as it is not attached to the seabed, none of the workers need to hold visas. The task force recommended that whether a person is in the migration zone should depend on not only where the person is but also what that person is doing. The task force recommended that the Migration Act should comprehensively regulate the activities of the offshore resources industry. To do this, the bill will link the migration zone to schemes under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 and the Offshore Minerals Act 1994 and other Commonwealth, state or territory laws declared in writing. If an activity needs a licence a person working on it will be in the migration zone. This bill is only part of the package. A requirement to hold a visa is meaningless without an appropriate visa to go with it. Offshore industry is different to onshore industry. Ships arrive with a crew on board and may leave only a week later. Specialised vessels with no equivalent in Australia are needed for some work. It is a worldwide industry with a specialised worldwide workforce. The government understands that industry need certainty and flexibility as they develop commercial contracts and run their businesses. That is why my department has begun to prepare for a comprehensive consultation with industry, unions and other stakeholders to shape a new visa pathway specifically for this offshore context. The new visa pathway will give industry the flexibility it needs while ensuring that the Australian government can regulate these Australian jobs and that Australian conditions are maintained. There will be transitional arrangements when the new requirement comes into force next year. We will work with industry to make sure that these are suitable and practical. My department will work with industry to ensure that the changeover is a smooth one. This is not anti-industry reform; it is pro-jobs reform. I turn now to some of the points that were raised during the debate on the bill. The member for Cook claims that this bill breaches article 56(2) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Article 56(1) provides that Australia has jurisdiction with respect to the exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of the EEZ. Article 56(2) says that Australia must exercise this jurisdiction with 'due regard' to the rights of other nations. It is clear that article 56(1) contemplates imposing conditions on who can exploit the natural resources of Australia's EEZ, otherwise it would be meaningless. The bill is deliberately drafted so as to create a self-contained framework. New section 9A(4) provides that the amendments do not affect an act other than the Migration Act unless that other act expressly refers to the new provisions. It has been suggested that statistics and information on the offshore workforce should be gathered before making these amendments. The government currently has no power under the Migration Act to collect this information. The bill addresses this by applying the Migration Act framework to the offshore resources industry. There is a principle at stake. All Australian businesses need to get visas for their foreign workers; the offshore resources industry is no exception. The member for Cook raised enterprise migration agreements. This bill does not engage with enterprise migration agreements. The government will consult with industry, unions and other stakeholders on the details of a new visa pathway designed specifically for the offshore resources industry. As I have said before, the new visa pathway will provide appropriate flexibility to industry while protecting the jobs and working conditions of Australian workers. On border management, this bill does not materially alter the situation regarding unauthorised maritime arrivals. Asylum seekers will not be covered by the new arrangements because they will not be in an area to perform an offshore resources activity. The ship itself will not be part of the migration zone. Persons performing an offshore resources activity will be taken to be in the migration zone. Nor will this bill make Australian resources installations targets for people smugglers. Asylum seekers who arrive at Australian resources installations by sea will still be unauthorised maritime arrivals. This is because asylum seekers would be taken to have entered Australia as they are on Australian resources installations. Australian resources installations are currently part of the migration zone, are deemed to be part of Australia and are excised offshore places. Unauthorised arrivals there would be subject to a visa application bar, as they are now. In summary, I thank all the members for their contribution to the debate. Where there are skills shortages and the Australian workforce cannot provide the required labour in Australia's offshore resource activities, there will always be a need for foreign workers. However, this need should not be allowed to undermine Australian working conditions and does not justify the operation of Australian industry without oversight of Australian law, as is currently the case. These are Australian resources and Australian jobs. The resources are governed by Australian laws; the jobs should be too. I commend the bill to the House. The SPEAKER 83S The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. [17:43]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)

 73 AYES Adams, DGH Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Bradbury, DJ Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Butler, MC Byrne, AM Champion, ND Cheeseman, DL 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 Hayes, CP Husic, EN Jenkins, HA Jones, SP Katter, RC Kelly, MJ King, CF Leigh, AK Livermore, KF Lyons, GR Macklin, JL Marles, RD McClelland, RB Melham, D Mitchell, RG (teller) Murphy, JP Neumann, SK Oakeshott, RJM O'Connor, BPJ O'Neill, DM Owens, J Parke, M Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Roxon, NL Rudd, KM Saffin, JA Shorten, WR Sidebottom, PS Smith, SF Smyth, L Snowdon, WE Swan, WM Symon, MS Thomson, CR Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Wilkie, AD Windsor, AHC Zappia, A 69 NOES 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 Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gash, J Griggs, NL Haase, BW Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Hockey, JB Hunt, GA Irons, SJ 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 Robert, SR Roy, WB Ruddock, PM Scott, BC Secker, PD (teller) Simpkins, LXL Smith, ADH Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Tehan, DT Truss, WE Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Washer, MJ Wyatt, KG 3 PAIRS Clare, JD Schultz, AJ Collins, JM Forrest, JA Gillard, JE Somlyay, A

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Third Reading 5848 17:48 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2013 5848

Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2013

Report from Federation Chamber 5848 Third Reading 5848 17:49 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2013 5848

Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2013

Report from Federation Chamber 5848 Third Reading 5848 17:49 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2013 5848

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2013

Report from Federation Chamber 5848 Third Reading 5849 17:49 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Social Security Legislation Amendment (Public Housing Tenants' Support) Bill 2013 5849

Social Security Legislation Amendment (Public Housing Tenants' Support) Bill 2013

Second Reading 5849 17:51 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies Labor's public housing tenants' support bill claims that it will reduce the risk of homelessness in Australia by introducing compulsory rent deductions for public housing tenants at risk of eviction due to unpaid rent up to a cap of 35 per cent of an individual's income support payments. The coalition does not support the bill. We believe that this bill may actually increase the housing stress and financial hardship of some of the most vulnerable people in our society while doing nothing to prevent homelessness. It is an administrative cost to the Commonwealth and the government is also as yet unable to say what the cost to the states and territories will be. The bill stems from a recommendation of Labor's 2008 white paper on homelessness, The road home, by introducing compulsory rent deductions for public housing tenants at risk of eviction and homelessness due to unpaid rent. To this end, the bill implements the housing payment deduction scheme into the social security law and family assistance law. The scheme will have effect in relation to specified social security payments, payments under the Abstudy scheme and payments of family tax benefit. The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs estimates that around 600 people are evicted from public housing due to arrears each year, including families with children. Others abandon their properties, leaving arrears. Many end up in specialist homelessness services, staying with family and friends or sleeping rough. The bill would also allow public housing costs required to be paid under a public housing lease to be deducted from the lessee's income support payment providing they are in arrears. Public housing tenants deemed under the legislation to be in arrears can be nominated by their public housing authority for compulsory deductions from their income support or family payment up to a cap of 35 per cent of that income. The bill would see the minister setting out in the legislative instrument the minimum levels of arrears required before a public housing lessor is able to request deductions. It is intended that this minimum level will be the equivalent of four weeks rent. Housing costs which could be included in the calculation of arrears are limited to rent, rent arrears and household utilities where included under the lease. To avoid the possibility of deductions for a person starting and stopping repeatedly each time they repay their arrears, the bill allows for a public housing lessor to take a subsequent request to apply for a period of 12 months further deductions after a person's arrears have been repaid. This provision is intended to give public housing tenants in arrears more time to re-establish a pattern of regular payments once compulsory deductions have been discontinued. The minister will specify in a legislative instrument those public housing lessors approved to participate in the scheme and must be satisfied before granting approval that a public housing lessor has appropriate review processes in place to address disputes arising under leases or under state or territory tenancy legislation. The scheme is estimated to cost $4.5 million in 2013-14, and around $1.4 million in subsequent years, in addition to a transaction fee to be charged to states and territories for using the scheme at the same time as is currently charged for the use of the voluntary rent deduction scheme. The scheme introduced in this bill is a typical Labor initiative: it costs a lot, it will add to an already overly blown bureaucracy, it will involve hugely complicated regulatory and legislative changes and in the end it is likely to achieve nothing at all. In fact, the most likely outcome of this bill is that we will only make worse the very problem it purports to solve, so placing the most vulnerable people in our society under even greater financial strain and increasing their risk of homelessness. The coalition is committed to taking real action to prevent homelessness, not penalising those most at risk of falling into homelessness. Labor claims this bill aims to reduce the risk of homelessness for public housing tenants in arrears in their rental payments, but the housing payments deduction scheme introduced in the bill is so badly designed it will instead only increase the financial difficulties for anyone in public housing with more than four weeks arrears in rent. This is a group potentially far larger than the one intended in the objectives of the bill—that is, only those people at risk of homelessness due to eviction from arrears. Worse still, by setting the cap of compulsory income payment deductions at 35 per cent, the scheme automatically places anyone subject to it under housing stress by definition when the cost of housing is 30 per cent or more of household income. By setting the cap on income payment deductions under the scheme at 35 per cent, the Labor government has also contradicted its own commitments under the National Affordable Housing Agreement. In 2008, the Commonwealth and the states and territories signed the National Affordable Housing Agreement under which the Commonwealth agreed to provide $6.2 billion over five years to increase the supply of affordable housing in Australia. As part of the agreement, the Commonwealth, states and territories all committed to reduce housing stress in Australia. Contrary to the aims of the National Affordable Housing Agreement, by implementing the measures in this bill the Commonwealth will only increase housing stress. Although the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs claims that around 600 people are evicted from public housing due to arrears each year, the department has presented little other data to justify the scheme. In fact, in developing the legislation, the department appears to have undertaken no detailed collection or analysis of data on the extent to which eviction due to arrears is a problem nationally or whether the type of intervention proposed in the bill will have any positive impact on an individual's risk of homelessness. Last week, in estimates, officials from the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs updated the 600 person number to 756, but the basis for this calculation remains unclear. Indeed, the bill is a perfect example of poorly researched, ill conceived, badly made policy from an incompetent government. The bill is also administratively burdensome and will require significant changes to the way in which social security payments are made. The Rudd-Gillard government has mismanaged homelessness policy right from the start, and has made it difficult for states and territories on the frontline to do their job and to deliver services to some of our most vulnerable citizens. In 2008, Mr Rudd said that homelessness was 'a national obscenity' and promised to halve the rate of homelessness in Australia by 2020. Sadly, Labor's record has not matched its rhetoric. In fact, under Labor's watch homelessness has only increased. Between 2006 and 2011, ABS census figures show a 17 per cent increase in the number of homeless people in Australia, or over 15,000 people, from 89,728 in 2006 to 105,237 in 2011. Compounding this failure, on 2 May 2013, the Australian National Audit Office released a report which revealed major failings in the government's key homelessness funding deal with the states and the territories, the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness. According to the ANAO report, the government is unlikely to achieve its own target of a seven per cent reduction in homelessness by 1 July 2013. Under Labor, the future for homelessness funding in Australia will therefore remain uncertain beyond mid-2014. This government has allocated nothing in the forward estimates to fund vital homelessness services across the country. The coalition is committed to combatting the many and complex causes of homelessness, supporting homeless Australians with real practical assistance, and preventing even more Australians from falling into homelessness. We will not support policies or legislation that serve only to increase the risk of homelessness in Australia and that add further layers of bureaucracy and cost to the process of government, and it is for these reasons that we will not support this bill. 18:01 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne People should have the right to control their own income. People should also have the right to safe, secure and affordable housing. People should also have the right not to live in poverty. Because this bill, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Public Housing Tenants’ Support) Bill 2013, contravenes those rights, the Greens will not be supporting it. This bill is an extension of income management and removes the right of public housing tenants to manage their own income. It also poses risks to residents as a result of lost income and the stress this will put on their health and the health of their families. If people want to enter into income management voluntarily, of their own free will, then there is a role of government to facilitate that. The Australian Greens do believe that a form of voluntary income management may be useful for some people in managing their finances, but it will not be effective unless people enter into it of their own free will and the processes involved are transparent and clear. Instead, Labor wants to force people to live below the poverty line, by removing their ability to negotiate how many of their rent arrears they can pay according to their means. The Australian Greens would rather see $8.6 million spent on initiatives that add to the safety net, not cut more of it away, and increased services that empower people, not spent on taking their power away and making pressure worse. The Greens recognise that income management is not evidence based social policy for a caring society but merely a pursuit of a new approach to a social welfare based on paternalism. The government has consistently emphasised the importance of evidence based policy. For example, Minister Macklin has spoken of her 'unshakeable belief in the power of responsive, evidence-based policy to drive progressive reform at many different levels'. Yet the growing body of evidence on various forms of income management demonstrates that it does not work. From the last four years worth of income quarantining in the Northern Territory, research clearly demonstrates that this policy is not working. For people affected by child protection income management in Western Australia, WACOSS have noted very low rates of participation in financial counselling for people affected and financial counsellors found child protection income management makes recipients more dependent than before, 'stifling their motivation to develop financial management skills'. So if income management does not reduce exits to homelessness and does not improve personal decision making, goal setting or financial literacy and only enforces dependency on the system, what is it good for? And if indeed income management is the only way we can prevent these exits to homelessness, what does this say about the way we are running our public housing system? What does it say about our safety nets? It is not even clear that there is a problem. The most recent Productivity Commission report on government services states that there is a very high rent collection rate in public housing, of 99.6 per cent. The main reason that the government has provided for this bill is that it will reduce the risk of homelessness from tenants facing eviction due to arrears. But this is a very long bow. The long bow the government has drawn in tying this bill to the goal of reducing homelessness is insulting to those who work in the sector, who could think of a lot of better ways to spend $8.6 million to reduce homelessness—and that is something that I will speak on in a moment. This bill was discussed during the recent Senate estimates hearings. The lack of information that FaHCSIA could provide on key elements of this bill at this late stage was astounding. What they could tell us was that 756 public housing tenants were evicted due to arrears in 2011-12. Another 1,111 tenants have abandoned properties leaving arrears, excluding Tasmania—that is across the whole of the country. But, when asked how many of those would have gone into homelessness, they did not have figures. When asked what evidence they had that the enactment of the scheme will reduce homelessness, the answer was completely inadequate. When asked for figures of tenants evicted by jurisdiction and for dollar figures for the arrears, they did not have the figures. The states want a mechanism to make it easier for them to take away tenants' income, yet they refuse to provide figures on what tenants owe. This federal Labor government is aiding and abetting conservative state governments to increase the pressure on public housing tenants. Isn't the mere fact that they are saying that this measure is aimed at preventing public homelessness of concern? If people are becoming homeless from arrears, then this is an abject failure of the state's duty to protect the most vulnerable. Is the safety net so bad that people fall straight through it without any support at all? When asked why the ceiling is 35 per cent of a tenant's income, which, of course, would automatically place all payees into housing stress, the department had no satisfactory answer, except to say that it is an upper limit and it will be up to state housing authorities to decide on a case-by-case basis—the very same state governments that we hear day after day in this place are cutting services and not treating people with the respect that they deserve. When asked if putting people into housing stress also puts people at risk of homelessness, the department had no answer. All in all, there is no hard data to support the claim that this bill will prevent homelessness, and it has been really uncomfortable to watch the government try. But it is not just the Australian Greens who oppose this bill; many housing peak bodies and community sector organisations were involved in the consultation process. Across the board, fairly unanimous opposition to this bill has been articulated by Homelessness Australia, the Australian Council of Social Service, National Shelter, the Tenants Union of New South Wales and the Top End Women's Legal Service. The National Shelter does not support the legislation and has concerns about whether the scheme will really alleviate homelessness. Homelessness Australia do not support it. They have not seen any evidence that it would reduce exits into homelessness. The North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency and the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service both made submissions in opposition to the bill. What is concerning is that this is just the tip of the iceberg. The consultation was not public but just with these select representatives. But, closer to my home, the Tenants Union of Victoria also oppose the bill. They believe that the problem of evictions due to non-payment of rent, which the bill allegedly targets, does not even exist. They say FaHCSIA did not obtain adequate data on public housing evictions due to rental arrears from the states, a point that was proven in Senate estimates on Monday night. They say public housing residents cannot get evicted by the Office of Housing in Victoria without an order from VCAT, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Regardless, the majority of public housing evictions do not occur due to rent arrears. Therefore, they say, there is no need for this bill—or certainly not in Victoria. What is clear, though, is that this bill hands the housing office a shortcut to residents' Centrelink income support payments, to minimise the costs associated with managing arrears. The Tenants Union of Victoria submission highlights the following risks to residents. This bill will increase poverty. It is proposed to be capped at 35 per cent income management of Centrelink payments, which would leave a single parent with one child approximately $24 a day to live on. The bill does not include an independent appeals process. The bill undermines already existing successful processes. In Victoria, the current system of residents negotiating payment plans with the housing office is working. Tenants are currently able to negotiate individual payment plans, but this bill will eliminate that process. The bill will increase demand for other support organisations. The government says that it has addressed the needs of the sector, but the sector says this is not so. This bill is particularly close to my heart as the member for Melbourne. There are eight public housing estates in Melbourne, the most concentrated in any electorate in Australia. I am extremely proud of the work I have been doing with public housing tenants in Melbourne over the last three years and that I have been lucky enough to represent them in this place. I have attended community meetings and gatherings and am in close contact with tenants and community groups. I have attended the Hands Off Melbourne's Estates rally where public housing tenants spoke out against selloffs and private developments in Fitzroy and Richmond. My office has assisted hundreds of residents in public housing to access suitable housing and services, particularly around maintenance issues, and has also assisted people facing homelessness to get into public housing. This bill provides a good opportunity to tell the parliament that the issues public-housing residents really care about, and what I am hearing is that people are doing it tough and living in overcrowded conditions in public housing because they are waiting for years for housing that is often not big enough for their families. Their incomes are so low that they are finding it hard to make money stretch and having to choose between essentials, food or school materials. Labor's cuts to single parents mean that single parents cannot afford rent and cannot make ends meet. They are also concerned about the low level of Newstart, which was not increased in this budget, and the cuts and changes to disability support pensions that Labor has brought about. They really want dental care to be in Medicare, something that the Greens have fought for and won for kids. They want to see more funding going to public schools. They want to get a job but often cannot find appropriate services for finding a job. They want a suitable place for their kids to study and do their homework but are worried about overcrowding and what it is doing to their family's health. More recently there has been a move by the Victorian state Liberal government to make changes to public housing and people are concerned that this will mean rent rises and, worse, that private housing will be privatised and that their housing is being sold off from under their feet. Yet in Melbourne between 2006 and 2011 the total number of dwellings owned by the state housing authority actually decreased from 7,291 to 7,172. This was in the face of public housing waiting lists tens of thousands long. The Greens believe that all people should have the right to control their own income. People who have not been able to pay their rent for just one month can be forced under this bill onto the scheme and then kept on it for a full 12 months even after they have paid off their debt. I am deeply worried that public-housing residents will be at a greater risk of poverty and lose control over their finances by being forced onto this scheme. People do not fall behind because they cannot be bothered paying their rent. Rental arrears suggest people are in deep financial trouble. We know that lower income support payments lead to people having to resort to credit loans or borrowing from friends. We also know that people are going without essentials, like savings for an emergency, contents insurance, heating and cooling and so on, which further compounds housing stress. Money is incredibly tight for them and the pressure is only getting worse. Income-managing people in such difficult financial situation will only compound problems and push them further into poverty. This policy will hit some of the most vulnerable people in our community. The recent Salvation Army national economic and social impact survey found that 37 per cent of people on the disability payment, 36 per cent of single parents on Newstart and 29 per cent of single parenting payment recipients are in public housing. There must be a more caring way to help people out. This bill comes at a high cost and there are better alternatives. The costs of managing this scheme are so high it is impossible to justify it. The cost of this mechanism is $8.6 million over four years, and that is astounding. The Greens believe this money would be far better invested in providing services and caring for our most vulnerable. The Greens and welfare organisations around the country are calling on the government to fund more services instead of attacking public-housing residents. Instead of this bill, the government should be looking at the root cause of arrears and evictions. The Australian Greens know that the causes for homelessness are many and complex, which is why we are so disappointed at the lack of any new action taken by Labor in this budget to increase services or funding for new housing for people experiencing homelessness. The government should be providing more support to programs that are proven to work. If we were genuine about reducing the risk of homelessness we would provide more funding to voluntary schemes such as Centrecare which already exist where public-housing tenants can nominate to have their rent automatically deducted. Similarly, their arrears could be deducted through a voluntary payment plan. We would provide more funding for agencies to support people at risk of arrears and evictions; fund more case management and support worker programs for residents; fund training for housing officers, increasing housing officers to support people; and in my state of Victoria fund the Victorian Social Housing Advocacy and Support Program. The Liberal state government recently cut funding to their front-line services, putting over 2,000 people, including individuals, families and children, at risk of homelessness this year. It is also worth pointing out that for $8.6 million we could provide 16,000 tenants with safety and security measures, like security screens on their windows and doors and swipe cards in their buildings. Or we could put a solar panel on the roof and insulation in the homes of almost 3,000 public housing tenants, which would dramatically reduce their cost of living and improve their comfort. Or we could take 24 families off the public housing waiting list by building that many new homes outright. To conclude, the Australian Greens believe that all people should have the right to control their own income. The Greens stand with the peak housing bodies and welfare organisations around the country who are calling on the government to fund more services, instead of making the lives of the most vulnerable in public housing even harder. We need to protect all people and their families from falling into a poverty trap. We will oppose this bill. 18:15 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide This bill will implement the Housing Payment Deduction Scheme, to help reduce homelessness for public housing tenants who are in serious rental arrears that could lead to eviction or housing abandonment. This scheme, to be implemented next year, is designed to work alongside government-funded financial counselling and other available support services to ensure that public housing tenants continue to be housed safely and affordably while they get the help they need to sustain their tenancy. For people who have problem levels of public housing arrears, the new scheme will allow rent and utilities legally required to be paid under their public housing leases to be compulsorily deducted from their welfare payments and paid directly to their public housing landlords. The Housing Payment Deduction Scheme made possible by this bill will help prevent high levels of arrears from being accumulated. It will reduce evictions and property abandonments from public housing. This carefully considered initiative flows from commitments made by the Australian government and state and territory governments in the National Affordable Housing Agreement and the Australian government's white paper on homelessness: The road home. The bill has also benefited from valuable comments made on it during a recent exposure draft process, and I take this opportunity to thank the many government agencies, community organisations, welfare and tenants organisations and legal centres that contributed their expertise in this important area. Housing costs, which now can be deducted, will be limited to rent, rent arrears and household utilities where included under the lease. Maintenance debt incurred as a result of property damage will not be included in response to stakeholder concerns that these debts can be contentious and may cause hardship, particularly for victims of domestic violence. Requests for compulsory deductions will only be able to be made after reasonable action has been taken by state and territory lessors to recover rental arrears. This will require as a minimum that the tenant has been given appropriate notice and advice on their rights of review and available support services. Deductions under the scheme will only be made from payments, as set out in the legislative instrument, that include a rate component for recipients' housing costs. Lump sum and special purpose payments, such as the clean energy and pension supplements will not be available for deductions to ensure that tenants receive the full benefit of these Australian government payments. This bill takes a significant step towards addressing the problem of evictions and homelessness among Australia's public housing tenants by providing a means by which rent can be paid and by preventing high-level arrears that put tenancies at risk. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading 5856 18:19 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. BUSINESS 5856 BUSINESS Rearrangement 5856 18:19 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 15, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. (Quorum formed) BILLS 5856 BILLS Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 5856

Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013

Second Reading 5856 18:23 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton It is good to see people turning up to hear this important speech. Obviously, education is something I am particularly passionate about and this educational transition bill is a part of the process towards changing Australia's education future; a future that is complemented by many of the other activities by this government—No. 1, obviously by doubling the education budget, especially the big part of that being that both sides of the chamber have been involved in, with the Building the Education Revolution component. I have seen time and time again photographs of people from both sides of the chamber happy to acknowledge the contribution—albeit an economic program—to schools of the new facilities. I can go around Moreton and talk to school communities who were involved in decisions to bring in new school facilities; things like learning labs, new sets of classrooms, and school halls or performing arts halls. I have seen it at the Kuraby State School. I could list every single school in my electorate that has benefited from the BER program, but the doubling of the education budget is not only about an economic program; it is also about preparing Australia for a lift in educational standards. Sadly, we can look at state governments and we can look at national governments: the reality is educational standards have dropped in Australia in the last 20 years. I finished teaching in 1997. It is sad to think that the students being educated now have educational standards, in some areas of disadvantage, that are two or three years below where they were 20 years ago. That is a shameful legacy for any government—irrespective of their political persuasion. The Labor government saw that we needed to do more. As I said, the initial BER program was an economic program but then, look at the other reforms that we have brought in that I am very, very proud of when I talk to my teaching colleagues—I will be seeing a lot of them in a fortnight at a bit of a reunion. To be able to talk about a national curriculum—something that was too hard for this federation for 110 years, but now we have a national curriculum. When we look at improving teaching standards, when we look at reporting on the achievements of schools so that wherever you are in the country you can click on the web—if you are lucky enough to be connected to the web; obviously, when we roll out the National Broadband Network that will facilitate that because the NBN is not all about economic infrastructure; it is also about educational infrastructure—and as a parent or a student you can see how your school is performing by comparing like with like. Whether you are from a remote Western Australian school or a big inner-city school, you can make an assessment of where you are going. The Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 and the Australian Education Bill 2012 government amendments are all about that rollout of educational improvements in terms of making sure that our commitment to Australian schooling provides a high-quality and equitable education for all students. That is in the Labor Party's DNA. The government's response to the recommendations of the independent Review of the Funding for Schooling, which found—as everyone who has been lobbied by a Gonski parent, a Gonski-concerned citizen, a Gonski grandparent or the neighbour of a Gonski activist knows by now—that the previous school funding arrangements, or the current school funding arrangements, are not meeting the educational needs of all Australian children, particularly disadvantaged students. In every school, whether it be independent, Catholic or state—that is why people go into education so that we give as much advantage to students as possible. The amendments implement the National Plan for School Improvement, including new needs based funding arrangements for government and non-government schools from 1 January 2014. Let's have a look at that. I stand here as a student who attended a Catholic primary school and a state high school, who has a child at a Catholic primary school and who taught in state schools and Catholic schools. I have also had a lot to do with Christian schools and other independent schools. I have a fair degree of background in education and I know the journey that Australian governments have made over the years from looking at the arguments about who should fund non-government schools—we go back a long time. In terms of the parliament getting it right, effectively, this Australian education bill is the pinnacle. It achieves what we are trying to do by moving funds and resources towards disadvantage. The Commonwealth recurrent funding for schooling will now be delivered through fair and transparent needs based arrangements, providing new investment to support reforms that will help to improve each students' achievements at school. In the past we have seen the SES model, which was an idea that was flawed from the start by extracting the census collection district data from a parent then using that data to calculate whether the funds should flow to that school. We saw when the SES model was introduced that basically half the schools were funding maintained from the start. I understand that idea of making sure that schools do not lose a dollar, but when you have a system that effectively means half the schools are not in the system you know that you are not getting it right. Under our new arrangements the participating schools will receive additional investment. Evidence based reforms will also be supported under the National Plan for School Improvement. We will look at the things that we know work—we have seen them work. You can go to the schools in my electorate that are national partnership schools. All we are effectively doing is rolling out that national partnership model on a national scale, to all 9,200 schools. Let us look at those things: quality teaching, quality learning, making sure the data that is produced is transparent and that there is accountability. We look at student needs and we also make sure that schools make decisions based on their community. Concerned parents working with professional educators and school staff are the best ones to make decisions for their environment, whether it be in Coolangatta or Cunnamulla or the cape. Anywhere in Queensland, anywhere in Australia, local communities need to be involved and working with the educators. How will we do that? We will do it through a new schooling resource standard that will deliver a per student level of funding based on current funding levels for higher achieving efficient schools. So we will not be dealt that cruel blow that we saw in Queensland, where every single school had their funding cut under Campbell Newman. The reality there was every state school having their funding cut, combined with the Victorian and New South Wales cuts that I do not know as much about. Then, because the way they calculate funding allocations is based on how much goes towards a state government school, the funding cut to schools by Campbell and his Liberal cronies meant that every non-government school in Queensland received a consequential cut. The funding cuts in Queensland were through things as simple as using a rounding-down capacity. Once upon a time you calculated the number of kids on day 8 of the school year, you came up with a number and if it worked out to be 23.8 teachers you got the resources associated with 23.8 teachers. But Campbell Newman, in a cruel blow at the start of this school year, rounded down so that instead of having 23.8 teachers you ended up with 23. If you are a big school you can perhaps accommodate a 0.8 reduction in staff. It has meant a lot of principals and members of the executive have gone back into the classroom, which is tough for them. Teaching colleagues of mine—people I have taught with in the past or that I know in my electorate—have had to go back into the classroom to plug this rounding-down gap. What we are doing now with the new schooling resource standard will abolish that because we will be able to give out funds according to the costs of helping a child overcome educational disadvantage, rather than using the reasonably arbitrary figures that have floated around in the evolution we have had over the last 40 or 50 years towards the correct funding model. I see the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth is here. I did not see him at Nyanda State High School or at Yeronga State School, where I would have loved to have seen him. I wish he had been allowed to come and visit me at those schools. The kids there would have loved to have seen him. I would have loved to have taken him to Nyanda State High School, the school that the Newman government has flagged to close down, the school that produced Billy Thorpe and Lobby Loyde. How can you have a school that produced two musicians like that yet they are now talking about closing it down? That is a school I would have loved to have taken the minister to. We know that no school will lose out under this model. We have committed that no school will lose a dollar per student under these new arrangements. Each year, every school authority will receive at least the per student funding level it received the previous year, plus indexation to cover real increases in costs. I heard today a Liberal National Party member say that Queensland schools are going to miss out under our Gonski model. I know that is not the case. The Liberal National Party member was misleading the House, as far as I was concerned. For a start we have a Premier who cut funds to every school in Queensland—and I am sure we will hear about the cuts to Victoria and New South Wales—and then there are those consequences when it comes to calculating what non-government schools in Queensland receive. I am very proud of this legislation. I am proud to have been associated with this reform process of getting it right. Every school, from the richest school in Queensland to the poorest school in Queensland, can unpack this model, see that it is transparent, see that it is fair and see where the resources will flow to disadvantage. As a Queenslander, coming from the most decentralised state and from a little country town where the high school opened when I was in grade 8 and there were 12 people in year 12, I can say that the education I received was the only thing that gave me a decent chance in life. I understand how much it costs to get it right in a decentralised state like Queensland, because the reality is we have a lot of small schools, of little one-teacher schools, and we are changing with a moving population as the shearing population decreases and other industries are on the rise. This Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill will usher in a new series of changes that I am particularly proud to be associated with. I particularly want to commend the education minister, Minister Garrett, who has been a regular visitor to my electorate on this topic. I thank him in particular for a storybook he donated to St Brendan's school. On the public record, I can pass on from the principal how much they appreciated that gesture. When he turned a certain age—I will leave it to him to inform the House how old——they appreciated him coming to the school, they sang 'Happy Birthday' to him and he responded by sending them a lovely storybook. I commend this legislation to the House and look forward to it rolling out throughout the nation. 18:37 Dr JENSEN DYN Tangney This Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill will put in place a framework for the implementation of David Gonski's review of school funding. I wish to draw the attention of the House to one illuminating experience from the past year in my electorate of Tangney. The petitions committee of which I am a member made the historic trip to Perth in Western Australia. It made the trip to engage with students at Santa Maria College in Applecross. It was my opinion and that of all the members of the committee that the girls who gave evidence and opinion to the committee were rational and intelligent and inimitably the epitome of a good education. So if the girls of year 12 in Applecross were so good and so enlightening, what is so wrong with education? Why would any government try to endanger the quality of education at Santa Maria that Santa Maria can offer these girls and the many other girls of Applecross today and into the future? The situation this bill will initiate will be that many private schools in my electorate will have a future of uncertainty and relative disadvantage. Put simply, the message that this bill sends out is clear: we want to increase the average level of schooling but we want to do this by bringing down the tallest poppy by hitting over the head the brightest and best-performing independent schools. Let us not legislate tall poppyism into our future. Tall poppyism should have no future. Why do we act on this today? We act because we know that the empires of the futures are the empires of the mind. Good education reform is important. The Productivity Commission states that reform in this area could add 1.2 per cent gain to labour productivity and gains from human capital of four times other microeconomic reforms. The coalition will not subscribe to any plan that will negatively impact on faith in our private schools. We know that choice is the key. That is what parents want and that is what they deserve—a better way forward. Focus should be put more on the quality of teachers, parental engagement and school autonomy, so the SES or socioeconomic status is the Liberal stance on funding of education. And it is working. Let us build on this, not tear it down. A better way forward for the education bill would be to use vouchers to address preprimary and primary funding and getting real with what business models illustrate and demand cost-benefit analysis of what capital employed would indicate. By moving to implement this bill, the Labor recipe for education has a bitter lemon aftertaste in scrapping tax refunds in favour of cash payments. Problematically, because of the fungibility issue, how is one to guarantee that the money has actually been spent on education? Also, if it is means tested as stated, then there are administration costs and so it becomes inefficient and less equitable. Additionally troublesome are the amounts of cash bonus. Labor appear to have got the emphasis all mixed up. Large amounts of capital should be directed at the primary level as opposed to the secondary level. The plan outlined by Labor gives $820 to secondary school students and $410 to primary students. This is nonsense as the costs associated with primary are higher and also get a better return for investment in the long run than secondary. The sense of primary investment and early intervention are backed up by the work of Blauer, Posner and Becker, noted economists of long-standing and international distinction. They have literally written books on good education and economic policy. Investing early and often has many positive prosocial externalities. The spillovers are many and are compounded over time by a multiplication effect. Examples are in the area of crime and democratic participation et cetera. Per dollar return on investment is greatest at the earliest stages. You have an issue otherwise of diminishing utility. This is where mandatory preschool, as in WA from 2013, has a role. Finance could be found from ceasing to commit to overreductions in class size—and I repeat that 'overreductions in class size '. Reductions in class size do not pass the cost benefit of the capital-employed test and it is subject to unjustifiably high diminishing marginal utility. We must show a brave originality to break free of orthodoxy and heuristic reasoning. It is a message that is fed by the dominant teachers unions. While no-one can doubt the good work of teachers that the teachers of this nation do every single day, this is not about teachers. It is about the children. So how can Liberals get smart education policy that fits with the Asian century? PISA has found that it is not the volume of money spent but the way we spend it—vouchers. Liberals believe in empowering parents through the market mechanism, expanding freedom and incentive through a Friedman-style voucher system. Performing schools will then be rewarded and incentive created. This formed part of the Liberal 2010 manifesto. We see Labor recognise this in how the NDIS will operate. Vouchers in education must also be linked with reform in personal taxation such that an earned income tax credit would recognise the value of work over welfare. Cash incentives for grades work. Fryer, Sadoff and Levitt—prominent, pioneering and visionary economic policy leaders—have shown them to do so. Let's not waste time talking about radical change; let's just do it. We need bold ideas to tackle the declining number of students undertaking secondary studies in the hard sciences and maths and the flow-on effects this is having on the Australian economy. At present, students in years 11 and 12 are dropping physics, chemistry and maths in favour of easier humanities subjects such as history and politics to boost their entrance scores. A lack of interest in physics, maths and chemistry sees fewer enrolments at university, and this has a knock-on effect on Australia's research and development capabilities. Fostering an appreciation for the fundamentals of science will prosper a culture of excellence and create a strong base to ensure long-term economic growth. I firmly believe science and maths should be core subjects for every student right up to year 12. But the government then took two steps back, dismantling the Australian Learning and Teaching Council, which was a vital cog driving research in universities. This is a major blow to our research and development capabilities and will have economic flow-on effects. China has made the seemingly obvious connection between investment in the sciences and maths and the multiplier effect on GDP growth. It is now reaping economic and technological rewards. More than half of all Chinese students graduate in the hard sciences and engineering, compared with a world average of 27 per cent and only 17 per cent in the US—and it is even lower here. During the period 1993 to 2003, China's R&D expenditures grew faster than those of any other nation, pushing its share of world R&D investment from 3.6 per cent to 9.5 per cent. During the same period, the European Union's share declined from 28.5 per cent to 25 per cent. Australia's R&D expenditure as a proportion of GDP remains lower than the OECD average—shameful—although it has increased in recent years. This is a terrible indictment of a nation as prosperous as ours. Given our economic and social position, our R&D expenditure should track the upper end of OECD nations. We should be in a race for the top, not for the bottom. In January 2006, China initiated a 15-year medium-to-long-term plan for the development of science and technology. The nation aims to become an innovation-oriented society by 2020 and a world leader in science and technology by 2050. Under the plan, China wants to develop indigenous innovation capabilities and leapfrog into leading new industries by increasing R&D expenditures to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2020. Australia needs to set ambitious goals and commit funding to the long term. This is our space race moment. We need teachers trained in these areas of expertise. Paying these teachers as professionals while acknowledging the need to pay them more than other teachers and giving these subjects more weight when it comes to university entrance exams are just two measures to encourage more students to study maths and science. I congratulate the University of Western Australia, which has begun to give greater weight to these subjects. Hopefully this will help address the slide against maths and science based subjects. Teaching, learning and advancements in research and development are at the core of ensuring Australia has a prosperous economic future. But it all starts with the basics—science and maths being a central cog in our children's learning machine. This education bill has nothing to say on this. Given the positive link between education and the economic multiplier, we have to ask ourselves what kind of economy we, the coalition, are hoping to shape through educational advancement. I have one question for the Gillard government. It is the one question I am asked every single day in my electorate of Tangney. Young and old alike ask me: if education reform is really so important to Labor, why are they not putting any money into the Gonski review's recommendations until—get this—2022? There is no money until 2022—nearly 10 years over three governments. What hubris. What trickery. And where is this money going to come from? What a shame. 18:50 Ms O'NEILL 140651 Robertson With considerable pride and pleasure, I rise to speak to the bill before the House, the Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. We have had some rather interesting contributions here this afternoon from my colleague the member for Moreton, who, like me, before entering parliament spent a period of time as a teacher. I spent considerably more time in the classroom, I think, than the member for Moreton. The member for Lingiari, who is sitting there as well, is another teacher. I have to say that being a teacher is a professional experience in my life of which I am incredibly proud. I am one of the hundreds of thousands of Australians who became members of that great profession because, once upon a time in this country—well over a century ago—a man with vision for the future of the country, Sir Henry Parkes, responded to an understanding that grew at that time around the world about the power of education to change lives, about the importance of it for society and about the challenge to liberate children, through education, to the possibilities of reaching their full potential. Happily, we have had a very successful range of schools on offer for young Australians to become a part of; but the reality is that in the last 40 years, since the last major inquiry into the outcomes of schooling was undertaken through the Whitlam era, we have seen a degradation of funding of schools to a point that, when the Gonski review was undertaken recently, it was found that young people who had started school together 10 years ago—young Australians born into the same country—through their experience of going to different schools and born into different families, being far away from the city, being from an Indigenous family or being born with a language other than English spoken before they entered school, when they hit school were unable to get the type of resourcing and education opportunities they needed to build up the skills to enable them to be as successful at school as peers who were from non-Indigenous family backgrounds or living in the city. Essentially, we have a system in Australia where there is a great inequity in the outcomes of schooling. We know that there is a basic amount of funding that each school student needs. We also know that we need to provide additional funding for those five critical areas in which we can transform people's learning. The reality is that we want a fair system. We want to make up the gap of a failure to invest over many years in this country and do it in a way that ensures a great future for every young Australian who shows up at the school gate in kindergarten, no matter which school they go to, no matter what state they live in and no matter what family background they may have. It is an indictment on our country that poor children are failing at school. We simply cannot allow that to continue. This morning I was very pleased to make some points in the public place about my hope for the young children who were starting school in Victoria. I am pleased to say that in New South Wales the Premier of our state has seen the light with at least one policy area minister. He has signed up to the reforms that we are proposing here to give to our country an option for better schools and a chance for all of our young people to have a great education. Sadly, at this point in time kids south of the border in Victoria are looking at a leadership team in the conservative leader of that state and his Minister for Education, Martin Dixon, who are deliberately going out into the public place and claiming that some schools will be worse off under the plan that we are proposing. The reality is that every school in every sector will get increases in funding every single year. The deliberate misrepresentation of the sorts of funding options that are available for every student in every school is really mischief-making in the extreme. It is one thing for people to make claims that might give them a short-term political advantage. That is always a dangerous path to take, in my view. I think the Australian people see through that and expect us to do better on both sides of the parliament. The reality is it is totally atrocious to play with the futures of children by declaring incorrect facts and making the parents of schoolchildren, teachers, school systems and the whole community think there is something wrong with investing an additional $4 billion in the education of their children. That is quite disgraceful. I hope that as the week continues the Victorian education minister, Martin Dixon, will really take to heart his responsibility to ensure the young people of Victoria have the right and opportunity to see a future for their own education where they will receive the funding they need to be successful and the loadings we propose to add into the baseload of funding will provide the teachers with additional resources and the schools who need additional resources in the form of teachers and practical physical resources will get what they need to make sure it is possible for kids to learn. I could best describe the reality through the experience of meeting a wonderful young woman in my electorate just over the weekend. She has a son who has struggled at school. He has been a part of the Reading Recovery program at his school. That is a renowned education program started by Marie Clay, and the outcomes for many children are absolutely life transforming. Kids who cannot read become readers. For her son, that program has not worked. He has now been withdrawn from that program; and, because there is no funding capacity for that school, there is now no special learning program for her son. This woman in particular understands why this is so vital. In her conversation with me she declared that she herself cannot read. She has survived her life and runs her own small business using her memory in an incredibly impressive way to manage the literacy demands of our community, but she more than anyone understands why her son needs the sort of program that this investment that we will put into schools—that this money that we will give to teachers and principals to do the right thing by kids—will pay for, but only under this Labor government. Those opposite say the system is not broken. Those opposite say they do not need to put the money into schools. Those opposite say those children do not need those resources. The reality is that, while this debate is going on and many fine ideas can be put, every single parent who shows up with their kids at school every morning expects that they are going to be able to send them to school, whatever school they are at, and have adequate resources provided for teachers to do a great job. 18:59 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I am pleased to speak and outline the coalition's stance on this transitional and consequential amendments bill to the Australian Education Bill 2013 that the House of Representatives passed in the last sitting week and which is now in the Senate. We do not oppose this bill, as we did not the Australian Education Bill, because it is a measure of the confusion of the government that they are now passing bills through the House of Representatives to implement new school funding plans before these plans have even been agreed to by state governments. We are in the extraordinary position where the House rises on 27 June, and the agreements with the states to implement a new school funding model can be agreed to anytime up to 30 June. So the House will rise on 27 June, and five out of eight jurisdictions—three have already signed up—could sign up between 27 June and 30 June, which would make the new school funding model work. But, equally, none of those five might sign up to the government's new school funding agreement. The House and the Senate will have passed a new school funding model bill, and the consequential and transitional amendments bill that goes with it, for a national school funding agreement that has no agreement and does not have national implications because it is not agreed to by an overwhelming majority of states. The government has got us into the ridiculous position where we are debating a bill to implement a new school funding model when not all of the states have agreed to a new school funding model. It is very different to the way that the government and the opposition handled the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which was handled in a bipartisan way. Therefore, the states and territories knew that they could sign up to the agreement for a National Disability Insurance Scheme and that it would be implemented by either a Labor government or a coalition government. In this case, on the other hand, it is very clear that there are some states that have very strong views opposing the introduction of this new school funding model—and I will go through some of those in a moment. The coalition has very serious concerns about this new school funding model. The first of those concerns is that it is all far too late. For this government to try and implement a new school funding model to begin on 1 January 2014, this debate needed to be held last year, in 2012. As I travel around Australia—and I have been the shadow minister for 4½ years—principals tell me that to implement a new school funding model takes about 12 to 18 months. This government has potentially given non-government and government schools less than six months to implement a new school funding model, assuming one is agreed to by all the states. It is far too late, at five minutes to midnight, for the Prime Minister and the minister for schools to try and implement a new school funding model in Australia which would normally take 12 to 18 months to do properly—and they have given themselves six months to do it. If we were faced with a government with a record of achievement and competence, that we knew were capable of putting pink batts in the ceilings of people's homes, or building school halls that were not overpriced, or managing the live cattle exports trade—or any of the other examples I could give—then you might give them the benefit of the doubt. But we do not have that kind of government in Australia at the moment. We have a government that we know is manifestly incompetent. The prospect of them introducing an even more complicated model than the current model, that is less transparent and has had less time for consultation and negotiation with the states and the non-government sector—and the idea of them implementing that successfully—is a long way from the expectations of the opposition. For that reason, we have very serious concerns about this minister's capacity to implement any kind of new school funding model, let alone one that applies differently in different states to different sectors. Even within those sectors and within those states, depending on whether they have achieved the student resource standard or not, it applies different levels of indexation to those non-government and government schools in the same state. It is much more complicated and much less transparent than the previous model. It also provides a much greater concentration of power in the hands of the federal minister for education than has ever been precedented before in Australia. The Premier of Tasmania got this right on Friday when she said that Tasmania was very reluctant to sign up to a new school funding model because she did not want the opposition having that much power over Tasmanian state schools. Now, quite apart from the fact that it appears that the Premier of Tasmania has already given up on the prospect of the Gillard government being returned—which seems to be running up the white flag rather prematurely since we have 90 days or 89 days to go before the election—the Premier of Tasmania is correct inasmuch as this new funding model would give unprecedented power to the minister for schools at the federal level. The Premier of Tasmania is right: schools are run by state governments. They employ teachers, they own the infrastructure and they make the decisions in their schools. This new model, apart from creating another new bureaucracy called the Australian School Performance Institute—yet another institute and another bureaucracy in Canberra—also devolves enormous amounts of discretionary power to the federal minister for education to intervene in state government and non-government schools. This is one of the reasons why the National Catholic Education Commission is so concerned about signing up lock, stock and barrel to a new school funding model that allows the federal minister for education to determine whether they can vary from the school funding model that is proposed in this legislation. The Catholic system has always been run very independently. They cross-subsidise between their schools, and they do not want to have to go back, cap in hand, to the federal minister for education if they ever want to vary those arrangements. I can understand their reticence. I can also understand Western Australia's, Tasmania's, Victoria's, Queensland's and the Northern Territory's reticence at signing up to a model which allows the federal minister for education to determine the operations and management of schools in the state systems. Western Australia particularly has been doing very well in terms of its student outcomes since it shifted to a model that had greater autonomy for school principals; they call it Independent Public Schools in Western Australia. Why should they allow the federal minister for education to ride in over the top of the state minister for education and say, 'We don't like the way you are managing your schools and, because we now have this new power under the National Plan for School Improvement, we can tell you exactly what we want you to do.' The coalition does not support that. The coalition believes in the devolution of power to the levels of government to whom it should be devolved and that state governments run state schools. State governments should be the primary decision makers in state schools. I have talked before about how this new school funding model is a swindle. I will not delay the House at great length about that tonight other than to remind the House that the Gonski report into school funding called for $6½ billion each year in new school funding. Over the forward estimates, which is four years, you would expect that to be $26 billion. What does this new school funding model deliver? It delivers a cut to school funding of $325 million over the next four years. Those states and territories that have signed up to it—the ACT, New South Wales and South Australia—have signed up to a new school funding model that cuts school funding over the next four years by $325 million. Then you have to suspend everything you know about this Prime Minister and this government to believe that, miraculously, in 2018 and 2019 rivers of gold will flow to the school sector to the tune of billions and billions of dollars. That is $7.8 billion in year 5 and year 6. It is like your boss saying, 'I am giving a big pay rise and you should go out and plan on that basis.' Out you go and you change your mortgage or you do whatever you like with credit cards or you buy a new car and then you get your pay packet and there has been a cut. You go back to your boss and you say, 'How come you promised me a pay rise? I have relied on that to make all sorts of decisions and there is actually a pay cut in my salary.' The boss says, 'No, no, you get a big pay rise. You just have to wait five or six years for it to happen.' No Australian would accept that from their boss and no state or territory government should accept that from the federal government. I might be cynical, but I do not believe that the Prime Minister will win the next three elections in a row and deliver rivers of gold in 2018 and 2019 to schools when she could not even keep a promise for six days not to introduce a carbon tax before the last election. This is not the Gonski report being implemented. This is a swindle being visited on schools. Principals and parents know it. Another one of our concerns is the confused data. Dr Leigh BU8 On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas I ask the member for Sturt to withdraw his term which appeared unparliamentary to my ears. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Order! For the benefit of the House I ask the member for Sturt to withdraw. Mr PYNE 9V5 I am not sure what term it was, Mr Deputy Speaker. I said 'truthful'—I do not believe the Prime Minister—or 'swindle'. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Order! The member will withdraw. Mr PYNE 9V5 Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I certainly never referred to anybody as a 'swindler', but I said this was a swindle. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Order! The member will withdraw unequivocally and get back on the bill. Mr PYNE 9V5 I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker, if it suits the House to do so. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY That is good. Mr PYNE 9V5 One of our other concerns is with the confused data that is associated with this new school funding model. Every time the government gives data to the states or to the non-government sector, and the non-government sector and states model that data to determine how many of their schools will be worse off, they then publish a list showing how many of their schools will lose money. The government says, 'You have got the wrong data. We will give you the right data. We do not know what data you are relying on but it is the wrong data.' The only data the schools are relying on is the data given to them by the federal government but, apparently because it does not spit out the responses that the government wants, it is always the wrong data. Of course, the truth is the government is giving the right data to the schools and they are modelling it and it is showing that hundreds and hundreds of schools will lose money under the new school funding model—300 schools alone in Queensland will lose money under the new school funding model if it goes ahead. Only the coalition can promise that not one school can lose a dollar in real terms because the coalition has promised to deliver the current quantum of funds plus the current indexation called the AGSRC model of indexation. The coalition can promise every school principal and every parent in Australia that it is not mathematically possible for schools to go backwards under the coalition because we will provide the current quantum plus the AGSRC indexation. Yet this government is implementing a new school funding model and tries to pretend that it will deliver rivers of gold to school communities while it is cutting funding for the next four years by $325 million. That is putting aside higher education, early childhood, child care, apprenticeships and training. At the same time it is not keeping pace with the indexation that the coalition can promise so that only the coalition can promise that no school could be worse off after the election. This government has admitted that schools will lose money over the next four years. Each time I have asked the minister—and I will ask him again and maybe he will tell us in his summing-up to the second reading—how many funds will flow to schools in 2014 and 2015 and 2016, school by school, the minister fluffs the answer, obfuscates and comes up with all sorts of riddles, none of which answer the question that principals want to know. That is how much will they get in 2014, 2015 and 2016. I will give the minister the benefit of the doubt. I suspect the answer is that he does not know, and therein lies the problem. Under this school funding model, schools cannot plan for the next three years because not even the government knows how much money they will lose. Another one of our concerns is the hidden hooks in this legislation. The hidden hook that causes me the greatest concern is schedule H to the national agreement that the government has made with the states that have signed up to it which refers to the use of the socioeconomic status data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics to determine funds to non-government schools between now and 2016, but then in 2017 a new tool will be developed called an individual parental capacity to pay When I raised this issue, the minister publicly said what that meant was the aggregate parental capacity to pay in a school. But that is not what the agreement says. The agreement says 'an individual parental capacity to pay', so those states and territories that are signed up to this agreement have signed up to a means test on the parents of children in non-government schools. We know Labor have a propensity towards means tests. They means-tested the pension under the Hawke government in 1984. They means-tested the private health insurance rebate. The parliamentary secretary would know this because he is a bit of a savant when it comes to dates and numbers. In 1986 they means-tested the pension against the wishes of the coalition. They then means-tested the private health insurance rebate, which we know is in their DNA to means-test. And so when I discovered that schedule H said 'an individual parental capacity to pay' and I raised it, everybody in the non-government sector realised what it was—that is, a means test. And that is where the government are going. If the government are re-elected, if this government form another government after 14 September—if this parliament lasts that long—then they will, as sure as night follows day, introduce a means test on the parents of children in non-government schools. And those people who are considering voting for the Labor Party at the election, who have children in non-government schools, cannot come back to the coalition in 2017 and say, 'Why didn't somebody warn us about this,' because I have warned about it again and again and again in this place and in the media. One of the great failures of this new school funding model is that it does not actually address any of the transformational issues that will change student outcomes in Australia. And if the only purpose of government funding for government and non-government schools is to affect the outcomes of our students in schools, then why doesn't this bill pass that test? This bill does nothing to try to address the transformational measures that are required in our schools across Australia to bring about better outcomes for our Australian children who are of school age. I talk specifically about things like teacher quality, a robust curriculum, principal autonomy and parental engagement. Anyone who has read up on the issue of school education will know that the Grattan Institute's report, and many other venerable public advocacy organisations and academic works, have turned themselves to the question of what are the important issues in schools that bring about the best results for our students. They are: principal autonomy, parental engagement, a strong and robust curriculum, and teacher quality. The first one of those must be teacher quality, and yet these bills before the House tonight, that follow the Australian Education Bill, do not address the fundamental issues. And the member for Griffith is right when he says that the government has not made the case for the link between new spending in 2018-19 and the impact that that will have on student outcomes. We spend a great deal of money now on schools. In fact, we are spending 40 per cent more on schools today than we were—we have increased our spending on schools, I should say, by 40 per cent over the last 10 years, and in those 10 years our outcomes have declined. We spent 40 per cent more in the last 10 years on school education and in that time our outcomes have demonstrably declined—not just relatively with our Asian competitors and neighbours, but in real terms both our literacy and numeracy have declined. So if money was the answer to every problem, why is that so? The answer is because this government has not addressed, and the state Labor governments—they have been mostly state Labor over the last 20 years—have not addressed, the fundamental issues of teacher quality, parental engagement, principal autonomy and a robust curriculum. Except in the last three years in Western Australia. The member for Stirling is here in the chamber tonight, and he would know that Western Australia is the only state in the entire federation that has introduced the most far-reaching principal autonomy in the country in government schools and it is the only jurisdiction since 1977 that is now seeing a drift from non-government to government schools because parents are looking at the independent public school model in Western Australia and saying, 'That is where we want our child to be educated.' The No. 1 feature of government schools in Western Australia, independent public schools, that is different to every other state is that the principals have enormous autonomy in their schools. They are one-line budget items in the Western Australian budget—school name, amount of money; decisions are made by the principals and their leadership teams and their advisory councils. Now more than 50 per cent of all children in government schools in Western Australia are in independent public schools and the market is telling us in WA that the parents like principal autonomy. These bills do nothing to address the issues of principal autonomy and the flow-on effects to parental engagement, robust curriculum or higher teacher quality. People are entitled to know what the coalition would do. If the coalition is fortunate to be elected on 14 September this year, we will immediately move, if there has been no national agreement—and national agreement means an overwhelming majority of states—to repeal agreements made between the Commonwealth and those states that have signed up, unless there is national agreement. We will introduce a one-page bill that will roll over the current funding model from the end of this year to the end of 2015, which gives us two years to sort out the chaos and mess that this minister and this Prime Minister have presided over in the new school funding model. That will give schools their current quantum of funds, plus indexation under the average government school resourcing standard, the AGSRC, and schools can, therefore, plan. They will get no less money—in fact, they will get the same amount in real terms because of indexation—for at least two years. We will focus relentlessly on the four priorities that I have talked about tonight: principal autonomy, a robust curriculum, teacher quality and parental engagement. We will implement a new capital infrastructure fund for schools across Australia because we know that schools are growing and in new areas of large cities and in many regional and rural areas there is enormous need for new schools, for growing schools to get capital infrastructure and for some schools with dilapidated infrastructure to get continuing support for capital. The so-called Building the Education Revolution, like so many of this government's policies, was just another flash in the pan—the money is gone; the money has been spent—and now the government is saying to schools: 'There's no more capital infrastructure for you. You've had your share.' The member for Riverina, the member for Stirling and I know that the needs of schools continue far beyond the so-called Building the Education Revolution so, when the budget allows because of good economic management—from a, hopefully, new government in September—we will implement a capital infrastructure fund that meets the needs of school communities across Australia. I know I said I would speak only briefly and I have spoken instead for 25 minutes because there were so many important things to put on the record, but in conclusion one of the most important things in the Gonski report was their acceptance of the coalition's policy that the funding of children from disadvantaged backgrounds should be sector blind. Hitherto, if you were a student in a government school, you would be funded in some cases at 10 times the rate of the same child in a non-government school, for example, for disabilities. I believe that is wrong and I think most Australians do believe that is wrong. One of the good things about the Gonski report is that they accepted the coalition's policy from the last election that funding of children in non-government schools should be the same as funding of children in government schools, whether that is for children with a disability, for low-SES children, for children in remote and rural areas, for children in small schools or for children from non-English-speaking backgrounds. We believe that no matter who wins the election in September they should implement a policy that is blind to the school sectors and that allows the funding to follow a student for disadvantage. That is what the Gonski report talked about in terms of loadings. How we will make that work is something that I think we will need two years to work out with the sector. Under the coalition, the national partnerships that have been redirected into this new funding model but short-changed on the way through will continue, the targeted programs that have been cut in this budget will continue and the current quantum will continue plus the AGSRC. We will look over the next two years at how to implement a loadings policy that is fair to everyone, where the funding follows the child with disadvantage and can be afforded by the Australian taxpayer. I am quite sure that is not beyond the wit of the new government—or, indeed, of this government, should we be unfortunate to have them re-elected. With those few words, I point out that the coalition will not oppose this bill. Of course we cannot oppose a bill that has not yet even reached national agreement. We cannot support it and we cannot oppose it, so we will let it through and we will wait to see where the states land in terms of their support or not for a new school funding model. 19:27 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I rise to speak on the Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. I endorse the remarks of the shadow education minister, the previous speaker, because, as he pointed out, the government's handling of this bill has been shambolic and chaotic. Indeed, it has been farcical the whole way through. Like everything else that this government does, it has been rushed in with indecent haste, as the shadow education minister pointed out, at five minutes to midnight. Barely a few days before the 43rd Parliament finishes, we are expected to come in here and absorb, firstly, 71 pages of amendments and, now, this consequential and transitional provisions bill. We will not have time to take it all in. It has been rushed in in typical Labor fashion. We all know that our children are extremely important. Health and education are two of the most important sectors which we deliberate on, which we try to make good public policy for and which deserve far more than what we are giving them by rushing this bill through this House and then through the Senate without the due diligence that this bill requires. We have gone from a situation where there was no detail contained in the Australian Education Bill to a situation where we now have the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth moving detailed and complex amendments to the bill that we, let alone the government members, have had no time to consider. We all know that the government members will blindly like sheep vote en masse because, if they do not, they will get ejected from their party for life. This is too important to not properly consider it. Our children are far too important to not give this bill due consideration. The coalition have had very little opportunity—no chance—to consult with the schools in our electorates on how the new amendments might affect them. In saying that, it is important to note that many of these people are extremely concerned about what it is going to mean for them. I quote from a letter from the principal of the Mater Dei Catholic Primary School at Wagga Wagga, Danny Malone, who wrote to the Prime Minister on 4 June, because this is quite important and needs to be placed on the record: In response to your recent email I, and the entire school community of Mater Dei Catholic Primary School Wagga Wagga, request further clarification. There are many facts and figures in your email and, indeed, being reported in the press. The National Plan for School Improvement adds additional information to be absorbed and worked through, but still does not provide any real clarification to four key areas which are of concern to Catholic schools Australia-wide. We seek your response to questions below: (1) When will the final financial outcomes for each of the next six years of the rollout—2014-2019 inclusive—for each state and territory Catholic Education Commission and each non-systemically funded Catholic school be known? (2) Would you explain your claim on Sunday 19th May that the average non-government school in New South Wales will lose $800,000 if the new funding model is not adopted? (3) What guarantees do we Catholic schools have that the full funding for the model will ever actually be found or delivered by 2019? (4) How can the government even predict funding for 2016 at this stage, given the 2015 review of indexation? Mater Dei Catholic Primary School is part of the Wagga Wagga Catholic diocese which provides wide-ranging support to our systems of schools that, in turn, allows for the efficient use and equitable allocation of all funds and resources. The new model to fund schools individually would undermine our diocesan system which is already in place and working! Parents of Mater Dei Catholic Primary would like answers to their questions about how our school will be affected and what this new funding model will mean to staffing and resourcing for 2014 and beyond. Planning for 2014 cannot be waylaid until after the next federal election. Sincerely, Danny Malone, Principal He is a good man, Mr Malone. He was a teacher or principal when my three children went through that particular school. But he, like so many other principals, is asking questions. He, like so many other principals—Catholic, independent, Christian and public school principals—has to put budgets in place. I know it is not important for those on the opposite side to put budgets in place. I know they do things very willy-nilly and with indecent haste. It is not their money they are spending—it is the taxpayers'. But the thing is, schools need to be able to budget. Schools need to be able to make sure that the money they have coming in is not going to be overtaken by the money they have to spend. Unlike the Labor government, they need to meet their budgets. Unlike the Labor government, they need to make sure that their key stakeholders—parents and, moreover, students—have a properly-run school system and a properly-run school budget so that they make ends meet. That is something that could well be a good lesson for those opposite. Danny Malone is not alone in his questioning of the Prime Minister, the school education minister and, indeed, this government about these reforms. Last week I had New South Wales Teachers Federation representatives from Griffith, Richard Wiseman and Melina Ragusa, visit me and they were very much in favour of the Gonski review. I know that the New South Wales education minister, Adrian Piccoli, was the first to sign up. Certainly, there are things in the Australian Education Bill—in the Gonski reforms—which I agree with. I can actually see that, for the schools I represent, the initial Gonski bill as put forward by the Labor government had some things in it which would have been beneficial for the schools I represent. However, that was before Labor decided to plonk on us 71 pages of amendments. I was waiting in turn, as I am sure so many other of my colleagues were, to speak on the amendments and all of a sudden—bang! The member for Lyne, just behind me, said: 'I move that the motion be put.' So, effectively, we were gagged. He made out as if it was his idea: 'I will bring this on; let the amendments be put.' Of course, he supported this government from day one. In fact, he put this government in place, and so it was no surprise that the member for Lyne wanted the 71 pages of amendments put so that the bill could be rushed through, as indeed it was. He and the member for New England have a lot to answer for in that respect. There are huge questions over this consequential and transitional provisions bill. Individual non-government schools do not know how the proposed funding arrangements will impact upon them financially. They are writing to the Prime Minister, as Mr Malone did. The government has still refused to hand over individual school information to the sector for the years 2014, 2015 and 2016, despite repeated requests. We have heard from the school education minister that there will be $325 million worth of cuts over the next four years. The rivers of gold—the so-called rivers of gold—will be in the Gonski reform process from years 5 and 6 of this whole reform package, but that means that is at least two, if not three, elections away. The Prime Minister, who is having enough difficulty at the moment, cannot guarantee that Labor will be there next election, let alone the one after that or the one after that, to ensure that these so-called rivers of gold are in place for schools in years 5 and 6 of this package. We know that the government is trying to pass this bill and has put a 30 June deadline in place. We also know that the majority of states and territories have not as yet signed up to it. Mr Piccoli signed up to it because he got what he thought was a good deal, and that any subsequent deals done would have no financial impact on New South Wales—if they were, indeed, better than my state's deal, which was signed up some weeks ago. But again we hear that word 'deal'. Really, this government should not be doing deals to force wedge issues between the federal coalition and its state coalition partners; or, indeed, between the New South Wales Liberal Premier Barry O'Farrell and the National Party state education minister Adrian Piccoli and the federal coalition. But that is unfortunately the way that politics 2013, with this current Labor government, works. It is always about wedge issues and playing the politics, rather than doing what is right for the people who matter most in this, and they are the children who are going to school. I note with much concern that meetings are being held to explain Gonski and that there are meetings with key stakeholders about this legislation. I also note with concern that these meetings are not going to be held west of the Great Divide. That is of great concern, because country kids matter too—and certainly, country kids in my electorate matter a lot to me. The key stakeholders in this situation—that is, the principals, the Catholic diocese, directors of schools, the New South Wales Teachers Federation and others who at their very heart want what is best for the students who go to their schools—need to have the whole reform package and process explained to them. But unfortunately it has been symbolic and typical of this government not to care about regional Australia—and I would not call it just an oversight. This bill appears to represent a dramatic new intervention in the running of state government schools by the Commonwealth. State schools were always called just that, state schools. Now, through creeping federalism and everything else, this government is trying to take over the running of these schools, just as this government has tried to take over a lot of things in health. This is causing quite a bit of alarm in the community. It makes the Commonwealth government a significant operator of government schools, or state schools. Does any Australian think that the Prime Minister and the school education minister are better able to run their child's school from Canberra than principals and teachers are able to run their schools on the ground? I think not. We heard from the shadow education minister about the four key planks of the coalition policy. The first of these planks is teacher quality—very important. The second is to have a robust, strong curriculum. The third is to have principal autonomy, what I have just referred to in saying that the principals on the ground are best placed to know their students' parents' demands, needs and expectations. The fourth strong plank of educational priorities for the coalition is parental engagement. Our kids deserve the very best—we all know that. We all know that our kids deserve this, but we need to be able to afford to give those kids the best. There is nothing that I have seen in my time in this place to show that this government is capable of managing its finances and, moreover, managing the nation's finances to ensure that the sorts of policies being put forward will be properly funded. The government is proposing policy that is the complete opposite of increasing principal and school autonomy. It is an invasive new incursion into schooling, the exact opposite of what we need to do to lift student outcomes. I was concerned to see, in a recent round showing which schools were performing best under NAPLAN and other student outcomes, that featured in the top 50 was only one regional school, and that was a private school. That is alarming, to say the least. We need better outcomes for students—all students—and certainly for regional students who are put so far behind the eight ball when it comes to student outcomes from years kindergarten to 12. And, when regional students go to get a tertiary education—and I know the shadow minister for employment participation, child care and early childhood learning agrees with me—they are behind the eight ball when it comes to getting good vocational, TAFE and other tertiary education outcomes. This is not helped by this government not doing independent youth allowance for regional students in the Riverina, Farrer and lots of other regional electorates. This government has never shown, by any stretch of the imagination, that it is concerned in any way, shape or form with the outcomes for regional students, especially regional students trying to get a tertiary education. This bill will not be opposed by the coalition, but we should have had more time to talk about it and to think about it. (Time expired.) 19:42 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser I thank honourable members who have contributed to the debate. The Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill is consequential to the enactment of the proposed Australian Education Act 2013. The bill amends the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 and the Schools Assistance Act 2008 to enable Commonwealth recurrent and capital funding for all Australian schools, including funding for schools participating in the reform arrangements and government schools in states and territories choosing not to participate to be exclusively appropriated under the proposed Australian Education Act 2013 from 1 January 2014. The bill also contains transitional provisions relating to certain requirements under the proposed Australian Education Act 2013 in order to ensure a smooth transition and to reduce the administrative burden on schools and governments associated with moving to the new arrangements. This bill supports the government's historic national school education reform agenda which will enshrine in law a national approach to funding school education that ensures that schools are funded according to the needs of their students. The reform also importantly links school funding to key school reform directions embedded in the National Plan for School Improvement. These are real reforms that evidence shows will lead to better schools and better outcomes for our students. These are reforms that include investment in quality teaching, recognising the commitment, dedication and potential of every teacher by supporting them with better opportunities for development and career progression. The national plan will continue work already underway in this area by raising entry standards for teaching courses, annual performance assessments for all teachers and providing more support to teachers in their first years in the classroom. The reforms will invest in quality learning, ensuring that all schools are supported to provide an engaging and responsive environment, one that recognises and takes advantage of changes in technology. It is something we have started through the national curriculum, the National Safe Schools Framework which addresses student behaviour in the classroom and in the playground, and the Digital Education Revolution. The reforms include empowered school leadership: we recognise the importance of principal autonomy—principals in their schools making local decisions that meet the local needs of their school communities—and teachers in their classrooms being exemplars. The bill will deliver transparency and accountability, and ensures that parents and the wider community know what governments and schools are doing with school funding: what we are achieving, what we are learning from reforms and how we are sharing what works. The bill will help meet student need. The link between student background and achievement is strong, and too many students from less-advantaged backgrounds are falling behind. We recognise this and we are seeking a shared commitment by all states and territories to support the provision of a high-quality schooling experience for all students. Better, fairer funding based on the needs of schools and students, together with these National Plan for School Improvement reforms will ensure that all Australian students get the education they deserve; not one dictated to them by what school they go to, where they live or what their parents do for a living. Having the best education possible will help every Australian child to achieve their true potential. It will ensure that we as a nation have the skills and knowledge to compete internationally. I want to address two issues that were raised by the member for Sturt in his speech to the chamber earlier this evening. At one point the member for Sturt suggested that the government had a secret plan for means testing. Let me be clear: there will be no means testing of parents who send their children to non-government schools under the new school funding plan. The government has always ruled this out, and nothing has changed. It is important to recognise that the current funding system introduced by the Howard government already takes into account the capacity of a school community to contribute to the costs of education. It is the government's view that reflecting capacity to contribute is the fairest approach, and that is an approach that is supported across the education sector. What the Gonski review found was that the current method of assessing the capacity to pay is flawed, and does not provide an accurate picture. The review recommended that the government should: … develop, trial and implement a better measure of the capacity of parents to contribute in consultation with the non-government sectors. The non-government sector itself has also requested that a more accurate method be developed. That work is now underway and it is referred to in the National Education Reform Agreement. Another suggestion that the shadow minister made was a claim around school funding indexation. The fact is that current Commonwealth indexation for school funding is 3.9 per cent, having fallen from 5.9 per cent last year due to state government reductions in school spending. The shadow minister is basing projections from a period in which many states and territories had Labor governments which were investing strongly in school spending. But with many Liberal-National party governments having taken over the reins, state government spending on schools has fallen and that has affected Commonwealth indexation for school funding. Page 120 of budget paper No. 2 in the recent budget shows that should AGSRC fall to three per cent, schools would lose $16 billion over the six-year period. It is important, I think, for members of the House to be aware of the facts around indexation and the facts around means testing. I commend the bill to the House. This bill is a small part, yet an essential part, of our vision for Australian schools and students and Australia's future in the global economy. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Debate adjourned. Australian Capital Territory Water Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 5876

Australian Capital Territory Water Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2013

Report from Federation Chamber 5876 Third Reading 5876 19:50 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Charities Bill 2013, Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 5876

Charities Bill 2013

Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013

Second Reading 5876 19:50 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I rise to speak on the Charities Bill 2013 and the Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. I will focus my remarks primarily on the Charities Bill. That bill seeks to introduce a definition of 'charity' and 'charitable purpose'. The new definition would apply from 1 January 2014, and would apply across all Commonwealth legislation. This is a bad bill; this is an unnecessary bill. Since Federation, the definition of 'charity' has remained clear and consistent. It has remained a cornerstone of the underpinning of what constitutes charitable endeavour and what constitutes charitable activity. The definition has survived for over 400 years. It is based on a legal concept from the early 1600s. It is widely understood, and it is unilaterally accepted. But now the definition that has served us so well is in this government's firing line. The government wants to abandon what works, what is proven and what is broadly accepted by our society, and replace it with its own definition. Australian charities law has closely followed the definition of 'charity' based on the preamble of the Statute of Elizabeth. English common law is the principal basis for charity laws in Australia in both state and federal courts, and each of the state jurisdictions have retained almost identical interpretations of the common law definition of charity. The government is now seeking to pretend that there is some desperate need to legislate in this area, acting as though it is charting new waters. The reality is that it was the former Howard government that looked at the issue of the common-law definition of charity. Former Prime Minister Howard announced an inquiry into the definition of charity on 18 September 2000. The inquiry reported in 2001, making some 27 recommendations. Former Treasurer Costello released draft legislation in 2003 which took the traditional four heads of charity and divided them into seven heads of charity in line with the inquiries findings—namely, the advancement of health, education, social or community welfare, religion, culture, natural environment and any other purpose that has been official to the community. The Board of Taxation reported on the workability of the draft legislation in 2004 and the then government through the then Treasurer announced: … the common law meaning of a charity will continue to apply, but the definition will be extended to include certain child care and self-help groups, and closed or contemplative religious orders. The Government has decided not to proceed with the draft Charities Bill. The former coalition government enacted the Extension of Charitable Purposes Act 2004 which confined itself to enlarging the legal definition of charity for federal purposes to include child care, self-help groups and closed orders. The Commonwealth's definitional extension has not been adopted by any state jurisdiction. This bill would be the first time that legislation has sought to comprehensively define in statute, for the purposes of Commonwealth law, charity. Our concern is clear: why create a statute where the common law has and does serve us well? Why depart from 400 years of clarity and consistency? The coalition's approach to charities is different from that of the government. Labor prefers intervention and approaches the sector with distrust demanding huge amounts of information, draconian reporting requirements and making it tough for volunteers and the charities they support to go about their important work. This is a philosophical divide best highlighted by looking at the opening words of the maiden speech of the former Prime Minister Mr Rudd: Politics is about power. It is about the power of the state. It is about the power of the state as applied to individuals, the society in which they live and the economy in which they work. The other approach is about empowering people, not exercising power over them. It is the approach that the Leader of the Opposition utilised when he referred to Abraham Lincoln's famous description of democracy as, 'of the people, by the people, for the people'. The coalition has confidence in civil society. We believe that the political community should serve civil society, not the other way around. The coalition will oppose this bill and, if elected to government later this year, we will seek to repeal it. 19:55 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra These bills form part of a much needed and long-overdue reform of the not-for-profit sector in Australia. I am pleased to be part of a government that is making these necessary reforms and I know that the not-for-profit organisations in my electorate of Canberra will be better off because of them. The cost of the regulatory burden placed on not-for-profit organisations is an issue often raised with me when I am out speaking with representatives from the not-for-profit sector in Canberra. For example, at the Winnunga Nimmityjah Aboriginal Health Service in Narrabundah they have had to employ a full-time administrative staff member just to manage these regulatory requirements. Essentially, that means that they have had to employ someone who works every day of the year—except the holidays—just to work on filling out paperwork and managing the regulatory requirements. For community based organisations such as Winnunga, which see on average 3,000 patients per year with a growth rate of about 80 new patients per month, there are certainly better uses for their limited resources than administration. The government's reforms are designed to help organisations such as Winnunga to ensure that they can focus on the important work they do in our communities, not on regulation. The reforms implemented by this government cover three key areas. The first area of reform is regulatory reform, including establishing the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission and introducing a new statutory definition of charity. The second area of reform is tax reform, including reforming the regulation and taxation of the not-for-profit sector. The third area of reform is funding reform, including streamlining government funding agreements and reporting requirements. This is particularly important because I am all for transparency. We need accountability, we need transparency and we need to understand where federal, state and territory money is going in terms of these not-for-profit organisations, but we do not want to make the regulation burden onerous. The government is also working with state and territory governments to reduce the regulatory burden on the sector through COAG. This work includes: considering the application of the Commonwealth statutory definition of charity, which we are debating tonight, for states and territories; developing a nationally consistent approach to fundraising regulation; harmonising the definition of which activities conducted by charities will be considered non-charitable; and reviewing governance and reporting requirements for the not-for-profit sector. All of these reforms seek to reduce the regulatory burden on the operations of not-for-profit organisations allowing them more resources to carry out the good work they do—the great work they do—to focus on core business. Perhaps the most significant part of this reform process so far has been the establishment of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. The commission was established as the first independent national regulator of charities in Australia and the commission was intended to maintain, protect and enhance public trust and confidence in the not-for-profit sector through increased accountability and transparency; and to provide support to the sector to ensure that it remains robust, vibrant, independent and innovative. The commission began operations on 3 December last year and it is already working hard to achieve a reduction in unnecessary regulatory obligations for the sector. On a practical level, the commission registers organisations as charities. It helps charities understand and meet their obligations through information, guidance, advice and other support. It maintains a free and searchable public register so that anyone can look up information about registered charities. It works with the state and territory governments as well as individual federal, state and territory government agencies to develop a 'report once, use often' reporting framework for charities. The 'report once, use often' framework is just so important because it will allow charities to report once to the commission and allow authorised government agencies to then access this information, thereby eliminating the need for charities to report the same information to different government agencies. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 34. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 5879 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Dyslexia 5879 20:00 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I rise to speak on this very important motion from the member for Dawson. According to the World Federation of Neurology, as this motion notes, dyslexia is 'manifested by difficulty in learning to read despite conventional instruction, adequate intelligence and sociocultural opportunity'. This means that students with dyslexia learn differently from most students—the traditional methods of teaching, such as phonics, are not necessarily appropriate for what Dyslexia Australia calls the 'auditory learner'. First and foremost, it is important that the difficulties that arise from dyslexia are recognised by all Australians so that we can reduce the stigma for these students. Dyslexia is not, as some believe, simply flipping letters around. It can in fact present itself in four main categories. Each type of dyslexia includes its own set of challenges. Despite the unwavering dedication and hard work of their parents, these students can all too often be left behind. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Carlie Rice, whom I met recently with Glenys Throssell, who are both mothers of children with dyslexia. Carlie set up Brisbane Dyslexics as a support group for parents of dyslexic children and those with similar learning difficulties. As Glenys said, having a child with dyslexia means: … a roller-coaster ride of doctors appointments, interventions, changing schools, in getting a diagnosis, sourcing the appropriate intervention and support … Often it is a lonely journey as a parent with a child who has a learning disability. Both Carlie and Glenys are working very hard at getting the important message out to the community—that there is support and guidance out there for parents. In education, one of their primary concerns is with the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy, NAPLAN. It is simply not designed to accommodate the learning and reading styles of children with a learning difficulty or disability. For all students undergoing NAPLAN it can be an incredibly stressful time of the year, but especially for students who face additional challenges. Some parents simply keep their children at home during NAPLAN testing. As Glenys said: The reason being is that we don't set up our children for failure when they have no hope of succeeding. A NAPLAN goal when testing dyslexic students should be testing their abilities, not their disabilities. These parents know that there are improvements that can be made within the current framework of NAPLAN. As this motion notes, for example, it would be beneficial for students with dyslexia to have their NAPLAN test read to them. Given their auditory learning style, I also note that some dyslexic students with writing and spelling challenges could benefit from a scribe. These suggestions are made not to make it 'easier' for students but, rather, to ensure that NAPLAN truly fulfils the stated goal of assessing whether students are receiving the 'critical foundation for their learning and for their productive and rewarding participation in the community'. We must therefore recognise that the current one-size-fits-all approach to national testing does not demonstrate how well a child is progressing in a holistic sense. To that end, the Brisbane Independent School in my electorate is demonstrating the value of providing choice and diversity to parents. I recently attended their open day and spoke with many parents and teachers about the enormous benefits that they feel the school is providing for their children. They recognise that not all students learn the same, and they are producing results. Their community wants to work alongside the mainstream education system in Queensland to provide the best early intervention programs for all their students so that they can overcome their learning difficulties. As the Glenleighden School in my electorate has demonstrated for over 30 years, early intervention can produce amazing results for students with primary language disorder, and I am sure that BIS can do the same for their students. I would also like to thank the member for Sturt who, in cooperation with SPELD South Australia, tabled a petition from more than 10,000 in the House on 5 June to recognise the educational difficulties of dyslexia. As the shadow minister for education he said: … there is no shame in a learning disability; the only shame is if it is not recognised and treated. We all want to see that children with a disability—whether it is dyslexia, primary language disorder or others—receive high-quality early intervention. It is absolutely crucial to the students and their parents that the education system recognises and supports their needs. I commend this motion to the House. 20:05 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Dyslexia is a neurologically based, specific learning disability that causes problems with learning to read and spell. I do not think there would be an MP in the House who has not been lobbied or met with people who have experienced dyslexia or are the parents of someone with dyslexia. I have encountered it as a teacher; I have encountered in my work both as a teacher and as a lawyer; and I have also encountered it in my family. It is widespread. Some experts suggest that up to 16 per cent of the population have dyslexia, although that statistic is disputed. Dyslexia is the most common cause of reading, writing and spelling difficulties and, associated with that, there are often some behavioural difficulties. I commend the member for Dawson for putting this motion before the chamber. Dyslexia affects males and females almost equally, although I found as a teacher that the responses to it were more able to be seen in young boys because if they disengaged they could then be a problem student because of the problems they had with learning. It also affects people from different ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds equally—it does not discriminate. Last month I sat down for coffee in Graceville in my electorate with a group of passionate parents and advocates for children with dyslexia. Their individual stories were heart-wrenching. I had parents coming to Moreton from all over Brisbane, happy to find a support network and some people who might be able to help on both a personal and a professional level. I was privy to their heart-warming stories of battles they have overcome and support they hope will be provided for all kids struggling with dyslexia, not just their own. I would especially like to acknowledge the work of Carlie Rice with the Brisbane Dyslexics parents support group she has established. Carlie is a constituent of mine. Her support is growing and, if people are listening who are concerned about this or see this speech sent out to them, if you wish to find out more about Carlie Rice's group, please contact my office especially if you live locally in Brisbane and want to be put in touch with Carlie and her great work. Carlie's initiative is extremely positive in that it aims to increase awareness, to share information and support, and provide support, to parents, teachers and students—and I say that again, parents, teachers and students—on the issues associated with dyslexia. The Labor government is committed to delivering world-class education to every Australian student whether they have dyslexia or not, or whether they are on the spectrum. In our schools I say upfront that we already have great teachers working with students with a range of learning difficulties and what all of these teachers and their learning support people need is further support in these schools. The specific learning needs of students involve a wide range of abilities and learning styles, especially students with a disability and learning difficulties such as dyslexia. The National Plan for School Improvement could radically transform the educational outcomes for the Australian nation in recognising these needs and will work towards assisting the roles of teachers and the lives of the students who have dyslexia. It encourages the involvement of parents, families and carers by recognising the important influence they hold in a child's life. Recent announcements include $100 million in Commonwealth funding into the 2014 school year under the More Support for Students with Disabilities program. This is on top of the $200 million that the government is providing to support students with disability in both government and non-government schools, because as any educator knows, it is best to provide support early rather than wait until later when behavioural problems might be an indication that someone has got a learning disability. A disability loading will be introduced in 2015, which will provide support to students with disability based on the level of adjustment they need, and not just their simple diagnosis but unpacking the diagnosis delivered by a medical expert or an educational expert. Given the reform program in place, it would be a little pre-emptive to support this motion put forward by the member for Dawson. Students with dyslexia will be supported with the implementation of the Gonski recommendations through the National Plan for School Improvement and, obviously, as the member for Dawson is a Queensland MP, he of course would be lobbying Premier Newman and education minister John-Paul Langbroek to make sure that Queensland does not miss out on the significant billions of dollars of funds that could change the lives of students with dyslexia, and every student. (Time expired) 20:10 Mr SIMPKINS HWE Cowan I welcome this opportunity to speak on this important motion. It is very much something that is in the background, that a lot of people do not have a great knowledge of but which is debilitating as a disability for so many people. I am actually aware of a state member of parliament in Western Australia who is dyslexic and, from what I hear, that person is probably not the only one in the country who is in a parliament and is also dyslexic. I can only imagine what it must be like to struggle with it. So much of what we do is about reading and communicating and it must really be difficult for a person to have to work through the bread and butter of our profession, of our calling here, and to struggle with a disability such as dyslexia. To his credit, he is a most remarkable and excellent representative of his area, and so I really do pay tribute to him. Dyslexia is something that I have heard of. Unfortunately I do not think that I have ever been approached by someone from the electorate who has said, 'I am dyslexic,' and has given me a personal perspective. But at least through this other member of parliament in the WA state parliament I have come to have a bit of an appreciation of just how difficult it can be. When you see someone that has risen and has been successful despite that disability, it really does say something about the character of people who have to cope with it and work with it. It is right that it is recognised as a disability. That is good. Sometimes we wonder what more can be done, and I think that it is important that the member for Dawson has properly highlighted this disability. We are used to hearing a lot about disabilities in this place. There are some severe disabilities, and we all certainly have contact with our constituents who have been dealt a difficult set of cards with their lives and who have managed to work with, or have to live with, that disability. Again, as I said before, dyslexia is not one of those that someone has specifically approached me to talk about, but through this state member of parliament I do appreciate what a difficult circumstance it really is for people. It is important that when we look at NAPLAN and at those assessments for children that we remember that, whilst there is a lot to be said for national testing, there are certainly limitations with that national testing. With dyslexia there are some supports provided. As I understand, readers are provided for those with dyslexia under NAPLAN. But at the same time there are challenges with those results, and I wonder whether they are properly appreciated and considered when school tables are attributed to the results that have come out of NAPLAN. Given the fact that dyslexia is much more common than we would normally think, it is important that we look at the opportunities to help with pre-service training for teachers so that there is a greater appreciation to help teachers identify that maybe this is the problem with young Johnny or young Sarah in the classroom—maybe it is just something that has not been detected yet. So it is a good thing for teachers, as they start teaching, to be able to appreciate and identify that this is a far too common problem and a challenge for so many children in our country and that it would really be better if they could be identified earlier on and given the proper support required. Again, I appreciate the member for Dawson bringing this important motion forward and having the opportunity to contribute tonight on a very important issue that undermines the learning of so many children. (Time expired) 20:15 Ms HALL 83N Shortland I would like to congratulate the member for Dawson for bringing this motion to the House tonight. Whilst I do not agree with all aspects of it, I believe it is important to ensure that dyslexia is acknowledged as a significant learning disability and that significant resources are placed into assisting young people and children that have dyslexia. I have experienced it within my own family. I have two children who have been to university and were high achievers who could cope very well with anything that was put before them academically, but I have one child who had dyslexia. His life, the roads that he took and the opportunities that he has had in life were very different to the opportunities that my two children who did not have dyslexia had. He works in a manual area, but the problem is constantly having to convince those around you that you are able to do things, because in our society we rely so much upon being able to read the written word, and following instructions is so important. Dyslexia is estimated to affect about 10 per cent of the Australian population. In Australia the terms 'dyslexia', 'specific learning disabilities', 'learning difficulties' and 'LD' are used interchangeably as umbrella terms for a variety of difficulties which may or may not be dyslexia. Dyslexia is, I think, best understood if you look at it from the point of view of persistent difficulty with learning to read and spell. I know from my own personal experience that people with dyslexia develop different regimes for dealing with life so that they can get around their inability to read. They develop different ways of learning. Dyslexia has been shown to be resistant to traditional teaching methods, and there have been a lot of individualised programs that have been adopted around teaching students with dyslexia. But students need different programs. There are different causes and types of dyslexia, and it is important that teachers know how to identify a student who has dyslexia and how to develop programs and teaching methods to assist that student. The government has recognised that there is a need to provide support for students with learning difficulties and disabilities, and that is why $100 million in Commonwealth funding will be going into schools in the school year 2014. It is well and truly long overdue, because our schools need to have the money and the resources to be able to give those students that have specific learning needs the assistance that they need. At the moment there is limited knowledge of the number of students that actually need this support, and that needs to be collected. We need to get nationally consistent data, and once we get this data we need to put it together in a way that will then be useful to develop and deliver those programs. I think that a number of the suggestions in the member for Dawson's motion have real merit and deserve investigation, because students who have dyslexia need extra support. I think that support while they are undergoing NAPLAN, in the classroom, with their homework and in a number of different environments is very important if they are going to achieve their optimal level of learning. So I congratulate the member for Dawson for bringing it to the House. 20:20 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina 'Our mission is not to teach someone but to allow them to learn.' This is the mission statement of Dyslexia Australia and adequately sums up the intention of this very worthwhile, good and meritorious motion which has been moved by my friend the member for Dawson, whose advocacy in this area is to be congratulated. He recognises through this motion that dyslexia is a learning disability and does not have a cure. According to a 2010 report given to the then Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services, Bill Shorten, between five and 10 per cent of Australians are diagnosed with a learning disability such as dyslexia. As such, I commend this motion. I commend the member for Dawson and the motion's intention that this parliament address the critical need for teachers to be better trained to allow students with dyslexia to learn and have improved outcomes. When a person has dyslexia, words jumble. They move around. They swirl. The basic skills of reading and writing, which most people take for granted, are incredibly challenging for people with dyslexia. As more research becomes available about how students and people with dyslexia are impacted and what some strategies might be to deal with them, it is important that schools and governments adapt with that research to make this task easier. In order to achieve this, we must recognise what dyslexia is and, through the research, come to understand what profound impacts it might have on students and people who are diagnosed with it. While we will never fully appreciate the difficulty of reading and writing, solutions and recommendations through research can make this challenge easier. As the rates of dyslexia increase and our understanding of it also grows, as a society we can come to recognise what some of the symptoms of dyslexia are, which is the intention of the motion of the member for Dawson. In addition to the difficulty of reading and writing, people with dyslexia often find hearing and speech challenging. They may also have difficulty with mathematics and time management. Added to this, people with dyslexia may find memory and cognition challenging and may also have behavioural difficulties. As such, it is critical that we as a society understand what the symptoms of dyslexia are so we can gain a greater insight into how best we can help people who are diagnosed with it. Obviously, schooling and education is where people with dyslexia first experience the challenges and difficulties of reading and writing. It is vital for the sake of the people this has an impact upon that teachers are better equipped, as Dyslexia Australia's mission attests, 'to allow them to learn'. I refer here to the comments of the shadow minister for education. In his role as the shadow minister he firmly believes that there is no shame in having a learning disability. The only shame is if it is not recognised and treated to an individual's need. I would certainly agree with him, as I am sure all members of this House would agree with him. He is calling for the use of modified curricula and instruction in education, appropriate assistance technology and extra time for learning as students with disabilities go through school. It is crucial, he says, for children who suffer from a learning disability to receive the appropriate diagnosis, treatment and support in their school. He is currently working with the Specific Learning Difficulties Association in his state of South Australia to raise awareness of this by asking this parliament to formally recognise dyslexia as a disability and to provide funding to ensure the students with dyslexia receive high-quality intervention as soon as the diagnosis has been confirmed. That, along with this particular motion, will really be a great enabler for young people with dyslexia. If they receive help early, it can improve their educational outcomes and, indeed, their job prospects considerably. It is not to discredit the passion and dedication of our teachers to say that we need to help them learn and that schools need to play an even greater role in helping to improve outcomes of children with dyslexia. It takes a special kind of person to be a teacher. We know that these days our teachers are much more than just educators; they are counsellors, nurses, advisers and people who inspire the next generation of the nation. They give this country a great service. My daughter, Georgina, is a teacher at Griffith High School. I know of the profound impact that she and so many others have on students. I know that students with dyslexia certainly need every bit of help that they can receive. (Time expired) 20:25 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Dyslexia is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as 'a disorder involving a difficulty in learning to read words; also to identify numerals and symbols.' I commend Dyslexia Australia, whose motto is 'Our mission—not to teach someone, but to allow them to learn…' There is no quick fix, no cure for dyslexia. Dyslexics can correct their reading when given correct teaching methods and through adoption of resilience in a multidisciplinary approach. In fact, this federal Labor government has made child and youth health initiatives a really high priority in terms of early intervention in areas like this with preventative approaches with interdisciplinary coordination across a number of agencies. We have also seen that with our commitment of $200 million into schools in relation to disability. Kerry Packer was one of Australia's most famous and most successful dyslexics. As a child, his father called him a boofhead and would give him a hiding because, in his words, he was 'academically stupid'. The attitudes of Australians have come a long way since the days of Sir Frank Packer. We know that dyslexics can learn differently but they are certainly not academically stupid. I think the member for Dawson has been somewhat good in his intention in bringing this motion. In fact, I had a close look at it and commend him for his obvious commitment to this particular issue. Dyslexics really do have a challenge. I have met a number in my capacity as federal member. They have problems with memory, cognition, writing and motor skills. They often have problems with hearing. Speaking patterns are often different. Behaviour problems often emerge, and there are personality issues. But I must say that, in terms of assistance for people with dyslexia, I did note what the member for Moreton talked about in terms of schooling, education and, particularly, funding. The member for Dawson in his particular motion actually makes the point that there is a connection with education, schooling and funding. I say to the member for Dawson: although I do believe he has a good heart on this issue, he would be better off pouring his efforts into speaking with his LNP state colleagues about signing up for the National Plan for School Improvement. The people of Dawson would need to know that the National Plan for School Improvement would provide local schools in the electorate of Dawson with an additional $150 million over the next four years. Perhaps he should let the people, parents, friends and students at Mackay North State High School know that they would receive over $15 million in additional funding under the Gonski scheme that Campbell Newman and the LNP state government in Queensland refused to sign up to. What a difference that may make to students at Mackay North State High School who have dyslexia or other learning difficulties—or Bloomsbury State School in the electorate of Dawson, which would receive an additional 62 per cent in funding under the National Plan for School Improvement. What a difference the hundreds of thousands of dollars would make to students with disabilities and challenging learning difficulties in that school. The National Plan for School Improvement will change the way we fund students and schools with large numbers of people with disability. A disability loading will provide support for students with disability based on the level of adjustment. That would make a big difference in the lives of kids in my electorate of Blair and also in the electorate of Dawson. There would be more one-on-one attention, more modern equipment, better training for teachers and more understanding of dyslexia. But, regrettably, the Leader of the Opposition in this parliament and the Premier of Queensland stand in the way of that additional funding in electorates like Blair and Dawson. This government has done more to support children with learning disabilities than any other government previously. This government has implemented child and youth initiatives to ensure that conditions such as dyslexia are discovered early. We know that early intervention is so critical. The National Early Childhood Development Strategy, developed by COAG, seeks to ensure that all children up to eight years of age have the best start in life. Our goal in this parliament must be to ensure that our children are born healthy, grow up healthy and have the support in schools to make a difference in their lives. That is why the Healthy Kids Check ensures that. I commend the government for what they do and point out to the member— (Time expired) 20:30 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to speak without closing the debate. Leave granted. Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 I have listened to the different speakers thus far on the debate. It has been quite interesting, and I am glad that there has been support from both sides of the chamber to look at dyslexia and what can be done for students with dyslexia in our educational systems. It is probably disappointing to hear the parliamentary secretary pull the issue into a political argument. The fact is that the Gonski reforms as the government is currently touting them do very little in relation to this area. Mr Neumann interjecting— Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 I have listened to the parliamentary secretary speak, and you might listen and actually learn something from what I am about to say. I have spoken with not only teachers but also people who work in the field of educational support for students with dyslexia. While they say that Gonski has the right language in terms of dyslexia and support for dyslexia, they see little actually coming out of that system that is not already present in the current system. What we need is not just more money thrown at education; we need a fundamental change in the way that our educational system actually treats students who have dyslexia. NAPLAN is obviously an invention of this government, but the fact is that the rules for NAPLAN do not allow for significant support for students with dyslexia. Gonski will not change that system. We will still have students sitting there who have dyslexia, who have reading, writing and comprehension problems, having to undertake this momentous test with the almost certain prospect of failure on that test—because of the nature of the test—hanging over their heads. There have been repeated submissions to government inquiries and Productivity Commission inquiries by teacher organisations and by parents which actually show that the impact that that testing has on children with dyslexia is harmful and detrimental to their wellbeing and their mental health. You cannot sit a kid through that test without appropriate support and expect that they are going to pass it. If you go on the National Assessment Plan website and you type in the word 'dyslexia' in the search box, not a single result turns up. Dyslexia is almost not considered when it comes to NAPLAN. In fact, if you go and have a look through the examples that are listed in terms of what extra support is given for students with disability on the NAPLAN website, there is no example of dyslexia, despite it being such a widespread condition in the student community. NAPLAN rules do allow for scribes or support people to assist some students with disabilities, but students with dyslexia are, I would believe, in the main not covered by these sections. The scribes are there for people who have a problem with the physical act of writing. They are not there for students, in the main, who just have a learning disability such as dyslexia. A support person can be there for a student with disabilities, but, again, that support person has to be there in the classroom all the time to actually be there for a person sitting the NAPLAN test. Most students with dyslexia do not have a support person sitting in the classroom with them all day. So, again, that does not help. We have these students taking these written tests where they have to comprehend the words that are on it, where they have to actually write their responses, and these are the fundamental things that they cannot do. There needs to be a change in that. We also need a change, as I said before, with preservice training for teachers. We do not have it when every other advanced country has it, and Gonski, again, will not deliver that. The government has talked about this $200 million package that is being rolled out to schools for students with disabilities, but if you have a look at the peak bodies for dyslexia, one of the problems they are saying with that is that it does not cover students with learning disabilities such as dyslexia. That money will not be going to assist students with dyslexia. It is the fundamental thing that we need assistance with in our education system so that we do not have children being left behind. The government needs to really look at the report that was done and presented to the former parliamentary secretary in this area and actually get on with adopting those recommendations. Debate adjourned. Renewable Energy Targets 5887 20:36 Ms SMYTH 172770 La Trobe I move: That this House recognises that: (1) wind energy is an important and safe source of renewable energy; (2) wind energy generation will play a crucial role in enabling Australia to meet its existing renewable energy targets; (3) bipartisan support for Australia's renewable energy targets is essential to reducing carbon emissions in Australia's electricity sector; and (4) any move to diminish or abolish the current legislated renewable energy targets would have serious and detrimental impacts on investment in renewable energy, impede Australia's ability to reduce carbon emissions by at least 5 per cent below year 2000 levels by 2020, and undermine the move to a clean energy future. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Is there a seconder? Mr Neumann HVO Yes. Ms SMYTH 172770 There are moments in our nation's history when opportunities have been seized which were critical to our country's long-term prosperity and the quality of life of our citizens. We are at another of those tipping points right now. As a result of the actions of this government we are starting to make real strides in clean energy industries, real gains. Investments are up and emissions are being reduced. There is innovation, employment, diversification and a transition away from such a heavy reliance on older, polluting industries. It is why this debate about wind energy and other sources of renewable energy is so important. It is why the renewable energy targets are so important, and it beggars belief that there are those in this place who would try to turn back this transition to a clean energy economy. Bipartisan support for Australia's renewable energy targets is essential to reducing carbon emissions in our electricity sector. Sensible, rational policy debate is essential at a time when clean energy presents our nation with both economic opportunities and the chance to play a part in responding to a global solution to climate change. If we cannot have bipartisan support, let us at least have honesty in the debate. Let us not have people hiding behind junk science and puffed-up claims that are simply not borne out by credible evidence. Let us acknowledge that opposition to renewable energy and opposition to wind energy is almost entirely ideological. Let us have the debate that I suspect so many of those opposite, in fact, want to have but cannot have because they will look like the fringe dwellers that they are. It is the debate in which they come out and say what we know they want to say, that they think climate change is not real. Let them say what they want to say—that they do not believe that human beings have an impact on climate change, that they do not believe in renewable energy and do not want to support it, that they really want to stick with exclusive reliance on older polluting sources of energy without any change. But they will not be upfront. They will hide behind the junk science and the anti-wind farm scare campaign because at least some members of their party room realise that renewable energy has mainstream support in this country, so they cannot completely attack it. Sometimes you do get a glimmer of what they really think. For instance, we know that last week the opposition leader's proposed business adviser Maurice Newman is reported by the Guardian Australia to have described support for renewable energy as 'a crime against the people'. Mr Newman, who I understand is to chair the coalition's proposed business advisory council, is reported to have rejected the science of climate change and to want the renewable energy target scrapped entirely. We know that there are comparable calls to scrap the renewable energy target entirely from people like Senator Ron Boswell and the candidate for Hume and the member for Hume. So sometimes we get to see the real debate, the debate that they want to have. This resolution recognises wind energy as an important and safe source of renewable energy. It recognises that wind energy does and will play a critical role in enabling Australia to meet its existing renewable energy targets and those targets are important. But there are others who say that wind energy generation is a hazard. There is a contention from some that exposure to noise from wind farms produces a cluster of symptoms which has been called wind turbine syndrome. The National Health and Medical Research Council has an ongoing agenda which involves looking into the possible health effects of wind farms. The NHMRC's Wind Turbines and Health report in July 2010 considered that the so-called 'wind turbine syndrome' is based mainly on the work of one individual whose assertions were then yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal and had been heavily criticised by acoustic specialists. Notwithstanding that, let us have a look at what are raised as health impacts and what some other people have had to say about them. These concerns appear to relate to long-term exposure to infrasound—that is, very low frequency vibrations below the threshold of hearing—and exposure to continuous noise, to intermittent audible sound and to flickering from blades. The NHMRC's 2010 report points out that infrasound is not new nor is it solely connected with wind turbines. It is constantly present in the environment being caused by air turbulence, ocean waves, some ventilation units in buildings, aircraft and some road vehicles and some sorts of machinery. A report by the South Australian EPA in January this year has also found that infrasound from wind farms is 'no greater' than infrasound in other rural environments. The South Australian EPA has said: … the contribution of wind turbines to the measured infrasound levels is insignificant in comparison with the background level of infrasound in the environment. Let us also have a look at a paper prepared in January 2012 for the Massachusetts Department of Public Health which looked at aspects of wind turbines that have been reported to cause health effects. According to the authors of the paper: … the weight of the evidence suggests no association between noise from wind turbines and measures of psychological distress or mental problems. It goes on to say: There is no evidence for a set of health effects, from exposure to wind turbines that could be characterised as a "Wind Turbine Syndrome." Closer to home we have a recent journal article by the Professor of Public Health at the University of Sydney, Simon Chapman, which tried to determine the basis for claims that wind turbines are associated with something called 'vibroacoustic disease'. Indeed, his research found that only a small proportion of residents living near turbines do actually complain and, when they do, the complaints seem to bear a correlation with the campaigning of anti-wind energy groups. The report notes that vibroacoustic disease: … has received virtually no scientific recognition beyond the group who coined and promoted the concept. There is no evidence of even rudimentary quality that vibroacoustic disease is associated with or caused by wind turbines. He goes on to say: The claim that wind turbines cause VAD is a factoid that has gone 'viral' in cyber space and may be contributing to nocebo effects among those living near turbines. Before I inevitably become a target for complainants I should say that I do not doubt the sincerity with which so many people hold the belief that they are the subject of so-called wind turbine syndrome or vibroacoustic disease. My complaint is not with those who consider themselves affected by wind turbines in some deleterious though unspecified way. To those people I say this: the NHMRC is already charged with investigating public health impacts. It is a reputable and an impartial body. This is the correct body to be considering your concerns. In addition, if it is actually an objection to development near your property, then that is another issue entirely. My complaint is with those who would seek to use unsubstantiated claims about these ailments in order to advocate to stop an important source of renewable energy. Wind energy has accounted for approximately 38 per cent of all renewable capacity installed since 2000. It has attracted over $5 billion in investment directly in Australia since 2001 and it is expected to continue to be a very significant contributor to our renewable energy mix. But this is just to speak of one source of renewable energy. This government's agenda has been to foster growth in renewable energy overall. And so it is troubling that the opposition now seems to be backing away from the RET. The Renewable Energy Target scheme is, as members will know, designed to ensure the equivalent of at least 20 per cent of Australia's electricity comes from renewable sources by 2020. In March this year the government released our response to the Climate Change Authority's review of the Renewable Energy Target. We confirmed that the 41,000 gigawatt hours large-scale target should remain and that this is likely to result in us exceeding 20 per cent renewable energy by 2020—it is a great thing. However, the coalition has not indicated its full support for the full legislative target and has shown no willingness to exceed 20 per cent renewable energy by 2020. In fact, fairly recently on radio in Adelaide the opposition leader expressed his concerns about the current Renewable Energy Target exceeding 20 per cent by 2020 and called for yet another review as early as 2014. This is in addition to the comments by the proposed chair of his business advisory council, which I referred to earlier, and the comments of opposition members undercutting the RET and in opposition to renewable energy sources. Now, the coalition regularly bangs on about sovereign risk, but not when it comes to renewable energy investment, not when it is out there talking about scrapping or watering down the legislated RET, not when it is out there talking about repealing the carbon price, abolishing the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and duplicating state and territory planning requirements over windfarm noise. It fails to acknowledge that all of this poses a considerable risk for renewable energy investment certainty in Australia. All the while, wind energy has been a significant contributor to our renewable energy mix and I am pleased this evening be able to speak in favour of renewable energy as a whole, the RET and wind energy. So let us see who on the opposition benches stands alongside the anti-windfarm campaign and who recognises the need for credible, responsible political parties in this country to stand up for renewable energy for the good of our country. If this is ideological, then say so. If this is just about constituents who do not want development in their backyard, say so. Do not jeopardise a clean energy future. (Time expired) 20:47 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders May I say the previous member for La Trobe was strong, elegant and clear on his support for renewable energy. Let me begin by addressing the current member for La Trobe's motion this evening and let me begin by setting out three propositions. We agree on the science of climate as a coalition and as a government. We agree on the targets in our bipartisan approach. However, we disagree on the fundamental mechanism, which is the carbon tax. We disagree clearly, absolutely. I want to deal with three parts in this particular motion. The first point of disagreement is on the carbon tax and the reason why that is a failed mechanism and actually fails to increase or decrease renewable energy—it has no effective impact on that whatsoever; it is just an electricity tax. The second point is to look at the incredible failure in the renewable space of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which, as we speak, is preparing to give $100 million to a New Zealand-based company for a wind farm that has already been built, and which the private sector was also willing to finance. It sort of makes you wonder what is the point because when you spend $10 billion you would hope you get some additional renewable energy, but this Clean Energy Finance Corporation will not deliver one additional watt of renewable energy over and above what was already under the Renewable Energy Target. And in the third point I want to deal with the target itself. We support the target, we created the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target, which became the Renewable Energy Target. We gave bipartisan support to its creation, but we did clearly oppose the phantom credit scheme and the state Labor bonus tariff schemes, which created a spike in price and which distorted what would otherwise have been a good scheme. So those flaws were warned of, were identified; we endeavoured to stop them, but the two levels of Labor government proceeded nevertheless and with very damaging results. Against that background, I also acknowledge that there are genuine and legitimate concerns in communities, and some of the members this evening will rightly express the concerns of their communities. Sometimes these communities have differing views within them on the impacts of wind on both human health and property values. I do not know the answer. I do think it is right and proper for the parliament of Australia to sponsor a full National Health and Medical Research Council independent science-based study using primary sources of actual testing to determine those. Nobody should have anything to fear because if there is a problem, we have a fundamental duty to find out. And if it is not a problem, then nobody need fear anything. It is our duty and our task to make sure that we are prudent wherever we are, firstly, spending public money and, secondly, and much more importantly, wherever there are claims of risks to public health. Some on the Labor side, including the previous speaker, the member for La Trobe, just dismissed the concerns of the community. I think this notion of dividing communities rather than recognising that both sides have a right to be heard is contemptuous in the extreme, and it is not the way we will proceed and it is not the way, if we are given the chance, we propose to govern. So to the carbon tax. Let me be brief on this. The case is well known against it. Firstly, it was based on a false promise and pledge to the Australian people that there would not be a carbon tax under any government led by the current Prime Minister. Secondly, beyond the betrayal, the sad and tragic thing is that it does not even do the job. The thing that most amazes Australians is that we go through a $9 billion a year tax and our emissions go up, not down. Not our figures, not something that we have created, but the government's own tracking to Kyoto figures, submitted internationally, were that Australia's emissions during the period from 2010 to 2020 go from 560 to 637 million tonnes. Go figure that, for all of this pain, our emissions go up, not down. And that comes to the fundamental flaw: it is an electricity tax, it is a gas tax, it is a refrigeration tax and, as a consequence, it is focusing on essential services. The iron law of economics is that, when you tax essential services, the primary effect is that it causes people to substitute out of other discretionary items rather than out of the essential service. So the consequence of the carbon tax is that it simply has an impact on people's cost of living and quality of life but, as is shown by the government's own projections—not ours—emissions go up, not down, because taxing an essential service in economic terms is taxing a largely inelastic good. In other words, if you drive up the price, you will have minimal impact on consumption. This is again demonstrated by the work of IPART in Australia and New South Wales and studies around the world that show that electricity is pretty close to the most inelastic of all the major consumer items. In other words, it is a bad idea to tax electricity because it hurts but does not do the job, according to the government's own figures. There are many other reasons why we would not want to support the carbon tax, including the fact that on the latest projections, in this year's budget, only a month ago, we will still be spending $3.8 billion on foreign carbon credits in addition to the carbon tax to make up the difference because it does not do the job here in Australia. So you have a $9 billion tax and then on top of that you have to spend another $3.8 billion a year from 2020 onwards in perpetuity, rising to $57 billion by 2050, on foreign carbon credits. It is amazing. This brings me to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Our dispute here, by the way, is with the government. We respect the board and we respect the executive. The fundamental flaw in this green hedge fund is it is a $10 billion fund using borrowed funds from the taxpayers—and that will have to be paid back at some stage—to invest in projects that are not producing any new renewable energy. The first cab off the rank is reportedly a $100 million payment for a wind farm in Victoria that has already been built and that could have gotten finance from the private sector, just not on such concessional terms. So there is no new renewable energy. Before the Clean Energy Finance Corporation there was a 20 per cent renewable energy target. After $10 billion of Clean Energy Finance Corporation funding there is still a renewable energy target of 20 per cent. In other words, we spend $10 billion on projects using borrowed money and we get no additional renewable energy. The best-case scenario is that you go from low-cost renewables to high-cost renewables. It does not make sense. This brings me to the renewable energy target itself. The facts of the renewable energy target are these. According to the New South Wales IPART, in the year just past we had an 18 per cent price rise in New South Wales electricity, of which nine per cent was the carbon tax—10 per cent on average around the country—and 0.3 per cent came from the renewable energy target: one-thirtieth of the carbon tax and one-sixtieth of the RET. Those are the IPART figures that were published in the last year. Even when you build in the total cost, because that is a legitimate question, the work of the AEMC is that the RET has contributed 1c a kilowatt hour or three per cent to the total cost. It is not a trivial sum and I do not want to dismiss it—we need to be honest about the cost—nor is it the figure claimed by some. Those two independent bodies—IPART and the AEMC—have set the facts straight. The figure is neither trivial nor the figure represented by some. Communities have a right to have a full investigation. As I said at the outset, I do not know what the impact of wind is on health. I do know that it is our duty as policymakers and legislators to allow a full National Health and Medical Research Council independent survey based on fresh testing to be conducted. Communities have a right to know. None of us should be dismissive, none of us should be contemptuous and none of us should ignore those community needs. So we support the RET and we also support the community's right to know. (Time expired) 20:57 Mr KELVIN THOMSON UK6 Wills I am very pleased to have this opportunity to support the member for La Trobe. Wind energy is indeed an important and safe source of renewable energy. Wind energy generation will play a crucial role in enabling Australia to meet its existing renewable energy targets. I hear there are people coming to Canberra tomorrow to protest against wind turbines. Unfortunately, some people get scared by the nonsense and misinformation being peddled on the internet. I suggest they will be reassured if they look at two recent reports, which they can also find on the internet, which represent serious scientific research rather than voodoo and witchcraft. The first is the recent information paper by the Victorian Department of Health entitled WindFarms, Sound and Health. This paper found that the inaudible sound caused by wind farms is no more significant than that from other rural and urban environments and does not affect human health. The evidence indicates that sound can only affect health at sound levels that are loud enough to be easily audible. This means that, if you cannot hear a sound, there is no known way that it can affect your health. This is true regardless of the frequency of the sound. Tens of thousands of people around the world live near wind farms without suffering ill effects. Many have done so for decades. The health department review assessed the evidence and found that it does not support claims that inaudible sounds can have direct physiological effects. Physiological effects on humans have only been detected at levels that are easily audible. The report says that infrasound is generated by many sources, such as trains, breaking waves and air conditioners. The department found that the evidence showed wind farms produced no more infrasound than the background level in other environments. The report says: Humans have been exposed to high levels of infrasound throughout our evolution, with no apparent effects. Wind energy has an excellent health track record. The Australian wind industry takes health concerns very seriously. According to the Clean Energy Council, there is no peer reviewed scientific evidence that wind turbines have an impact on health. There are nearly 200,000 wind turbines across sites all over the world, many of them close to people's houses. Some 17 reviews of research literature conducted by leading health and research organisations from all over the world, including Australia's National Health and Medical Research Centre, the UK Health Protection Agency and the US National Research Council, have found no direct link between wind farms and health effects. So the claims of opponents of wind farms about infrasound are shown to be without foundation. In fact, as the Clean Energy Council indicates, there are many health benefits that come from using wind energy over conventional forms such as coal and gas. As wind energy is greenhouse gas free, it improves overall air quality by reducing the amount of pollution. The World Health Organisation says that wind power represents one of the most benign of all forms of electrical generation in terms of direct and indirect health effects. The second report that tomorrow's protesters should track down on the internet is today's report from the Australian Climate Commission titled The Critical Decade: Climate science, risks and responses. The report found that the duration and frequency of heatwaves and extremely hot days has increased across Australia and around the world. The number of heatwaves is projected to increase significantly into the future. Heat causes more deaths than any other type of extreme weather event in Australia. Increasing intensity and frequency of extreme heat poses health risks for Australians and will put additional pressure on health services. Heatwaves kill people. I want to reassure tomorrow's protesters that wind energy is lifesaving technology and they have nothing to fear. I urge them to stop running interference on it and give wind energy their full support. The Victorian Department of Health report is a damning indictment of the Victorian government, which is blocking wind farms by allowing any household to veto a new turbine within two kilometres of their home. This attitude stands in stark and hypocritical contrast to its approving a massive expansion of the Brunswick terminal station in my electorate—in the process, taking the decision-making out of the hands of the local council and the local community and displaying utter contempt for the health and other concerns of local residents. Wind power is a significant component of any effective response to climate change. Building more wind farms will help facilitate the structural change we need to become a low-carbon economy, and for that reason we should be encouraging its development. 21:02 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I am very pleased to contribute to this motion moved by the member for La Trobe. From the outset: I would love to see the day that clean renewables can replace fossil fuels. If we can make clean renewables cost-effective they will be taken up worldwide and there would be no need for government subsidies. But what I am concerned about is wind turbine syndrome. Wind turbine syndrome, or perhaps we should call it wind turbine fever, is something that does exist. It is not just a physical malady. It is an affliction of the mind. Wind turbine fever has serious effects on otherwise normally sane and intelligent people. It causes them to abandon rational thought and logic. It causes them to argue for the spending of billions of dollars without the need of any cost-benefit analysis. But, most disturbingly, it causes them to develop a callous disregard for the human health and wellbeing of their fellow Australians. Like infrasound, wind turbine syndrome afflicts different groups in different ways. The first group afflicted is similar to those who suffered from gold rush fever during our colonial days—those who see rivers of gold and large fortunes to be made, or the expansion of their political power, in the wind industry. The second group afflicted by wind turbine fever are activists who have, no doubt, good intentions but, like religious devotees, they have developed an evangelical belief. They simply believe in wind turbines and anyone who questions any aspect of that belief or the economics is simply guilty of heresy and labelled a denier. The path we are heading down as a nation will see $17 billion of our limited capital and resources spent building wind turbine farms; so one of the effects we see of wind turbine fever is the inability to acknowledge that wind turbines are a costly and inefficient method of generating electricity which will have the effect of increasing the price of electricity to consumers and businesses. The problem with wind turbines is that without a government subsidy no-one would build one. We need to take off our ideological blinkers and ask—and I note this was not mentioned by any speaker on the other side—how much will our electricity prices rise? How much more will consumers and families have to pay to get a return on that $17 billion we are seeing invested in wind turbines in the next seven years? How much hardship will this cause families who are forced to pay more for their electricity? How many Australian businesses will be forced to abandon Australia and move to countries which do not have such high electricity prices? We must admit that if we go down this track, it is a recipe for retarding economic growth and increasing poverty in our nation. We must remember that our wealth will never come from subsidising inefficient technologies and that jobs are not created by taxing the rest of the economy to pay for uneconomic green jobs. We also need to consider the opportunity cost of our nation investing $17 billion in wind turbines. No-one will ever know what new products, processes or medical breakthroughs will fail to come into existence, killed before they were born, because of our nation's diversion of these precious and valuable resources into wind turbines. Most disturbing of all is the callous disregard for the health and wellbeing of our fellow Australians. We have heard members on the other side simply dismiss these people, saying it is all in their heads. I would like to read a letter I have received from one such constituent: Last night was the third night with no sleep. Our whole house is shaking and has been all week. The turbines have been roaring consistently since Monday afternoon. It is now Friday and today is worse than all other days. I cannot work in my paddocks under these conditions. I have headaches constantly, with no sleep for three nights. My physical ability is deteriorating rapidly. These people deserve a study to find out— (Time expired) 21:07 Mr CHEESEMAN HW7 Corangamite I rise to support the private members' motion put forward by the member for La Trobe. For those listening to the debate, it is worth reading out the motion before I go to addressing the motion itself. The motion reads: (1) wind energy is an important and safe source of renewable energy; (2) wind energy generation will play a crucial role in enabling Australia to meet its existing renewable energy targets; (3) bipartisan support for Australia's renewable energy targets is essential to reducing carbon emissions in Australia's electricity sector; and (4) any move to diminish or abolish the current legislated renewable energy targets would have serious and detrimental impacts on investment in renewable energy, impede Australia's ability to reduce carbon emissions by at least 5 per cent below year 2000 levels by 2020, and undermine the move to a clean energy future. It is important for this House to debate and to consider this resolution. In my electorate of Corangamite, there are three projects that have been fully approved and are in various stages of development. These projects will generate over 348 megawatts of energy at their peak, a significant contribution to reducing carbon and creating energy for our communities. The Mount Gellibrand Wind Farm will play an important role in delivering renewable energy, having a generation capacity of 189 megawatts. This will make a significant contribution and will supply some 88,000 households or a city of a similar size to Geelong. This energy is carbon neutral and will help displace millions of tonnes of dirty brown coal power generation. Work started on this project in March 2012 and is progressing. The Mount Mercer energy farm will have 64 towers which are currently under construction. They will produce some 131.2 megawatts of energy for Mount Mercer, which is just south of Ballarat in the top of my electorate. Work on this project is the most advanced in my electorate. Workers will have completed 39 of the towers, with some 60 per cent of the poles linking to the transmission network, in the not too distant future. This is a huge project and will have a very significant impact on Ballarat by providing clean renewable energy for that community. Further, once the third project, Mount Pollock in south-west Victoria, not too far from Winchelsea, is completed it will consist of 14 turbines producing approximately 28 megawatts of electricity. These three projects are typical of projects being constructed throughout south-west Victoria and in South Australia and many other jurisdictions. These projects are important in terms of creating jobs during the construction period and they will play a substantial role in diversifying our electricity generation away from dirty brown coal generation. This will be important for cleaning up our carbon emissions to create new and efficient wind generation and electricity generation projects. Wind will play a very significant role in Australia meeting its obligations, both under the Kyoto protocol and under our desire to generate a significant amount of our electricity through clean energy. (Time expired.) 21:12 Dr JENSEN DYN Tangney The reality of renewables at present is that they do not stack up, and the various renewable energy target, or RET, schemes should be dropped until such time as they become economically competitive. I fully appreciate the coalition will review the RET in 2014. We have seen the ludicrous proposition put forward by the wind industry that wind power reduces prices in the market. This is based on disingenuous use of data whereby a massive oversupply when wind is blowing, leading to the price going down, but relative undersupply when the wind is not blowing, significantly increases prices. The overall effect is that, for example, South Australian, the wind capital state in Australia, has the nation's highest electricity costs. If the wind energy proponents were correct in their assertion that wind energy was economically competitive with fossil fuels then there would be no need for RET schemes or subsidies. The big problem for renewables is the requirement for backup when the renewable resource—wind here—is not available. At present storage is even more cost uncompetitive. This is bad enough in the case of new turbines being erected. Even forgetting the problems related to grid instability due to variability of wind speeds and the incongruity of there being no wind power from South Australia to provide required power to Queensland during Cyclone Yasi, the issue of degradation due to age becomes a factor. The wind generation capacity of a wind farm is also not what the proponents would like to put out. The reality is that the turbines do not generate any electricity with too high or too low a wind speed. The power ramps up and down with increasing or decreasing wind speeds and only has a certain sweet spot in wind speed distribution where it can generate maximum capacity. The average of all these issues leads to what is known as 'load factor' or the average power generated by wind turbines. A recent study conducted in the UK and Denmark provides a sobering picture. Data for the cost of wind power at present assumes an economic life of 25 to 30 years. Problematically, the data indicates that the load factor in the UK for new-build wind turbines is around 24 per cent, but after 15 years it is down to 11 per cent. The degradation is large but can also be catastrophic in terms of bearing or gearbox failures. The numbers required are huge as well. If Australia were to have all of its energy generated using wind and if the average new build could be smoothed for an average load factor of 20 per cent, then Australia would need over 50,000 five-megawatt wind turbines. What of the victims of wind farms—those who have dedicated their lives to living the Australian dream and who will see a substantial loss in property value due to planned wind farms on a neighbouring property. This is the case for Melanie and Craig, who have dedicated their lives to farming in Broomehill WA. They have an 18-month-old daughter, Grace, and hope to have more children in the near future. Farming is tough, but they accept the challenges and would love their life on the land if it were not for the proposed wind farm on the neighbouring property. Melanie and Craig's future and their life as they had planned it is now uncertain. For the past three years they have been fighting to stop the placement of a wind turbine one kilometre from their family home. The subsidy for wind is more than 100 per cent. The CSIRO estimates that the levelled costs of power to be $168 per megawatt-hour compared with coal, which is $80. These figures are generous in terms of the load factor, but they do not expect wind to be any more competitive by 2030. According to the CSIRO, nuclear is the cheapest method of generating electricity now, and this will also be the case in 2030. Wind power is simply a feel-good option for electricity. It is inefficient and costly. Investment should be directed at the cheap end of the innovation pipeline: research and development of electricity-generating technology. We must not mandate the use of expensive methods of generating electricity. Given economics and the goals for CO2 reduction, nuclear has to be considered. 21:17 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I begin by commending the member for La Trobe for bringing this matter to the House. Our climate is indeed changing. The past summer was the hottest on record. As scientists have been predicting for some time, we will see more frequent and more severe bushfires, floods, cyclones and tornadoes. It is now very clear that extreme weather events are becoming all too frequent all around the world, causing loss of life and property, loss of productivity and loss of biodiversity and the natural environment. When we look at the causes of these extreme weather events one has only to look at the work of John Cook and his colleagues from the University of Queensland. They examined over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science articles published between 1991 and 2011. That is over a 20-year period. Their conclusion—and that is the conclusion of over 97 per cent of the articles they peer reviewed—was the view that climate change is being caused largely by human activity. Their study was in fact supported by other similar studies carried out by other scientists. The overwhelming number of climate scientists around the world are in agreement that climate change is real and serious, that humans are contributing to it and that if we change our behaviour it will make a difference. I cannot, and will not, ignore the very clear scientific opinion on this matter. Scientific opinion is that rising carbon dioxide levels and greenhouse gas levels are contributing to global warming and changing our climate. It seems that both sides of this House—in fact, all members of this House, I understand—acknowledge that. That is why both sides of this House support a 20 per cent renewable energy target by 2020. What can we do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this country and across the world? The first thing we need to do is to reduce our use of fossil fuels for the generation of electricity, bearing in mind that electricity generation accounts for about 35 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions in this country and in most parts of the world. The reality is that we do have choices. We have choices such as hydro-electric power, geothermal power, solar energy and wind energy. The reality is also that those forms of energy are being used and they are making a difference. Under Labor, over one million solar panels have been installed around the country and wind generation has trebled. The result is that we have seen a reduction in emissions from the National Electricity Market, now down by 7.4 per cent. And at the seven most highly-polluting power stations, emissions are down by 14 per cent. In addition, the renewable energy industry today employs over 24,000 people. So those people who also talk the renewable energy industry down on the basis that jobs will be lost in other sectors need to take a good hard look at the fact that some 24,000 people are today employed in the renewable energy industry. Concerns have been raised with respect to the health effects of wind generators and wind electricity generation throughout Australia and perhaps around the world—effects such as noise, vibrations, appearance and injuries to birdlife in particular. I do not dismiss those concerns, and I acknowledge that they need to be addressed. But what I make very clear is that by contrast with the health, environmental and climate change risks associated with fossil fuel burning, the risks associated with wind energy pale into insignificance. If we look at some of the health effects alone with respect to the burning of fossil fuels in this country, there are health effects that affect the nervous system, the cardiovascular system and the respiratory system and that have now been found in many parts of the world. There is no question about them, and it is undeniable that the health effects associated with the alternative to wind energy, which is fossil fuel burning, are much higher than those associated with wind energy. I was pleased to hear that the member for Tangney referred to the state of South Australia which, in fact, is the state with the highest use of wind energy across the country. I think it is a commendable achievement. It is one that I am proud of and one that I know that the South Australian government has implemented through careful regulations and the use of the EPA. (Time expired) 21:22 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I do not support this motion. I quote from Mike Smithson, who is Channel 7's political reporter who is also heard on FIVEaa, who had a very interesting article in the Sunday Mail Adelaide. I am sure the member for Makin would be aware of that commentator and certainly that newspaper and probably the article headed, 'Ill wind may hurt farmers'. He writes: There’s a growing speculation that some of the benefits of wind power generation are a load of hot air. the State Government’s own hand-picked expert, who’s canvassed opinion throughout regional communities, has dished up plenty of food for thought about future wind approvals. He goes on to quote the former South Australian National Party MP, Peter Blacker, who was the member for Flinders from 1973 to 1993, who told a parliamentary committee recently of: … the growing downsides, especially in prime agricultural areas. His dark-cloud observations came as the Government prepares to approve a 199-turbine facility on the Yorke Peninsula, worth about $1.3 billion. I know the member for Hume—if he were available—would be speaking against this particular motion. He has stridently advocated against wind turbines as he knows the downsides, particularly in his electorate. I see that the member for Hughes is following on from that tradition of putting the facts into this space. I quote the member for Hume from his 19 March 2012 speech when he said: It is a shame that I will not have more time to expose the great fraud on the Australian people that is the wind turbine industry. Communities in proximity to wind turbine complexes are experiencing health and noise impacts that interfere with their lives. They did not experience these issues before the turbines came online. Mr Alby Shultz is correct. There are adverse effects from having wind turbines near you. There are dizzying effects, nausea, and all these sorts of complaints he has had to experience firsthand because his constituents have been complaining loudly and often to him. He railed against the wind turbines in another speech on 12 February this year when he said: Wind turbines should not be classed as renewable energy as the industry is unsure of whether they are actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions or not. Studies of performance based data suggest that wind turbines do not reduce emissions. Wind turbines are industrial power generators that require baseload power to operate and are inefficient, intermittent, damaging to the environment and very expensive to the electrical consumer in Australia. Alby Shultz is correct. Wind-turbine farms will not create an abundance of local clean, green jobs in Australia. They are not a clean, green source of energy. Wind farms require backup fossil-fuel powered generators which negate any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Wind farms take up large tracts of land which should otherwise and could otherwise be used as prime agricultural land to grow food. We have so often heard this government talking about feeding the Asian century and feeding the global food task, but are ever yet to produce public policy that does that. They have—as we heard from Mr Schultz time and again—negative health effects on humans: wind turbine syndrome, infrasound which causes headaches and dizziness, deep nervous fatigue, symptoms akin to seasickness as well as irritability, depression, concentration and sleep problems. Nobody would want one of these huge things next to them but, unfortunately, if you listen to all the nonsense and rhetoric coming from the other side you would think that these are the great panacea for all our energy problems and certainly for our clean energy problems. I know in my electorate we have irrigators using diesel power to pump their water systems, because they cannot afford to pay for electricity. But this is not going to solve the problem. We heard the member for Hughes and we know that tomorrow there is going to be a loud protest on the front steps of this parliament talking about the wind power fraud and how Australia cannot afford it. Australia cannot afford the clean energy bills. We certainly cannot afford the carbon tax and we certainly cannot afford to spend the billions upon billions of dollars going down this wind power fraud. It is a fraud, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I do thank you for letting me speak on this motion. (Time expired) Debate adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 5899 ADJOURNMENT Avenue of Honour, Lake Tinaroo 5899 21:28 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt In the early hours of 21 June 2010 a US Black Hawk helicopter was flying low and fast to avoid enemy detection in the forbidding mountains of Kandahar Province in Afghanistan. In the pitch-black surroundings there was no room for error, and when the helicopter crashed it took the lives of three Australian commandos and a member of the American flight crew. Commandos Ben Chuck, Tim Aplin and Scott Palmer had returned safely many times from these highly dangerous sorties but unfortunately not this time. Their deaths devastated so many people: family members, friends, colleagues and fellow Australians. On 1 July 2010 more than 1,000 people journeyed from all corners of Australia to the shores of Lake Tinaroo in Far North Queensland to pay their last respects to Private Benjamin Chuck. They came not only to honour their courageous service man but also to salute the memory of those who continue to stand side-by-side in the defence of freedom and basic human rights. On that day, an idea was born. It was a bold concept; a national memorial to honour the men and women who served, and to commemorate all Australian soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the fight against terror in Afghanistan. Tonight I am very pleased to report that on Saturday, 22 June, the Avenue of Honour at Lake Tinaroo will be officially opened. Stretching for 300 metres, the avenue is flanked by two rows of Illawarra flame trees. Each Remembrance Day their spectacular red blooms will represent the circle of life. A sculptured memorial depicts the contribution made by the Australian Army, the Special Forces Commando Regiment and the SASR, Navy personnel, the Royal Australian Air Force and the unsung explosives detection dogs. One hundred and thirty kilograms of rocks, flown in from Afghanistan, form the base of sculpture and the honour board lists the names of the 39 fallen. This Saturday several thousand people will congregate for the official opening by General David Hurley, the Chief of the Defence Force. Those on both sides of politics will attend, along with representatives from Lavarack Barracks—I see my colleague the member for Herbert, whose electorate includes the barracks, is here—and the Second Commando Regiment. It is going to be an incredible event. I want to acknowledge that, to get it to this point, the commitment and efforts of numerous individuals and organisations have been crucial. They include, but are not limited to: Ben's parents, Susan and Gordon Chuck, who have been inspiring in their strength and vision throughout this whole project, and the Yungaburra Business Association and Avenue of Honour Committee, who have been instrumental in driving the community and business support. Another individual I would like to mention is Howie Thomas for his tireless efforts in coordinating various elements of the project, including the campaign website and design. I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome Howie's daughter, Tahali, here tonight. Tahali is the only girl this year from Far North Queensland to get into the Australian Defence Force Academy and it is nice to see her here. I also acknowledge the Tablelands Regional Council for designating the land, providing funding and offering in-kind help with site preparation; the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Queensland state government for major funding contributions; regional and national RSLs for their fantastic donations; the Chief of the Defence Force, General David Hurley, and Air Vice Marshal (Retired) Angus Houston, former Chief of the Defence Force, both of whom have shown strong support; and many others who have donated money, expertise, material and time for the project. However, the job is not quite finished. In order for the memorial to be properly maintained in years to come we need to have momentum to keep going with a legacy fund. I was honoured to kick-start this final appeal with a personal donation of $5,000 and tonight I am strongly urging all those in this place to play their part as well. I have been provided with 150 limited edition Avenue of Honour commemorative pins and I would like to offer one to each member and senator who contributes $100 or more to this wonderful initiative. It will be on a first-in first-served basis. If we can raise $15,000 for the legacy fund that will be something to be proud of. These pins are available in my office. (Time expired) Griffith Electorate: Playing Fields 5901 21:33 Mr RUDD 83T Griffith I recently advised the parliament of the Queensland Liberal National Party government's plan to privatise school playing fields at both Balmoral State High School and Whites Hill College and to force the merger of two local southside schools, Brisbane State High School and Coorparoo Secondary College. Today I want to update the House further on recent developments. These four decisions by the LNP state government have been taken without a skerrick of prior consultation—four decisions leaked to The Courier Mail which we then had to force the government to admit to. Since that time, local residents from communities right across the southside are rising up with a unified voice to say very clearly: these decisions stink. Hundreds of local residents have joined community action groups, about 4,000 have signed petitions, community meetings have been packed, hundreds of handpainted signs have been put up in the front yards of local residents outraged at the sheer arrogance of the Liberal National Party government believing that it can simply dispose of community assets with total disregard of community opinion. I have attended public meetings with each of the affected school communities. Mysteriously, the federal Liberal National Party candidate for my electorate has been missing in action. Last Friday I attended a community meeting about the proposed sale of Whites Hill College playing fields—about 8.4 hectares in all. More than 700 students attend this college. A couple of hundred folk attended this meeting organised by the school's P&C on a Friday night at the end of the working week. They were worried about the loss of green space so close to the city and concerned about the impact on the environment, including on sugar glider colonies. They were concerned about the impact of hundreds of units being built on the site, on traffic, parking and local amenity, and they were outraged at the simple lack of basic community consultation. This is Liberal National Party ideology gone mad. It is the same conservative mindset that saw the Thatcher government in the UK sell off 5,000 school playing fields during the 1980s. Liberal National Party members Mr Ian Kaye and Mr Steve Minnikin spent the first half of the meeting either defending the LNP decision or just sitting on the fence. In fact, Mr Minnikin indicated during the meeting that his responsibility was to take into account the views of all 33,000 members of his electorate rather than automatically support the decisions of the Whites Hill P&C and the local community. About an hour and a half later, seeing the level of community anger, both Mr Kaye and Mr Minnikin, the two LNP state members, undertook a spectacular backflip on stage just before the meeting ended—almost like a road to Damascus conversion up close. As one man said, they do not want their local representatives to be mere mailboxes that blandly forwarded emails to their masters in George Street; they expect local members to be champions for their local community. I congratulate the local P&C and the local community for forcing these two LNP representatives to undertake such a spectacular backflip. We now await a similar backflip from Campbell Newman, the Premier. We now go to the question of the proposed forced merger between Brisbane State High School and Coorparoo Secondary College. In addition we have a further school privatisation in terms of the playing fields at Balmoral State High School. We look forward to the Liberal National Party member for Bulimba, Aaron Dillaway, undertaking a backflip on his proposed privatisation of the almost three hectares of playing fields at that school. Again, the local community is outraged, given that P&Cs decades ago put their funds into levelling, clearing and preparing the playing fields in the first place. It is time the Liberal National Party government backflipped on this short-sighted decision. There is a community meeting on this very subject at Balmoral State High School this coming weekend. I look forward to the LNP state member being there to undertake another piece of gymnastics. Now to Brisbane State High School and Coorparoo Secondary College. A public protest meeting which I attended was held on the weekend. Both the P&Cs have decided, as a result of consultation between them, to oppose the decision which has been taken by the state government to merge these schools. The result will, in effect, be to abolish or close the junior secondary school at State High and abolish or close the senior secondary school at Coorparoo Secondary College. This is just wrong, and the local community is up in arms about it. Once again, they found out about it through the media, and instead, the proposal being put forward by the state government is that the kids going to these schools should simply travel across three suburbs at peak hours and for their parents to be dropping kids at both schools. The arrogance of these decisions taken in sum shows no bounds and I would simply suggest that the LNP state government sees sense. Privatising school ovals makes no sense at all; closing junior and senior secondary schools makes no sense at all. With Campbell Newman we have the first course and with Tony Abbott we have the main course. (Time expired) Asylum Seekers 5902 21:38 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper There are only two sitting weeks to go before the 14 September election. All Australians are sick to death of the division and chaos of this federal Labor government. The ongoing soap opera between the current Prime Minister and her predecessor, the member for Griffith, not only is an international embarrassment but also serves as another reminder of the price we are all paying for a government that is more focused on itself than governing in the national interest. Yet the irony of all this division and dysfunction is that the Prime Minister and the member for Griffith—and I see him leaving the chamber—are united in so many ways. They are united by the fact that as prime ministers, neither have delivered a surplus. They are united by the fact that both broke election promises on carbon pricing. They are united by the fact that they have jointly been responsible for a failed border protection policy. It is this issue of border protection that I would like to draw to the attention of members this evening. One of the core responsibilities of any Australian federal government is strong border protection. We are an island with a large land mass but a relatively small population. We proudly boast high-quality health and education services and we strongly believe in a safety net to ensure that everyone gets a fair go. The majority of Australians believe in a hand up, not a hand out. With that in mind, Australians are rightly concerned about how federal Labor has lost control of our borders. We now appear to have become a soft touch for those who can afford to come here illegally by paying people smugglers. When the former Prime Minister John Howard left office in 2007, there were just four illegal arrivals in detention—four, a stark number. But despite the member for Griffith's pre-election pledges to maintain the Howard government's strong border protection measures, in 2008 he made a prime ministerial call to change the rules and relax the processing procedures for those who arrive illegally by boat. The message to people smugglers could not have been clearer: Australia was once again open for business. People-trafficking for those who have the money to pay was on again. The response was immediate. The fishing boats which were docked in Indonesian villages were ready to go within days. So today all Australians are now paying the price for federal Labor's broken election promise. Last week's arrival of another 13 boats brought the number of people who have arrived illegally on Labor's watch to more than 43,000—43,000 illegal arrivals from a starting point of just four people in detention when Labor won office in 2011. While the member for Griffith must take responsibility for changing the rules, the reality is that the current Prime Minister made a bad situation worse. On the current Prime Minister's watch, we have seen the endless bungles and media spin which have made us an international embarrassment on border protection. First, we had the failed so-called 'East Timor solution'. Then we had the botched 'Malaysian solution'. The cost to the Australian taxpayer of Labor's failed border protection policy is over $10 billion—over $10 billion, and with the number of arrivals this year three times higher than over the same period last year, Labor's cost blow-outs show no sign of abating. But there is another reason why so many Australians are unhappy with the government's weak border protection policy. Many Australians have families overseas, families they would like to be reunited with. In my electorate of Cowper we have a large Indian community which collectively makes a substantial contribution to their local community. We also have an African population who were processed overseas prior to coming to Australia. These Australians have come to Australia legally and are seeking to have other family members come to Australia by applying through the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. However, the problem is that the tsunami of illegal boat arrivals is soaking up all available places under the government's current quota arrangements. The annual quota is being allocated to those who have arrived illegally. This is hardly fair on those families who are abiding by the law, applying for immigration permits through legitimate channels. What type of message are we sending to both Australian citizens and the illegal asylum seekers when we allow those who can afford to pay for their illegal passage to be given precedence over those who seek to come here legally? The answer is that question lies at the heart of what is wrong with this government. Whether it is the current Prime Minister or the member for Griffith who leads the ALP, the truth is that federal Labor has been so focused on itself that it has lost touch with ordinary Australians and the fact is that we are all paying the price. (Time expired) Holt Electorate: Fountain Gate Headspace Campaign 5904 21:43 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt Last Friday I caught up with some of Casey's youth as part of our campaign for a headspace centre at the Fountain Gate shopping centre precinct in my electorate of Holt. The Australian government's headspace program has been a wonderful program which is helping young people aged 12 to 25, who are going through a tough time, providing support for problems like depression, anxiety, bullying and body image issues. Headspace Chief Executive Officer Chris Tanti is overseeing the rollout of 55 centres across Australia, so far, as well as setting up additional programs that include eheadspace, that offers an online and telephone counselling service, and headspace school support which offers a post-intervention program for secondary schools across Australia According to headspace, 92 per cent of young people have reported improvements in their mental health after using the headspace service. Once all of the 90 sites are fully established, headspace will help up to 72,000 young Australians each year. Last month I had the pleasure of joining my parliamentary colleagues the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Mark Butler; the member for Bruce, Alan Griffin; and Laura Smyth. We were at the official opening of Dandenong headspace, which is run by a great group of staff headed by Liz Rowe. Dandenong headspace was the 17th headspace to be established in Victoria. However, additional services are needed in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne—in particular in the city of Casey. Over recent years, the city of Casey's population has grown quickly but essential services have not kept up with the population growth, especially with the growth in Casey's young population, which totals approximately 60,000 young people, with 23,800 young people attending primary school and 20,000 young people attending secondary school. Our youth in Casey have a bright future. However, when they go through difficult times during their lives, particularly during their young lives, they have a right—and they deserve—to have the appropriate services provided by federal, state and local governments. We need to work together to ensure that the interests of young people living in the outer suburbs are not forgotten and that much-needed services like a youth-friendly headspace centre are delivered, especially when 60,000 young people in my local area do not have direct access to an essential service like headspace. So last Friday I caught up with young people including Dani Rothwell, Amanda Carron, Jake Downward, Hayden Devanny and members of the Stream for Life group including Madison Moore, Matthew Kelaard and Sarah Ardiente to come together to campaign for a headspace at the Fountain Gate precinct. Each of these young people has been directly affected by friends that have gone through difficult times and in some cases have actually taken their own lives. Last year young people like Dani Rothwell approached me to express their concerns about the extent of the mental health challenges facing our young population in Casey. As a result I convened a summit that over 300 people attended. What we continue to need to do, particularly in the Casey area, is campaign to destigmatise mental health issues and to promote young people accessing those services without the stigma and fear that is attracted when people access these services. Since the summit I have met with a range of local community groups such as Orygen Youth Health, Beehive, Spiritworx, Motov8, Casey City Church, Angel Light Link, the Coming Together to Prevent Youth Suicide group and Stream for Life, to name a few. Each group wants to help our young people going through difficult times. I want to congratulate the groups on their efforts and let them know that we will be doing what we can together to work for a local headspace in the Fountain Gate precinct. We know that one in four young people experiences a mental health issue each year, making it basically the single biggest issue facing young Australians. However—and this is important—three-quarters of these people are not receiving the professional help they need because of lack of access to a youth-specific mental health service or because they do not know who to turn to. This is why I have sought to campaign in my electorate of Holt for a headspace in Fountain Gate where young people can come together. The city of Casey, as I have said, is a unique area. It is an area of extensive growth, but the growth has not been underpinned by the social services that are needed. Headspace is one essential social service that we need as part of our local social infrastructure. Our young people deserve this. They cannot be defined by postcode. They need this. They want this. It is up to us to deliver it. Liberal-National Party Coalition 5905 21:48 WYATT ROY M2X Longman This federal election is about the future, a future in which we as Liberals will carry forward our defining principles: the right of all Australians to be free to determine how they live their lives, eschewing government prescription; the belief that a hand up is always better than a hand out; the idea that equality of opportunity is the great leveller in our society, not subsidy; and the principle that if you work hard you should be fairly rewarded, not penalised. Indeed, we are bound by the idea that liberalism is the path to fairness and the knowledge that, conversely, enforced equality never liberates. Our nation deserves and is crying out for a prosperous economy. To make that happen, we need to unlock the potential of the Australian people by removing government from their lives. So, if the coalition is elected in September, what we will see is a new order—a new mantra. It is called 'small government and big citizens'. This transformation will be anchored in 12 distinct layers of policy priority. First, the coalition will build a strong, diversified economy by lowering taxes and delivering more jobs, higher real wages and better services for Australian families. We will then secure this prosperity by reining in the budget, cutting waste and reducing debt. The coalition are proven prudent financial managers, safeguarding the Australian economy from economic shocks. We will help families get ahead by abolishing the carbon tax, the world's largest carbon tax, which has resulted in spiralling electricity and gas prices. Fourth, by reducing taxes and regulations, we will help build small businesses that grow and expand to employ more Australians. We will cut red and green tape costs by $1 billion every single year. We will create even stronger jobs growth by building a more diversified five-pillar economy underscored by manufacturing innovation, advanced services, agriculture, education and research, and mining. By growing this bigger and more productive economy, we will generate one million new jobs over the next five years and two million jobs within 10 years. In our vast, decentralised nation, we are committed to building more modern roads and infrastructure to get things moving. A special emphasis will fall on reducing the bottlenecks on our gridlocked major roads and highways. We will deliver better services, including health services, by increasing cooperation with the states and territories and by putting local communities in charge of improved performance at hospitals. Likewise, we will deliver better education by giving communities, parents and principals carriage in the running of their local schools. On the environment, we will take direct action to reduce carbon emissions within Australia, not overseas, as well as establishing a 15,000-strong standing green army to clean up the environment. We will deliver stronger borders with proven policies. Finally our united, experienced team will deliver a strong and stable government set on restoring confidence and accountability. We are the team that will not only rebuild the economy but also renew the bonds of trust between the Australian people and the parliament. It is that trust which contrasts keenly against the litany of broken promises from this federal Labor government. Last year the Treasurer said, 'Tonight I announce four years of surpluses.' This year he delivered a $19.4 billion deficit and projected a deficit of $18 billion for 2013-14. Labor promised no carbon tax, and yet we have got a carbon tax, record deficits and, in the budget, the scrapping of tax and family payments. In 5½ years the Rudd-Gillard government has created 21,000 new regulations and 39 new or increased taxes. But you cannot tax or regulate a nation into prosperity. It just cannot be done. This September an important choice is before the Australian people: another three years of chaotic Labor with more taxes, waste, prescription and regulation or the election of a coalition government that will abolish the carbon tax, ease the cost-of-living pressures and create more jobs—a coalition that stands behind small government and big citizens. If given the opportunity, the coalition will restore hope, reward and opportunity for all Australians. MELLS, Mr Patrick, OAM 5906 21:54 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield It is wonderful to follow Pitt the Younger! I always love to follow my friend Wyatt. I would like to talk to the House about the Gawler Show season launch which happened last Wednesday. Gawler is a regional community in my electorate, small by national standards but, I suppose, big by the standards of the country towns around it like Kapunda, the town I grew up in. At this launch a very important memorial award was made for the choosing of the show book cover. That award has been named in honour of Patrick Mells OAM. I first met Pat Mells when I first became a candidate. I met him through his work with the Lions at the Gawler railway station, helping people through the Work for the Dole scheme and doing up the station. It is a grand old station reminiscent of Gawler's railroad heritage, and Pat Mells was an absolute champion of doing up that railway station. He was very kind to me as a Labor candidate. I never knew Pat's politics, but I suspect they were not of my party. But Pat was a great man. It was very sad when he passed away earlier this year. He was born at Sutton-at-Hone in Kent, England in 1934. He went to Wilmington Primary School near Dartford in Kent. In 1941 he was evacuated with both his sisters to Devon because of the bombs falling and the like. He later returned to the horticultural college at Hextable and worked in a nursery at the same time. Later he took up an apprenticeship as a carpenter and a joiner. He did his national service at 18 and went with the Royal Air Force, posted to Singapore. In 1955 his family moved to Farnham in southern England, near where my relatives live in Hampshire, resumed working as a carpenter and joiner, became a licensed builder and met his lovely wife, Carol. He was married in 1961 and had his two children, Debra and Andrew. He emigrated, like so many of his generation, from England to Adelaide. He lived in Fairview Park for a few years before moving to Gawler, where he carried on a business as a home builder. It was really in Gawler that I think Pat found his role in the world. He joined the Gawler Lions Club and was president twice and district governor in 1995 and 1996. He was involved in so many projects in the community and was recipient of the James D Richardson Honour Award and the Melvin Jones Fellowship Award. He was a life member of Lions International. He was Citizen of the Year in Gawler in 2003 and, of course, had the Medal of the Order of Australia in 2007. Importantly, he was a member of the Gawler Show management committee for 10 years, president in 2007-08 and vice-president of the Northern Agricultural Shows Association. Carol and Pat had five grandchildren, and they all were very proud of him, I am sure. I think he was a great Australian. His life was so reflective of the journey that so many of us have made, and the contribution he made to Gawler in particular was great. That is why the Gawler Show committee decided to honour him with an award and to choose an award given to those who are successful in picking the cover of the show society journal. I think it is a terrific thing for Gawler to do to honour this great citizen of the town. His family have my condolences. I am sure he will always be remembered by our community. Boothby Electorate: Environment 5907 21:58 Dr SOUTHCOTT TK6 Boothby I rise to speak on some local environmental initiatives I am currently fighting for. I am lucky that the electorate of Boothby, which I represent, has both a beautiful coastline and an expansive hills area. My electorate's environment is quite diverse. The coastline along Summerton Park, Brighton and Seacliff beaches has beautiful sand dunes and clear waters, while the hills area is home to the Belair National Park, Australia's second-oldest national park, and a number of walking and riding trails. Winding through the electorate are the Sturt River, the Sturt Gorge and, later, the Sturt Drain, a 1960s drought mitigation program with a number of wetlands along the way. It is these wonderful features throughout my electorate which we need to promote, protect and ensure will be kept in good condition for future generations. The green army, as part of the coalition government's environment policy, will help protect and enhance our local environment through direct action and engagement with our communities. At the beginning of this year, I called for submissions for assistance by the green army in Boothby for projects that the community deems important. There are a number of environmental projects in Boothby that I am fighting for to be green army priorities, from rejuvenation of sand dunes along the coast to restoring bushwalking paths in the hills. In the 2010 election, I promised $125,000 under the coalition's green army plan to rejuvenate the sand dunes from Brighton to Seacliff. Local teams of volunteers work on these sand dunes, which are in constant need of care and revegetation to ensure their survival, to help retain the sand and to make up an important stretch of coastline in my electorate. At Somerton Park there are original remnant dunes from pre-settlement days. During that election, I also promised $250,000 under the coalition's green army plan to eradicate feral olives and woody weed undergrowth in the Mitcham foothills. These present significant bushfire risks to the area, something which the residents of Blackwood, Belair and the surrounding suburbs are particularly concerned about. In the Carrick Hill area around Springfield, grey box woodland must be preserved, with the coalition's green army able to assist with work on these original remnants of pre-settlement woodland. The Oaklands Wetland is an important environmental project in Boothby that I have been fighting for, and I have been working with both the Marion Council and local residents for a long time. It involves treating storm water from the Sturt drain and removing contaminants which would pollute Gulf St Vincent, as well as aquifer recharge. The wetlands are due to be completed in August this year and will need further work to establish them after that. My electorate also has a number of walking and riding trails within Belair National Park and throughout the Mitcham foothills. These trails are a popular recreational attraction and are used widely by people from both within and outside of my electorate. The friends of the Sturt Gorge Recreation Park are seeking a proposal from the green army to work on walking trails throughout the area, which are in need of upgrade and maintenance. Similarly, the walking trails in our popular Belair National Park could do with a helping hand. On a grander scale, I have fought for the people of South Australia in adopting a national plan for the Murray-Darling Basin, and I am pleased to see a positive outcome. I was proud to support this plan in parliament and to have helped get national management of the Murray-Darling Basin and to restore the health of the Lower Lakes and the Coorong. All of these are potential projects which could be done by the coalition's green army, and these are all of my local priorities which I am fighting for. Personally, I have organised a team for Clean Up Australia Day, every year having helped clean up local areas, including Sturt Gorge, Windy Point, Belair National Park, the sand dunes from Brighton to Seacliff, and this year I also joined Flagstaff Hill Rotary in their clean-up of Minkarra Park. As the member for Boothby, I take the environment seriously. With the help of the coalition's green army we can tackle local environmental issues in our electorate. Banks Electorate: Roller Derby Championship 5908 22:03 Mr MELHAM 4T4 Banks On Saturday 15 June, I attended the Hurstville Stadium for the Roller Derby Championship. The first game was between the Central Coast Roller Girls, who defeated the Inner West Roller Derby League 326-133. The second game was between the South Side Derby Dolls and the Hawkesbury Area Roller Derby. I am pleased to say that the South Side Derby Dolls, my local team, won 426-105. The team is known as 'The Force'. Those who played on the night were KillaBee 27, London Brawling 3C, DaniHell 23, De Nominator, Agrodite A2, Porfavor 6, Fairy Bled 8, Impure Blonde 81, Apocalyss 99, Shona Mercy 616, Psychlone Cilla 185, Glam Torino 72, Britney Speartackle 360 and Cat Fink 42. The alternate was Haterade and the benchies were Aprilla the Hun (AC), and Tweek and Destroy. You can see they have got great names. Roller Derby has moved on since the heavily choreographed days of the past. The games I saw consisted of two 30-minute halves where the players are able to play both offence and defence in a demonstration of speed, action, endurance, teamwork and, above all, heart. Within the bouts there are jams, which can last up to two minutes. In a jam, only five players per side may be on the track at the same time. Players line up on the track and one pivot and three blockers from each side take off in a pack at the head referee's whistle. A jammer from each side lines up 33 feet behind the pivots and takes off at the sound of a second whistle. Scoring begins when the jammers pass the pack for the second time and accrue one point per opposing member passed legally. There are a number of rules about the actions skaters may or may not take. It is interesting that it is legal to hit from the side, to use the arm above the elbow to block, to apply torso or hip checks and to push a team mate. There are a number of illegal things you cannot do, and, in each of the games I saw, an opposing team was reduced to one player while others had been benched—so it was one against five. One needed to be careful because, if you got benched, it was easier for the other side to score. The women describe themselves as a bunch of regular people who like to keep fit, have fun and generally enjoy themselves. The skaters are active in the community, regularly giving blood as a group. In 2012, they raised money for the RSPCA through the Million Paws Walk and they contributed to Heart Kids by participating in the Colour Run. They participated in the Warrior Dash in 2012 and in 2013. This is the world's largest obstacle race series. They supported Rotary through the annual antiques fair, and, in 2012, the South Side Derby Dolls were given the St George Community Group of the Year Award. The ladies are always happy to be involved in and invited to a local skate park to share their skills and talk to local youth. I thank Kate Sullivan for the invitation to attend on the night. I thoroughly enjoyed myself. What I saw on the night was a bunch of women and their supporters and spectators—and there were plenty there—who thoroughly enjoyed themselves. The outfits were amazing, because they were all suited and fitted out, in your face and as loud as can be. What I saw on the ring where they were roller blading was brute force at times being applied. In the first game someone got carried off. The first sight I saw when I entered the stadium was seven St John's Ambulance people and that is what struck me. I thought, 'There are going to be a few injuries tonight.' But I was assured by Kate that there are not a lot of injuries because they play it in the right spirit. The girls do look after themselves. They are fit. I found it an amazing experience. It is something I have not got the guts to do, I have not got the bravery to do. I am told by Kate that it is the largest growing participatory sport for women in the world, that what is happening is that in a lot of places teams are growing up from the ground and they are getting 300 people volunteering to participate. They rotate from month to month in terms of players. I enjoyed myself. I commend the sport. Herbert Electorate: Townsville Bridges 5909 22:08 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Herbert I have driven the Bruce Highway a number of times since moving to Townsville in 1994. In my days as an auctioneer and as a finance company representative I would always do between 60,000 and 80,000 kilometres per year. I got to know the roads but I never took any notice of what was really there. That is because they were always rubbish. There was no need to complain because every political party did the same thing—big promises, big numbers. But just like this government, very few actual projects were named and completed. The thing that North Queenslanders want to see and what I have consistently said is that we want a project nominated with a start date and finish date. We are tired of the big numbers that governments roll out. We want outcomes. I was proud to be the candidate who stood up and made Blakey's Crossing an issue in the 2010 campaign. I was proud to say that we would fix it should we win government. I did my best to convince the then minister for regional development, the member for Hotham and fine North Melbourne supporter, Simon Crean, of the merits of this project but he declined. Up stepped John Hathaway and Campbell Newman. They made the promise and they are delivering as we speak. The Mather Street roundabout has been altered to six lanes and with traffic lights. As soon as they finish the long awaited Blakey's Crossing will finally be fixed. The residents of Townsville's northern beaches knew how important it was. The businesspeople of Bohle and Garbutt knew how important it was. The commuters to and from the northern beaches knew how important this was. They helped me make it an issue which got funding. My mantra that this would not be good enough in the south-east of our state was and is true. I now highlight the next two areas which must be addressed for Townsville's future development. The lower Bohle Bridge is the link between the City of Townsville and our northern beach suburbs. My city is expanding this way and will continue to do so. The suburbs of Bushland Beach and North Shore have absolutely exploded. Cosgrove will soon follow. When we have flood events, the traffic just comes to a standstill. When I was the manager of Pickles Auctions at Bohle and the river was up, my operations manager John Hynes would sit at Geaneys Lane lights for about an hour or two and then go home. This would not be acceptable in Brisbane or the south-east corner and it should not acceptable to the people of Townsville either. Similarly, the Dalrymple Road causeway goes under in a sun shower. Collectively these two roads are the major access points for our northern and western suburbs. The new suburb of Greater Ascot has been planned to offer a full range of housing options from the perfect first home with no work to do to the large family home. All the families who buy there want is to get to work on time like everyone else in the state. These areas are also entry points to our city from Cairns. That our entry statements to our city sometimes say 'we are closed' is not the look that we, the people of Townsville, want to project. Townsville is a great city. We are a people who get things done. We are a people with a vision for the north of Australia. We just need the basic infrastructure to get to and from our work and we will provide for the rest of the country. We are a city with strong links to the west along the Flinders Highway to Mount Isa. We are the hub of North Queensland between Mackay to the south and Cairns to the north. We are the link for education and training services to all those areas as well as to our sister city of Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea to the north. Our ties to Darwin are strengthening every day through education, defence and health services. Townsville does this with little fanfare. We believe in getting the job done. We just need the basic infrastructure that other cities and regional centres take for granted. The Lower Bohle Bridge is a state bridge and the Dalrymple Road is a council crossing. Again, the people of Townsville do not care which is the owner. They do not care what share each must pay. What they want is to be treated the same as the rest of the state and the rest of the country. They want to see these two essential crossings to our city fixed. That is all. What I am doing here is highlighting the needs for my growing city. If we had a responsible government which did not waste billions on failed border protections we could have already had these projects fixed by now. The people of Townsville just want the basic infrastructure. The people of Townsville will do the rest. Robertson Electorate: Five Lands Awakening Ceremony 5911 22:13 Ms O'NEILL 140651 Robertson I rise with considerable delight, having found out from the member for Banks here in the House this evening about the Central Coast roller derby team. He gave a most eloquent explanation of how the sport works and I have just met him in the corridor on the way here and found out that the Central Coast are at the top of the table. That is another thing to be proud about from the Central Coast. Most of my remarks this evening are celebratory of fantastic things that have been happening in the seat of Robertson just over the weekend. Saturday morning I was at the Five Lands awakening ceremony where Gavi Duncan played didgeridoo for us as the dawn rose and we awakened the spirits in anticipation of the Five Lands Walk, which is a cultural, social and health walk that happens between McMasters Beach and Terrigal, right along the coast, inspired by the Cinquaterra from Italy. It is a chance for our local people to really go and have a fantastic family free day, experiencing Indigenous culture, our own natural wonderful environment and also the multicultural communities. That is how we kicked that off on Saturday morning. Leading that were Con Ryan and Pauline Wright. I want to acknowledge Pauline Wright, who has been nominated for the Pride of Australia Community Spirit Medal. I could not think of a finer woman. She is a great Central Coast leader in her own right through her profession as a lawyer. She articulates her passions as civil liberties and theatre, and obviously she uses those skills to great acclaim and great success in our local community. Having started off the day in such a wonderful way, I was able to finish Saturday afternoon with The Bays, which is part of my seat that wraps around Woy Woy Bay and Phegans Bay. Over the last few years, in fact over 13 years I understand, the whole of the bay—Woy Woy Bay and Phegans Bay—from the settlement through to 1960 has been researched and a wonderful book launch happened at the local community hall in Phegans Bay, Woy Woy Bay. The book was entitled Our Beautiful Bays: A Collection From the Past. It is filled with wonderful images and stories and pieces of writing about people's responses as they came on the train from Sydney and, after passing through the Woy Woy tunnel, seeing such a beautiful sight of a clear expanse of sparkling water bounded by the natural amphitheatre of the mountains that cradle Woy Woy Bay and Phegans Bay. A number of the Phegans were there and there were many happy relationships rekindled by all of those who have lived in the bay. Those who have moved away came back to celebrate on the day. I want to acknowledge the work of two great local historians: Margaret Vidler, who did much of the research herself over many years, and Brian Goodey, who pulled the book together in the last few years. I also want to acknowledge the guidance given by Gwen Dundon, who was one of our outstanding local historians who was recognised at our inaugural heritage awards at the council a couple of weeks ago. The book was very well read by Geoff Potter, who gave us a taste of that view of The Bays as people came out of the tunnel at Woy Woy Bay. I also congratulate Gwynneth Weir, the secretary of The Bays community group, who pulled together the event. It was very well attended and it was a celebration worthy of the efforts that have been put into record the history. Finally, in the time that remains, I would like to also acknowledged that on Sunday afternoon I was able to be at yet another book launch of these wonderful, literate Central Coast residents. The launch was for A taste of Spencer. It was from a group called the KISS group—Keep It Simple Spencer. This is a community cooking collective who get together to preserve the produce from Mangrove Mountain, and also to share food and great company. I acknowledge Diane Williams; Margy Rogers; Judy Betteridge, who gave a great speech and pulled the thing together; Lisa Perkins; Eve Leeming; Sue Grist; Kaye Pointer; Margerey Pointer; Michael Bagnall; Mel Bradney; and Ian Betteridge. A great afternoon at Spencer. I invite many people to come along— (Time expired) Farm Finance Package 5912 22:18 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I rise tonight to ask the Treasurer and ask the minister for agriculture what is going on with the Farm Finance package. Farmers across Australia need some certainty. They need to know what is going on: whether they are going to see this package by 30 June so that it can be rolled out come 1 July, or whether the incompetence, whether the blame game, is going to continue. Currently all we are seeing are glossy brochures on the department's website advertising the fact that this Farm Finance package is ready to go, yet what we have is the Commonwealth not knowing where it is at, the states not knowing where it is at and farmers completely in the dark. It was 5½ years ago, or probably a little longer, when Kevin Rudd said to Australians that if he was elected, then the Labor government would stop the blame game. Now, 5½ years later, what we have is the blame game continuing to farcical levels. Let us have a look at the letter that Senator Ludwig, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, sent to the state governments on how this package will be finalised. In it he says: I would be extremely disappointed if farmers in need of immediate assistance were disadvantaged by a state refusing to contribute only the administration costs of the concessional loan element. He then goes on to say: I am of course open to consider options you may have identified to reduce overall administration costs and seek your views on how this might be achieved. So first we have the Labor government saying, 'States, we want you to pay all the administration costs'. Then they are writing back to the states saying, 'Well, we might not want you to pay them all; we're happy to negotiate with you.' What has led to this change? We found out that what the Commonwealth was happy to do was borrow money at three per cent, but then loan it the farmers who are suffering at 4½ per cent—keeping the 1½ per cent interest rate for their own administrative expenses and yet saying to the states: 'Well, don't come begging to us. You've got to find a way to implement your own administration costs.' So what have we got the states coming out and saying? That the Commonwealth should not profit from farm loans. This is a fair thing to say. What I cannot understand is why the Commonwealth cannot say to the states: 'Let's sit down, let's negotiate. We're obviously looking to make sure that we don't get hit with the costs of implementing this. We're happy to work with you on this. Further, we're happy to address the concerns that you have raised.' For instance, the states have said they are still waiting for final documentation that will establish the funding mechanism, the loan criteria and the reporting requirements. Once this is received, they will be happy to roll out the Commonwealth funds. We have also found out that there have been letters that have gone to the Commonwealth from Rural Finance asking them about the details of the package, yet still Senator Ludwig or the Treasurer has not responded. I do not put the blame with Senator Ludwig because, when this package was announced, all the reporting seems to indicate that it was done by the Treasurer and by Bob Katter and that Senator Ludwig was in the dark. Treasurer, your incompetence knows no bounds. It has been on display for over 5½ years. Do one last thing that might help redeem yourself just a tiny bit. Be honest with the states. Sit down, negotiate with them and get this package finalised. Your legacy is not glossy documents on a website but the detail of the package not finalised or negotiated properly with the states. The incompetence has to stop. We need proper governing. Treasurer, you have one small chance to redeem your appalling record. Get this farm finance package sorted. (Time expired) Renewable Energy 5913 22:23 Mr MURPHY 83D Reid We all know that the Leader of the Opposition's history of misleading statements about global warming and climate change does not have a significant component of scientific evidence. Those opposite fail to appreciate that scientific evidence, such as when supporting the government's decision to put a price on carbon, is based on real-world measurements conducted according to a scientific method that can be repeated by anyone anywhere at any time. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a 'scientific method' as: a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. Policy that relies only on scientific evidence is not based on beliefs, on prejudice or, as the opposition may wish to imply, on opinions that may be contradicted by some other point of view. Of course, policy based on scientific evidence is of no real value to the Leader of the Opposition confusing belief with fact and preferring the more convenient strategy of appealing to the ignorant with statements that have their origins in the ravings of cranks and crackpots and the dishonest claims of vested interests. Nowhere is this process more obvious than the unending attacks on renewable energy projects by the opposition and Liberal-National Party state governments. As we know, the Leader of the Opposition is committed to closing down the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and has said he will tear up any contracts that the corporation enters into and improperly warned the corporation not to enter into any new contracts before the next election. Thanks to the combination of gullibility, political opportunism and the influence of vested interests, the Victorian government has introduced policies that have shut down that state's wind industry with a two-kilometre exclusion zone for wind turbines. The ridiculous measure—one that would be replicated by any Abbott government—is based on false claims of illnesses caused by so-called wind turbine syndrome and has cost an estimated 35,000 jobs in a state that has an unemployment rate that exceeds six per cent under a Liberal-National Party government. Simon Chapman, Professor in Public Health at the University of Sydney, has stated that wind turbine syndrome is what is called a communicated disease. It spreads via the nocebo effect by being talked about and is a strong candidate for being defined as a psychogenic condition, one based on delusions, misinformation and irrational fears. The nocebo effect is the antithesis of the better-known placebo effect, which is the healing effect of an inert substance given by an authority figure, such as a doctor. In the placebo effect the therapeutic effect of a sugar pill arises from the power of suggestion and, similarly, the nocebo effect that causes apparent illness in wind turbine syndrome almost certainly rises from strong suggestions of harmful effects by authority figures, such as the Leader of the Opposition. Professor Chapman stated that a search for wind turbine syndrome in 23 million research papers held in the United States of America's National Library of Medicine produced no reports of harm, not one. As of July 2012 there have been 17 reviews of the available evidence about wind farms and health and these reviews concluded that, while wind turbines may annoy a minority of people in their vicinity, there is no strong evidence that they make people sick. Neighbours of wind farms may be exposed to a minor nuisance; however, dishonest statements made for political advantage by people like the Leader of the Opposition may actually cause illness in people who worry themselves sick as a result of the frightening and false claims made by such irresponsible individuals. In conclusion, there is good evidence that people can be made sick by suggestion, yet there is little or none of harm arising from wind turbines, despite the hysterical claims of the opponents of these very important clean energy sources. Cost of Living 5914 22:28 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports Last week the Victorian Liberal government wrote to all public housing tenants, including all of the people in Housing Commission accommodation in my electorate in East St Kilda and South Melbourne, advising them that from August their rents will increase to take into account the supplement provided by the federal Labor government as part of the clean energy package. This is the only state to do so. The increase was provided by this government to people on low incomes in order to supplement their rent and to help them buy food that might have increased as a result of some increase in energy prices due to the carbon tax. It is an outrage for the Victorian Liberal government in order to satisfy its complete lack of investment in public housing—a subject I will return to at a later date—to take from people who are the poorest in the community that which was provided for a completely other purpose. GrainCorp 5914 22:29 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina More than 300 delegates at the New South Wales Nationals conference on Saturday at Bathurst outrightly said no to the foreign takeover of GrainCorp by American corporation Archer Daniels Midland and called on the Treasurer to do the same. Tomorrow Mark Hoskinson, the chair of the New South Wales Farmers Grains Committee, and Justin Crosby, policy director of Grain and Horticulture, will be in this place talking to the Nationals, impressing upon us the need to continue to impress upon the Treasurer to say no. I call on him to do just that. House adjourned at 10:30 NOTICES 5914 NOTICES

Monday, 17 June 2013

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr BC Scott ) took the chair at 10:30.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 5916 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Longman Electorate: Education 5916 10:30 WYATT ROY M2X Longman Last week an email from a mysterious, dare I say, faceless entity known as the Labor Party caucus communications team instructed every Labor MP to stand outside a school gate to spruik the government's schools funding plan to parents. Presumably, the entity was acting on orders from above. And so, on Friday, I decided to heed the directive of the Prime Minister and join the so called 'national school gates blitz' at a school in my community—Woodford State School. However, there was one pivotal difference. For mine, this was an opportunity to acquaint Woodford State School parents with the facts. Established in 1882, Woodford State School caters to 400 students from prep to Year 10. It provides a proud, wonderfully committed public education to a semi-rural community and has a vision to expand up to Year 12. But there is no place on any honour roll for Woodford State School under this federal Labor government. Instead, it has been relegated to a list of shame as one of 160 Queensland schools that will go backwards under the government's school funding plan. Mr Perrett interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! The member for Moreton. WYATT ROY M2X The federal budget shows that, over the forward estimates, school funding will not be increased but will be slashed by $325 million. Schools will be waiting until 2019 for Labor's promised rivers of gold to start flowing. That is six years and three elections away. And from 2019, the Queensland government has confirmed that 160 schools, including Woodford State School, will end up worse off anyway. Regional communities face enough resourcing challenges as it is. But in a rush of bureaucratic penmanship, this Labor government has chosen to assign nothing but disadvantage to Woodford's children. The lack of rationale really is mind boggling. The government cuts funding to universities in a desperate bid to bail out its schools funding program. But how can the desired aim of better educational outcomes for our children, who are lagging internationally, possibly be achieved in the face of a corresponding under-investment in the tertiary training of classroom teachers? And in the weekend's press we learned the funding proposal is yet another hand grenade into the Labor Party leadership chaos. We read that the Rudd camp believes the Gonski school agenda is a saga of policy mismanagement where funds are pledged without prospects of better results. The coalition parties are the only political force with a funding model for schools that will leave none worse off. The coalition's preferred plan is one that will deliver certainty by maintaining current schools funding and indexation. Hughes, Ms Helen AO 5917 10:33 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser Economists have a tradition of paying tribute to colleagues of a different ideological view. Friedrich Hayek said of John Maynard Keynes, 'He was the one really great man I ever knew, and for whom I had unbounded admiration. The world will be a very much poorer place without him.' Larry Summers said of Milton Friedman, 'He and I probably never voted the same way in any election. .... Nonetheless, like many others I feel that I have lost a hero, a man whose success demonstrates that great ideas convincingly advanced can change the lives of people around the world.' I am far from that league, but it is in that same spirit that I rise to acknowledge the free-market economist Helen Hughes, who died on Saturday aged 85. Born in Prague, Professor Hughes emigrated to Australia in 1939. Educated in Melbourne, she did her PhD at the London School of Economics and then worked at the World Bank in Washington DC. Returning to the ANU to work as a development economist, she was appointed in 1983 by Bill Hayden to be the deputy chair of the Jackson Committee on foreign aid. In 1985 she gave the ABC's Boyer Lecture and was made an Officer of the Order of Australia in the same year. She wrote, edited or co-authored an astonishing 18 books. In recent years, Professor Hughes worked as an emeritus professor at the Australian National University and as a senior fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies. In 2004, she received the Economics Society of Australia's Distinguished Fellow Award. In my ANU economics blog, I took issue in 2006 with her views that foreign aid did not boost growth in poor countries, and in 2009 with some of her arguments around the test score gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children. She fired back both times, engaging on the detail with fierce enthusiasm that belied her octogenarian status. I disagreed with Professor Hughes' conclusions, but I was delighted she was working on such vital issues. Too few Australian economists devote their attention to Indigenous disadvantage and global poverty. Professor Hughes not only wrote about these issues, she immersed herself in them. According to an obituary in today's Australian, as recently as two years ago, she was making four-wheel-drive trips to remote outstations in north-east Arnhem Land. Professor Hughes' approach to her life and work was a wonderfully no-nonsense one. Yesterday, I told her son Mark Hughes that I intended to say a few words about her in parliament. He responded: What you do is your decision. I can tell you exactly what Helen would have said. She would have said, 'Parliament's job is to pass good legislation. Only if that is complete should parliament waste time on trivialities.' Regards, Mark It is for others to decide whether this speech is trivial, but the topics on which Professor Hughes worked clearly were not. Her provocative writings enriched Australian politics and economics, and Australia is poorer for her passing. In closing, I acknowledge the bipartisan spirit with which Helen Hughes' goals were shared. She wrote in Lands of Shame that 'Only when we have attained equality between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians will Australia be able to hold up its head because a fair go will have become reality.' Rest in peace, Helen Hughes. Kooyong Electorate: Financial Services 5918 10:36 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong In my electorate of Kooyong, just as right across the nation, the financial services sector plays a major role in our economy. When one takes into account the banks, insurance companies, accountancy practices, financial planners and the many other practitioners in this sector, it comprises more than 400,000 employees and contributes up to 10 per cent of GDP. It is therefore incumbent upon all good members in this place to speak out when the Labor government seeks to place additional regulatory and cost burdens on this industry without undertaking sufficient stakeholder consultation or conducting a rigorous cost benefit analysis. But this is in fact what the Gillard government has done with the FOFA—Future of Financial Advice—reforms. These reforms, which include increased powers for ASIC, bans on conflicted remuneration and new rules around advice and disclosure of fees, follow an inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, known as the Ripoll inquiry, which sought to rebuild community confidence in a sector that had seen the collapses of Opes Prime, Storm Financial, Trio and Westpoint. However, in its response, the government has gone too far, producing sub-optimal outcomes for the very customers that the government is purporting to help. In the words of John Brogden, CEO of the Financial Services Council, industry estimates FOFA will cost $700 million to implement with a further annual compliance bill of $375 million. Consumers will bear the brunt of these costs and, worse, many people will stop receiving advice or not seek advice at all. Moreover, the government's own explanatory memorandum indicates the legislation will lead to job losses in the sector of up to 6,800 employees. At a time when we are encouraging financial literacy for more people to appropriately plan for their financial future, this is a bad outcome indeed. If the coalition is given the opportunity to form government after 14 September we have made clear we will chart a better course. This will include: the removal of the opt-in provisions regarding client agreement to ongoing advice fees; the simplification and streamlining of the additional fee disclosure requirements; improving the best interest duty; providing certainty around the provision and availability of scaled advice; and refining the ban of commissions on risk insurance inside superannuation. What is more, we have expressed our significant concerns with the government's most recent move to require financial planners to register with the Tax Practitioners Board and comply with additional regulatory burdens. What we the coalition have said is that the relevant schedules 3 and 4 from the government bill that seek to create this new regulatory regime and a new type of regulated service should be removed and the existing carve out from the Tax Agent Services Act for financial services licencees, which expires on 30 June 2013, should be extended for another year. Mathias Cormann has done a fantastic job in exposing the Labor Party's failures in this area. If we are given the opportunity to form government after 14 September, we will deliver for the financial planners and for the financial sector. Schools 5918 10:39 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I call on the Victorian Liberal government to sign up to Labor's National Plan for School Improvement. In this year's federal budget, Labor delivered necessary reform to our education funding system. Labor has also delivered the National Disability Insurance Scheme through DisabilityCare Australia—a reform that will go down in history as one of the most notable reforms on record, bringing equality of care to people with a disability, regardless of how they acquired that disability. It is good that Labor's historic DisabilityCare policy has not been opposed by the Liberal Party. The same cannot be said for education reform. Australia's most comprehensive review of school education in 40 years, the Gonski review, found that the current funding system established by the previous Liberal government needs urgent repair. Internationally, we have fallen from second to seventh in reading, and from fifth to 13th in mathematics. It is time to act. To fix this problem, we need to fund schools according to student need. This is achieved by providing a base payment for every student and allocating more resources for students who need extra support. Governments acting in good faith regardless of their political persuasion should strive to find a solution. This federal government has acted accordingly: we understand that getting the funding model right will ensure that no child is left behind. Our record on education speaks for itself. Over $100 million has been invested in schools in my electorate alone under the Building the Education Revolution, and the $19 million federally funded trade training centre located next to Frankston Chisholm TAFE, which is currently under construction, will support students to learn a trade—another policy opposed by the Liberals. The Victorian Liberal government has put political interests ahead of the needs of students and has refused to sign up to receive the additional money to support Victorian students. This is a disgrace. It stands in sharp contrast to the position taken by New South Wales Premier Barry O'Farrell who was the first to sign up to support the educational needs of New South Wales students. This is how the New South Wales Premier described the Better Schools reforms in April this year: …it provides additional resources, fairer distribution, to deliver higher standards and better outcomes in schools across New South Wales. Last Friday, I spoke to parents at Rowellyn Park Primary School in Carrum Downs. There was strong support for the Better Schools funding reforms, with parents bewildered by the Victorian Liberal government's refusal to accept more money to improve student education. If Victoria does not sign up to the funding reforms, government schools would lose $1.9 million on average per school, while non-government schools would lose $1.7 million on average per school. It is up to the Victorian Liberals to decide whether they want to be the continuing puppet of the Leader of the Opposition. (Time expired) Asylum Seekers 5919 10:42 Mr SIMPKINS HWE Cowan Of all the federal policy issues that individuals raise with me, of most concern in Cowan is the arrival of the boats. I recently sent out a flyer to the electorate, highlighting the record of the Labor government in this regard, showing that the number of illegal boats, the number of people arriving and the cost of some $10 billion has resulted from the actions of this government led first by Kevin Rudd and now by the current Prime Minister. I recall the assurances that the changes made by the Labor government in 2008 would have no effect on the halted flow of boats, but how wrong those Labor assurances were. What makes it worse now is that the system that exists has been so starkly revealed in TheWeekend Australian article as a system badly rorted by those who seek asylum and those who advocate for them. The article described how the current refugee determination process is manipulated in Australia. As a result, refugee acceptance rates are now 95 per cent and above. In Greg Sheridan's article, a former Refugee Review Tribunal member is quoted as saying: I would sometimes receive a completely compelling story that was impossible to refuse. The problem is I would receive exactly the identical story a hundred times over, with only the names changed. People on Christmas Island would tell me to my face they had copied their story from someone else I understand that an account from a senior immigration department official stated that in the case of boat people, most are flying to Indonesia or Malaysia and there has been a growing trend to effectively prebook their passage. They are less interested in seeking protection than in gaining work and residence rights in Australia. These are people who would largely be ineligible for normal migration but, by claiming to be in fear of persecution, they are usually allowed to stay in Australia even though many will visit their homeland once they have an Australian passport. Thanks to this government, Australia's borders are an international joke paid for at the expense of the Australian taxpayers. The system is failing so badly and is such a burden on Australia that even those who are refused refugee status are not even sent back. This Labor government's time in office will be defined as two terms when Australia was happy to take those who can afford to fly to another country and then pay people-smugglers to come to Australia over those who are legitimate refugees—refugees who are stuck behind barbed wire in one of the refugee camps around the world. It must be heartbreaking for those in Africa and places like the Burma-Thailand border who do not have two cents to rub together to hear about people paying their way to Australia and then simply lying to pass the refugee determination process. I will conclude with a quote in an article in the The Weekend Australian which sums up how easily this government is accepting those claiming refugee status: … I can confidently say … that we are approving large numbers of people who are fabricating claims … Indeed, the current refugee determination system works in favour of those who are most adept at spinning a yarn. Melbourne Ports Electorate: Schools 5920 10:45 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports Last week we saw the release of school-by-school figures for the Victorian government schools under A National Plan for School Improvement. The figures show that every government school in my electorate will get increased funding over the period to 2019. I cannot list them all, but I will give some examples. Port Melbourne Primary, a fine school which I was at on Friday at the school assembly, are getting$2.2 million, or a 20 per cent increase; Elwood Primary, my old alma mater, are getting $3 million, or a 39 per cent increase; the Victorian College of the Arts Secondary School, a particular interest of mine, and relevant to the arts portfolio, are getting $1.2 million; and Albert Park Primary, are getting $1.9 million, or a 37 per cent increase, by 2019. If the Victorian government misses this opportunity to get more funding for every government school in Victoria, the Premier will be putting partisan politics ahead of the interests of every student, parent and teacher in the state. He should follow the lead of Mr O'Farrell and the Premier of South Australia, put politics aside, and sign up to the National Plan for School Improvement now. It is not possible to give school-by-school figures for non-government schools, because negotiations with the non-government sector are continuing. But, if Dr Napthine signs up by 30 June, every school in my electorate—Catholic, government, Anglican, independent or Jewish—will be better off. It will help deliver: more one-on-one attention and support in the classroom for every child, specialist literacy and numeracy programs for children in danger of being left behind, greater assistance for those students with disability or special need, and improvements in building the skills and knowledge of teachers and providing mentoring support for those new to the profession. I also want to draw attention to another program in the schools area that I am very proud that the Australian government has proceeded with in my electorate, the Secure Schools Program Funded Projects. Of that, $20 million was spent in rounds 1 and 2. That was the 2007 election commitment. After the 2010 election, $11 million was spent for schools, and $4 million was spent for preschools. By contrast, Mr Abbott made a generalised pledge for security, with no specific figures, in an article that appeared in my electorate last week. Anyone in Melbourne Ports who took these generalised pledges against the specific programs that have fortified schools in my electorate that are under severe security threat would be a mug. Those are the kinds of generalised commitments that the coalition is making, without any figures—of course, all to be overridden by the ultimate audit commission saying that none of the expenditures are possible. The security of students in my electorate is very important and has been guaranteed by this government in a program that goes with the national school improvement program, ensuring the security of students. (Time expired) O'Connor Electorate: Australia Post 5921 10:48 Mr CROOK M3K O'Connor Over the past 12 months, my Kalgoorlie and Albany electorate offices have been notified by Australia Post of the planned closure of postal services in small regional towns across my electorate. Time and time again Australia post has cited the inability to find contractors within these small communities willing to take on the contracts. The closure of regional postal services is an enormous inconvenience for the local residents. It takes away their only reliable source of communication and removes an amenity that often acts as a cornerstone of the community, where people meet over their daily business. But, beyond inconvenience, the closure of regional postal services represents strongly an issue that I have raised in this chamber many times before: the neglect and gradual erosion of critical and essential services that underpin regional communities. Apart from receiving notifications from Australia Post, my Kalgoorlie and Albany electorate offices have also been contacted by members of these communities who are angry—and rightly so. They say the reason contractors are giving up the Australia Post contracts is because the contracts are simply not viable. Sensibly enough, this is the same reason that Australia Post struggles to find new contractors. It just does not make financial sense to run a community postal agency in a small town, let alone contemplate running a licensed post office. I will give you a recent example of how this is impacting on the people of the regions. In the communities of Jerramungup and Jacup in the south-west of my electorate, the postal contractor gave notice that he did not want to renew his contract to deliver mail. Australia Post could not find anyone who wanted to deliver mail in these communities and the local Progress Association says that it is because nobody can afford to do so under the current remuneration offered by Australia Post. My staff worked to help the community liaise with Australia Post, and eventually a contractor was found, but only with a reduced delivery schedule of once per week. This is despite Australia Post's customer service charter stating that 99.7 per cent of the delivery points are to receive deliveries no less than twice per week. You can imagine how lucky the residents of Jerramungup and Jacup feel to discover that they are now part of the 0.03 per cent of Australia's population who only get their mail once a week! And these are people who live only a few hours from a major centre such as Albany. We have had similar scenarios in Ongerup, Orana and Karlgarin—just to name a few. I have spoken to members of those communities. They are struggling to pay their bills on time and get the information they need about their personal businesses in a timely fashion. Postal services, in my opinion, should be core government services. The fact that these contracts are not financially viable for anyone in the community to take up is proof that we are doing something wrong in our regional communities. I had a meeting scheduled with the minister during the last sitting week but unfortunately I had to cancel. I am looking forward to catching up with the minister to reschedule and discuss these issue more pointedly with him. Adelaide 5922 10:51 Ms KATE ELLIS DZU Adelaide There is a transformation underway in Adelaide, which I would like to share with the House today, including the latest announcement which was made just over the weekend. I believe that one of the most underutilised parts of Adelaide, with the greatest potential, is our riverside precinct. It is a riverside precinct which we have spoken about for many years, but it is now set to become a hub of activity, after a series of announcements from the state government, our government and the city council. Of course, the sporting tragics are very excited about the new Adelaide oval, which will become, once more, a home of both AFL and cricket. But there is another very exciting precinct which is developing—and that is a health and medical research area alongside the river where the brand new Royal Adelaide Hospital will be built. On Saturday I was incredibly pleased with the Prime Minister's announcement, in Adelaide, of a $100 million boost to these world-class education and research facilities. This will mean, not just that a brand new hospital and a brand new South Australian Medical Health and Medical Research Institute—for which our government proudly provided some $200 million; it is one of the most spectacular buildings on the horizon—will be built in this area but that we will provide funding for a branch new medical school for the University of Adelaide, to be built alongside the new hospital. We are providing funding for the University of South Australia Centre for Cancer Biology. This means that we will have 250 researchers investigating blood cancers such as leukaemia and lymphoma. It also means that by moving to have a brand new medical school alongside the hospital and the research institute we will be able to see people working and helping patients in the hospital alongside the medical staff of tomorrow—who are being trained and who are getting inspiration and ideas from those already in the work force—also working alongside the researchers who are providing the future cures. This is an incredibly fantastic vision. I would like to commend Vice-Chancellor Bebbington from the University of Adelaide and Vice-Chancellor Lloyd from the University of South Australia, the South Australian government and, of course, the Prime Minister for supporting this. This is special for Australia. We know this will be the biggest precinct of its type in the entire southern hemisphere. I am incredibly proud that we are supporting it and that it will be a part of Adelaide's very bright future. Forde Electorate 5923 10:55 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I rise today to let the people of Forde know that the coalition has a plan for a better Australia. On 14 September voters will have two choices: they could re-elect this Labor government and get more of exactly what they have had in the last six years or they have the opportunity to make one of the best decisions for their future and their children's future and elect a coalition government. In 89 days' time, Australians will take part in the most important election in a generation. The coalition has made clear it has a plan for the future. Over the next couple of weeks, every household in the Forde electorate will receive a copy of that plan, which outlines the direction, values and policy priorities for the next coalition government. In contrast, it is unlikely that my constituents will receive the same kind of detailed information from this Labor government because they have no plan. They have no direction about what they will do over the next three years. They have no policy priorities besides Gonski. And the question always remains: where will they lead us into the future? They do not have a plan, but the coalition does. We have a plan to build a stronger economy and a plan to get the budget back under control. We will scrap the carbon tax whilst reducing carbon emissions. We plan to build a diverse five-pillar economy. We plan to help small businesses grow and create more jobs. We plan to deliver better education and better health services for all Australians. The coalition will be able to give Australians the strong, experienced and united team they deserve to deliver a strong and stable government, which is in stark contrast to the division and dysfunction of this current Labor government. We have a plan to deliver stronger borders—we have done it before and we can do it again. A future coalition government will get this country back on track, so that we can build more modern roads and infrastructure to boost productivity and reduce bottlenecks and gridlocks on our major roads. Not a day goes by in Forde where I am not reminded of the need for improved infrastructure. We need better parking in the CBDs of Beenleigh and Logan, in addition to improved broadband and telecommunications for local businesses and residents. This Labor government does not have a plan for improving these issues; the NBN does not even register on the radar in Forde. Under a coalition government there will be less pressure on local families, which means there will be less pressure on the local charities in Forde that struggle to deal with the increasing number of locals who rely on their support. It is only a coalition government that will provide a positive future for Australia. Calwell Electorate: Iraqi Christian Community 5924 10:58 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell The thousands of Assyrian and Chaldean Iraqis who live in my electorate have come here under the refugee and humanitarian program over a period of 10 to 15 years. I have endeavored over time to get to know them and as such I have developed good relationships with many of their key community representatives through the many local community organizations that have formed in my electorate. Today, I would like to make special mention of the Popular Chaldean Assyrian Syriac Council of Victoria and one of its founding and key members, Mr Sam Nissan. The council is an advocacy group for the needs of the Iraqi community in Australia, but also raises awareness in the broader community about the continuing plight of Assyrian, Chaldean and Syriac Christian communities in Iraq. It also advocates and calls for national unity amongst the Assyrian, Chaldean and Syriac people in order to advance their political interests in Iraq. Mr Sam Nissan leads the community's advocacy and tireless appeals to the Australian government, both current and past, to do its utmost to ensure that the Christian minorities in Iraq are able to look to a more stable and less violent future. Mr Sam Nissan from the Chaldean Syriac Assyrian Popular Council of Victoria is one of the driving forces in our local community, always present at the various activities and celebrations, and is a man who is dedicated to ensuring that human rights violations in Iraq are not forgotten or overlooked by the global community. Sam believes strongly in the capacity, and indeed responsibility, of the Iraqi diaspora to raise awareness about the continuing attacks on the Christian communities in Iraq, but also he believes that it is necessary to introduce to their new homeland, Australia, the many wonderful cultural traditions that they are very proud of. One such event is the Babylonian-Assyrian new year, which is known as the Aketo festival, celebrated on 1 April each year and now in the year 6,763. The Aketo festival is one of the oldest recorded festivals in the world and has been celebrated for several millennia throughout ancient Mesopotamia. This year's celebrations included a statement regarding the fragile political and security situation in Iraq. Sam Nissan, who delivered the statement to me, said it was his community's hope that governments around the world, and in particular in Australia, would do all they could to ensure the safety and human rights of the people in Iraq and provide humanitarian support to stop the bloodshed and respect the will of the Assyrian, Chaldean and Syriac people. I want to commend community activists like Sam Nissan and the Iraqi Christian communities in my electorate for the tremendous amount of work that they do. I also seek leave to table Mr Nissan's statement to the chamber. Leave granted. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 5925 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Food Processing Industry 5925 11:01 Dr STONE EM6 Murray This is a motion about a crisis in an industry which should be leading the next manufacturing revolution. We are aware that, just as the mining booms in the 1800s faded into history, so too inevitably will the dependency on minerals extraction in the 21st century. The food-processing industry is, however, a job-creating, wealth-generating enterprise that should be sustainable in perpetuity. This motion is highlighting the struggles of fruit growers in the Goulburn and Murray valleys as they and their manufacturers, SPC Ardmona, face unfair and destructive competition from imported fruit snapped up at bargain prices by the supermarkets which have the stranglehold on Australian food retailing. This unfair competition is compounded by domestic policy failures. Coles and Woolworths should have the finest Australian processed fruit and vegetables on their shelves. They should be proud of their offerings, and they should be trumpeting the source of their ingredients on labels which stand out large and proud on every shelf and in every freezer. Instead they boast that they aim to have some 80 per cent of their offerings in home brands on their shelves as soon as they can. The dirt-cheap imports from China, South Africa and Italy—with some products directed through New Zealand—give them contents at sometimes half the price of Australian fruits and vegetables, while our shonky labelling laws hoodwink and bamboozle the shopper, who has to guess at proportions of local product in the can or bottle when the label reads, 'Made from local and important ingredients.' Home brands full of imported product—some dumped and all of it inadequately screened for food safety—mean even greater profits for the big two supermarkets. Coles reported a 16.3 per cent increase in pre-tax profit since 2007-08 amounting to $1.356 billion in 2011-12. Woolworths in the same period reported an increase in profits of over $2.18 billion, up 3.6 per cent in sales, with a forecast profit even higher for 2012-13. Their sales rose by 4.8 per cent. Meanwhile, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reports: It was a mixed year for fruit production in 2011-12. Nationally … The number of bearing trees for citrus fruit fell by 9% to 6.8 million for oranges, and 20% to 1.5 million for mandarins. This decline was due to growers reducing their tree numbers or exiting the industry as a result of low domestic prices and an influx of imported fruit. It goes on: Nationally, production was down for a number of key vegetable crops as a result of depressed prices and/or poor seasonal conditions. I think Coles and Woolworths need to hang their heads in shame. The value of horticulture in the Goulburn and Murray valleys has been calculated to be some $2 billion annually at the farm gate, where the value-adding and employment multiplier effects begin. The fruit-processing industry in northern Victoria alone employs some thousands of workers, who range from growers to pickers, pruners, packers and those involved in transportation and storage of fruit, its packaging manufacturing, its cool storing, and pest management and control. Then there are the 870 full-time equivalent who work directly in the three SPC Ardmona factories at Shepparton, Mooroopna and Kyabram. Together, this huge workforce has processed on average over 150,000 tonnes of fruit and vegetables annually for this old company, SPCA, an Australian company which is now owned by Coca-Cola Amatil. It is not hard to understand that the regional city of Shepparton, the larger towns of Kyabram and Cobram, and dozens of other smaller surrounding neighbourhoods depend on the wealth generated by the world-class fruit growing that was established nearly 100 years ago in northern Victoria. Fruit growing is a long-term business. Unlike croppers, orchardists make investments that take years to deliver return. They cannot pass higher costs on to the manufacturers or consumers. Orchardists growing processed variety fruits cannot switch their crop onto the fresh fruit markets without driving those prices below the cost of production, and that is something we saw last year. Orchardists have no choice but to meet the extremes of each season head-on, whether it is drought, hail, floods, high winds or tornadoes. Crop insurance is often prohibitive. They control pests and diseases with world's best practice regimes, which makes our fruit some of the healthiest, safest and finest eating in the world. But this pest control, whether it is biodynamic, organic or through some other means, does not come cheap. In normal circumstances our orchards must and do react continuously to incremental changes in their circumstances and they manage their risk accordingly. However, the changes that processing fruit growers are currently experiencing—due to the high dollar; the flood of dirt-cheap imports, many of them dumped and snapped up by the duopoly of Coles and Woolworths, who have been joined by Aldi; and the exorbitantly rising costs of production that they cannot pass on—all amount to precipitous, sudden and unpredicted catastrophe, none of it of the orchards' own making and none of it the fault of the huge workforce which then takes that fruit, adds value to it and gives Australia some of the finest eating product in the world. SPC Ardmona, now owned by Coca-Cola Amatil, once exported 30 per cent of their produce. Next year they expect to export none at all. They have just told their growers in the Goulburn and Murray valleys that they will take no fruit at all from half them next year, or only half of the processed varieties they were contracted to collect. That is some 25,000 tonnes less of pears and peaches. That is an extraordinary volume, and it has been calculated that if you took that volume of fruit and spread it across the MCG, the Melbourne Cricket Ground, it would go to several metres in depth. There is an enormous job loss already in these orchards as they receive this shocking news of the contracts being cancelled for next year. Already the permanent workforce has been reduced by some 46 per cent according to the data that has been collected from growers in a very recent survey. The annual ongoing total job loss, including casual and seasonal work, in the peach and pear orchards is estimated to be more than 1,500 workers. If this were a car industry, we would be killed in the rush of politicians wanting to have their photos taken beside men in hard hats with declarations of millions of dollars of support. There would be breast-beating about how shocking it is that Ford, Holden or maybe some other brand of Australian-made car needs support, how wonderful that vehicle is, and how Australia needs that motor vehicle industry because of its value adding, its employment and its icon status. Here we have a superb industry with magnificent product on its knees due to circumstances beyond its control. SPC Ardmona executives are aiming to present an antidumping action request to the federal government. They want to challenge the legality of the fruit that is coming from South Africa and China and also the tomatoes from Italy. They want an antidumping action which will make it fair and put duties on those imported products to even up the playing field so that Aldi, Coles and Woolworths think twice before they bring in the vast tonnages of imported product, often now at half the price. We are also begging for a safeguard action. This is another lawful WTO measure which is used by many other nations and gives a response to a sudden, immediate, unprecipitated disaster which knocks out a local industry. If ever you want to see a disaster that was rapid in its onset and catastrophic, you need look no further than at the disaster that has befallen the processed fruit industry of Australia. We are now facing down a situation where there are thousands of people to be unemployed. Already, pruners who should be hard at work in the Goulburn and Murray Valleys are being turned away. Instead, people are turning on the bulldozers. If we do not have, in the very immediate short term, some $3,500 per hectare to bud over or remove the trees that no longer have any market for the fruit once taken to the factories, then the biosecurity disaster in terms of diseases in these unsprayed trees will be a catastrophe. None of us should take this lightly. We have a four-month window of opportunity to shut down the blossom production of these trees or to bud them over to new varieties. If we cannot sell the fruit and there is no support, these trees must be bulldozed. We need the funds for that emergency right now. I beg the state government to work with the federal government to deliver that support. We also need a comprehensive package just like the motor industry has been delivered which will give our growers an alternative way to make their living growing different varieties. These factories processing fruit need technology support so they too can better compete into the future. I commend this motion to the House. It is a crisis situation not of the people's doing. 11:11 Mr ADAMS BV5 Lyons I thank the honourable member for Murray. I know she is passionate about this subject and it is very close to her heart. It gives me an opportunity to speak about horticulture and also the vegetable industry. An industry in horticulture, which is growing and expanding in my area of the world, is cherries, raspberries and strawberries that are being grown in conjunction with growers in Queensland so that the seasons can be covered the year round. Both the small fruits and the vegetables are iconic foods in Tasmania. We have always had a very big vegetable industry, and that is expanding somewhat with our new irrigation schemes and growing out. But of course, having a business model, having ways of marketing and making sure we can continue to expand, are some of the challenges. We must hang on to all these opportunities and find ways that we can feed them into the markets. There are problems and there are barriers. Perhaps the most pressing of these are the proper labelling of product, and I notice in Tasmania that some legislation is being proposed to put simpler food explanation labels on products. That gives a larger and simpler explanation of the nutrition content and it would only take another small box to say it was grown and processed in Tasmania, in Australia, or half the label could say that these are peas from Tasmania. Somehow that seems to be a rather difficult thing to achieve. At the moment, labels on tins tend to not state where the products were sourced, only what processing has taken place in Australia. I have often checked tins of fruit and vegetables that proudly boast of being an Australian product and then read the small print to find that it is a blend or that it is grown overseas and canned in Australia. There is always the reserve of using an Australian product but we reserve the right to source anywhere in the world. Of course that comes down to the business models that the retail sector of Australia uses, and the retail sector's business model is to put a product on their shelves sourced from anywhere in the world. If the price is right, they will shelve it. Australian products with a simple, local label that says that this is an Australian product seem to be opposed at any cost. They seem to want to oppose that, and we see through their organisations they seem to do that all the time. As I said, it does not seem to be possible for Tasmanian peas to be labelled 'Tasmanian peas: product of Australia'. Saying, 'This is a Tasmanian product,' does not seem to take up half the packet of peas. We have a reputation for growing really good product. We have been growing peas in Tasmania for a long, long time. So you get to be very cynical about what some people's business models are and how they impose those on the consumers and the producers. I see that they are now opposing health labelling reforms as well, because it does not fit into their business models. There will be all sorts of reasons found, but none of them will be for a healthier nation, and that is a very sad process. While I agree with a number of aspects of this motion, I certainly do not think that we should get into these arguments that manufacturing should not be supported and that we can only do something about agriculture if we stop supporting manufacturing. We can have manufacturing and agriculture, and we need both of them in our nation. So I do not think that we should set up these false arguments and run those things; I do not think it serves our nation very well. We do need a good, thriving agriculture sector and horticulture sector. So there are a number of aspects of this motion that I do not support. Certainly the increased costs of doing business affect the survival of these industries, but it is more the lack of accurate labelling and proper descriptive labelling that can allow products to be dumped in Australia. That is a true thing, and we need to explore that. I would agree with an immediate and comprehensive antidumping investigation in respect of all fruits and vegetables and also fish and fish products coming into the country. I believe that there is a strong chance that many of these products are being dumped because of the ability to wander through our labelling laws and through some of the other arrangements we may have with some of the connections in food labelling and food standards. We need to focus on those things. I have been extremely keen to see that fresh food is not subject to travelling over long distances. I do not think people will want that in the future, and I have some sympathy with the Slow Food movement, being a bit of a foodie myself. Slow Food opposes the standardisation of taste and culture and the unrestrained power of the food industry multinationals and industrial agriculture. The association believes in the recognition of strong connections between plate, planet, people and culture. Slow Food's approach to agriculture, food production and preparation is based on the concept of food quality defined by three interconnecting principles: a good, fresh and wholesome seasonal diet that satisfies the senses and is part of our local culture; clean food production and consumption that does not harm the environment, animal welfare or our own health; and fair, assessable prices for consumers and fair conditions and pay for small-scale producers. I do not think anybody could argue with that. While some of this can be seen as a bit trendy and a bit far-fetched, the principles of keeping one's food fresh and typical to a region and preventing it being moved over large distances may well be something that Australia needs to consider. I also think that somebody's label from an actual, local region should not be manipulated when a company may be sold or broken up and that label is then taken and the product is made in some other area but they still put the label on it. You can just imagine if we made King Island cheese in Victoria. I do not think that would be a good idea, but I also do not think that it would be a recognition of what made that cheese originally. It is a great product. I have always had some feelings that these things need to be given some more consideration and we should give consideration to protecting a region's viability by protecting its labelling. We can grow fantastic food, both animal and vegetable, in Australia, but, unless it is processed quickly and cleanly, a lot of food's value can be lost. So there is a lot of opportunity here, I believe, for us to think a bit differently from how we have in the past, and we can make some major gains. Hence my objection to live animal export, as I believe that we can kill and process animals more humanely, more cleanly and more healthily than anywhere or anyone overseas, if we understand the processing where product is grown and raised. Australia has a reputation for its safe and healthy product, and we should endeavour to promote that wherever we can in the world. I have watched in horror, as many of us have, the nonsense that goes on with live animals being carted off and being badly handled when there is no need for that. We could actually replace a lot of opportunity in other parts of the world with chiller and freezing stores. I think we need to get that business model right and not just pay shippers and agents fees to do that. With any imports that can be gained we must value add. We must certainly promote Australia's healthy food and our eating experiences and we should not let supermarket shelves simply be filled up with overseas products. We should look at this dumping that is taking place throughout Australia. I support most of the motion but not quite all of it. 11:21 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina It is wonderful, heartening and refreshing to hear a Labor member sticking up for regional produce, sticking up for regional jobs and sticking up for agriculture. Whilst the Tasmanian member for Lyons says he agrees with most of the member for Murray's motion, I think we concur: we agree with most of what he said—not all, but most. As I say, it is refreshing to hear a Labor member actually sticking up for agriculture. It is not very common, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would well know. I do want to comment on a couple of things that the member for Lyons indicated. He said that we produce fantastic food here in Australia, here in regional areas. There is no argument with him there. I would actually even go a step further and say that we grow the very best food. In my area of the Riverina and certainly in the member for Murray's area, the very best food in Australia is grown. We need to do everything we can to protect and preserve those people and those industries who are growing the very best food to feed not just Australians but also many other countries and certainly those in the Pacific rim who otherwise would not have access to protein and fresh fruit unless it was coming from the member for Murray's area and certainly the Riverina. The member for Lyons talked about the false arguments of manufacturing as opposed to agriculture—but there are no false arguments. I do not think you will find that there would be too much opposition to what the government has done to try to prop up the ailing automotive industry; however, now the government needs to stump up and step up and help the ailing agricultural industry. The member for Murray has called for support for fruit growers and workers in the local food processing industry. The motion: (2) recognises the impact and toll that the increased cost of doing business has on local food processors; (3) acknowledges the significance of iconic local food processors— and certainly there is no more iconic than SPC Ardmona at Shepparton— as key employers and contributors to regional communities; Thousands and thousands of jobs are at risk if this motion is not passed by this House. The motion also: (4) supports the ‘Toss a tin in your trolley’ campaign to encourage Australians to throw a tin of local canned produce into their shopping trolley, and urges supermarkets to promote this initiative; That is a wonderful idea and it needs to be supported. The member for Murray also: (5) calls on the: (a) Treasurer to investigate an emergency World Trade Organisation safeguard action in respect of imported canned fruit and tomato produce; and (b) Government to undertake an immediate and comprehensive anti-dumping investigation in respect of the request from SPC Ardmona and the canned food industry. Certainly you would get no argument from me on that. I hope you do not get any argument from the government to absolutely back these important initiatives. The Treasurer is going to be a very busy man in the weeks leading up to the election, as not only should he do what the member for Murray says with respect to this motion but he should also reject outright the proposed takeover of GrainCorp by Archer Daniels Midland, the American company—because we do not need our $9 billion a year grain harvest being decided by a boardroom in Illinois. I am filling in for the member for Gippsland, who would like to be here but is unable to do so. He was most supportive of the member for Murray, and his electorate is also very much at risk if this motion does not go through. The Gippsland food producers number many, including Patties, Vegco, Kerton Farms, Dennison Foods Manufacturing, Lion, Frais Farms, Happy Camper Gourmet and Murray Goulburn, and food processors Bonaccord, Bulmer Farm Fresh Vegetables, Riviera Farms and Covino Farms, which is also a producer. They all stand to risk their viability in the future if this food processing motion, put forward by the member for Murray, is not supported by this House. The member for Gippsland wanted me to point out that food product manufacturing within the Gippsland electorate accounts for 2,524 jobs. We heard the member for Murray a little earlier say that many jobs are at risk. Bad public policy by this government and the global market trends that we are unfortunately suffering at the moment, with the high Aussie dollar and all the other factors, have provided a perfect storm of absolute risk for the food processing industry. SPCA is the largest producer of premium fruit and vegetables in packages in Australia. It does a wonderful job. Production is based in Victoria's Goulburn Valley, a region with 870 full-time equivalent staff. They are taxpayers; they are good, hardworking regional people doing their best to make sure we have the very best product on our tables and doing their best to make sure that overseas countries have the very best product on their table. They are at risk because of a number of factors, but this government and this parliament can help by pushing this motion through and enabling that very necessary legislation to be passed to provide the help that they need. SPCA indirectly supports more than 2,700 jobs in the Goulburn Valley region as well as those 870 full-time equivalent workers. The company directly injects about $63 million into the local economy through salaries and wages and provides apprenticeships, training programs, work experience programs and graduate student programs to young people in the region who want to stay in the fine area of the member for Murray's electorate. They want to stay regionally because they know that the freshest air is available in regional Australia and that the best lifestyle is available in regional Australia. They want to do what their dads, mums, grandads and grandmothers have done for decades past. They want to be involved in a great industry, but they will not be able to if we as a parliament do not support them and their industry. In recent years, SPC Ardmona has utilised the products from more than 200 contract growers and suppliers of semi-processed fruit and vegetable products, such as fruit juice and fruit pulp, and has bought 150,000 tonnes of fruit and vegetables worth $32 million from contract growers. Those contract growers need certainty. They certainly have not had the sort of certainty that they absolutely need, due to poor public policy from this place—not least of which has been the Murray Darling Basin fiasco—which has been brought to bear by this very poor government. SPCA has invested considerably in developing its business over many years, including major investments in production equipment and warehousing. It is doing its best to help this nation go forward. It needs this nation to help it in its time of need. SPCA brands include SPC, Ardmona, IXL, Goulburn Valley and Taylor's. We all know them; they are household brands. Unfortunately, they are not perhaps always at eye level in the supermarkets because of supermarket policies, but we know that they are the freshest and the best available for supermarket customers. SPCA is suffering under the influence of a once-in-a-lifetime appreciation in the Australian dollar, which has made cheap imported food even cheaper. The current market reality is that the strong Australian dollar allows cheap imported products into Australia at way below the cost of production here—way below the cost of production in the member for Murray's seat and way below the cost of production in the Riverina. Our farmers need help; they need help desperately. They need this government to step up—this government which talks about feeding the Asian food century demand, says that it has a national food plan and says that it cares about regional Australia but all too often shows that it does not by its poor public policies. It is extremely challenging for SPCA's branded Australian-made products to profitably compete. The Australian food processing industry may not survive to enjoy a more balanced playing field when the dollar returns to more normal levels. That is why it is critical at this juncture for this government to stump up, help and support the member for Murray's very sensible approach—a very sensible motion that we are hearing and debating here today to give SPCA breathing space through provisional safeguards. If it is not provided, viability of that company's position in the industry will certainly be under threat and it will have a devastating flow-on effect not just throughout the member for Murray's region and not just throughout regional Australia but, indeed, throughout the whole nation. The government stumped up and helped Ford, which has now announced that it is closing despite the amount of money being poured into the manufacturing and car industry over the years. Whilst some people have questioned it, certainly this government now needs to show that it is also very much caring for regional Australia and a wonderful company such as SPCA, and certainly to show that it cares about the member for Murray's electorate. It has not done so in the past. I call on it to do so now in the interests not just of the member for Murray's electorate but of Australia. 11:31 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I figure I should perform the hat trick in repeating at the outset, or at some point in the speech, that there will be things we will agree on and things we will most definitely disagree on in the course of this debate. Undoubtedly, Member for Murray, I think it is a good opportunity for us to discuss a sector that provides critical support within your electorate and in others and that also provides a valuable economic contribution to the nation. I think the member for Murray is most definitely right in highlighting the importance of the food and beverage manufacturing industry to our nation. These are exceptionally difficult economic conditions both for the food and beverages and for the broader manufacturing sector. The manufacturing sector within the electorate of Chifley provides up to 10,000 jobs for locals in our area, and so anything that affects the member for Murray's electorate in this way is also something that I have a keen interest in, which is why I was very heartened that you had put the resolution forward and also heartened to participate in the discussion around this. The conditions that are present within the food and beverage processing industry evolve and are certainly putting pressure on a sector that has a lot of potential for growth. In this nation it employs close to 230,000 people, many of whom are from our respective electorates. Like the rest of the sector, food and beverage manufacturing faces huge challenges, the most notable being what is happening with the dollar—something that will not go away anytime soon and will continue to put pressure on businesses operating within the sector. I have seen that within our area and it is something that I would like to reflect upon during the course of my contribution. Other challenges include the small size of our domestic market—and we have variously touched upon this issue through the course of our respective contributions this morning—and the lack of manufacturing scale. The issue of the domestic market—the price sensitivity of customers and the fact that they are willing in many cases to substitute overseas products for locally produced products that they might have used for many years—is a constant challenge for the sector. Again there are those in my area that are responding to this. The availability of skilled labour and retail market concentration all contribute in their own way to putting pressure on the sector. Ninety-nine per cent of the 13,000 food-manufacturing businesses—and this is worth reflecting on: 99 per cent—are SMEs. Ninety-nine per cent is a huge figure. The government acknowledges the challenges that face them and the other sectoral challenges that I mentioned a few moments ago and we have put in place measures to help industries to remain competitive and sustainable—not just this one but across a range of different sectors. Look at what we are doing with AusIndustry and with Enterprise Connect. Look at the magnificent work done by the CSIRO, the cooperative research centres, the industry innovation precincts which are starting to roll out—with a specific focus of one of them on food. They all provide programs aimed at lifting innovation, investment and productivity to help manufacturers overcome and better deal with the challenges that I outlined earlier. Stakeholders in the food industry are right to be concerned with long-term viability of food manufacturing in this country. It is the reason the government is particularly keen to encourage greater investment in R&D and to provide tax incentives and programs that increase the level of cooperation between public and business research institutions. One area where food manufacturers in the Chifley electorate are looking to get some advantage and also to help reduce costs and improve the way they operate is in the area of clean energy. Businesses in the Chifley electorate are learning how to reduce the costs of production at the same time as reducing their carbon footprints. Since our carbon price came into effect, businesses are taking initiatives to take practical steps to improve the way that they use energy, to reduce power bills and to reduce their emissions. They are also doing it in part, as they tell me when I visit them, to respond to what consumers are expecting them to do too. One manufacturer in particular I am very proud of in the Chifley electorate is Arnott's. They operate a plant in Huntingwood within the Chifley electorate. I was really pleased to visit them last month. It was the second time I have been there to look around their plant, not to just avail myself of free samples but to see the way they operate in a very competitive market. They produce a product that is more highly priced relative to competitors which does put pressure on them but they deliberately price to the quality of our market and also to export markets—notably Japan. When I visited Arnott's, I was able to see a $113,000 federal grant in action improving production methods and helping Arnott's reduce their carbon footprint. It was provided to Arnott's from the government's Clean Technology Investment Program and represents a third of the total investment of $340,000 being made to upgrade refrigeration controls and also install other energy-saving equipment. This is not the full extent of Arnott's commitment to a clean energy future. Over the past six years they have invested a total of $3.4 million to complete 24 green projects just at the Huntingwood plant in the Chifley electorate alone. The majority of the investment is being paid for by Arnott's with the assistance of $610,000 in combined rebates, 18 energy-saving certificates, and five supplier grants Since 2008, Arnott's reckon that the average cost of power has increased 7.1 cents per kilowatt hour to 11.4 cents per kilowatt hours, so these improvements are not only great for the environment but also for their bottom line. From our clean technology investment grant, Arnotts expects to reduce the carbon emissions intensity of their refrigeration equipment by 13 per cent, resulting in savings of about $50,000 in energy costs per year—that is a three per cent annual energy reduction or about 1350 kilowatt hours. It is important that the manufacturers remain competitive, particularly in the food sector, and sustainable to protect jobs. In our area, Arnott's employ 400 people, many of whom live locally and who I know from various other walks of life and from doing great things in our community. Ninety-nine per cent of Arnott's products are made right here in Australia supporting jobs across the country, and they spend $300 million a year in raw ingredients and other services from Australian farmers and businesses. It is important that when we talk about things such as this, which was prompted by the member for Murray, we need to ensure that many manufacturers like Arnott's and SPC Ardmona have a future in this country. The government is considering SPC Ardmona's call for emergency safeguard action and will respond consistent with our obligations to the World Trade Organisation. I understand any emergency safeguard measure will be subject to a Productivity Commission inquiry to assess whether there is clear evidence that increasing imports are causing or threatening to cause serious injury. As much as there are a string of positives associated with what has been put forward today, I cannot avoid pointing out some other things which I think are important enough to go on the record. There are elements—not necessarily in place right now in this chamber—of the coalition that do provide some sort of confected concerned about the manufacturing sector. National party members get, Labor members get it but there are some Liberal Party members that clearly do not. Why? You have only got to look at what they want to do in terms of manufacturing support and the fact that they want to take out $500 million in support. They failed to support the steel industry transformation plans we put forward. The member for Murray has rightly made reference to the auto industry and observed that everyone has been lining up to support the sector, and they are right to—46,000 auto industry workers look at having their jobs affected. I do not misinterpret the point that the member for Murray has made, but there are others who run the risk of dismissing the level of support for people in transition. For instance, with Telstra—a company that employed 90,000 now only employs 30, and a lot of that was shed through privatisation. There was not a single cent of support during that period of privatisation under the Howard government. Telstra have kept shedding and there has been little support. Contrast what has been called for in this motion with the broader coalition policy. Broader coalition policy indicates no manufacturing support but, worse still, at a time when the member for Murray is rightly calling for support, another side of coalition politics is arguing for a $5 billion subsidy scheme for polluters through the Direct Action Plan. Where can you argue on the one hand that you cut support for manufacturing—the type of support that is being called for in this motion—and then hand over $5 billion in a subsidy through a direct action program advanced and advocated by the coalition? These are the types of pressures that do need to be confronted by the coalition. It takes nothing away from the member for Murray's motion. It is an important motion to discuss. It talks about jobs and it talks about having a viable sector in this country, and we all need to work to support that. 11:41 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest I am very pleased to strongly support the member for Murray and her private member's motion. I have seen her absolute despair for the growers in her electorate, because of the fact that there has been no reaction from this government to the plight of the SPC Ardmona growers. She lives in this community and sees their despair day after day. I commend her for this motion. We know that it is in the member for Murray's electorate; fruit-growing industry has also long been a mainstay of the economy in my electorate the south-west of WA and the electorate Forrest. The value of fruit production in the area was around $80 million in 2010-11, according to the South West Development Commission. The birthplace of the Lady Williams apple variety was in Donnybrook in around 1935. Our growers have to compete in some of the most competitive marketing environments in the world just to stay in business. Yet, we do know like in the member for Murray's region, the legacy of the fruit industry is under threat as the industry struggles. We know about rising costs on the ground. We know about the high Australian dollar. We know about tightening margins. We know that this is seeing more and more orchards being pulled out right across Australia and in my region. We have seen the impacts of the government's decisions on biosecurity and the impacts that that is having. We know the cost of labour is high and our producers have to constantly do more with less. The fruit growers in my area are paying close to $20 an hour for relatively unskilled pickers, and competitors in developing nations pay much less. The standard wage in South America is less then $4 an hour; for much of Asia, farm workers get less than $1 an hour. Yet, our Australian producers have be some of the most efficient in the world to compete at all. We know that where mechanical picking is still impossible for most of our orchard enterprises, the chance of competing with those foreign imports is negligible because of the high labour cost. On top of this, there are significant differences in safety and compliance that our growers have to comply with—some of the most stringent occupational health and safety requirements in the world. By comparison, occupational health and safety barely exists for many of our competitors. More importantly, there is the difference in the quality and safety of the product. Australian producers bring to the market some of the world's highest quality and safest food, recognised worldwide. The OECD's report on food safety entitled, 'Food Safety Performance World Ranking of 2008' found that Australia was one of the top five performing countries, all of whose food safety standards were rated as superior. The top five were the UK, Japan, Denmark, Australia and Canada. The other OECD countries tested were rated as average to poor. Yet can you imagine the result if the same test with the same standards were applied to the non-OECD nations? There is no doubting the quality of Australia food production. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade advise that Australia has a worldwide reputation for producing superior-quality premium food and Australia food producers are committed to providing the highest quality international standards of quality management and food safety. Yet look at the challenges they face, even with biosecurity with this government. In Australia's high-quality, high-safety and high-wage reality, is it any wonder that other nations are seeking to use their own competitive advantage, that of price? Given the reality, what is the response of the government? Ad hoc at best, with antidumping legislation and a lack of understanding of what actually happens on the ground and what you do in a fruit-growing business. There is no understanding at all. We have seen that with the whole handling of the biosecurity issue. Given the response to your SPCA growers, Member for Murray, I would ask the question: does this government actually want a fruit industry in Australia? That is the question I would ask and I am sure that is the question your growers are asking given the lack of response from this government. Dr Stone interjecting — Ms MARINO HWP 'No evidence to the contrary,' said the member for Murray. I commend her for bringing this particular motion to the House. We need this parliament to actually stand up and take notice. This government has taken no interest in the issues facing your growers on a daily basis, and the member for Murray has to live in the same community and watch these families in these businesses suffer, and I commend her for this motion. 11:46 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin The Australian food industry is very important to the Australia economy and to securing Australia's future food needs. The food sector employs around 1.65 million Australians, or one in six jobs in this country. In 2011-12, primary production contributed $42.6 billion to the Australian economy, and food and beverage manufacturing earned about $91.2 billion. The sector generates $30.5 billion in exports, and the fact remains that Australia exports half the food it produces. By 2050, world food consumption is expected to be 75 per cent higher, so the potential for Australia's food production is obvious and presents Australia with significant trade opportunities. Those figures, however, are very much reliant on the production and export of grains and livestock. A closer analysis of what is happening in Australia's fruit and vegetable production depicts a different scenario. Ninety per cent of Australia's fresh food consumption is locally produced, with fresh food imports still predominantly arising from seasonal factors, natural disasters affecting local production or fresh food which is not produced in Australia. The situation with processed food is considerably different. According to a 2013 IBISWorld report on fruit and vegetable processing in Australia, Australian food processing is a $6 billion industry. It directly employs about 10,000 people. In 2012-13, processed fruit and vegetable product exports were valued at around $1.4 billion, or 23 per cent of industry revenue. Interestingly, imports for the same year were $1.96 billion. Imports accounted for almost 30 per cent of local consumption and imports have been rising by 1½ per cent per annum over the past five years. It would appear food processing is cheaper overseas and that Australian major food retailers have been sourcing more processed food from overseas, resulting in some 3,000 jobs having been lost in the last decade. The problem with that is that Australian consumers are becoming increasingly concerned about the production methods and quality of food processed overseas. Not surprisingly, more and more Australians are demanding clear food labelling on packaged food, particular with respect to country of origin information. Australians, however, do want to support Australian food processors and Australian jobs. That was clearly evident recently in my home state of South Australia when iconic Adelaide food processor Spring Gully Pickles hit financial difficulties. When it became clear to the public that the future of Spring Gully Pickles was at risk, public support for the business's products skyrocketed and, rather than downsize or close, the business in fact grew and more people were employed so that production could keep up with the public demand for their products. Just a good example of how public support can make a difference to the future of companies in this country. What we have also seen in recent years is the emergence of multinational takeovers and the ownership of Australian food industries by global food processors. The problems and risks with that is that multinationals will ultimately consolidate their food-processing operations to the lowest cost countries, as all other manufacturers are doing and that again results in the loss of jobs. That is one risk associated with foreign ownership. Another risk is that multinationals use clever accounting and transfer-pricing schemes to ensure lower profits are made in Australia and most profits are generated in low-tax countries, denying Australia of legitimate tax revenue. With Australia's clean green image, the food production and processing sector presents Australia with a competitive advantage and immense potential. We can make the most of that potential or we can sit back and watch the opportunity lost. The government's National Food Plan, I believe, sets out a strategy for maximising food production opportunities within Australia. I also believe that the government's response to date with respect to the antidumping legislation that has been brought into the parliament has been very important in trying to stop the dumping of overseas products in this country. Whilst we may need to go further, and that is a matter for the parliament, this government understands the risks that dumping has presented to the food-processing manufacturers in this country and has been responding accordingly. The government's National Food Plan sets out an appropriate strategy which this parliament should support. 11:51 Mr JOHN COBB 00AN1 Calare I rise to speak on this very good motion put forward by the member for Murray, Dr Stone. I do so with a heavy heart and serious concern because food processing is such a vital part of rural Australia. It is, if you like, a litmus test on the economies of what happens in rural Australia. In fact, for many towns, the food processor is, or was, the major employer, the backbone in the development of a town and integral to providing the critical mass for the town for essential services, be it schools, hospitals or whatever it is that we need. For these businesses to see a future in Australia, they also need to know that the business environment will change and that the cost will change from today, and that the cost of doing business in Australia will stop increasing at such alarming rates and in fact decrease. Unfortunately, we have a government whose policies have deliberately added costs and red tape, and destroyed business confidence. As a result, Rosella, Windsor Farm, SPC, McCain and Golden Circle have all closed some or all of their Australian food-processing operations in the past three years. Simplot has now announced that two of its plants are under threat of imminent closure, particularly the one in Bathurst and possibly even the one in Devonport. The high dollar is certainly a significant factor, but Labor's policies have without doubt compounded the effect, with record borrowing and record debt through the five biggest budget deficits in history putting upward pressure on the dollar and on interest rates. Supporting manufacturing through innovative policies should be a no-brainer for Labor to support the workers—their strongest supporter base in the past. But the demise of food processing has really highlighted how Labor have deserted its working class base. Around 140,000 Australians have lost their jobs in the manufacturing sector over the last five years. In fact, one manufacturing job is lost every 19 minutes in this country. That is Labor's legacy. Introducing 21,000 new regulations and over 30 new or higher taxes take a toll on business; they also foster a feeling of defeatism within producers, suppliers and manufacturers—no matter what you do to get ahead, the government will still whack you. I congratulate SPC, as they have been proactive with government at all levels, and they have even come to the opposition to try to find solutions to keep their plants operating. SPC have applied to the government for emergency safeguard provisions and antidumping actions to give them some breathing space to retool their business. The coalition has supported the investigations to see if there is a case for emergency safeguard and antidumping actions. Other companies, like Simplot, are watching on with a keen eye to see if the government is going to be proactive in its support for these industries as a first step to reinvigorate business confidence. Simplot has nominated two plants under imminent threat of closure, one of which is in my electorate. For agriculture, the loss of processing capability or capacity flows through directly to the farm sector. Obviously it has, or has the potential to have, a huge effect on profitability and marketing options. Only the coalition has the necessary solutions. We will abolish the carbon tax; eliminate at least $1 billion of costly red tape annually; reduce government waste; and provide businesses with the certainty they need to prosper, employ more people and bring back the strong economic management and business confidence that Australia so desperately needs. We will also reduce the upward pressure on interest rates by getting the federal government's budget back in shape. A root and branch review of the Competition and Consumer Act, and beefed-up antidumping measures, will help ensure arrangements for the long-term viability of the food-processing industry. Once again, I congratulate Dr Stone, the member for Murray, for this motion and ask the House to support it. 11:56 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield I rise to speak on the motion and commend Dr Stone for bringing it to the House. I forget the name of her seat now. An honourable member: Murray. Mr CHAMPION HW9 Murray. How can I forget Murray? Of course, it reminds me of my youth. I spent a bit of time on the Murray myself, on Nikalapko Station between Morgan and Waikerie every summer from about the age of 15 onwards, picking apricots and oranges when I could not avoid picking them—and peaches, which were not much fun. That particular station exported apricots to Singapore; it was back in the early 1990s and late 1980s. Of course, they got a much higher price for their exported fruit through quality and attention to detail, and as a result we got much better wages than you would picking oranges; in those days you were flat out getting about $30 a bin, as it were. So I think I have a fair understanding of the practical end of this industry, and it is obviously an industry which is suffering from the same challenges that are affecting all manufacturing industries—no less so the industry that dominates both Geelong and Elizabeth, and the deputy speaker would know very well about the pressures on Australian manufacturing. These pressures are mainly due to our currency, and I think this is the great unheralded debate in Australia. We have been preoccupied by carbon prices and by the daily events of politics, and we are missing the two fundamental economic challenges that face our country. The first one is that we have had a prolonged high currency and, even though commodity prices have declined, our currency has remained higher than it otherwise should have because of the investments made by overseas investors and by central banks from around the world. Our currency has become something of a safeguard currency, which is a first in the history of our country. It tends to be a very highly traded currency and one that has followed commodity movements and acted as a shock absorber for our economy in bad times like the Asian crisis. Today, or at least in the last few years, it has acted in the opposite way. It is not a shock absorber at all; it is a shock contributor to manufacturing and it is the big issue, because of course we have other people lowering their currencies: the Japanese, the Europeans, the Chinese and the US. So it is no surprise to me that fruit growers and workers in these industries are suffering from that same fundamental economic challenge. The other challenge is that, whereas once upon a time we lived in an age of easy money and easy credit, we now live in an age of very tight credit. It does not matter where you go in the country and what business you talk to: businesses when they talk to their banks face very, very stringent loan-to-valuation calculations and have had to make appropriate adjustments to that. Those two big economic changes are not going to go away just because we are having a change of government. I hate to break it to members opposite, and I think they might regret some of their rhetoric in this chamber, because they think that a simple change of government will usher in this wave of nostalgia and the world will go back to the way it was pre global financial crisis and it will all be right. In actual fact, they will be dealing with the same challenges we deal with. I think Dr Stone's motion—particularly in regard to the antidumping measure and the safeguard measures—does have a great deal of merit to it. I am on the record as calling for something similar for the car industry. I think we do have to think very carefully about the implications of our currency and the fact that the age of easy credit has gone, and nostalgia will not solve our problems; only discussion will. 12:01 Mr RANDALL PK6 Canning I also wish to speak on the motion put forward by the member for Murray and congratulate her for having done so. Many of us in this place represent areas of Australia where fruit growing is a very important local industry. In the electorate of Canning, which I represent, there are many orchardists and fruit growers who are under increasing pressure on a number of fronts. They are often reminded of the pressure on domestic industries such as manufacturing. However, many of the same hindrances, such as the Australian dollar, have similarly affected fruit growers all around Australia. Other cost pressures such as wage increases and the inability to secure reliable labour have resulted in many fruit growers abandoning their orchards and looking for a more secure, less volatile source of income. The last thing fruit growers in Australia need is a federal bureaucracy that is intent on making life more difficult for them. However, sadly, this is what seems to be occurring. I have risen several times in this House to argue against the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority—APVMA—and its continued push to ban fenthion, the last remaining effective cover spray for the control of the Mediterranean fruit fly, otherwise known as medfly. Growers in the Perth Hills, led by orchardist Brett DelSimone and other members of the Hills Orchard Improvement Group, have done an outstanding job in fighting the APVMA's attempt to ban this chemical, a proposal which is based on spurious science and no evidence that this chemical has in fact been harmful to those consuming fruit treated with fenthion. I applaud those growers who have put their operations on hold to fiercely fight this bureaucratic decision that, if it were successful, would see many orchardists have to leave their properties due to the fruit fly infestations that it would bring. In fact, in the Canning electorate we have already seen and heard on the news about two major fruit-growing families, the Byl family and the Casotti family, who have decided that enough is enough and that their best option is to leave their orchard and have it chopped up and sold up as real estate. Keeping in mind that these orchardists have farmed the same property for generations, we can understand that such a decision is not taken lightly by those who have heavily invested in these orchards. My thoughts are with those families who have had to make this very difficult decision. The proposal by APVMA to ban fenthion has been named as one of the contributing factors to these families finally deciding that they have to leave their orchard and their income. My frustration is born from the fact that unnecessary pressure is being placed on these growers. There are some variables that all primary producers acknowledge are out of control, and we have heard again this morning about the high Australian dollar. However APVMA's proposed ban on the last remaining cover spray that controls the devastating effects of medfly infestation is an absolute kick in the guts for these growers, who do not deserve it and do not need it. I am continuing to press the new agriculture minister in Western Australia, Ken Baston, to understand the implications of the APVMA's proposal and the shattering effects this will have on the local fruit growing industry. I do hope that we will have more success with him than we had with the previous minister, who lazily and blindly absorbed advice from the bureaucrats in his department, DAFWA, rather than consult with those orchardists with generations of experience—in other words, the people on the ground who actually know. There is a significant food security issue here. Without domestic fruit growers being able to remain competitive, they will inevitably continue to abandon the industry, and this will very quickly result in international competitors filling the gap. As we know from past experience, once imports fill the place of domestic produce, this market share is never recovered. I will continue to push both the WA state government and, indeed, the federal government, to avoid the unnecessary destruction of another primary industry and preserve the use of fenthion. I urge the federal minister, Joe Ludwig, to stand up for the industry, stand up to his department and stand up for the growers who are set to lose their orchards due to this illogical push to ban fenthion. However, given his scant regard for the cattle industry and its destruction, I do not hold a lot of faith. But I do hold faith in the shadow minister, John Cobb, who has already outlined that the coalition's position, should we be the government in three months, is that we will not ban fenthion. We will make sure that the growers do have this cover and support so that the industry can be sustained and maintained. As I have already said, nowhere in the world has anyone ever demonstrated that this spray is in any way dangerous or will cause ill health. If fenthion goes, our domestically produced fruit will go, jobs will go, imported fruit will take over and Australians will be worse off as a result. 12:06 Mrs D'ATH HVN Petrie I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion brought forward by the member for Murray. We, on this side of the chamber, have no problems with the detail of the member for Murray's motion. In fact, the government is acting on one of the key points that the motion raises in relation to taking action on anti-dumping and has already put in place a number of anti-dumping measures. It is important to have a balanced approach to this issue and to weigh up all of the sides. While there are challenges for manufacturers, including food manufacturers such as the canners referred to in the motion, it must be recognised and acknowledged that the food and beverage manufacturing industry is a growing and evolving industry. With over 227,000 employees in 2011-12, it comprised over 13,000 businesses at the beginning of that period, of which nearly 99 per cent were small and medium enterprises. The sector is also extremely diverse, covering: meat, dairy, fruit and vegetable, confectionary, beverages and baking, among others, with a wide variety of firm sizes and regional specialities. While it must be acknowledged that some firms are experiencing great challenges, others are expanding and responding to increased demand. The government are clearly aware that a range of factors have contributed to uncertainty in the industry, such as: the current high value of the Australian dollar, increasing input costs, the small Australian domestic market, a lack of manufacturing scale in some sectors, availability of skilled labour and retail market concentration. That is why we, the Labor Party, believe in such a thing as having an industry policy. That is why we support acting to support industry and involving ourselves to assist manufacturers to overcome the challenges they face. For example, through a range of agencies under the industry portfolio including AusIndustry, Enterprise Connect, CSIRO, Cooperative Research Centres and the Industry Innovation Precincts, the Gillard government have a number of programs and policy initiatives aimed at lifting innovation, investment and productivity to help our manufacturers overcome the challenges they face. Further, under our Australian jobs plan, we have a $504.5 million Industry Innovation Precincts Program. Through that program, the government are investing in an industry-led Food Industry Innovation Precinct to create valuable connections across the food industry value chain and help firms build the critical mass, business capacity and export readiness needed to take advantage of industry growth opportunities, especially in Asia. However, the government have heard and understand stakeholders in the food industry who are concerned about the long-term viability of Australian food manufacturing. That is why we are particularly keen to encourage investment in research and development through tax incentives and other programs designed to increase the level of collaboration between business and public research institutions. I have heard a range of reasons being mentioned by those opposite for the impact on the industry, not to mention that the carbon price always seems to be mentioned when we talk about manufacturing. A measured realistic reflection on this issue will recognise that the government is also providing substantial support to the food-manufacturing industry, to transition to a low-carbon future through the $200 million Clean Technology Food and Foundries Investment Program, with $150 million of that program dedicated specifically to the food-manufacturing sector over six years. This support is funded by the price on carbon pollution. Since the introduction of the carbon price, businesses have started taking practical steps to improving energy efficiency, reducing their power bills and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They improve the business bottom line and help tackle climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon pollution can often be reduced with relatively simple technology. In my role as parliamentary secretary I have seen this firsthand around the country. The Gillard government is working with many companies to invest in clean and renewable technologies. We have announced funding for 223 projects, using the carbon price revenue from the clean technology investment program to leverage over $338 million in total investment. Global food markets will remain critical to the ongoing success of our export-oriented food, commodity products, as well as value added processed food, particularly as a result of Asian economic growth, population growth and technological change. Progressive food manufacturers are responding to these pressures and demands and it is important that we leverage off our clean and green image and embrace a bright future for food manufacturers. 12:11 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn I am here today to support the motion moved by the member for Murray, Dr Stone, and to acknowledge that the economic contributions of the fruit growers and workers in the local food-processing industry are vitally important to Australia and its economy. Like Dr Stone's electorate, my electorate of Flynn houses the biggest citrus farm in the Southern Hemisphere and also we have some fine lemon plantations, many of the seedless variety, which have proven popular on the international market. Also within my electorate I have 2PH Farms in Emerald and Abbotsleigh Citrus farm in Wallaville, near Bundaberg. These are major contributors to our export market. A few years ago the Emerald citrus industry was flattened by the terrible citrus canker disease. That meant the removal of hundreds of thousands of trees on that particular plantation and many other, smaller plantations around it. It also meant that any lemon trees and citrus trees in the township itself had to be removed. So if you had an orange or a mandarin tree in your own backyard, then that had to go. There was a complete shutdown of the industry for three years. Then they had to replant. If you now go to 2PH Farms you will see any tree on that plantation is no older than five years. It just goes to show the resilience and the energy of these citrus farmers. Australia produces food for 60 million people in the world and, in the next 10 years, we know that number will increase to 120 million people. So we need these vitally important citrus plantations and canneries to keep on producing food as we know it today or have known it in the past. There is plenty of competition and I believe that all states grow lots of citrus. They have enough competition amongst themselves to ensure that they are always thriving for more efficient ways in which to do their farming. I think our farmers are the most efficient in the world when it comes to citrus growing. Some of my farmers in the Flynn electorate have moved overseas and set up plantations in South America. They are wary of the canker disease coming back and wiping them out again and they cannot afford to rebuild a second time. Because of that, they have invested some money in overseas ventures. The problem we have, as the other speakers have said, is the high Australian dollar. We have cheap imported foods, which include canned fruit. With the cost of production in Australia, it is not easy to compete with the rest of the world. We have an uneven playing field when it comes to exporting and importing fruit. We import less fruit than we export. We face imports from South Africa, China, Spain and Greece. Italy is a big exporter to Australia of tinned tomatoes. There are other smaller-scale players in my electorate in the Burnett region, Mundubbera and Gayndah, which are also very big producers. The Gayndah crop this year was flattened by a hail storm and then later we had those devastating floods which devastated the towns of Mundubbera, Gayndah and Monto and Bundaberg, where there was significant damage done. However, the industry is starting to get back on its feet. It quite amazes me, when you go to the citrus plantations how much, I believe, good fruit is thrown on the ground. About 40 per cent of the fruit ends up on the ground. When you are walking around the plantation you do not want to step on it because it looks like good fruit but it gets rejected by the cannery and markets. Another high cost to Australian citrus farmers is near perfect fruit not being accepted by the canneries and associated markets. It all adds up the fact that our farmers are very efficient. They have very real problems with anti-dumping and we need to tighten up our anti-dumping legislation. (Time expired) 12:17 Mr KELVIN THOMSON UK6 Wills The member for Murray has moved this motion in support of SPC Ardmona, and I think the House is very supportive of that aspiration. I note that there are a range of possible assistance programs available to SPC Ardmona including the Regional Development Australia Fund, the Clean Technology Food And Foundries Investment Program, Commercialisation Australia, Food Industry Innovation Precinct, the Industry Collaboration Fund and Austrade. I encourage both the member and SPC Ardmona to explore those possible assistance programs. The food and beverage manufacturing industry is a growing and evolving industry. It had over 227,000 employees in 2011-12 and has over 13,000 businesses—nearly 99 per cent of which are SMEs. The government is aware that factors such as the current high value of the Australian dollar, increasing input costs, lack of manufacturing scale in some sectors and retail market concentration have contributed to uncertainty in the industry. Through AusIndustry, Enterprise Connect, the CSIRO, Co-operative Research Centres and the industry innovation precincts, the government has many programs and policy initiatives aimed at lifting innovation, investment and productivity to help our manufacturers overcome the challenges that they face. As Parliamentary Secretary for Trade, I have become very aware of the good work done by Austrade in promoting people-to-people links. I am also aware of the high regard in which Australian food is held overseas with our reputation for quality. Indeed, I personally believe that food manufacturing in Australia has a very bright future and that we are one of the few countries in the world in a position to export significant quantities of food. As a part of the $500-million Industry Innovation Precincts Program, the government is investing in an industry-led food industry innovation precinct to create valuable connections across the food industry value chain and help firms build the critical mass, business capability and export readiness needed to take advantage of industry growth opportunities, especially in Asia. For example, a new collaborative centre for food innovation was launched in northern Tasmania on 4 April. It brings together scientists and technologists from the University of Tasmania, the Commonwealth government's Defence Science and Technology Organisation and the CSIRO. The government has invested nearly $19 million into the DSTO Scottsdale facility. As the member for Petrie pointed out, the government is also providing substantial support to the food-manufacturing industry to transition to a low-carbon future through the $200 million Clean Technology Food and Foundries Investment Program, with $150 million of that program dedicated to the food-manufacturing sector over six years. Global food markets will remain critical to the ongoing success of our export-oriented food commodity products, as well as value-added processed foods—particularly as a result of Asian economic growth and the government's Australia in the Asian century white paper. The work surrounding that will assist this. The member's motion talks about safeguard action, and I can inform the member and the House that the government is considering SPC Ardmona's call for emergency safeguard action and will be responding to it. Any emergency safeguard measures would be subject to a Productivity Commission inquiry, and the role of that inquiry is to assess whether there is clear evidence that increased imports are causing or threatening to cause serious injury to the domestic industry. The member's motion also proposes an anti-dumping investigation. The process for such an investigation is that in an application the Australian industry has to demonstrate reasonable grounds that there is dumping or subsidisation, and it must also demonstrate that it has suffered material injury as a result. If an application is received, Customs and Border Protection has 20 days to determine whether they will begin an investigation. The legislative timeframe for investigations is 155 days, although this can be extended by the minister. From day 60 of the investigation, provisional measures may be imposed in the form of securities. This occurs where there appear to be sufficient grounds for publishing a notice and where it is necessary to prevent material injury occurring to the Australian industry while the investigation continues. I point out that the Australian government has boosted funding for anti-dumping investigations by $24 million over the next four years. This additional funding almost doubles the number of investigators working on anti-dumping cases. In accordance with our WTO obligations, applications are treated as confidential until an investigation is commenced, but, afterwards, a public notice is issued. (Time expired) Debate adjourned. Human Rights: Vietnam 5945 12:22 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler Almost 50 years ago, when speaking about freedom on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Martin Luther King Jr changed the world when he declared: 'I have a dream.' I refer to Martin Luther King because he is a prime example of a courageous individual who enlivened the global consciousness with his vision of freedom and harmony. I find it incredible that people like him are brave enough to challenge governments and social norms, with the courage to stand up to fight for what is right. Through their efforts they have changed the world and made it a better place. In recent years I have seen increasing numbers of young Vietnamese people demonstrate the same courage and conviction, young people who have challenged the Vietnamese government by demanding freedom and respect for human rights. Freedom of speech is not just a fundamental human right, it is also a vital component in any successful modern society. The human mind is an extraordinary thing, with a potential to achieve incredible things for our world. By restricting freedom of speech, the Vietnamese government is not only depriving people of their basic human right but is also limiting Vietnam's incredible potential to develop and prosper in today's global society. I have on many occasions spoken about the alarming level of human rights abuses in Vietnam. Today, I would like to specifically refer to two young human rights activists, Nguyen Phuong Uyen and Dinh Nguyen Kha. These young activists were recently sentenced by the People's Court of Long An to imprisonment of six to eight years respectively, convicted under article 88 of the Vietnamese penal code for spreading information against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The two activists have been distributing leaflets in Ho Chi Minh City, protesting against China's claims to the Paracel and Spratly islands in the South China Sea. According to Human Rights Watch, the leaflets accuse the Vietnamese Communist Party of allowing China to exercise inappropriate influence over the country by occupying the islands, leasing forest lands and exploiting natural resources. The Vietnamese state media reported this as 'distorting the party and the policies of the states relating to religion and land and exhibiting a twisted viewpoint regarding the Spratly and Paracel islands and the borders between Vietnam and China'. Though they were vilified by the Vietnamese government and the state media, the two activists have been described as heroes by the international community. Their courage to stand up for what they believe to be right is truly commendable. This is particularly so given the fact of their very young ages. A very bright young woman, Nguyen Phuong Uyen, a 21-year-old student from Ho Chi Minh University of Food Industry, was arrested and taken to the police station on 14 October 2012 in the Tan Phu District. They did this without any notification to her parents or family. Eight days later her family were finally contacted and told that she had been transferred to the police at Long An province and charged under article 88 of the penal code. On 26 April this year, when Nguyen Phuong Uyen's mother visited her in prison, she saw her daughter covered in bruises. Phuong Uyen told her mother that she had been severely beaten while in detention. According to the police, Dinh Nguyen Kha, a 25-year-old student from the Long An University of Economics and Industry, on 10 October 2012 together with Nguyen Phuong Uyen distributed anti-government leaflets at the An Suong overpass in Ho Chi Minh City. He was arrested on 11 October 2012. At his trial he made a statement I feel reflects the truth of the character of this young man. He said: I am a patriot and I love my people. Always have and always will. I would never be against the people of Vietnam. What I'm against is the communist party. Over the past three years, the Vietnamese community in my electorate have drawn my attention to the disturbing levels of human rights abuses in Vietnam. This year alone at least 38 activists have been convicted of alleged anti-state activity. Earlier this year I spoke about the 14 human rights activists who were tried and convicted in January and handed sentences ranging from three to 13 years imprisonment for exercising their fundamental human right of freedom of expression. In Australia, as in most democratic countries, the doctrine of separation of powers applies to ensure independence of our judiciary so judges and courts can act without fear or favour in the administration of justice. In Vietnam, however, there appears to be no clear division between the legislature, executive or judiciary as all administrative organs of government are ultimately under the direct oversight of the Communist Party. As Australians we believe that the protection of individual human rights is vital in our global efforts to achieve lasting peace, security, freedom and dignity for all. As Australians, our commitment to human rights is a reflection of our national values whereby a person's liberty and freedoms are respected. The international community have strongly criticised the actions of the Vietnamese government. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have regularly released statements criticising human rights abuses in Vietnam. Recently the US embassy in Hanoi released a particularly strong statement exercising its concerns about the latest arrest of the two young activists in Ho Chi Minh City. Although Vietnam is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it is evident that the Vietnamese government and, indeed, the Vietnamese courts are denying human rights activists a fair trial. As we speak today the ninth annual Australian Vietnamese human rights dialogue is taking place here in Canberra. I believe that the human rights dialogue presents a great opportunity for appropriate representations to be made on such vital issues. I have written to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Bob Carr, and brought to his attention various cases of human rights abuses which should be raised during this dialogue. These cases include: the 14 activists who were sentenced on 8 January this year; Viet Khang, who was tried and convicted on 30 October 2012; Nguyen Van Hai, Ta Phong Tan and Phan Thanh Hai, who went to trial on 24 September 2012; and Nguyen Phuong Uyen and Dinh Nguyen Kha, the two activists who were sentenced on 16 May this year. In March 2012 eight Hmong protesters were also sentenced to two years imprisonment for 'partaking in a separatist ethnic movement'. In February 2012 Pastor Nguyen Cong Chinh was sentenced to five years for 'distorting the domestic situation by criticising the government and the army in the foreign media'. In December 2011 Nguyen Van Lia, a 71-year-old who raised international awareness about the situation faced by fellow members of the Hoa Hao Buddhists was sentenced to five years imprisonment for 'distributing anti-government propaganda'. Although Vietnam is a member of the United Nations and a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, these cases are evidence of the continuing human rights abuses in Vietnam and the country's failure to comply with their international obligations. In the gallery today we have Joachim and Boa KhanhNguyen and representatives of Bloc 1706, all very proud Australians, active community members and passionate about the issue of freedom and human rights in Vietnam. While they look very strongly to the future they cannot forget the past or what the people of Vietnam currently suffer. I congratulate them and thank them for being here. Earlier I referred to Martin Luther King, who awakened the world with his incredible vision of courage in standing up for change. Along with the Vietnamese community in Australia, I too have a dream. I dream: that the 90 million people living in Vietnam will have their fundamental human rights honoured by their government; that the heroes brave enough to speak up for what is right will be respected rather than vilified and thrown into prison; and that the Vietnamese government will comply with its international legal obligations and take its place among the advanced nations of the world. I join with my community in dreaming that one day soon freedom, democracy and human rights will be restored for the people of Vietnam. 12:32 Mr SIMPKINS HWE Cowan I join with the member for Fowler to speak on this important matter. I know he has a long history in this place of speaking on behalf of the great and good cause of freedom in Vietnam. Freedom in Vietnam includes religious freedom and freedom of speech. Many of us would say, and all Vietnamese people in Australia, look forward to a day when there is true democracy in Vietnam, where anybody who raises even the possibility of an advancement beyond the single party state will not be committing a crime, where the Vietnamese government will be true to the covenants of human rights and democracy that it has signed but never adhered to. From my two visits to Vietnam and my many talks with Vietnamese people within the electorate of Cowan, and from what I have seen on websites and blogs regarding matters to do with readers in Vietnam, the issues could probably be confined to three areas. That is, religious freedom, land rights and patriotism. I particularly want to mention this last area, which is involving so many of the bloggers and protests we have seen in Hanoi, Saigon and other places in Vietnam. It relates to Vietnamese people, who believe very strongly in their homeland—in their nation. They offer up their voices—whether it is through electronic means, protests or other means—to talk about what is in the best interests of their nation. Yet on so many occasions the Vietnamese government finds fault with that. It locks people up—jails them. It is particularly the case for Nguyen Phuong Uyen and Dinh Nguyen Kha. More recently, Kha's brother has been arrested, as well. It is their patriotism—their belief in their country—that so often brings people into conflict with the Communist government in Vietnam. They raise things to do with the national interest. The Paracel Islands and the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea is something that a lot of Vietnamese people are concerned about. People find fault with the pandering, in many ways, of the Communist government to Beijing. They also find fault with the Chinese concessions—the bauxite mines—in the highlands, which are doing untold environmental damage. People feel strongly about their country, and for that feeling—that patriotism and the national interests of Vietnam—people find themselves jailed. People are arrested on a regular basis. That is the reality of what is going on in Vietnam. I have spoken on many occasions about the religious grievance. Again, the member for Fowler mentioned the young Catholic people that have been fairly recently sentenced and jailed in Vietnam. Often that is to do with land rights and the wish to be able to follow their religion without the controls of the state. As we know, in Vietnam people are free to practice religion—provided they have their leaders authorised and licensed by the state! I am being facetious, obviously, because that is no great freedom at all. If a church is prepared to hand over its membership list to the state then they are free to practice. If they wish to hand over the list of names of people who attend regularly or who come and visit their church, temple or whatever, then they can practice their religion. But if people in Vietnam refuse to do those things—if they refuse to hand over those lists and if they refuse to do exactly as they are told by the state—then they run afoul of the state and they are persecuted by the state. We have spoken before of the cowshed church in Saigon. I was fortunate enough to visit there back in, I think, the start of 2011, and I worshipped with the Mennonites in the Cow Shed Church. They were kicked out of the house church that they had because the local Communist authorities did not like what was being said or did not like the fact that that church did not provide a membership list to the state. They would not do as they were told and, as a consequence, they were kicked out. The pastor's wife—I saw her there on that day—suffered from mental illness but she were forced to live in that shed while the pastor is in jail. She was forced to live in that shed behind a curtain. The Mekong River had risen at the time of my visit so that we were knee-deep in its waters. The pastor's wife, who has unfortunately since died, was stuck there, suffering, without any support from the state. She was, amongst her fellows in the church, persecuted by that same state. That is the religious freedom that awaits those in Vietnam who refuse to do the bidding—who refuse to follow the orders—of the state. The tragedy of Vietnam, as we know and as we see all the time in Australia, is that those that hail from Vietnam are highly successful in this country because the shackles of socialism and communism are taken off their backs. In this country, if they want to work hard, they can get the benefits of working hard. Back there, they have to do as they are told. The Communist Party impose restrictions on people economically, religiously and democratically. In doing that, they hold back a proud country of 88 million people. I can only imagine how successful Vietnam would be without the shackles of an oppressive state and the uncaring, self-motivated and self-serving Communist Party of Vietnam. I can only imagine how successful that country would be if they had the same conditions and opportunities that we have in this country, which Vietnamese Australians have thrived under. They want the same opportunities. There needs to be a time in the future when article 88 of the Vietnamese constitution, the article that has caused so many people to be arrested and jailed, is taken off the backs of the Vietnamese people, when Vietnam becomes the country where the individual is valued and where, collectively, the success of the country is valued more than is currently the case. As we know, in all communist and socialist systems, the talk is very good at the start about looking after individuals, but, in the end, in every case, the reality is a self-serving organisation, such as the Vietnamese Communist Party, existing for the benefit of a small number of members. In the end, they are the ones looked after while the people do the bidding of the state. I appreciate the opportunity that the member for Fowler has provided today to, again, let us look at what needs to change in Vietnam. I hope that through the ninth human rights dialogue some progress can be made. At the moment, it looks like progress is not being made. The arrest and beating of young activists, particularly Nguyen Phuong Uyen, is a tragedy that represents what the state of Vietnam is all about. I am sad and sorry that there has been no great progress in Vietnam, but we look forward to better days. Hopefully, through the dialogue we will see better days. Time will tell. I pay tribute to the brave Vietnamese people. 12:43 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt I am honoured today to speak on this private member's motion by the member for Fowler. He is a well-known campaigner for human rights in Vietnam. I read several of his speeches in preparation for this contribution today. I congratulate him on this motion. I also rise to express, in this place, and obviously from my perspective, the concerns of my local Vietnamese community in Holt about human rights abuses in Vietnam. It is said, when you look at the official briefing papers, that Australia has enjoyed a strong bilateral relationship with Vietnam since the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1973. It is said that Australia is a leading study destination for Vietnamese students, with more than 23,000 student enrolments in Australian educational institutions and an estimated 10,000 students undertaking Australian education and training courses in Vietnam. This has apparently been aided by RMIT University beginning operations in 2001 in Vietnam as the first wholly owned foreign university in Vietnam. That is what is said. In Australia, I am proud to say that we have a wonderful Vietnamese community of over 150,000 people. The DFAT briefing paper says the number is 210,000. Regardless of the number, it is a wonderful community that makes a significant contribution to our country. I believe it is the fourth largest in the world outside of Vietnam. Since 1975, Vietnamese migrants have made a profound contribution to Australia through their culture, their history and what they bring to this country. They are a proud people who are deeply concerned about their country. Whilst, again, it is said that Australia builds closer ties with Vietnam, many Vietnamese people in Australia are deeply concerned about the previous, past and ongoing human rights abuses in Vietnam. The Vietnamese community that now calls Australia home enjoys the virtues of living in a democracy and universal human rights principles. They have freedom of expression. However, they desire that their relatives in their homeland enjoyed similar freedoms. Under the regime of the current Socialist Republic of Vietnam, such freedoms for many just do not exist. Instead, as we have heard from contributions from the member for Fowler and the other honourable member, the Vietnamese government continues to systematically suppress freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly. I have heard about the ninth Australia-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue, which my colleague the member for Fowler participates in. Whilst that presents an opportunity, it does not stop us in this place speaking with one loud, powerful voice on behalf of the Vietnamese community in our electorates across the country. I, my Victorian state colleague, Luke Donnellan, the member for Narre Warren North—who has actually been to Vietnam‑and obviously the member for Fowler and others consistently report, and will continue to report, to this parliament human rights abuses that continue in Vietnam. The Vietnamese government must be held accountable. I would like to thank Mr Tien Dung Kieu, the President of Vietnamese TV on Channel 31, for coming personally into my office to talk about the human rights abuses that have occurred and are occurring in Vietnam. He specifically brought to my attention the two young Vietnamese activists who were recently arrested and sentenced for criticising the government. Imagine if we did that in this country—we would arrest just about everybody. In Vietnam, basically, if you criticise your government you are put in prison. That is unacceptable. It does not matter if it is a socialist republic; it is unacceptable. As we have heard, last month student Nguyen Phuong Uyen and computer technician Dinh Nguyen Kha were convicted on subversion charges. It is interesting for young university students to be charged with subversion. According to the state media, that wonderfully free and august independent organisation, Nguyen Phuong Uyen and Dinh Nguyen Kha were arrested for handing out leaflets that: … distort the Party and the State’s policies related to religion and land, and exhibit a twisted viewpoint regarding the Spratly and Paracel islands and the border land between Vietnam and China. Those are two young university students. The state media—again, that independent organisation—accused the two of: … calling and agitating people to protest against the Communist Party of Vietnam and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. As I said, in other democracies, if people were put people on trial for distributing leaflets critical of the government, you would have a revolution on your hands. I find it incredible, and I know that is mirrored by the Vietnamese community that is here today, my Vietnamese community. They feel very deeply about the fact that, after a one-day trial, in May 2013, Nguyen Phuong Uyen—a young university student—was given six years in prison, whilst Dinh Nguyen Kha received eight years following a one-day trial. A one-day trial—that is a system of justice in a country isn't it? According to Human Rights Watch, Nguyen Phuong Uyen, 21, from Ham Thuan Bac district, Binh Thuan province, is a student‑as I said—at the capital's university. The police arrested Uyen on 14 October 2012 in Tan Phu district, and took her to the police station in the Tan Phu district's Tay Thanh ward without informing her family. Imagine if, in this country, your son or daughter, for protesting legitimately, was taken away, and you were not told where they were. Phuong Uyen's family and friends launched an intensive search for her by making inquiries at the police station and alerting the public via non-state channels, including the BBC and Radio Free Asia. It was not until eight days later‑eight days‑that an officer at the Tay Thanh police station told Uyen's mother that she had been transferred to the police of Long An province. On 23 October 2012 the Long An police acknowledged that Phuong Uyen had been charged with 'conducting propaganda against the state'—that is what free speech gets you in Vietnam—under article 88 of the penal code. According to the indictment, Nguyen Phuong Uyen was officially arrested on 19 October 2012, leaving five days unaccounted for by officials. According to reports, Phuong Uyen's mother claims that on a visit on 26 April 2013, she saw many bruises on her daughter's neck, upper chest and arms. Her mother said that Phuong Uyen told her that in detention she was beaten and kicked severely in the stomach. It was only when she fainted that prison guards came in to stop the beating and took her to see a doctor. Human rights in Vietnam! According to Human Rights Watch, Dinh Nguyen Kha was from the city of Tan An. On 10 October 2012, he allegedly dropped anti-government leaflets at the An Suong overpass in the capital. On 29 September 2012, the People's Court of Tan An City convicted and sentenced Dinh Nguyen Kha to two years in prison for 'intentionally dropping leaflets'. Don't hand out leaflets, because in Vietnam, particularly when they speak about freedom, they cause injury to others, according to the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. He was also charged with terrorism under article 84—a very convenient article. The Australian government must continue to strongly condemn these human rights abuses because they are nothing more than human rights abuses. On behalf of the Vietnamese community, we need to continue to raise these issues until the government changes its stance, until they treat their people with respect, until they afford their people the rights that Vietnamese people in this country have. I also want to briefly raise in the time I have remaining the ongoing case of Father Thadeus Nguyen Van Ly, a Catholic priest who has been nominated for the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize by members of the US Congress Chris Smith and Zoe Lofgren. We know the story of Father Ly, but what you might not know is that in 2006 my state parliamentary colleague Luke Donnellan, the member for Narre Warren North, visited Father Ly in March 2006 to discuss his treatment at the hands of the authorities. After visiting Father Ly in Vietnam, Mr Donnellan—a member of the state government—was banned by the Vietnamese government from visiting Vietnam for five years. This action by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to ban a Victorian member of parliament from visiting Vietnam is disappointing to say the least—and I am using diplomatic language. Mr Donnellan was standing up for the universal principles of protecting and defending human rights. Thank you, again, member for Fowler for this motion. We will continue to raise these ongoing issues and ongoing abuses. Young university students in this country can protest without imprisonment, without being beaten and without being taken off the streets. This happens in Vietnam. The government cannot conduct discussions with Vietnam without continuing to raise these issues. As long as I am in this place, we will continue to do so. 12:53 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Fowler and I congratulate him on it. His motion states: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) on 16 May 2013 two young activists, Nguyen Phuong Uyen, age 21, and Dinh Nguyen Kha, age 25, were sentenced to six and eight years, respectively, in jail by the People’s Court of Long An province in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; (b) the two activists were arrested for distributing literature protesting against China’s claims to the Paracel and Spratly Islands in the South China Sea; and (c) there are credible reports from various international agencies of continuing human rights violations in Vietnam which is evidenced by the high number of house detentions and imprisonment for people engaged in activities as basic as expressing views contrary to the Vietnamese Government’s position; and (2) calls on the Australian Government to: (a) refer the matters of Nguyen Phuong Uyen and Dinh Nguyen Kha, and other issues concerning human rights in Vietnam that have been raised in the Australian Parliament, to the next round of the Australia-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue; and (b) continue to take appropriate steps to convey to the Vietnamese Government that Australia expects Vietnam to honour its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Although Vietnam's economy has made many great strides over recent years, its record on human rights remains extremely poor. Today the socialist government of Vietnam virtually suppresses all forms of political dissent using a broad array of repressive measures. Freedom of expression and association and even public assembly are tightly controlled. Religious activists are harassed, intimidated and imprisoned. The criminal justice system lacks independence and operates under the direction of the government and the communist party. Vietnam's authoritarian penal code prohibits public criticism of the government and the Vietnamese communist party. We know that in 2012 at least 40 people were known to have been convicted and sentenced to prison merely for peaceful dissent, an increase on the number from 2011. And in the first five months of this year we have seen more than 50 people convicted in political show trials, more than the number for the whole of 2012. That brings us to the case of Nguyen Phuong Uyen and Dinh Nguyen Kha. Nguyen Phuong Uyen, at just 21 years of age, was a student at Ho Chi Minh University of Food Industry. The police arrested her on 14 October 2012 in Ho Chi Minh City and took her to the police station without even informing her family. Her family and friends then launched an extensive search for her by making inquiries of that very police station and alerting the public via non-state channels, including the BBC and Radio Free Asia. It was not until eight days after she had gone missing that an officer at that police station told her mother that she had actually been transferred to the police in Long An Province. On 23 October the Long An police acknowledged that she had been charged with 'conducting propaganda against the state' under article 88 of Vietnam's penal system. According to the indictment, Nguyen Phuong Uyen was officially arrested on 19 October, leaving five days during which here whereabouts were unaccounted for by officials. Her mother claims that on a visit on 26 April she saw many bruises on her daughter's neck, her upper chest and her arms. Her mother said that she told her that she was beaten and kicked severely in the stomach by guards in detention and that it was only when she fainted that the prison guards stopped the beating and took her to see a doctor. Following these sentences, the Asia director of Human Rights Watch noted: Putting people on trial for distributing leaflets critical of the government is ridiculous and shows the insecurity of the Vietnamese government … Writing things that do not please the government is only a crime in a dictatorship. Vietnam should stop using politically-controlled courts to convict critics of the government. The US embassy also issued a strong statement last month in light of these sentences handed down. It said: We are concerned by a Vietnamese court's sentencing of Dinh Nguyen Kha to eight years in prison and Nguyen Phuong Uyen to six years in prison on subversion charges. These convictions are part of a disturbing trend of Vietnamese authorities using charges under national security laws to imprison government critics for peacefully expressing their political views. These actions are inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression and, thus, Vietnam's obligation under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and commitments reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We call on the government to release prisoners of conscience and allow all Vietnamese to peacefully express their political views. That is the message from the US embassy. This is not the only case. I was very glad to hear the member for Holt raise the case of the Roman Catholic priest Nguyen Van Ly, also known as Father Thaddeus, who was detained for so-called spreading of propaganda against the state. What incentives are there currently for the Vietnamese socialist government to make changes to improve their human rights on record? It is all very well for us to come in here and make these well-intentioned motions, but we have to back it up with action. It is worthwhile noting that, as we are sitting here speaking in favour of this motion, our government is giving $160 million to the very same Vietnamese government that we are criticising to build a bridge across the Mekong River. I am sure this bridge will facilitate trade and economic growth in that region, but what message are we sending when our nation borrows $160 million that we do not have and gifts it to the Vietnamese government? How can that Vietnamese government take motions like this seriously when we are giving such generous gifts? Of course, us gifting them $160 million to build up their heavy infrastructure leaves the Vietnamese government free to spend their money elsewhere. So it is no surprise that what we have seen over recent years is a massive increase in Vietnamese military spending. Vietnam already spends more on defence as a proportion of GDP than all its South-East Asian neighbours—of course, except Singapore—spend. In December 2011, Hanoi signed a contract with Russia's defence export agency for two additional Durapart Corvettes. This follows the acceptance of two of the last four patrol boats in October. Confirmation was provided by senior Vietnamese military officials in mid 2011 that Hanoi had ordered six Kilo class submarines for 2013 to 2016—and it has begun to take delivery—as well as ordering 12 Sukhoi Su-30MKK fighter aircraft. These Soviet-made advance fighter aircraft cost $30 million a pop. Rather than our government giving the Vietnamese government $160 million to build a bridge, why don’t we cut out the middleman and give them five Soviet fighter aircrafts instead? If we are going to be serious, we have to be a very loud voice against what the Vietnamese government is doing. Sometimes, with our foreign aid programs, we just cannot isolate the two. In my remaining time, I would also like to commend the comments from the member for Cowan, who commented on the enormous contribution that the Vietnamese community have made to Australia through their entrepreneurial culture. To get the best economic advancement for that country, the socialist government of Vietnam must protect human rights and it must guarantee freedom of speech. If it can release the entrepreneurial spirit that we have seen from the Vietnamese community, the country of Vietnam has a great future. It will not do that while it continues to suppress human rights, while it continues to suppress free speech and while it continues to suppress religious liberty. We owe it to the people of Vietnam and to our local Vietnamese community to use our voice as loudly as we can to express our outrage against these violations by the Vietnamese government. 13:03 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I am very pleased to speak on this motion, which I seconded with the member for Fowler. I congratulate the member for Fowler for moving it and also for his longstanding advocacy for the cause of human rights in Vietnam. It is a matter very close to his heart, as it is to mine and to the hearts of many members across the House. This motion refers to some individual cases—and these are very concerning individual cases—the case of Nguyen Phuong Uyen, who is aged 21, and the case of Dinh Nguyen Kha, who is aged 25, who have been sentenced to six and eight years respectively. These are very substantial times in prison. This motion is useful because it uses these cases as examples of what is happening in Vietnam. Obviously, by expressing concern about these cases—and we are doing so very strongly—we are using these cases as examples of what is happening in Vietnam more generally. When you look at the sentences for these two young people, and they are very substantial sentences, it is worth looking at what crimes they are alleged to have committed. They have glued on to a tree trunk a slogan: 'Long An's patriot youths struggle for freedom and human rights'. On a wall they have glued a flag with the slogan '1890 to 1920 – National Flag of Great Vietnam'. They have publicised pictures and pamphlets calling into question the actions of the government and the Communist Party of Vietnam. These are things for which no-one should be imprisoned for even a day let alone six or eight years. These are people who are going about their business exercising their right to freedom of expression, which every single human being should hold. It is a right that the Vietnam government has previously recognised. Vietnam is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 states: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. It is a very clear statement of the rights of the people of Vietnam, which the government of Vietnam has recognised by signing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These two cases are concerning and deeply disturbing. It is appropriate that this motion be considered today, because the Australia-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue is underway today. And it is appropriate that this House expresses this very strong view on this day so that the government of Vietnam can be under no illusions just how concerned members of the Australian Parliament are not only about these two cases but about the human rights of Vietnamese people up and down Vietnam. Dozens of activists have been jailed since there was a crackdown on freedom of expression, in late 2009. Most people would, I think, correctly reach the conclusion that the government of Vietnam was very concerned about events in the Middle East—the Arab Spring—as one-party states were around the world. They were concerned that the sorts of examples we were seeing in the countries of the Middle East would spread. There are various ways you can deal with things like that. Unfortunately, it appears the government of Vietnam has chosen to deal with that threat, from their point of view, by not liberalising and not making things better, but by making things worse. That is something we cannot abide. It is true to say, and it should be recognised, that the government of Vietnam has over recent years introduced some economic reforms. They are good economic reforms. They have unleashed the power of the market and entrepreneurism, to a certain degree, and the Vietnamese economy and people have benefited from this. But that is nowhere near enough. If you are going to liberalise the economy you need to liberalise society as well. This is not to say that the Australian government would dictate to the government of Vietnam how it should run its country and how it should do its business. But it is right that the Australian Parliament very strongly expresses the view that the human rights of the people of Vietnam should be protected, promoted and enhanced. We need to do this not because it is our right, but because it is our obligation, because the people of Vietnam need somebody to speak on their behalf. The people of Vietnam need somebody to speak up for them, and here in this home of democracy in Australia it is perfectly appropriate that we do so. We have done so before. Motions have been moved in the House before by the member for Fowler, by me and by other honourable members. Back in 2006, I think, we signed a declaration—and I remember the member for Fowler signing it with me—in support of human rights in Vietnam. We organised this in support of the efforts of the pro-democracy group in Vietnam. That pro-democracy group is represented here in the parliament today in the form of representatives of Block 1706, and I recognise their attendance here today: Joachim, Boa Khanh, and the other members of the delegation. They are standing up and have been very strong advocates for the human rights of people in Vietnam, as have those elsewhere, who I recognise today, who could not be in the chamber today. I am referring to other Vietnamese Australians who have very strongly stood up for the rights of Vietnamese people. That is one thing about the Vietnamese community in Australia: the member opposite correctly referred to the spirit of entrepreneurism and the contribution made by Vietnamese Australians to our country. That is all true and appropriate. The member for Hughes is right to acknowledge that. But the other thing about the Vietnamese community in Australia is that they have not forgotten their brothers and sisters left in Vietnam and they have been, almost universally, in my experience, dedicated to ensuring that their human rights are not forgotten. Next week, there will be a celebration of the seventh anniversary of bloc 1706. I will be attending and the member for Fowler will be attending, as we have done in the past, because it is important that people in Vietnam putting human rights on the agenda do receive that support and encouragement. At some of those dinners in the past there have been telephone links to human rights activists in Vietnam, where we have personally provided encouragement to priests and others in Vietnam who have been expressing support for their human rights. These days, it is much harder to suppress people. It is much harder to deny people information through the information revolution. Today, 31 million people use the internet in Vietnam, compared to two million in 2000. The authorities are actively promoting the internet to support economic development and trade—that is a good thing—but they are also determined to control online content and to crack down on those who use the internet to denounce corruption, social inequalities or the lack of freedom of expression. It is deeply concerning that Reporters Without Borders ranks in Vietnam 172nd out of 179 countries in its Press Freedom Index for 2011-12. Criminal penalties apply to authors, publications, websites and internet users who disseminate materials deemed to oppose the government, threaten national security, reveal state secrets or promote 'reactionary' ideas. The government blocks access to politically sensitive websites, requires internet cafe owners to monitor and store information about users' online activities, and subjects independent bloggers and online critics to harassment and pressure. I have seen examples of this repeatedly. So far in 2013, at least 46 activists have been convicted of anti-state activity and sentenced to often lengthy jail terms under what rights groups say are vaguely defined articles of the penal code, most of which are contained in article 88 of the Criminal Code, on 'anti-state propaganda', which carries prison terms of up to 20 years. This is deeply concerning. I have met, as I said, many Vietnamese Australians who have been courageous in fighting for the cause of democracy in Vietnam, where some of them have suffered great hardship, time in prison and forcible separation from their loved ones, and they have continued that fight here in Australia. It is a fight which they will continue and which we will continue to support them in. As I say, it is right and appropriate that the government of Vietnam be under no illusions as to how strongly members of the Australian parliament feel about these matters. I have said in the past at various functions that democracy will come to Vietnam—and it will. There is nothing more certain because it will eventually come to all nations. But it will only come because of the courage and tenacity of people who stand up for the rights of Vietnamese people. 13:13 Dr JENSEN DYN Tangney Vietnam served as the chair of ASEAN in 2010 and has since demonstrated little respect for core principles in the ASEAN charter to strengthen democracy and protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms. The economic advances of Asia in the last quarter-century have been nothing short of astounding. Since Doi Moi, or economic liberalisation, growth has been miraculous, lifting millions out of poverty. But lifting people out of poverty is not enough. Important is the way in which it is done. The world needs more good growth. This differentiation is widespread in economics, and the united opinion of commentators from Amartya Sen to Greg Mankiew is that the world needs more good growth, or conscientious capitalism. To guarantee further good growth and responsible growth cognisant of human rights and the benefits thereof, Australia should have a greater say. This motion is all about getting this place to put responsibility before reticence. It is about standing up. We are talking about Asia—this is where we live. The people we are talking about here are our neighbours. To paraphrase former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, we must have an interest for selfless and selfish reasons. Our interest in issues in Vietnam goes beyond the altruistic; we have economic and security interests in the region. One half of the world's seaborne trade travels through the region surrounding the Paracel and Spratly Islands. Our parliament should mirror the concerns held by The Australian regarding China and its intention in the region, remembering that prudence is to look at processes and proceedings, not just pronouncements. This would mean asking more, and more difficult, questions of China and its desire to engage claimants to the disputed territories of the Paracel and Spratly Islands in bilateral dialogues. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. This speaks to our values. As an Australian and a free person I am concerned. I cite the case of Nguyen Phuong Uyen and Dinh Nguyen Kha. Vietnam is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I call upon Vietnam to step up and honour their words and commitments. The time is now, and the opportunity is the Australia-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue. Under the current constitution, the Communist Party of Vietnam is the only one allowed to rule, the operation of all the political parties being outlawed. This is the main problem in terms of political freedom. Other human rights issues concern freedom of association, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I draw attention to Freedom House reports that a provincial court in Vietnam convicted 14 activists of 'subversion of authority', sentencing 13 of the activists to three to 13 years in prison and giving one activist a suspended sentence. The 14 activists, which include students, bloggers and citizen journalists were accused of having ties to the banned Viet Tan network and were tried together in a sham trial that lasted only two days. Most of the activists are Catholic, a group often persecuted in Vietnam, reflecting the government's poor record on religious freedom. Freedom House is also concerned by reports that several of the family members and supporters of the activists who peacefully gathered outside the courthouse were harassed, assaulted and detained by police officers. This is the latest escalation in the government's persecution of free speech advocates. Le Quoq Quan, a blogger who was arrested on 27 December and subsequently began a hunger strike to protest his detention, has been denied visits from his family and lawyer. Freedom of expression is severely curtailed in Vietnam, and the country is rated 'not free' in Freedom in the World 2012, Freedom of the Press 2012 and Freedom on the Net 2012. Harassment of cyber-activists has been on the rise since 2008, with the government engaging in a targeted campaign against critics, cracking down on blogs and social media, and harassing and detaining independent bloggers and their families. The government restricts religious practices through legislation, registration requirements, harassment and surveillance. A centrally directed police unit, A41, monitors groups the authorities consider religious extremists. Religious groups are required to register with the government and operate under government controlled management boards. The government bans any religious activity deemed to oppose national interests, harm national unity, cause public disorder or sow divisions. Adherents of the same unregistered religious groups and religious activists campaigning for internationally guaranteed rights are harassed, arrested, imprisoned or placed under house arrest. In just January of this year police used tear gas and electric batons to disperse villagers from Dong Chiem parish, near Hanoi, who were trying to stop police from taking down a crucifix. Australia should advocate for a conscientious capitalism. It is not beyond our right and duty to wish to see greater human rights and freedoms in Vietnam, but I urge all in this place to be conscious of the need for economic development—for it is true that, if we have nothing, it is easy to share. The pie needs to be grown. The greatest example of the liberating revelation of democratic capitalism is that today in the West the average person has a lifestyle that the wealthiest kings in Europe could only dream of a short time ago. The two young activists were convicted of conducting propaganda against the state. They were convicted for handing out leaflets that distorted the party and the state's policy in relation to religion and land and exhibit a twisted viewpoint regarding the Spratly and Paracel Islands in the borderland between Vietnam and China. The conviction of these two young people shows the insecurity of the Vietnamese government, and acting in this way is akin to dictatorship. The police arrested Phuong Uyen and took her to the police station without informing her family. The family was not aware of where she was for eight days and only became aware of her whereabouts after searching for her and making a public search for her. Her family were eventually told of her detention at another police station—after over one week of worrying and searching. If these allegations took place as stated by her mother, this is in contravention of human rights and everything that the Australia-Vietnam human dialogue stands for. The Australia-Vietnam human rights dialogue is meant to demonstrate the maturity of Australia's relationship with Vietnam. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 13:21 to 13:40 Dr JENSEN DYN It provides both countries with an opportunity for open, frank and constructive discussion about human rights issues. Previous dialogue has included freedom of expression and association. The dialogue provides an opportunity for Australia to raise a number of individual cases of human rights concern. It is now needed more than ever for this individual case to be discussed in the next round of the Australia-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue. Dinh Nguyen Kha, a student at university, was convicted of dropping 2,000 anti-government leaflets at an overpass in Ho Chi Minh City. Clearly, this was an act of peaceful demonstration. All people charged with an offence worldwide should be given access to lawyers and doctors. Keeping people behind closed doors only creates more speculation as to their maltreatment. There have been calls by international agencies to say that there is a need to put new pressures on the Vietnamese government, as there has been a worsening crackdown on dissent in the recent year. Whilst all other international intervention could be discussed in the future, it is important to effectively use the dialogue that we already have in place. If the claims that cracking down on dissent is worsening are true, these dialogues and open communication between our governments are needed more than ever. If Australia believes that the protection and promotion of human rights is vital to global efforts to achieve lasting peace, security and dignity for all, then it is obvious that we need to voice our concern in regard to the arrest and detention of these two young activists. It should be strongly heard that there is an expectation that Vietnam honour its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Australians know the price of freedom. Freedom is not free, but it is a price that should not be paid in blood. 13:42 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I also rise today to raise awareness of the Vietnamese government's abuse of human rights, and I thank the member for Fowler for putting forward the motion with regard to human rights dialogue in Vietnam. I chair the Vietnamese Ministerial Consultative Committee with the member for Fowler. We recently had a meeting in Canberra where we heard from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Carr; the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Mr O'Connor; the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Mental Health Reform, Mr Butler and the Minister for Human Services, Senator McLucas. This is a regular issue that has been raised over the last few years. In Queensland, there are more than 11,000 people whose country of birth was Vietnam. In my electorate, I have nearly 3,000 constituents who were born in Vietnam or who had parents born in Vietnam. This issue has regularly been raised with me, particularly because the Queensland community has been shaped so much by Vietnamese Australians. I am only going to mention this briefly because of time constraints. I do commend the motion put forward by the member for Fowler. As one of the convenors of Amnesty International, I got to take along a petition signed by many people—probably some in this room—to the Vietnamese Embassy to raise some of the concerns put forward by Vietnamese Australians, and all Australians who believe in justice for some of the goings on in Vietnam. I know that we will only change by engaging, and we have lots of opportunities as a nation, and through diplomacy, to make a change in Vietnam. I hope that it comes quickly. I think it is the role of every Australian tourist who goes to Vietnam to raise this issue. Our economic power as tourists should be used to create change when we go to Vietnam. I know that it is difficult for the Vietnamese Australians because they have family members and contacts, and there can be pressure put to bear. As we have heard from many of the speakers previously, when you can receive 20 years in jail just for raising a legitimate concern, Vietnam is a long, long way from democracy. It will come, but it will only be through the advocacy of countries like Australia. Debate adjourned. Sitting suspended from 13:46 to 16:0 1 BILLS 5959 BILLS Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2013 5959

Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2013

Second Reading 5959 16:01 Dr STONE EM6 Murray I am pleased to have the opportunity to continue my remarks on this matter. The anti-dumping legislation before us is a significant improvement on what we had before. I recommend, though, to the chamber, the coalition anti-dumping policy, which goes even further towards giving Australia a modern, flexible, cost-effective system of anti-dumping and countervailing measures. The fact is that Australia has been lagging for many years behind other countries in steadfastly refusing to consider what imports were unfairly competing against our Australian products. There were 189 anti-dumping and countervailing cases initiated around the world in 2005-06. The highest number of initiated cases were by India, with 30 cases. Then came the EU with 26 cases, followed by China with 16 cases and Argentina with 16 cases. South Korea and New Zealand were not far behind. They were in the top 12 users of anti-dumping actions. The three countries with the most measures in force were the USA, India and the EU. Measures usually last five years but can be extended. The number of new anti-dumping or countervailing cases initiated by Australia has been low over recent years, especially compared with the early 1990s. We turned our back on our manufacturers and primary producers when it came to their pleas for anti-dumping or countervailing actions that would give them a fair go—some sort of evening-up of the duties—so that they could compete, employ, create value, generate income for their nation and export, themselves. The petroleum, coal, chemical and associated products industry has been the largest initiator of anti-dumping and countervailing actions in Australia. China is the largest target of the largest number of anti-dumping initiated measures around the world. Around 40 per cent of all cases involve China. China also brings a lot of cases against others. As far as food is concerned, most countries respond to Chinese imports by imposing higher food safety standards through the sanitary and phytosanitary measures agreements. In Australia we have done neither. So there is clearly a situation where we have often seen our own food manufacturers go to the wall. We have seen numbers of them go off shore, given the combination of high costs in Australia and their belief that it is too hard, too unfair and impossible to bring an anti-dumping action. There is only one investigation reported that relates to measures by Australia imposed upon China or South Africa with respect to food products. This was in relation to preserved mushrooms imported from China. Interim measures were imposed on 12 January 2006. The USA has a number of anti-dumping measures in place in respect to China, including crawfish, shrimps, prawns, preserved mushrooms, fresh garlic and honey. Interestingly, in Australia's case, we are most concerned at the plight of SPC Ardmona. They are competing with imported product grabbed by the supermarkets Coles and Woolworths and which is put into their name brands, competing unfairly on the shelves. New Zealand has long had an anti-dumping measure against China and South Africa with respect to canned peaches. Anti-dumping measures were introduced against South Africa, for canned peaches, in 1996 and continue to this day after the 2008 and 2010 reassessments. Anti-dumping duties on imports of preserved peaches from China were introduced by New Zealand in 2006 and reassessed and reimposed in July 2012. Quite simply, our competitors, our neighbours and other signatories of the WTO have been very active in defending and supporting their own country's manufacturing or fresh-food imports. It is about time Australia got with the strength. It is a case of maturity on the part of our country. Too many people scream: 'Subsidies!'. They scream: 'Protection!' when someone talks about lawful, WTO consistent, legal, anti-dumping or countervailing duties being imposed. It is time we grew up—before we lose all of our manufacturing sector. I commend this bill and the various elements of the bill, and I commend our coalition policy. We obviously support these amendments and look forward to a stronger regime following the next election. We say: may our manufacturers and primary producers—our fresh-food producers—take heart. 16:07 Mrs MIRABELLA 00AMU Indi In rising to speak on the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2013 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2013 I point out that these bills represent a fifth set of anti-dumping changes introduced by the government in reasonably quick succession. I will therefore happily use the opportunity to return to a number of points I made in previous debates; however, it is certainly not my intention to exhaustively retrace a lot of old ground or to speak for a particularly long time on these bills. I also will not use this debate to extensively restate the coalition's policy on anti-dumping that preceded any significant government action in this area. In short, we have actively been pushing for a series of revisions to the anti-dumping regime since before the 2010 election—in other words, long before Labor finally started to signal its own intentions to make changes. We have also consistently said that we support changes to the current anti-dumping regime, wherever those changes are sensible and practical. We are happy to accept the government's assurances that the changes embodied in these two bills meet those tests. We are comfortable about supporting the changes that free up the minister's powers and decision-making scope in connection with the lesser-duty rule. On the surface, there is also nothing wrong with the principle of amending the operation within Australia of the retrospective duties provisions, particularly if that means—as is implied by the changes in the legislation and the description in the explanatory memorandum—the main intent is to make sure that those provisions work more like those in other countries. We also do not object to the stated reasons for the introduction of new provisions relating to anti-circumvention, given that it has essentially been said the logic behind these changes is to extend the range of options available to the government to deal with anti-circumvention, including addressing the practice of sales at a loss and other attempts to evade the full payment of duties. In other words, we are taking the government at its word—albeit it is usually an unwise approach when dealing with the current government—and accepting that its changes will provide the minister with enhanced discretion in considering the level and timing of the application of duties to those companies that are found to have dumped goods in Australia as well as allow for a greater uniformity of approach between Australia and other countries. All of that said, it is worth restating the point that I have made many times on several anti-dumping bills over the course of the past two years—namely, that effective administration of the national anti-dumping system relies far more on political will and common sense than it does purely on legislative change, in and of itself. The coalition has a strong record on this. We have just heard from the member for Murray specifically about local concerns in agriculture and food processing and the issue of dumping there. It has had a very serious impact, particularly in our home state of Victoria. It has now been over a month and a half since the case for the application of WTO emergency safeguard action was submitted to the government by SPC Ardmona's managing director, Peter Kelly. As far as we know there still is no decision from the trade minister, Mr Emerson, about whether the government will enforce those emergency safeguard provisions. This is an issue of critical importance to our region and also for Australia—it is an iconic company. Also, it is critical for the orchard industry as a whole. It will affect a much wider range of jobs that are linked to fruit growing, particularly in Victoria. So it is an urgent matter and I press the minister to expedite his deliberations and give us a decision in the next couple of weeks if not in the next few days. I hope the minister can take time away from the distraction of the dysfunction and division within the government, which cannot even decide who should be their leader and our Prime Minister. There are pressing issues that this country wants the government to make decisions on. The issue with SPC Ardmona, the dumping and the urgent decision required from the trade minister are decisions far more important than the playing of games behind closed doors, continuing the dysfunction and division within a truly embarrassing government. For a moment just take a day out from that and make a decision for the people of the Goulburn Valley, for the people of Victoria and in the interests of food processing and the orchard industry in this country. If a policymaker's heart genuinely is not in addressing the cumbersome, expensive and confusing processes that have often plagued our anti-dumping system, then it is very unlikely that serious improvements are going to be delivered. To its credit the government has finally come to the party and tried to catch up on the coalition's plan to significantly improve resourcing of the anti-dumping system, and that is eminently a good thing and something that at long last is welcome from this government. Although, it brings a wry smile to my face to recall that when the opposition released its policy there were howls of protectionism from some government ministers, including Mr Emerson, only to be silent when the government followed suit, albeit with their B-grade copy of our policy. This is a triumph for good policy and the national interest, because anti-dumping and enhancing the quality and integrity of anti-dumping investigations are critical steps that should help to bring cases to speedier and more effective resolution. That is something we on the coalition side have said for a very long time. But, to go one step further, let us remember that sensible policy in this area of anti-dumping represents only one part of a much wider response that is now needed to the problems and crises that are besetting Australian manufacturing. I despair when I see the statistics that say more than 140,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in Australia over the last five years. That is an unprecedented record. It is one job lost every 19 minutes. People say, 'But we have been losing manufacturing jobs for a long time,' but listen to this statistic: under the whole term of the Howard government there were over one million people employed in manufacturing and we had a net loss of under 7,000. So there is a crisis and there are many businesses in crisis, and anti-dumping is but a small and critical part in addressing some of the issues faced by many manufacturers. On top of that, we can add the broader loss of 243,000 small business jobs under Labor, another indicator of atrocious economic policy. And possibly, from all that I can see and hear, there will be even worse to come in manufacturing and small business between now and the end of the year. In the meantime, and against that backdrop, I reaffirm that the coalition will be supporting these two bills. Any changes to legislation that are genuinely likely to improve the decision-making process and strip away unnecessary cost and time delays from the system should be allowed to pass, and the coalition will continue to facilitate that. If we are privileged enough to win the next election, we also look forward to the potential opportunity to implement our own anti-dumping policy and agenda that we publicly announced 18 months ago to deliver to this country a world-class anti-dumping regime. 16:16 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I thank members who have contributed to the debate on the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Measures) Bill 2013 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2013. I was going to make a very short speech. It is a bit rich to be lectured by the member for Indi. She is a shadow minister in a political party that wants to take half a billion dollars out of a manufacturing sector that manufactures cars in this country—which, of course, supports 255,000 jobs in her home state of Australia—so it is a bit rich to be lectured by her in relation to manufacturing. I would like to give a bit of a history lesson in terms of legislative achievement and reform. As the Minister for Home Affairs said when he introduced the bills, this is the sixth tranche of anti-dumping legislation to be introduced into the parliament in the last two years. That is worth noting, and we should consider the reform in these two pieces of legislation in that context. The first tranche, passed by this parliament in November 2011, imposed a time limit on prime ministerial decisions in anti-dumping and countervailing cases. It also clarified that all appropriate and relevant factors which may materially injure an Australian industry are specifically listed as factors to which a minister could have regard in exercising his discretion. It clarified that parties with a clear interest in anti-dumping matters are expressly given an opportunity to participate in anti-dumping investigations. In fact, it enhanced their locus standi. Tranche 2, which passed the parliament in February last year, established a new appeals process—the review officer panel to replace the existing appeals mechanism established in the legislation—and established the International Trade Remedies Forum in legislation. Tranche 3 made several changes, including removing the limitation to the inclusion of profit when constructing a normal value of a good and removing the need for a separate review of anti-dumping measures and a continuation inquiry when they occurred in close proximity to one another. Tranche 4 better aligned the anti-dumping and countervailing system with the system's WTO counterparts; introduced provisions designed to address the circumvention of trade measures; and strengthened the ability of the anti-dumping system to address parties' non-cooperation during the investigation process. Tranche 5, which passed parliament in March, established the Australian Anti-Dumping Commission. I would like to see what the member for Indi said in relation to that. I am pleased that they have offered their support in relation to those pieces of legislation that have passed. The sixth tranche of legislation, to which these bills relate, pertains to three key things: removing in certain circumstances the need for the minister to consider the lesser duty rule; clarifying the application of existing retrospective duties provisions; and introducing a new type of anti-circumvention inquiry to address the sales at a loss cases. I do not propose to look in detail at those three measures. They are part of the package of reform. These bills, with the previous five tranches of legislation, are the most significant improvement to Australia's anti-dumping regime in more than a decade. We are doing what the Howard government failed to do when they were in office. We are assisting the manufacturing industry to make sure that trade in this country is both free and fair. Our economy is strong, but some industries and some regions continue to do it tough. This legislation particularly helps my electorate of Blair where there is a large manufacturing base in Ipswich. Industry, companies and workers are damaged when goods from overseas are dumped on the Australian market. It is unfair and that is why it is important we have a fair and effective anti-dumping regime. These reforms ensure that we better align our laws with the laws and practices of other countries, particularly those in our region. We believe in fair trade, free trade and open trade. We benefit from access to overseas markets. We are a great trading nation in terms of our goods and services, and imports also benefit our consumers and Australian businesses. The reforms in these bills will help provide certainty and confidence for business, while ensuring that we meet our WTO obligations. I commend the bills to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 5964 16:21 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I move Australian Greens amendment (1), as circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 14), after item 6, insert: 6A At the end of Division 1 of Part XVB    Add: 269TBAA Access to import data (1) For the purposes of subsection 16(2) of the Customs Administration Act 1985, a person is authorised to make a record of, and to disclose to any person, protected information (within the meaning of that section) that is import data. (2) Despite section 12 of the Census and Statistics Act 1905 and any determination made under section 13 of that Act, the Statistician (within the meaning of that Act) must publish all import data. (3) For the purposes of this section, import data means the following information about individual shipments of goods exported to Australia:    (a) country of origin;    (b) the type of goods;    (c) the volume of the shipment;    (d) the value of the shipment;    (e) any other details about the shipment of the goods specified by the Minister by legislative instrument. The Greens support the measures being taken by the government and welcome the opportunity to propose an improvement to the bill. One issue that has been raised and that would be familiar to those who have been following this issue for some time is the difficulty that is sometimes faced by people who want to either bring complaints or potentially elevate that to proceedings when they feel they have been the victim of dumping. The amendment moved by the Greens would allow persons to have access to import data. This is essentially the same kind of import data that is already required to be provided. It would assist in the enforcement of the measures contained in this bill. I commend the amendment to the House. 16:22 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I thank the member for Melbourne for his support in relation to previous legislation in this area. But the government cannot support this particular amendment, based on the advice of the Australian Statistician. The Australian Bureau of Statistics is founded on strong legislation that protects its independence. That legislation protects the confidentiality of individual and company information provided to the ABS. The amendment would significantly alter that protection, with the likely detriment to the work of the ABS. It is important that the ABS works closely with applicants and with Customs and Border Protection in anti-dumping cases. The information the ABS provides is often vital to the success of any application. The amendment is not the appropriate mechanism to support collaboration between the ABS and anti-dumping applicants. So, regrettably, I say to the member for Melbourne that we do not support his application and his amendment. Question negatived. Bill agreed to. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2013 5965

Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2013

Second Reading 5965 Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2013 5965

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2013

Second Reading 5965 16:24 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2013 deals with a number of measures, all of which are unrelated. I think that is a relatively disappointing aspect of it. It lumps together all of these things, some of which are benign and technical amendments but some of which require greater attention in the parliament. I will touch on each of the measures contained within this bill and explain the coalition's hesitation to support all of these measures without some further examination. Schedule 1 includes amendments to ensure the effective operation of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. As stated in the bill's explanatory memorandum, the purpose of this schedule is to amend the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 and the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006. By doing this the bill seeks to improve the Integrity Commissioner's ability to access information held by the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre and to improve the ability of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity to second employees of police forces who are not sworn police officers. This appears to be a relatively sensible thing for the government to be pursuing. Amendments contained within schedule 2 seek to support victims of slavery, slavery-like offences and people trafficking offences. The bill amends the Crimes Act and chapter 8 of the Criminal Code to ensure that victims and witnesses in Commonwealth criminal proceedings are afforded appropriate support and protection. This measure does enjoy the full support of the coalition, and any measures that we can take as a parliament to improve the prosecution and to support victims of what are very heinous crimes should be welcomed by all members in this place. Schedule 3 seeks to make amendments regarding people smuggling. This particular schedule is of concern to the coalition. I will come back to our concerns once I have gone through the other couple of schedules. Schedule 4 makes amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006. The purpose of these anti-money-laundering amendments to the act is to ensure that review of decisions of the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre is efficient and effective, strengthen existing offences and add the Clean Energy Regulator and the Integrity Commissioner of Tasmania as designated agencies. Schedule 4 amends the act to strengthen the Commonwealth anti-money-laundering legislation and counterterrorism finance and legislative framework. Schedule 5 seeks to make amendments to facilitate assistance to the United Nations Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals. This schedule of the bill will amend the International War Crimes Tribunals Act 1995 and the International Transfer of Prisoners Act 1997 to recognise the United Nations Residual Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals. This is a reasonable amendment that ensures Australia can continue to provide assistance to these tribunals and therefore has the support of the coalition. Schedule 6 contains miscellaneous amendments including updates to the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 in relation to the provision of policing and regulatory services in the external territories. The AFP Act currently provides that the minister responsible for the AFP and the administrator of an external territory may enter into arrangements for the provision of police and regulatory services in that external territory. This no longer reflects the governance arrangements for some of the external territories whose responsibility for policy decisions and arrangements for the provision of services now rests with the minister responsible for these territories. The purpose of these amendments is to update the AFP Act so that the minister responsible for the AFP may enter into arrangements with either the administrator or the minister responsible for an external territory. This has happened on the back of the fact that the government has changed the minister responsible for external territories; therefore, this just follows up on some of the administrative arrangements required for policing, particularly in an emergency situation, within any of Australia's external territories. Although most of the schedules contained within this bill do not trouble the coalition, schedule 3, which deals with people smuggling, does need to be further investigated by the Senate and that is what we are recommending happens. As I mentioned earlier, the coalition holds concerns regarding schedule 3. This part of the bill proposes to ensure that the prosecution bears the onus of proof in establishing age, and removes references to wrist X-rays in the Crimes Act 1914 from materials that can be used to determine age. Item 1 of Schedule 3 omits the words 'a photograph (including X-ray photograph) or any other record or information' from the Crimes Act, and substitutes 'a record of information'. The bill's explanatory memorandum says: The intention of this item is to remove X-ray photographs from the definition of age determination information. This amendment is necessary to respond to concerns about the accuracy of wrist X-ray materials in making a determination in relation to a person's age. Additionally, the bill makes a number of technical and enabling amendments to streamline investigations and prosecutions for people-smuggling crew, which appear quite sensible, but which will need to be further investigated by a Senate committee. I wish to address this matter relating to wrist x-rays a little further. The government is putting forward an argument that the use of wrist x-rays to determine age has been widely discredited. However, there are vastly differing opinions on this matter, and the coalition is hesitant to approve the government's rushed amendments when we have not had a chance to fully examine this bill in great detail, given it was introduced in the last sitting fortnight. The government has put forward the argument that the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in its inquiry into the Crimes Amendment (Fairness for Minors) Bill 2011 determined that the use of wrist x-rays has been discredited. However, the Australian Federal Police, on 6 June 2011, issued a clarification regarding the process used to determine the age of alleged people smugglers. The AFP said: The current age determination process requires a wrist x-ray to be undertaken on all persons who claim to be a juvenile. The process involves utilising the Radiographic Atlas of Skeletal Development of the Hand and Wrist. The AFP relies upon an independent medical expert to interpret the x-ray and determine the age of the person. The test provides an assessment of age between 11 and 19 years. The AFP relies upon the report that is then generated by the medical expert determining the age of the person. Where a person tests at 19 years of age, the AFP will typically proceed with the charging of this person as an adult in accordance with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecution's prosecution policy of the Commonwealth, and a brief of evidence is submitted by the AFP to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. This method of age determination has been tested and successful before Australian courts of law. On 6 December 2011, the then Minister for Home Affairs, Brendan O'Connor, announced that he had discussed the age determination process for people-smuggling crew with Indonesian ministers and officials as part of a visit to Jakarta. After discussions with the Indonesians, Minister O'Connor stated on 7 December 2011: What we have made very clear to the Indonesian government is that we will set in place an administrative arrangement where the matter is not referred to the AFP but there will be a determination by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, and then the International Office of Migration will accompany those minors home as quickly as possible. In Senate estimates on 14 February 2012, the AFP confirmed the new procedural changes that occurred following the minister's discussions with Indonesia. Following the changes, if the Department of Immigration and Citizenship makes a determination that a crew member on a people-smuggling vessel is a juvenile, they are not referred to the AFP and the person is usually voluntarily deported. The AFP also confirmed at the estimates hearing that if the crew member was assessed by DIAC to be an adult they would be referred to the AFP for investigation. These changes made by the government do not appear to be well considered. As a result, any further changes they seek to make in the use of wrist X-rays need to be thoroughly examined. This government has a history of making ill considered policy and legislative blunders, particularly in relation to people-smuggling, which is why we in the opposition believe it would be prudent for the Senate committee to examine this bill in greater detail—as we have not been allowed enough time to consider this rather large bill that contains these many divergent measures. I want to conclude by saying that the coalition does not oppose the passage of the bill through the House. However, as I said, we believe that some of the issues should be examined further by a Senate committee and reserve the right to move amendments in the Senate pending recommendations made by that committee. I know that we are in the final sitting fortnight of this parliament, mercifully for the Australian people, but it would be wise if the government would allow the Senate to have due consideration of what is contained within this bill. Most of the measures would seem to be relatively uncontroversial, although they are many and varied. In fact, it might have been better handled by the government if some of these measures were contained within different bills, because they really bear no relationship to one another at all. In particular, we are concerned about removing the wrist X-ray from the age identification process for people smugglers. Clearly, we want to be able to have some sort of mechanism that allows law enforcement officials to make some sensible determination of age, and of course that is not necessarily easy to do. The wrist X-ray, although it is subject to debate, is one way that we can reasonably do that. I would be particularly interested in what the Senate committee would find out about the use of wrist X-rays. Obviously that could inform the discussions that the Senate has in any proposed amendments, if they were to come up in that place. On that note, I will leave it there. I hope that the government will see a normal and sensible time frame through for a bill of this nature, particularly considering it contains such a diverse range of measures. 14:36 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I join in support of the passage of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Bill in the House. The bill makes a number of significant improvements with respect to Commonwealth criminal law—for instance, to ensure greater protection of witnesses and victims, particularly with respect to proceedings under the federal act in relation to slavery and people-trafficking issues. The bill makes relevant amendments to ensure that we are responsive to the threats of national security and strengthen laws in relation to people smuggling. When it comes to amendments relating to victim and witness protection in criminal proceedings, this bill extends the protections currently available to child witnesses in federal criminal proceedings to adult victims and special witnesses, particularly with respect to slavery and human trafficking matters. With respect to proceedings for slavery, slavery-like and human trafficking offences, the bill will also amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to allow courts to hear evidence by video link from witnesses outside Australia. I have spoken a number of times in this place about my strong views against heinous crimes against humanity, particularly when it comes to slavery and human trafficking. This bill will ensure that witnesses in criminal proceedings receive the highest level of support and protection. Witnesses are vital to these proceedings and every effort should be taken to ensure they are protected from possible re-traumatisation or fear for their safety and undue public embarrassment due to their involvement in any such proceedings. We just heard a little about the Migration Act 1958. This bill also amends the Migration Act. It contains certain changes in regulating the process of investigating, prosecuting and sentencing people smugglers. The amendment will also ensure that the onus of proof in establishing the age of a people smuggler lies with the prosecution. To date wrist X-rays have been used to determine whether a person is a juvenile or an adult. As I understand it, great concern has been expressed over the accuracy of the X-ray methods for determining age. So it is considered appropriate that it falls on the prosecution to establish, through appropriate investigative means, the age of the person being charged. A whole series of things can be taking into consideration. The vast majority of young people who are X-rayed are from Indonesia, and it is appropriate that the Australian Federal Police, in the conduct of their investigations, liaise with their Indonesian counterparts with a view to determining, positively, the ages of the persons charged, as opposed simply to relying on the validity of wrist X-rays. We were all, once again, distressed last week when we learnt of another 55 people from an asylum-seeker boat dying at sea. The measures in this bill are not, in any way, meant to frustrate the investigation or prosecution of persons involved in people smuggling. If anything, they are meant to mainstream the activities in those investigations and the way that they are carried out. One thing that always sticks in my mind when we talk about people smuggling is that every boat that we hear of—whether it has arrived on our shores or is likely to be lost at sea—is a million-dollar profit centre. Not one of these vessels is operated for altruistic motives. As I said, these vessels, operate on the basis of a $1 million profit per vessel. So the people-smuggling trade is alive and well. It exploits the vulnerable and it does not give guarantees of arrival in Australia, despite what people might think. These unscrupulous people smugglers play on the concerns of vulnerable people to get them to part with their money in order to arrange a passage. When I was in Indonesia I had the opportunity to speak not only with the Australian Federal Police over there but with their Indonesian counterparts. I know full well about the way some of these operations have been established. I know that in many instances the vessels are commissioned. The people on the vessels are provided with a compass. A mobile phone, pre-dialled with the number of the Australian authorities, is given to them. They are told how long they should be at sea before they dial the number. The people who are running these operations take very few risks. One of the things that was also clearly established when I was there is that the people smugglers have a preference for recruiting very young people to crew these vessels, on the basis that if they are young enough they will be returned and avoid criminal prosecution. So it is in determining the age of these crew members it is in our interest to work with the Indonesians on these matters. Very briefly, I would like to talk about the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, which is also amended by this legislation, particularly with respect to new public sector anti-corruption arrangements in Victoria. On many occasions I have spoken in this place about the value of telecommunication interception. It is a very powerful tool in contemporary law enforcement, particularly at this time, when police are being challenged in terms of technology by those operating on the other side of the fence. Gone are the days when we would refer to the crooks as poor, uneducated people with limited resources to make good their crimes. A lot of planning and a lot of technology goes into the developing of a criminal enterprise. This amendment allows police not only to intercept telecommunication information but, more importantly, to disrupt and prevent the commissioning of a crime. For every crime that is committed one thing is certain; there is always a victim. Telecommunications interception is one of the most powerful tools that we have currently in law enforcement in terms of disrupting and preventing criminal enterprise. One of the things that I have also learnt is that while criminals are everything that we think they are, they are also businesspeople. They are out there with a very clear profit motive and they are going to exploit that. If we have loopholes in our legislation that apply from one state to another, you can expect those loopholes to be exploited by those who operate criminal enterprise. This moves to shut down one of those areas of inconsistency that apply and the way they apply in the state of Victoria. I know the minister is here, and I might let him go ahead and sum up. I think I am the last speaker, but in relation to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006, the amendments it makes to AUSTRAC are very good, particularly in addressing the issues of involving the Clean Energy Regulator. The AFP have been flagging that as an area of potential involvement of organised crime for some time. To involve the Clean Energy Regulator and ensure that the jurisdiction of the Australian Commissioner for Law Enforcement Integrity has oversight of that, as well as allowing the Integrity Commissioner of Tasmania to be able to access AUSTRAC material, are very good. This bill shows that the government is serious about looking at the vast suite of arrangements necessary to combat serious and organised crime. My friend might have been a little forgiving when he wanted to make a complaint about certain parts of this legislation because it is many and varied. What this shows is that we are ensuring that changes are made where changes need to be made to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have access to the best suite of technology necessary to do the job that we require them to do and protect our communities. 16:47 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I would like to thank members for their contributions to the debate on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2013. This bill delivers on Australian government priorities to combat corruption, protect vulnerable witnesses and victims, and strengthen Australia's response to people smuggling. It contains a range of measures that will improve powers to investigate corruption within Commonwealth law enforcement agencies, support victims and witnesses during criminal proceedings, and contains new measures to deter people smuggling. These measures include removing references to wrist X-rays as a prescribed procedure for determining whether people-smuggling crew are minors and clarifying that the prosecution bears the onus of proof in establishing age where age is contested during a prosecution. The member for Stirling suggested that there should be some further inquiry or examination of these measures. This is not necessary. The member for Stirling should note that there have already been two inquiries into this area and that these amendments address recommendations made by both. In particular, these measures address recommendations made by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee report into the detention of Indonesian minors in Australia, and the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's report into the Crimes Amendment (Fairness for Minors) Bill 2011. One could add that they address recommendations made by the Australian Human Rights Commission's report of the inquiry into the treatment of individuals suspected of people-smuggling offences who say that they are children. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2013 will extend support to witnesses in Commonwealth criminal proceedings who are vulnerable either due to the nature of the offence or due to personal circumstances such as age, background or disability. These protections will apply automatically to victims of human trafficking, slavery and slavery like offences such as forced marriage. These protections will include the ability to give evidence by closed-circuit television, video recording or video link, and to have a support person accompany the witness when giving evidence. The bill will also allow the Integrity Commissioner authority to access information held by AUSTRAC in relation to investigations of corruption to ensure that such investigations are not inhibited by current privacy and secrecy provisions in Commonwealth legislation. The bill introduces a number of technical and enabling measures to ensure that investigation and prosecution of people-smuggling offences is efficient and fair, including by allowing personnel assigned to border protection command to issue evidentiary certificates in relation to factual matters, and ensuring time spent in immigration detention by people-smuggling offenders is taken into account at sentencing. The bill will amend Australia's anti-money-laundering regime to strengthen existing offences, to ensure the effective review of AUSTRAC decisions and to provide relevant agencies with access to AUSTRAC data. The bill will also make a number of amendments to ensure the currency of Commonwealth law in relation to international criminal tribunals, provision of policing services in external territories and references in telecommunications interception legislation. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2013 reflects an important step towards ensuring the integrity of Australia's law enforcement agencies and the protection of vulnerable witnesses and ensures that Australia's criminal laws remain current. I commend the bill to the house. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 5972 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Yunupingu, Dr M 5972 16:51 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I rise today to speak about a great Australian, a great role model and a great advocate for his people. Mr Yunupingu dedicated his life to building bridges, breaking down barriers and serving the interests of his people. Born in 1957 in Arnhem Land of the Yolngu people, Mr Yunupingu had a record of firsts. He was the first Indigenous person from Arnhem Land to receive a university degree—an arts degree. He went on to become the first Indigenous school principal in Australia in 1990. He was, though, as we all know, made famous for his music. In 1986 he co-founded the band Yothu Yindi. Through this medium, he managed to transform the musical landscape. Yothu Yindi took traditional Indigenous music and swept the mainstream. Using infectious tones and melodic rhythms, they had suburban families singing about land rights issues and Indigenous welfare. Spanning a 12-year career, Yothu Yindi released six major albums. These albums received high acclaim. winning eight ARIA awards, including the Song of the Year for Treaty. Last year, Mr Yunupingu was inducted into the ARIA Hall of Fame in recognition of his musical achievements. In recognition of his service to connecting Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, Mr Yunupingu was named Australian of the year in 1992. Mr Yunupingu died at the far too young age of 56 at his home in Yirrkala, Northern Territory. He leaves behind him a wife and six daughters. The sad and untimely passing of this Australian icon again raises the grave issues facing the Indigenous community when it comes to health and life expectancy. It is not acceptable in a country such as ours with our great wealth that Indigenous Australians have to live with their current standards of living and those of the Indigenous community who live in remote and rural Australia face considerably shorter life expectancy. It is quite wrong that we have in this country Third World health conditions. There is so much that we can do to make a difference in this space, and we must not stop until we achieve the results that we need to. For now, though, we pay our great respects to this great Australian—a leader amongst men and a true inspiration for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people alike. 16:54 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga The Yolngu people of north-east Arnhem Land have lost a great leader. A wife lost a husband and six daughters lost their father. Australia lost a towering figure of contemporary music, culture and politics, and a great advocate for justice for Indigenous Australians right across the country. We lost a great teacher, who shared his wisdom not only with the students at Yirrkala Community School but with all of us. Through the music of Yothu Yindi, Yunupingu introduced many of us to the lives, the history, the language and the culture of the Yolngu people of north-east Arnhem Land. He taught us that their culture was strong and a source of great pride. He taught us about the beauty of his country, the sacred bond between the Yolngu and the land of their ancestors, and about the great struggle of his people to protect that country for future generations. For many Australians, it was the first insight we had into that far-off world. Yunupingu's strength is that he was a great bridge-builder between our worlds. Gently, he opened our eyes and helped give rise to a new understanding between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, teaching us that a new relationship was possible and that together we could build a better future for all Australians. Like all great teachers, Yunupingu imparted his wisdom with patience, tolerance, kindness and warmth, whether through lessons in the classroom, where he became a pioneering educator; on the stage, where he took Yolngu music and culture to mainstream audiences around the world; or at the Garma Festival of Traditional Cultures, which he established with his wife to build bridges between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. With his passing, we pay tribute to his legacy and, of course, recommit ourselves to achieving his vision: to take what he has taught us and put it to use for the benefit of Indigenous people around Australia, to continue our work to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, and to ensure that we build a reconciled Australia, based on mutual regard and respect. I believe that recognising Indigenous people in our Constitution will be a significant part of this reconciliation—and I know that he did too—helping us, together, to forge a stronger future, and one that he would be proud of. 16:58 Mrs GRIGGS 220370 Solomon Today, I also rise, on behalf of the people of Solomon, to acknowledge the very sad and untimely passing of former Australian of the Year and lead singer of Yothu Yindi, Mr Yunupingu. We just head the minister's very moving contribution and I would like to associate myself with her words. Mr Yunupingu, as we have heard, died at the age of 56, after a long public battle with kidney disease. It is with sadness that I speak of his passing, but it is also with great pride that I am here to talk about Mr Yunupingu's achievements—many of which were firsts for Indigenous Australians. Mr Yunupingu was a great Territorian. He was admired by so many. I acknowledge the member for Lingiari here, because Mr Yunupingu was one of his constituents. As I said, he was admired by so many and known around the world. He was a leader for his people in that he brought Indigenous issues to the forefront of the national agenda. While I never had the pleasure of meeting him, his music is well known to me and to many Territorians. Music runs in Mr Yunupingu's family, with his nephew Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu also making beautiful music that Territorians can be proud of. As others have done here, I would also like to acknowledge Mr Yunupingu's amazing achievements. In 1986 he founded Australia's most influential Indigenous band, Yothu Yindi, which was most noted for incorporating Aboriginal language and instrumentation with western rock. It is similar to what his nephew Gurrumul has done. The band, as we have heard, released six major albums from 1988 to 2000. It won eight ARIA awards and was nominated for 14 ARIAs. The most famous was in 1991 for the hit song Treaty, which was made song of the year in 1992. In 1988 he was the first Indigenous Australian from Arnhem Land to gain a university degree, a Bachelor of Arts (Education) from Deakin University. In 1989 he became assistant principal of the Yirrkala Community School. In 1990 he took over as principal of that school, becoming the first Aboriginal principal in Australia. He held this until he left teaching in 1991 told pursue his career with Yothu Yindi—and aren't we pleased he did that! In 1992 he was named Australian of the Year for his role in building bridges between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. Yothu Yindi was inducted into the ARIA Hall of Fame in 2012. In 2012 Mr Yunupingu used his ARIA induction speech to raise awareness of diabetes and kidney disease and he encouraged all viewers to support Aboriginal recognition in the Australian constitution. In conclusion, the sad passing highlights the terrible truth that too many Aboriginal people die too young, a fact that the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, reminds Australians of so often. We still have a long way to go in improving health standards and life expectancy of our Indigenous Australians, and Mr Yunupingu did a tremendous job in bringing attention to the plight of his people. I would like to echo the words of the Northern Territory Chief Minister, Adam Giles. He said the territory and the nation have lost not only a great artist but also a significant cultural figure. The passing of Mr Yunupingu is a sad day for the territory, Aboriginal culture and Australian music. My condolences to Mr Yunupingu's wife, their six daughters, his people and his many fans. May he rest in peace and may his music live on for generations into the future. 17:03 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari Let me first state that Dr Yunupingu was a good mate of mine, someone I knew since the late 1970s and early 1980s, someone for whom I had the greatest respect and admiration for a whole lot of reasons. If you examine his life course as an adult you are left with no doubt as to the contribution he made to Yolngu life in north-east Arnhem Land, and to the recognition of Yolngu culture not only nationally but also globally through his music. One of the key components of his life was his lifelong commitment to education, which began in the seventies. He gained a teaching certificate after starting his formal teaching career at Yirrkala Community School in 1978. He gained a Bachelor of Arts (Education) at Deakin University in 1987. He was the first Yolngu person, the first Aboriginal person in north-east Arnhem Land, to graduate from university. At the time this must have been some challenge because he was also very active musically. This degree led to his appointment as assistant principal at the Yirrkala school. Working with others in the field, he instituted a two-way learning curriculum at the school. That was something I became fully aware of during my time as a teacher in the Northern Territory and subsequently by the commitment that was shown by so many others in advocating for it and participating in it. It gave Yirrkala School a unique feeling to see two-way education being practised in the school, with Yolngu language, Yolngu culture as well as mainstream English and all the attendant curriculum issues that are required for our kids at school. This two-way learning was ensuring optimal learning through Yolngu and balanda education modalities, balanda being non-Aboriginal persons. This approach reflected what Dr Yunupingu was achieving through his, by now, nationally and internationally renowned and recognised music. Dr Yunupingu's work and quality as an educator was further recognised in 1990 when he moved from assistant principal to school principal at Yirrkala School. His contribution to education was one of the areas of achievement that led to him being named Australian of the Year in 1992. Given the prominence he earned as a musician, this commitment to education had meaning for him and it was reflected in his attitude to his work and later in his music. His subsequent advocacy for renal disease is a testament to him. This award of Australian of the Year continued a strong family tradition of social, political and cultural contribution to the Australian identity. Significantly, his father was a signatory of the bark petition, presented to the federal parliament in 1963. This year is the 50th anniversary of the presentation of the petition and that is a very important occasion. It was this petition that led to the historic Gove land rights case and ultimately to the implementation, through other issues, of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. His brother Galarrwuy had been previously recognised as Australian of the Year in 1978. It is a unique thing to have two brothers from the same Yolngu family in north-east Arnhem Land recognised as Australians of the Year and it is a magnificent tribute to them as individuals and also to their community and to their families. Dr Yunupingu's commitment to two-way cultural learning was at the basis of Yothu Yindi, established by him and other cultural leaders from the clans of the region. Dr Yunupingu chaired the reference group of the National Review of Education for Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islanders. This important review, conducted in 1995 and 1996, benefited greatly from Dr Yunupingu's long-term and continuing commitment to education. This commitment was recognised in 1998 by the Queensland University of Technology when he was awarded an honorary doctorate of the university in recognition of his significant contribution to the education of Aboriginal children and to a greater understanding between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. He was truly a man before his time in terms of advocacy of reconciliation through both education and music. Yothu Yindi was a vehicle for advancing reconciliation and for promoting the worth of Yolngu knowledge and culture. Yothu Yindi translates to 'child and mother'. It was founded in 1986 by Dr Yunupingu, along with others. It combined Western rock'n'roll with traditional song cycles and instrumentation from north-east Arnhem Land. Their first album Homeland Movement was recorded in 1988. The significance of the homeland is not lost on us and should not be lost on us because that is what outstation living and homeland living is all about. There was a great commitment by Yolngu people in north-east Arnhem Land to not only look after their homeland but live on their homelands. That continues to this very day. It is one of the reasons this government is proposing to build a boarding facility for schools at one of those homelands, Garrthalala in north-east Arnhem Land. The Homeland Movement album was recorded in one day and they secured a contract with Mushroom Records. They began touring in 1989 to Hong Kong, Papua New Guinea, the Edinburgh Festival, Australia, New Zealand and the European Folk Festival in Glasgow. They released Tribal Voice in 1991 with hit singles Treaty and Djapana. Treaty spent 22 weeks in the national charts and was voted APRA Song of the Year in 1991. Treaty, as we know, was a plea for reconciliation with a potently political message. They won the Human Rights Commission award for song writing. In 1992 they won the ARIA award for best Australian song and best Australian single. The film clip by Steve Johnson won best Australian video at both the Australian Music Awards and MTV International Awards in Los Angeles. In 1992 the band spent much time touring Australia, North America, and Europe, winning rave reviews wherever they played. Dr Yunupingu won Australian of the Year for his commitment to forging greater understanding between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians, the Yolgnu and the Balanda. In the ARIA awards for 1993, Djapana won numerous awards. In that same year, Yothu Yindi joined with the National Drug Offensive to launch a campaign encouraging the sensible use of alcohol in both Yolgnu and Balanda societies. The third album, Freedom, had three singles: World Turning, Timeless Land and Dots on the Shells. Extensive touring followed to Japan, Europe, USA, Brazil and Australia. Other albums followed including Wild Honey, One Blood and Garma. They had the great honour of performing at the Sydney Olympics and Paralympics in 2000. Late in his life, however, Dr Yunupingu suffered from an all-too-prevalent kidney disease in Aboriginal communities across this country—that is, he contracted kidney disease and ultimately was required to be dialysed. Despite being very ill for a number of years, he was active is securing dialysis back to Nhulunbuy and returned there from Darwin so he could live at home and ultimately, sadly, die there. He also secured, with my support and with funding from this government, an important kidney disease workshop—only a month or so prior to his death—where Yolngu leaders including himself were able to discuss how to assist their people to fight the dreadful scourge of renal failure. He was there during the course of the whole day that I was present at this conference. He showed a great interest in what could be done to address the issues to do with renal failure and its attendant diseases, the issues of prevention in particular and how to get people healthy so they do not get renal failure in the first place. He was most concerned about so many of his countrymen and women suffering from kidney disease and being treated so far from their homes, often to die there. It is so sad that there are so many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people around this country who contract this disease, which is so prevalent particularly in remote parts of this great nation of ours that they are required to go and seek treatment in places like Darwin or indeed Alice Springs, Katherine or Tennant Creek in the case of the Northern Territory or Perth in Western Australia or Adelaide in South Australia. It means they leave home, often never to return. That is simply so sad. This was not the case fortunately for Dr Yunupingu. He was able to go home and be dialysed in his home community and subsequently, sadly, die—as we know. When he returned from Darwin he spent his time eating lots of bush tucker, especially fish roe, and playing with his many grandchildren. He was a very impressive man. He once said to my young daughter, who is a dancer, 'You will have to come and dance with us.' He was such an engaging individual and he had such a prolific commitment to reconciliation, to bringing the two parts of this nation so much closer together. He did this through actions as well as words. Whilst he was not an overtly political person in the sense of being involved in great political campaigns, his campaign for recognition through his music and through education will stand the test of time. Of that, I have absolutely no doubt. I would venture to say that he has done more in that realm, particularly for his people, the Yolngu, from north-east Arnhem Land, than almost any other person. He can rest peacefully knowing that he has had an enormous impact on the lives of so many and will be forever remembered. My very sincere condolences go to Gurruwun, his wonderful wife, his six daughters, his huge extended family, to all of his mates, whether Yolngu or Balanda, wherever they might be, his partners in the music industry and his long-time friend and manager Alan James. When we pass, there may be a blink and there may be a tear, but this man will be forever remembered. May he rest in peace. 17:15 Mr CREAN DT4 HothamLingiari, who has represented the seat in which I too rise to pay my respects and tribute to Mr Yunupingu, who has passed away. It is a pleasure to follow my friend and colleague the member for Mr Yunupingu and his family live. He has not only represented the seat but understood the culture, the issues, the causes and the fights that he has just so eloquently spoken of. It, too, is a mighty reflection of the achievements, but it is nevertheless a sad occasion on which we meet to pay these respects. My condolences and sympathies also to Mr Yunupingu's wife, his six daughters and his extended family. Mr Yunupingu was a Yolngu man, a member of the Gumatj clan of Arnhem Land. Baru, the saltwater crocodile, was his totem. Baru, in the dreaming, is associated with fire and is the creator of law, justice and order. Baru's journey across the east possessing fire and seeking justice was Mr Yunupingu's journey, a journey that he continues without us. Yunupingu's legacy is huge. As huge as it is, it is characterised by passion and with reconciliation being at the heart of his achievements. In his music with Yothu Yindi we witnessed his use of the music as a driver of reconciliation. He also used the power of music to educate and to transform. The world was brought into existence through song, for the Yolngu, and with Mr Yunupingu's music the possibility for a new world, a new way of living with one another, was sung. His passion for music became the instrument through which many Australians, and indeed many peoples the world over, encountered and understood the culture and challenges of Indigenous Australians and the critical need for real reconciliation in this country. We saw in Mr Yunupingu a vibrancy and a courage in his music. His use of it was to bring Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians together. He was therefore also an exponent of the broader importance of the arts: the importance of them to Indigenous Australians, not just in terms of an aspiration or vocation, but the passion is here about pride, empowerment, the sharing of culture and respecting the value of Indigenous people and the knowledge of this country. Through Treaty, Yothu Yindi brought Indigenous music and culture to the world, fostering understanding and challenging necessary conversations nationwide about reconciliation and of race. Mr Yunupingu spoke out against racism, but also of the importance of race. He also spoke of his Yolngu heritage and the many and extraordinary contributions Indigenous Australians have made and can make in this country. He once said that his mission in Yothu Yindi was: … to demonstrate the pride we take in our culture and our willingness to share ''public'' aspects of it. This pride, this determination and this spirit of generosity are remembered today. Prime Minister Keating presented Yunupingu with the Australian of the Year award in 1993, the United Nations International Year of the World's Indigenous People. The fight for reconciliation, of course, was central to the early nineties. Prime Minister Keating delivered the now famous Redfern address in 1992—the year the High Court rejected the concept of terra nullius in the landmark Mabo case decision, which laid the foundation for the Native Title Act, subsequently passed by his government, a government which I was proud to serve in. Mr Yunupingu of course helped in this process. He was a critical part of the momentum that recognised not just the contribution of Indigenous Australians but also the need to make amends for past abuses and to look into the future toward meaningful progress and reconciliation. Mr Yunupingu may be known internationally as a musician, but he was also an educator. He was one of the first Yolngu people to receive a degree, graduating with a Bachelor of Arts (Education) from Deakin University. He became the first Indigenous man to be appointed a principal. He was promoted to that position in 1990 at the Yirrkala School. As principal, Mr Yunupingu achieved great success in developing new approaches to education. Even after he left his job as a principal to pursue full-time his career in music, he never stopped being an educator. His classroom expanded. His lessons were in song, but Mr Yunupingu still taught in a different and creative way. People learned of the knowledge of his people. The name of his band, Yothu Yindi, translates, as the member for Lingiari mentioned, as 'child and mother', a meaning that the demonstrates balance. 'Yothu Yindi' expresses a belief system centred on reconciliation—of shared knowledge, of closeness and of support. This belief system was expressed through music, dance and art. Mr Yunupingu founded the Garma Festival, a festival of traditional culture. It is a celebration of Indigenous music and art, and a festival that has grown in size and influence over the years. More than a music festival, Garma is a forum for thinking and speaking about issues related to Aboriginal culture, and for addressing the inequities that exist in this country and the challenges faced by Indigenous Australians. Yunupingu urged us to fight harder for his people, saying: Those in the corridors of power—be they parliaments, corporations or schools—need to recognise Aboriginal culture and accept it as an intrinsic element of our national identity. And, of course, we must. I had the opportunity to meet and work with Mr Yunupingu in several capacities over my time in this parliament. I met him in 1995 in Darwin, when the federal government's Working Nation commitment allowed us to leverage agreement from the Northern Territory for education and training. I had gone to the Northern Territory to seek the views of a number of Indigenous leaders. Mr Yunupingu was one of those leaders. He travelled from Yirrkala to meet me. He supported our cause, and that of educators and communities, to work together on curriculum. We needed to develop curriculum that would directly help Aboriginal children, and improve their literacy and numeracy, and their capacity for future employment. Later, as education minister, Mr Yunupingu critically helped me to understand the importance of Indigenous languages—not just to their education but fundamentally to their culture—and to recognise that the Aboriginal cultures of this country are a necessary part of the curriculum for young Indigenous students, that English language learning was never going to adequately foster a sense of culture, of pride or of innovation in education that was and still is required in Aboriginal communities and, finally, that without the language you cannot properly express culture. These were all important lessons to me that subsequently came to bear on the development of the cultural policy, Creative Australia. But back then in that time with my friend and colleague, the member for Lingiari, I had the privilege to open schools in East Arnhem Land—a significant step not just to reconciliation but to developing that fuller education and cultural experience. As Minister for Regional Australia, I witnessed the diversity of Indigenous nations across this land and saw the contributions and challenges of Aboriginal Australians. Our multiculturalism, which must include Indigenous cultures, is what makes this country so great. This is something Mr Yunupingu knew intrinsically. He urged us to pursue the course of reconciliation on the streets and on the playing fields, and to listen and learn from the world's oldest culture. Mr Yunupingu lived in two worlds, proudly living the balance of Yothu Yindi and giving us all the very powerful example of what reconciliation needed to be. As I have mentioned, as arts minister, I was proud to work on those concepts and announce our first cultural policy in 20 years. Creative Australia is truly an Australian cultural policy with the unique, diverse and sacred Indigenous cultures at the heart of it. It recognises the significance of Indigenous culture, the need to embrace it, to understand it, to interpret it and to learn from it. Aboriginal languages and cultures must be recognised and fostered in modern society as inspiring and essential aspects of Australian culture, and this is embedded and funded within the policy. I spoke earlier of passions, and, again, it is passion that drives and gives opportunities to young people—to Indigenous young people—and that is what we are seeking to evolve, adapt, encourage and nurture in Creative Australia. Mr Yunupingu was inducted into the ARIA Hall of Fame last year. It does remind us how rich we are when we appreciate the great contributions of Indigenous culture and Indigenous Australians. 'Yunupingu' means solid rock, and solid rock he was—a foundation for true reconciliation in this country. Solid rock is also synonymous with reconciliation, through the song written by his friend Shane Howard, memorably performed by Shane's band, Goanna in 1982. Shane was inspired to write the song following a trip to Uluru where he was invited to join a group of Indigenous people from Amaba performing imma, a community ceremony. Shane paid his tribute a fortnight ago, reflecting on his own recent performance at a Sorry Day ceremony and powerfully stated: There is still a gap between the dream and the reality. There is still no treaty. So, reconciliation was crucial to Yunupingu, and his contribution to advancing it was huge. He saw the importance of the building of bridges between the cultures that share this land and it is up to us to continue his hugely significant work. In Mr Yunupingu's death, we are reminded that the building of bridges still remains an urgent task. Mr Yunupingu, like so many First Nation people, died of chronic disease. The incidence of chronic disease in Indigenous communities is over double that in non-Indigenous communities. In Closing the Gap, we are committed to addressing the inequality of health care and living standards for Indigenous Australians. Yunupingu's passing further compels us to do better by the original custodians of this land. As sad as his passing is, it does remind us of the unfinished business. As a legacy to him, our resolve must be strengthened to close the gap and finish the building. Again, my sincere condolences to Mr Yunupingu's family. It is a great loss to the nation, but we are left with a great legacy upon which we must build. 17:30 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders It can be said of very few that on their passing they have unequivocally left Australia in a significantly deeper and better place, but there is no doubt that on the passing of Mr Yunupingu it can be justifiably said that he left Australia as a deeper and better place. I want to begin very briefly in Yirrkala—Yolngu territory, just south of Nhulunbuy in East Arnhem. My own experience there was through the rubric of the Indigenous protected areas, for which I had responsibility in 2005 and 2006. One of the most uplifting experiences I have had in my parliamentary time was to visit Yirrkala. Of all the Indigenous communities in Australia that I have had the honour of entering, Yirrkala had the strongest sense of identity, education and art, and it is in no small part due to the influence of Mr Yunupingu and his family. It is an extraordinary family in Indigenous Australia. I believe it is the only Australian family to have produced not one but two Australians of the Year. Of any background and any place in Australia, I think that is a unique achievement. The point about Yirrkala is very simple: it had role models, it had leaders, and it had people who achieved and succeeded and laid out a pathway for young people to follow. That was about creating a reinforcing culture, rooted in, based on and founded on Yolngu culture but with the higher purpose of the fulfilment of each and every individual in Indigenous Australia. Of course, there were failings and challenges, as there are in any human community, but this was a beacon of what could be. It is against that background that we acknowledge the passing of Mr Yunupingu. There are three things to recognise here: his education, his art and his health, but all in the context of supporting the grand opportunity of Indigenous Australians to be their full and best selves. Although he is best known for his music, Mr Yunupingu, to my mind, should be best remembered for his work in education. He was the first Indigenous Australian from Arnhem Land to gain a university degree, at Deakin University in Victoria. He was a teacher and then, of all of his achievements, to my mind his highest achievement was becoming Australia's first Indigenous principal in 1990 at Yirrkala Community School in the Northern Territory. He became Australia's first Indigenous principal, and that is a message to people from Indigenous Australia of all ages: you can be anything. The message about the majesty of education and the potential for advancement and participation is peerless. Beyond education, which of course remained a lifelong passion, there was the area for which he was best known: art, music and dance. Of course, the vehicle for that was Yothu Yindi. This is not well known, but the name is the translation of child and mother, reflecting this notion of balance, harmony and connection between the ages in Indigenous Australia. So, Yothu Yindi, the band, was created in 1986 by Mr Yunupingu, and it was successful in ways beyond everybody's imagination. Ultimately, off the back of the great song Treaty, which won song of the year, there were ARIA music awards, six major albums and induction into the ARIA hall of fame, and Yunupingu became Australian of the Year in the early 1990s. And his music was more than just a celebration of music. It combined art and dance, and it made Indigenous Australia something that Australians were deeply and positively proud of, right through the ages. It shattered old barriers, and I think that was an extraordinary step forward. In his later days, driven by his own challenges with health—with kidney disease—he became a champion for health in Arnhem Land, in East Arnhem in particular, in his own community of Yirrkala, and did his best to ensure that the services available in the cities were available in the outlying regions. That is a legacy of great human achievement. We have an Australian of the Year, we have somebody who was a community leader, a health leader, and a great artist. But, above all else, he and his family should be remembered as great educators, because that is the indispensable element in giving children of Indigenous origin the pathway to being full and brilliant participants in modern Australia. 17:36 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra I want to speak briefly tonight about the loss of a wonderful Australian, Mr Yunupingu. In 1992 I had the honour of meeting Mr Yunupingu when he had just been named Australian of the Year. I was working for the Attorney-General's Department on the public consultation process for the racial vilification legislation, a bill that was highly controversial and deeply confronting to many Australians at the time. I was travelling around with a group of colleagues from Attorney-General's to consult right throughout Australia with a variety of groups and the general public to get their views on the legislation. This public consultation was very tough. I was a relatively young and fresh public servant and during some of the consultations I was faced with some of the most confronting, difficult, and often aggressive conversations about racism that I have ever experienced. There were people who did not agree with the racial vilification legislation. In fact, there were people who were actively agitating against it, and I found this very confronting and deeply depressing. I remember when we were in Adelaide—and this was probably the most confronting of all the sessions we had—we had a group of neo-Nazis turn up to the consultation, and they basically blockaded the community hall that we were in. There were a number of other community groups and organisations and Indigenous communities who were keen to ensure that this bill got through, and the neo-Nazis were doing their level best to disrupt the proceedings. I did not even know we had neo-Nazis in Australia, with shaved skinheads and swastikas and the whole thing. It was deeply confronting. While conducting these consultations I travelled to different parts of Australia, including Alice Springs. It was there that I met Mr Yunupingu, who was a friend of one of my colleagues. My colleague had spent quite a bit of time up north and had done a lot of work in the legal services with the Indigenous community there. It was Mr Yunupingu who reinforced to me the importance of these racial vilification laws that I was working on and the importance of the community consultation process, despite the fact that it was deeply confronting. He reminded me of the challenges faced by Indigenous Australians, and he reminded me of the challenges faced by those Indigenous Australians who were vilified—how it shattered their self-esteem, their confidence, their will to succeed— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17:40 to 17:52 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 As I was saying, Mr Yunupingu reminded me of the challenges faced by those Indigenous Australians who were vilified—how it shattered their self-esteem, their confidence, their will to succeed. And he reminded me of the need to continue to fight against racism and hateful language and abuse. My brief conversation with him gave me the inspiration I needed to continue with the job of going out there and finishing off this consultation and making sure that this legislation was going to be introduced, and it remains one of the proudest achievements of my career. As I said before, it was in that year that Mr Yunupingu was named Australian of the Year, so there was just a lovely synergy to the whole thing. I have always been thankful to him for the inspiration he gave to me at that really critical point, and also for the inspiration he gave to the whole nation. He was a great Australian who spoke to us and exposed us to the conditions and challenges of Indigenous Australians through the very accessible and popular medium of music. What he spoke was incredibly powerful, and it was done through a medium that was easy to reach for all Australians. It spoke in a very strong way about the conditions, the situation, the challenges of Indigenous Australians. Mr Yunupingu was a great Australian and will be very much missed. Lest we forget. BILLS 5982 BILLS Australian Capital Territory Water Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 5982

Australian Capital Territory Water Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2013

Second Reading 5982 17:54 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Water management in the ACT is an issue that I am very passionate about. The ACT has some spectacular waterways. However, as is often the case in cities, sometimes these waterways have suffered as a result of the urbanisation of the surrounds. Since my election in 2012, I have been campaigning for the better protection and restoration of Canberra's waterways. In particular, I have been advocating the development of a number of wetlands in the Lake Tuggeranong area. I know that the ACT government, through federal funding, has received quite a significant investment to build a number of wetlands in the Tuggeranong region, but the people who spend a lot of time around that area cleaning it up, investing their time and their effort, and their heart and soul, into making sure that it is as pristine as possible believe that more wetlands are required. I am a huge fan of wetlands. I had the good fortune when I had only just been elected to be one of the judges for the Australian Institute of Architects awards here in the ACT. You are probably wondering what architecture has got to do with wetlands. It has a lot to do with wetlands because a lot of what architects are now doing with commercial buildings is getting rid of those huge concrete drainage systems, those eyesores, and introducing wetlands as a way of getting rid of excess water, and, in the process, purifying water and creating a lovely natural environment where you get a number of little ecosystems being established through those wetlands. I am a huge fan of them, particularly because my electorate has a seam of concrete waterways running right through it from the top of the electorate right down to the bottom of the electorate, which causes all sorts of problems with the Lake Tuggeranong catchment and also with the Lake Burley Griffin catchment because there is so much unfiltered and unpurified water going into those significant lakes. Beautiful Lake Tuggeranong is at the heart of the Tuggeranong community in my electorate. That is where my electorate office is. I see people walking around the lake, using it every day. They may be running, walking, walking with their babies, using the parks on the shores of the lake, having picnics or catching up with friends. I join with many residents of Tuggeranong in my concern for the lake's wellbeing as well as that of Lake Burley Griffin. That is why I have supported a community initiative for the restoration of the ecosystems of the Tuggeranong catchment. It is a project that will encourage and empower the community to become directly involved with the restoration of the lake through activities such as clean-ups and tree plantings. The project also has a long-term aim of developing a wetland area by the lake, which I know would be of huge benefit to the community and to the environment of Tuggeranong. The bill we are debating today is an important step in the water management of the ACT. The bill will enable the ACT government to complete its responsibilities under the Murray-Darling Basin plan. For over a century, the Murray-Darling Basin has not been managed with a basin-wide plan. This has resulted in environmental degradation, a lack of resilience and an ongoing layer of uncertainty for basin communities. Members will have heard many times in this chamber about the ground-breaking work this government is doing to reform the management of the Murray-Darling Basin and this bill is another part of that reform. The Murray-Darling Basin plan requires that the ACT prepare a water resource plan that covers all of the territory's water resources as well is the Googong Dam. However, currently the management of water on national land in the ACT is a Commonwealth function and is not managed by the ACT government. This bill amends the Australian Capital Territory Planning and Land Management Act 1988, or the PALM Act, which regulates the management of land in the ACT so that the abstraction of water on national land is no longer managed by the Commonwealth government and can be managed by the ACT, consistent with the Basin Plan. This bill enables the ACT government to take full responsibility for the management of water within the territory. Cooperative, consistent and efficient management arrangements of water extraction within the ACT will have long-term benefits for the sustainability of water resources within the territory. However, this bill is about more than water. By giving this responsibility to the ACT government, this bill is further recognition that the government of the ACT has well and truly come of age. The ACT achieved self-government in 1988 and I was privileged enough to work for our first Chief Minister, Rosemary Follett, shortly after that. I was there at the early stages of self-government when it was all pretty ratty and there were all sorts of interesting individuals who had been elected under all sorts of interesting party names. It was a very interesting time: the burgeoning—the early stages—of self-government. Not only did I have an interesting time in an interesting work environment, but I also got to meet my husband, which was an added benefit. It was a privilege to be a part of the unfolding of self-government in the ACT and it has been a privilege to watch the ACT Legislative Assembly mature over the last 25 years. In 2011, I was proud to be part of this parliament when we passed laws to remove one of the most final and most significant barriers to the citizens of the ACT and the Northern Territory enjoying full democratic rights. This was the Territories Self-Government Legislation Amendment (Disallowance and Amendment of Laws) Act 2011, which removed the ability of federal parliamentarians to veto the laws made by the ACT government. This was an important step for ACT self-government, and so is the bill that we are debating today, which hands the important role of water management in the ACT to the ACT government, where it rightly belongs. For over 25 years, the Legislative Assembly has been making laws for the peace, order and good governance of the ACT. It has grown to be a mature and stable chamber that is accountable to its constituents. As the former Chief Minister of the ACT John Stanhope said, from ambivalent beginnings, self-government is now firmly embedded in the consciousness of our community. The ACT, through its stable government and mature parliament, has embraced the social responsibilities with which it is charged. On average, Canberrans are among the healthiest, best educated and most prosperous in Australia. We are just, free and relatively free of prejudice. We have grown in population terms and as an indispensable presence in our region. We have also grown as a community and as a vibrant and engaged polity and increasingly we are recognised as such by a nation whose capital and seat of government we are proud to uphold and sustain. Water management is an important responsibility and the ACT government has well and truly demonstrated that it is mature enough to manage this responsibility. This bill is not only an important milestone for our environment but an important milestone for the ACT. I commend it to the House. 18:02 Mr IAN MACFARLANE WN6 Groom I thank the member for Canberra for her comments. I am sure that her husband is equally grateful for the opportunity—one of those things that come in life too rarely. Australian Capital Territory Water Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 gives the ACT government the power to manage its water resources for the development of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan among other things. There would be no-one in this House who would dispute the need for that. It transfers the power to manage water extraction and use within the ACT from the Commonwealth government to the ACT government. In particular, this bill will allow the ACT to establish a water resource plan under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The changes in this bill are a consequence of the tabling of the basin plan last year. That plan requires a detailed water resource plan be developed for the ACT. However, under the current act, that plan would have needed to be establish by the Commonwealth government. This bill, as I said, transfers responsibility for the development of that plan to the ACT government and transfers broader powers to the ACT to manage its water resources. While I certainly agree with the sentiment of the member for Canberra in relation to this bill, I cannot agree with her comments in regards to the current government leading ground-breaking work on the Murray-Darling Basin. In fact, the glacial pace of that reform under this government is a major concern to all involved. The coalition has always supported reforms to the Murray-Darling Basin that would deliver on triple bottom line outcomes to the environment, for communities and for the economy. Unfortunately, Murray-Darling Basin reform has slowed to a snail's pace—in fact, that is an exaggeration; it is probably not even glacial, let alone a snail's pace—under this current government. The latest evidence for that was made clear in the recent round of Senate estimates, where officials confirmed that under the Gillard government there still has not been a sign-off on the intergovernmental agreement with basin states, despite more than 25 drafts having been prepared and indications at the February Senate estimates that it was hoped to be completed soon. Three months on, there has still been no progress. Why aren't we surprised? Officials also confirmed that the government still has not finalised a water recovery strategy, despite releasing a draft last November and having already recovered nearly 60 per cent of the water without a strategy in place. One wonders why people think this government does not know what it is doing. The government appears to have dumped the plan's actual implementation in the too hard basket. As the government obsesses over all of the things that do not matter to everyday Australians who want to see the country back on track, it has dropped the ball on securing vital implementation agreements. Having already chronically underinvested in water saving infrastructure, Labor has also slashed buybacks for the 2013-14 year to their lowest level since 2007. Deferring more than $100 million in budget spending to the back end of this programs risks creating a spike in the water market, forcing prices higher and creating budgetary pressures beyond the forward estimates. And that is not unique to this portfolio. As well, this government has an appalling record on reform. It is mismanaged such a wide range of programs that there is no reason to think that it is up to the task of completing the Murray-Darling Basin reform. In fact, the recent announcement that Victoria has signed up to the intergovernmental agreement on implementing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan leaves many questions still answered. While any progress on strategic implementation of the basin plan is welcome, the signing of just one state in a piecemeal step risks the process descending into chaos—and again there are plenty of current day analogies—confusion or counterproductive bidding wars by the states. The IGA was supposed to have been signed by all the states by 7 December 2012 at the 2012 Council of Australian Governments meeting, shortly after the basin plan was finalised in last November. The minister must explain why—and still has not—seven months after finalisation of the basin plan he has locked in an IGA with Victoria yet other states are still to agree on its terms. Does this mean that other states will have to sign on the IGA as agreed to be the Commonwealth and Victoria or will different agreements between the Commonwealth and each of the different states be required? These are just some of the unanswered questions raised by the government's approach to the Murray-Darling reform package. Notwithstanding all these mistakes and blunders and the continuing uncertainty covering the government's ongoing failures in this area, the coalition understands the significance of Murray-Darling Basin reform and will support this bill. 18:08 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I would like to thank those who have contributed to the discussion on the Australian Capital Territory Water Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. I welcome the opposition's support for this bill. The bill before the House is a small but very important step to improving water management outcomes and resource sustainability. National water reform is an ongoing process. The making of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in November last year was a critical step forward. This bill will continue the improvement of water governance within the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister for achieving something that no other Commonwealth government has ever achieved before, and that is a plan to manage the Murray-Darling Basin. This bill will allow the Australian Capital Territory government to manage all water extraction in the ACT, including that on national land and that by Commonwealth agencies throughout the ACT. It will also allow the ACT government to manage the Googong Dam, which supplies water to the ACT. This bill will facilitate the implementation of the basin plan by enabling the ACT to prepare a basin plan compliant water resource plan covering all of the ACT's water resources and the Googong Dam. The passage of this bill through the parliament will allow the Commonwealth and the ACT to fulfil their obligations under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. This government is committed to delivering a healthy river, strong communities and sustainable food production. This bill will assist to deliver on that commitment by facilitating cooperative, consistent and effective management arrangements of the water extraction within the ACT. I thank all those who have contributed and commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Sitting suspended from 18:11 to 18 : 30 Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 5986

Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012

Second Reading 5986 18:30 Mr COMBET YW6 Charlton I rise to speak in support of the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 and I do so because I support the right of same-sex couples to marry. This bill amends the Marriage Act 1961 by amending the definition of marriage from 'husband and wife' to 'two people' and making consequential changes to give effect to that. Importantly, it does not oblige a minister of religion or a marriage celebrant to marry same-sex couples. On my view of it, this bill seeks to remove discrimination and to advance equality. When we are considering this issue I think it is very important to look at it in a historical context, because marriage has undoubtedly changed over the years. We no longer have betrothals, dowries, a wife's vow of obedience or the prohibition on certain inter-race or religious marriage. Times change—that is a fact—and it is important that the legislature changes with them. Ending discrimination in this matter does not take away someone's rights; it in fact establishes equal rights for members of our community. Others in this debate, both here and overseas, have put that argument very eloquently. On the issue of the addressing of discrimination, Labor of course has a very proud history of fighting for rights and ending discrimination. It was Labor that established the Racial Discrimination Act, the Sex Discrimination Act and the Disability Discrimination Act. Labor has also acted in support of equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Australians. It was Labor in South Australia in 1975 that decriminalised homosexuality, and that was followed by Labor governments in New South Wales in 1984, Western Australia in 1990 and Queensland in 1991. In 1999, the New South Wales Labor government amended 20 pieces of legislation to provide same-sex partners the same rights as those enjoyed by de-facto heterosexual couples. The Victorian Labor government in 2000 outlawed discrimination on the basis of sexuality or gender identity. In 2001, the Western Australian Labor government provided same-sex couples rights around wills, estates and superannuation. Many state and territory governments have introduced relationship registers. This federal Labor government has built on all of that record. In our first term in office, Labor amended 85 separate pieces of legislation to remove discrimination against same-sex couples. In this term of parliament we have allowed the issuing of certificates of non-impediment to same-sex couples wishing to marry overseas; we have extended the paid parental leave provisions to same-sex couples; and we have introduced the Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill which will make it unlawful to discriminate against someone on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status, including in aged care. These are all important reforms. In providing equality in relation to same-sex couples, Australia will not be acting on its own in the international community. When I spoke on this issue in debate on a similar bill last year, I advised the House that 10 countries and even more jurisdictions allow same-sex marriage. Since then, many more have acted, including France, our neighbours across the Tasman, in New Zealand, and many states in the United States of America. Like many members, in considering my approach to this issue, I have taken many points of view from amongst constituents I have consulted in relation to the issues, and I think it is fair to say that there are many strong and wide-ranging points of view about same-sex marriage. I respect those alternative views but, ultimately, for me as a member of parliament and as an individual, it is a matter of discrimination, in my view, against same-sex couples that I believe that the parliament should remedy. Same-sex couples should not be denied the right to marry. As is the case for many other members, this issue is not only a matter of principle but also is personally relevant in the case of my own family, my extended family and amongst my friends. I cannot support continued discriminations against persons for whom I care very deeply and, as a parliamentarian, I think I have an obligation to make decisions based on not only personal values and issues of principle but also the importance of removing discrimination of this nature. We must make decisions in the interests of the constituents who elect us to this place, taking into account the wide range of views, having respect for them but ultimately ensuring that we do what we consider as parliamentarians to be the right thing. 18:35 Mr SIMPKINS HWE Cowan I rise to speak on the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012. It is 2012 and I wonder how long these bills hang around and why this one has not been brought to a vote—maybe it should have been settled in the same manner that the member for Throsby's bill was settled in the past. As many speakers on my side have said in the past with regard to this matter, we had a position at the last federal election. We have a policy position that exists for the next federal election. We believe that it is important for Australians to know where we stand on things, to know that if they want to support us then they are getting a particular set of policies. The reality is that you are never going to make everybody happy with your policies and, ultimately, the voters in Australia will make their minds up as to what the really important issues are and what they would like to have but maybe cannot have. What I always say to people is: 'You know where we stand on this. This is the position we are taking to this federal election. We will not support a change in the definition of marriage.' We have been very clear on this. It was the case before the last election; it is the case for this coming election, so people know where we stand. The government can shift its position and change the definition of marriage from being between a man and a woman. I know they have changed their position. What they said before the last election isn't what they ultimately decided to do. Obviously, that is always a point for them, and the government will be judged on changing their position again on this matter as with other matters. As I have said in the past, I have been approached by many people with regard to this issue. There are 95,000 voters in Cowan. People approach me—approach everyone—on a number of different issues. There is no doubt about that. I would never expect that we would find one issue where 95,000 people will express the same opinion. Despite what polls and newspapers might say, it is very hard to determine exactly what people believe on any particular issue. On this point, the issue of whether or not to change the definition of marriage, I say again that within Cowan, slightly fewer than 1,400 people expressed a view and made their views known to me at my office through emails. Of those, 178 out of the 95,000 have said that they would like a change in the definition of marriage. Almost, 1,119 have said that they believe the definition of marriage should stay unaltered: as between a man and a woman. That is their perspective from the Cowan electorate. I do not profess to say that I know the minds of every person in the electorate but, of those that felt the need to raise this issue with me and make their views known, it is quite clear. In any case, as I have said before, the coalition has a party position on this. Of course, ultimately, members of the backbench have the right to exercise a conscience vote, if they wish to. I think what is now required is that this matter be dealt with in the same manner that the member for Throsby's bill was dealt with. Let us settle this matter once and for all and move on to issues that, according to the figures that I certainly have within the Cowan electorate, a lot more people are interested in. I look forward to this matter being concluded at the earliest opportunity. 18:40 Mr STEPHEN SMITH 5V5 Perth I support the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, as I did a comparable or similar bill, introduced by the member for Throsby into the House in September 2012, and I do so for the same reasons. This bill was introduced by the member for Melbourne. I acknowledge his presence in the chamber and compliment him on his work and introduction of it. I take a contrary view to the previous speaker. I regard this matter as not a matter for party politics but a matter of conscience, an area where there are strong views firmly held. Those views are often based on religious beliefs and, as a consequence, I think this is an area where parliamentarians should form a view and exercise a conscience vote and I do so, again, on this occasion. This was not always my view. Between 2009 and 2011 I changed my view on this issue and I let that change of view be clearly known at the 2011 Australian Labor Party National Conference in December 2011 and reflected that view when I voted on the member for Throsby's bill in September last year. The essential reason for that view is that I do not see any reason why in a modern, tolerant Australia we should not make marriage available to same-sex couples. In my view, there is no reason why in a modern, tolerant Australia discrimination against same-sex couples should not be removed. That view is consistent with the approach that the Commonwealth parliament has taken over the years to marriage as an institution and I think it is worthwhile retracing those steps. It was as late as early 1961 when this parliament enacted the Commonwealth Marriage Act, to make the institution of marriage subject to Commonwealth law. Previously, it had been dealt with by state law. That institutionalised marriage under Commonwealth law as a voluntary act entered into between a man and a woman. In 1975, under the Family Law Act, for the first time this parliament recognised that bona fide domestic relationships outside the institution of marriage gave them de jure recognition. So those people who entered into a bone fide domestic relationship, effectively, had the same entitlements at law as those in the institution of marriage reflected by and authorised by the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961. That legislation gave men and women who, for whatever reason of their own, did not wish to enter into the institution of marriage not only comparable property and other rights if subsequently that bona fide domestic relationship came to an end but also rights as far as deceased estate and intestacy were concerned. At about the same time, from the mid to late 1970s through to the 1980s, both at the Commonwealth and state and territory level, we saw the introduction and passage of anti-discrimination legislation, which removed discrimination on the basis of sex, gender, sexual preference, religion or other areas. That had the effect of ensuring, ultimately through this parliament, through legislation presented and enacted by the then Commonwealth Attorney-General Robert McClelland, the removal of discrimination on the basis of same-sex couples, same-sex attitudes and same-sex approach, particularly in the case of superannuation. So we have seen, since the 1960s, a removal of the distinction between marriages recognised as being between a man and a woman under the Commonwealth Marriage Act; a relationship recognised by the 1975 Family Law Act, without a man and a woman entering into the institution of marriage; and then, both at state and Commonwealth levels, the removal of discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual preference through the 1970s and 1980s, culminating in the McClelland legislation, to which I have referred. At the same time, in state jurisdictions, in the 1970s and 1980s we saw the removal of criminal sanctions against homosexual male conduct or relationships. In my view, in a modern and tolerant Australian society this is a logical next step to remove a discrimination, to remove an inequity and to remove and an unfairness. For the same reasons that I gave in the other chamber in September 2012, I support the bill in this chamber. 18:45 Mr RIPOLL 83E Oxley Firstly, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, which would change the Marriage Act 1961 to ensure that all people, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation or gender identity have the opportunity to marry. That is what this bill does. The bill also reverses a number of amendments made to the Marriage Act in 2004, which continues to recognise the basis of sexuality and gender identity, but this bill would prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages entered into under the laws of another country. This is certainly an issue that has been brought forward by many people. The current situation is that the marriage overseas of same-sex couples is not recognised in this country. But the Australian government provides a certificate of no impediment to same-sex couples travelling overseas to get married. While we do not recognise it here in Australia, we certainly do not impede the ability of same-sex couples who choose to marry. One of the important parts of the current law is that when those couples come back to Australia they are recognised as a de facto couple and are not discriminated against under the laws of this country in their legal rights or responsibilities. Labor is very proud of that. This is not a new debate. Labor are very proud of the fact that we have made something like 85 changes in law to make sure we do not discriminate against people. I am a big believer in that. I really believe that we should not discriminate against any person on the basis of their race, their gender, at their sexual orientation or anything else, including if a man and a man or a woman and a woman choose to marry. This parliament has had a long history of conscience votes, and I think that is the right course of action on this issue. I would not force my view onto any other member of this parliament or any member of the community for that matter. I respect that people have different views in this area. Some are very deeply-held views—views that go to the people's personal moral beliefs, their ethical beliefs, their faith beliefs or just their views on how people ought to be treated in this country. But I do not take away from any individual their right to have those particular views nor any member of this chamber. I think the great strength of the Australian democracy is that these matters, particularly matters of conscience—and I think that this is one of them—come to this chamber and to this parliament, that we can have a sensible debate and that the view of the parliament can be carried and then we can we move on. That is one of the great strengths of our democracy, by any measure. There have been something like 30 conscience votes since 1950. When you think about it that is actually not a lot, given the tens of thousands of bills and things that are brought to this chamber. Very few have actually been a matter of conscience. During my time as a member, there have only been four: human cloning research, including use of embryos; RU486; and same-sex marriage. I took a principle stand on all of those, from the information that was presented to me at the time, from my own research, from consulting with my constituents, from my own belief structure and from my own views on what my vote should be—in the end, regardless of what people put forward to me as 'numbers', in the sense of, 'Does it slightly fall more one way, or slightly more the other way in what my constituents would think?' My own belief in that area is that you can never win if that is the way you operate. As a member of parliament, you are actually given a responsibility—that is, to act on your conscience, and to do that you need to be able to do that for the right reasons. I do have to say, though, that my own view is that this parliament will at some point in time support same-sex marriage. I think same-sex marriage is not the thin end of the wedge in terms of other issues. I also do not believe same-sex marriage is a threat to the marriage of others, though some people think that by allowing same-sex marriage you threaten their marriage. Same-sex marriage is not a threat to children; there is no evidence to support that view. Same-sex marriage does not threaten the family. Same-sex marriage is not a threat to our way of life. Same-sex marriage is, as we know, legal in many countries, though not uniformly—some states have different views. I believe the community is changing its view as well because it is seen as being an issue of equity. If this bill does come to a vote, unlike my previous vote I will now be supporting this bill. Debate adjourned. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 5991 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS National Business Names Register 5991 18:51 Mr BILLSON 1K6 Dunkley I hope my motion spurs the government to greater activity in relation to the National Business Names Register. The motion urges the House to note that the National Business Names register has been in operation since 28 May 2012. It urges the House to note that the Gillard government has failed to act to fix implementation problems with the National Business Names Register, which has left the privacy of home based businesses exposed. It also urges the House to note that businesses have been waiting on hold for up to 45 minutes to progress to an operator when contacting the ASIC hotline about these business names. And, finally, the motion urges the House to note and bring to the government's attention the large number of people who have had problems with registering, renewing, paying for and transferring business names since the National Business Names Register started. I have spoken on this topic a number of times before, but I hope my contribution is both gripping and persuasive. I did draw to the attention of the House back in September 2011 that this is a process that started under the former Howard government. It is a good idea that deserves the support of the parliament. My contention is not about the quality of the idea, but the quality of the implementation of the idea. And that has caused much frustration and hardship to small businesses right across our continent as they seek to complete the relatively simple transactions of registering, renewing or transferring a business name, something they have done quite comfortably and with a minimum of fuss through a number of different registers. The issue with those multiple registers was that they were not well connected and, for businesses operating in multiple jurisdictions, you had quite a challenge in renewing multiple registrations across multiple states. This was something which this measure was aimed to address and it has gone some way towards doing that. But goodness, how hard can it be! It has proven to be very challenging and a source of great frustration for people who have contacted me or corresponded with my office. On 17 August 2011 I was briefed by the then Minister for Small Business, Senator Sherry. I am not sure whether that was four small business ministers ago or three, but he was one of five in 15 months, and that has probably caused you great concern, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as it has me and the small business community. We had some specific issues raised with us by stakeholders, by small business organisations and in fact by some of the state and territory jurisdictions. We urged the government to make sure it understood that not all businesses are big businesses and that, for small business, the complexity of the system and the need to disclose their location of operation would be an enormous affront to, in particular, the many home based businesses, who had not been required to provide that level of detail before. The small-business community—the home based businesses, the micro-businesses of Australia—was promised by the Labor government that its privacy would be protected. It did not happen. Those assurances turned out to be empty. They turned out to be something that could not be relied upon and this has caused great distress for the small-business community. They would go to register their names under the new system, knowing that under state based systems they were able to provide a post office box or something of that kind, something they were quite comfortable with and which facilitated the contact and disclosure that was being looked for. But no, they could not do that under the new system. It demanded they provide an address usable for the servicing of documentation, summons and the like—and for many that is their home. So that privacy issue was not satisfactorily addressed. It still is not satisfactorily addressed today. It is one of a six issues I raised with the subsequent minister. I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for facilitating that meeting with Mr Tanzer, the commissioner at ASIC who had responsibility for it. It was interesting. I think it was in September last year that we had that meeting. I was assured we would have some answers in a fortnight. Six months later we got some advice. Six months later we were told that there was some work going on to increase the capacity of the call centres, to deal with the extraordinary delays. There was some fudging on whether the system's changes, needed to protect the privacy issues, would be made. We were told that it required more resources, policy variations and a change to systems. When we sought to find out whether those action steps had actually been taken, when this parliament considered the budget in detail for the department of industry that included the small-business budget, we could not get any answers. You know why not? The small-business minister did not bother turning up. The parliamentary secretary, who is very diligent ordinarily, did not turn up either. I had to ask Minister Combet, the minister for the carbon tax that has cruelled small business, what was going on with the business-names register. He did not have much of an idea. We got no comfort whatsoever that there is action being taken. I am optimistic that with Parliamentary Secretary Ripoll here today we might be able to get an update on whether the extra money that is being provided is going to increase the number of people at call centres and hopefully reduce the frustration that many in the small-business community are experiencing. That is what the budget paper says: we will have more money for more people at the call centres. That is one part of the problem we raised with Mr Tanzer and one of the six issues we were supposed to have had resolved in a fortnight but which came back to us six months later. The question is whether those system changes have been made. I note there have been some changes in the way that business-transfer operations take place. There was a 28-day hiatus where a name was taken off the register and you just hoped and prayed no one pinched your name in the meantime. Now at least there will be multiple names registered against a business name, a vendor of a business and a purchaser of a business. I hope that will work, but we will find out and I am looking for some assurances from the parliamentary secretary that it will work. The delays in calling the centre still seem to be a problem. It might be that we have not got to 1 July and we have not got those additional staff, but I am being very modest and conservative in a 45-minute wait. Many of the businesses that contact me say, 'Gee, I wish it were only 45 minutes; it's been much longer than that.' My message has been: this national scheme has to operate on west-coast time. If you are really stuck, ring after 5.30 on the east coast. Why? The centre has to operate in west-coast times. There is capability there after normal business hours on the east coast and that is probably a good time to call, but it should not be my job to give that kind of advice. The system should work and accommodate the traffic that it is experiencing. Another area is the complexity in having your renewal processed. I have examples here where law firms have gone out of their minds. I am talking about legal practices with extraordinarily intelligent people incapable of navigating their way through this scheme, spending hours of staff time trying to get their names re-registered and renewed so that they can get a certificate of practice. I am encouraged by the fact that the registration fees might represent a net saving, but as we have to keep outlining time and time again to this government—that would not know a small business unless it organised a picket out in front of them—time is a scarce commodity for small business. They might pay a modest reduction in their fee, and that is to be encouraged, but they need to spend hours on the system on time they will never get back. That is extraordinarily expensive. That is why we have seen 22,000 new and amended regulations introduced by this government. This was supposed to be an improvement in regulatory burden. It is actually operating the other way. That is why we have made some commitments about a reduction of a billion dollars in the cost of regulation. Why? It is not just the fee that matters; it is the time that is spent, the frustration and the inability to conclude what should ordinarily be a very straightforward transaction—that is, registering, transferring or renewing a business name. I have case studies after case studies. I have shared those with Mr Tanzer. I have shared those with the parliamentary secretary. All we are looking for with this motion is some action. The background has been impressive. The words have been reassuring. Where is the follow through? Where are we dealing with the issues of ambush marketing where business names with a geographic descriptor are being used to cut off business and to intervene in their trade? How are we dealing with people who cannot even register a name because of system problems—problems acknowledged by the government? There were some stand-up issues with the technology that proved incapable of dealing with the demands placed on it. The advice provided to some small business was that there are 32,000 renewals to be processed and: 'We will get to you eventually. Keep trading even though we can't give you a validation of a renewal certificate.' It also relates to those call times: 'Best to call after hours on the east coast because it is geared up to work for west coast time.' That is kind of practical advice we should not have to provide because this should not be so complicated. It should be a net advantage to the small business community. It should respect and protect the home based businesses. But after the legislation that passed the other day, now they could get some boofhead come in and demand a meeting not in their staff room because they don't have one but at their dining room table. That is why they are concerned about their privacy. This is a good measure. I hope it is going to be executed better. I hope the parliamentary secretary will give us those assurances. I hope this motion does something to put a rocket under the government to get it right. (Time expired) 19:01 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I rise to speak on this motion moved by the member for Dunkley. I think the only thing we agree on is acknowledging the start date of the system; everything after that is in dispute. The only thing he has got right is that we commence the register from 28 May last year. It has come into being as a result of an agreement between levels of government, states and territories, through our COAG commitment for a seamless national economy. Under the intergovernmental agreement that arose out of the 2008 COAG national partnership agreement, the states referred the necessary powers to the Commonwealth to enable us to establish the national system for the registration of business names. I completely reject the member for Dunkley's characterisation of the national register as being a failure, which he suggested in a media release mid last month. Sure, any new system has to find its feet, but it will get better and better over the course of time. There will be problems at the start of a scheme, but that does not necessarily mean that the entire system is judged by its early days. For instance, where a business is required to register in more than one jurisdiction, the register has reduced the cost. To register a business name in all eight states and territories, we have reduced the cost from $1,000 to $70. For a small business, that is nothing to be sneezed at. That is a significant reduction in those costs. It has also proven a much more convenient system for businesses than the paper based registration system. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission operates the national register and has reported that since it commenced close to a third of business name registrations have occurred after business hours, reflecting the convenience of the new online service, particularly for small business. It allows them to focus on their core business instead of going through the process of these registrations. That certainly has the potential to benefit the more than 8,000 businesses that operate throughout the electorate of Chifley. ASIC, for example, has received over 300,000 applications for a business name since the national register commenced a little over a year ago. Since October last year, it has issued over 530,000 renewal notices to businesses whose registrations were due to expire on or after 28 May 2012. Although the vast majority of businesses have used the benefits of the new online national register without significant issue, admittedly there have been some that have experienced difficulties accessing the website, contacting ASIC and renewing business names. These system constraints would, no doubt, have been the source of a great deal of frustration for people attempting to register their business names, but ASIC has taken steps to address those issues, particularly around congestion and call wait times. It is worth noting that they have added 150 phone lines in the call centre and have recruited additional staff to respond to those inquiries. Those measures have succeeded in dealing with the volume of calls, which has been much higher than initially forecast. That, in itself, is a reflection of the fact that this has been embraced so widely by small business. People have wanted to avail themselves of the service and it has been a lot more popular than people originally intended. ASIC also reports that almost no customers are having their calls blocked at the exchange. Last week there was only one identified. This means that almost all business-name customers are having their calls queued and then answered. Average call times in February this year, for example, were reported to be around the 30-minute mark, but are now down to 5½ minutes. That is a significant reduction. In last month's federal budget the government allocated $7.8 million to ASIC for further improvements to the client contact centre specifically to service business name registrations. Of that allocation, $1.6 million is earmarked for capital costs. So this will let ASIC upgrade its telephone infrastructure over the next two years, and that will help achieve a target of 60 per cent of calls answered in 300 seconds. The member for Dunkley has raised concerns about the privacy of some small business owners, particularly those who operate businesses from home. Certainly, privacy concerns should always be taken absolutely seriously. The privacy issue arises from the online registration system not necessarily permitting the customer to use a post office box as a registered address of the business. I understand, from what I have seen, that since the issue first came to the issue of ASIC, they have worked closely with Treasury to examine the feasibility and the legal standing of a number of options to address the concerns of home based businesses, a lot more of which will be able to open up as the NBN rolls out and allows a lot more flexibility for businesses operating from premises at home. I am advised that the Treasury and ASIC have now agreed upon a preferred option and that ASIC is developing the IT changes that are needed to roll out that solution. And while we wait for this measure to take effect ASIC has also undertaken to address concerns by allowing customers to change their address to a postal address, which is a good move. The interim measure will not occur automatically; rather, it will happen when the customer raises concerns with the call centre, which will allow them to make that choice. On top of this, ASIC will review its escalated complaints, where these concerns have previously been raised, and will invite businesses to change their address to a postal service. This government's reform of business name registration was aimed squarely at making it easier for business to operate across the country. We were particularly concerned that this reform would reduce the regulatory burden of small business. I do not accept the member for Dunkley's assertion that only the coalition cares for small business. From day one this government has focused its tax reform agenda on assisting business, particularly small business. As a Labor government we are unapologetic about keeping people working and about supporting jobs. I certainly note for the chamber some of these small business-focused tax reforms—for instance increasing the small business instant asset write-off from $1,000 to $6,500. We also introduced accelerated initial deduction for motor vehicles costing $6,500 or more, and the government has announced its intention to introduce loss carry-back, allowing companies to carry-back up to $1 million worth of losses to get a refund on tax paid in the previous year. It is particularly worth noting that—in an environment where businesses that might have an outward focus are affected by the strength of the Australian dollar—allowing businesses to restructure is an important measure. Lifting the tax-free threshold from $6,000 to $18,200 on 1 July last year benefited small businesses, particularly in terms of the people they employ. I also note the government's support for small business advocacy. I am particularly proud of the fact—and I would like to have it recorded here—that we were able to support the Greater Western Sydney Business Enterprise Centre, who are providing services for businesses all over western Sydney. In particular I note the work of David Baumgarten and people in the BEC who are providing support for small businesses in the Chifley electorate. We were able to support them with over $200,000 of assistance which, funnily enough, was cut by the state government. The state government of New South Wales, which professes concern for New South Wales small businesses, cut the funding available to this type of advisory and advocacy outfits, and we had to step in and provide the assistance. When this was brought forward to the then Minister for Small Business, Brendan O'Connor, he was able to ensure that we could provide funding support for small businesses in our area that want advice on the best way to start a small business, to grow a small business and to take a small business to the next level through a whole range of different strategies. I have seen some of the work on the ground through what he has achieved and certainly commend the BEC for their work. An opposition member interjecting— Mr HUSIC 91219 That is the type of practical assistance that is provided through this government at times where your coalition friends at the state level have not been entirely helpful, and it is worth pointing that out to the chamber. Admittedly, with a system like this—a national system that is replacing state-based systems—there will be teething problems, there is no doubt about that. But when you see what has been done in terms of correcting them and, importantly, what has been done to reduce the cost on small business—as I said before, reducing the cost from $1,000 for registration to $70—this is something that small business welcomes. They welcome the reduction of the regulatory burden on them. This has been a positive move welcomed by a lot of small businesses, and will definitely be welcomed in the long term as well. 19:11 Mr BRIGGS IYU Mayo I have a great privilege in seconding this terrific motion from the member for Dunkley. It was great to have the member for Chifley then speak in favour of the concerns raised in this motion. I will follow from what the member for Dunkley said earlier that we have supported the direction of the national business name register. The member for Dunkley is the shadow opposition spokesman on small business, and has been the same shadow opposition spokesman on small business for some time now. I think in his time as shadow small business spokesman he has had six Labor opponents, which I think reflects the abilities of the member for Dunkley. He has been highlighting this issue for some time. It has been operating now for over 12 months and I, like many of my colleagues, have had numerous complaints to my office about problems with the system. One, in particular, led me, after consulting with the shadow small business minister, to write to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer about this issue on 8 March this year, raising concerns of a constituent of mine, Mr Eric Newman, who has been running a small business on his property for many years. The South Australian government, to put this in context, recently decided to change a roadside numbering system in South Australia, and therefore he had— Mr Bradbury HVW It's their fault! Mr BRIGGS IYU The Parliamentary Secretary says, 'It's their fault.' That is the first response that we have had from the Parliamentary Secretary, because the letter goes unanswered. It is good to see we have got an 'It's their fault' coming back to us! But in any event, what the story is with the new national registration is that they will not allow Mr Newman to upgrade his postal address details with ASIC and remove the roadside mailbox and have a registered PO box instead. The decision was a result of the new rural property addressing system introduced by the state government. However, it goes to the ASIC rules that they are putting in place, which will not allow this to be registered. Of course it is just a bit of bureaucratic mindlessness, which is causing this small business person such challenges. I expect the Parliamentary Secretary will write back sooner rather than later and explain that it has been fixed, because it would seem to me to be an easy issue to fix—to help this small business. It is like so many small businesses trying to make a go of it in an electorate like mine, a rural electorate, largely in small, home-based businesses, as the member for Dunkley said. They are an increasing trend. The Labor Party does not like them. They do not like them; they never have. An honourable member interjecting— Mr BRIGGS IYU That is why they have attacked the independent contractors legislation that the former government brought in. They do not like the fact that people can create their own opportunities. They much prefer them in the union collective. They much prefer them to be part of the pool of workers that can be accessed— Mr Ripoll interjecting— Mr BRIGGS IYU Parliamentary Secretary, I would have thought you would be looking to answer the letter I wrote you on 8 March, rather than interjecting. An honourable member interjecting— Mr BRIGGS IYU Six months? Wow. This is a very important motion because the Labor Party does not like small businesses. It is instinctively against— Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HW8 Order! The member for Mayo has the call and is entitled to be heard in silence. Mr BRIGGS IYU These vicious interjections that are trying to disrupt this discussion, which I thought was being held in quite warm good humour previously with the member for Chifley, might reflect the challenges those on the other side are facing internally at the moment. This is a Labor Party and a Labor government that does not like small business. It much prefers a system where people who are trying to be entrepreneurial are forced to move into the workforce. Many mums returning to work after having children, our experience indicates, are trying to make a go of it but are now being exposed to the bureaucratic bungling of a Labor Party that does not care about them and does not want to encourage them. Not just on this issue but on so many other issues the Labor Party is making life harder, not easier. The parliamentary secretary, when he rises to support this motion, should also explain to my constituent, Mr Newman, when he can expect a response to what are not insubstantial concerns. They are things that can be resolved very quickly and would make a lot of sense. This is a terrific motion. It deserves the support of the parliament and some attention from this government. (Time expired) 19:16 Mr RIPOLL 83E Oxley I rise today to speak on this motion regarding the national business names register. If it were not for the fact that this motion is purely a political stunt, there may be some merit in it. The only genuine piece of goodwill towards small business in this motion is the date of commencement of operation, 28 May. The national business names register, the register operated by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, is a single place for an online registration application to operate across all states and territories under companies' registered business names. At its core it is about cutting red tape and cutting costs. That is something that this government has been and continues to be committed to. The online business names system provides many benefits over a paper based system, as anyone would understand. For a start, it is a single system across all states and territories, bringing together eight disparate databases. It is also open 24 hours a day, seven days a week and provides a bit of modernity. It recognises the reality that, in this day and age, if you are going to cut costs, cut bureaucracy and cut red tape for small business, you have to start doing a few things online and making them consistent. You make sure you do it once and for less than it used to cost. The reality is that a paper based system is no longer an adequate tool for small business, nor was the cost of more than $1,000 for registration adequate. It is now around $30 instead—a massive difference. Also, the fact that this has been one of the most popular of databases run by government or ASIC is phenomenal. Over 15 million free business name searches have been conducted. The majority of those, of course, are to discover whether a business name is presently being used. It is much simpler to do it once than to do it eight times across all states and territories, with the fact that you might get something wrong during that process. Something like 530,000 renewal notices have been issued, with incredible amounts of activity. This has been an absolute success. But I will acknowledge that, in all of these matters, when you are bringing together a complicated set of state and territory disparate databases, there will be a few teething problems—and there have been, and we have responded to those. That has been the whole point. A problem is identified, government responds and government puts forward extra funds. So we as a government are playing our role to ensure that small business is being looked after and that we continue to provide a way to cut red tape, a way to reduce costs and a way to provide protection. That is something that the opposition have not talked about in this. Protecting people's business names is as important as their privacy. Their privacy is absolutely important. The opposition would be happy to know that, from immediately being alerted to this issue, we began work with ASIC and with other departments to look at legal issues and rights. For a start, there was not one consistent rule across states and territories on the privacy matter that they raised about post office boxes. It is one way in some parts of the country and different in other parts of the country. We have worked to a consistent line of trying to bring forward the best possible way to deal with these issues, but it is not a simple case. There are some very important issues about protecting consumers as well as protecting business in the proper identification of people's registered addresses. That can be done through a third party—for example, a solicitor, an accountant or another third party. It does not necessarily have to be the address of where, for example, the home business is based. There are a range of areas around how this works, and that is currently being considered by government: the best way to make sure that we get this right for small business. Essentially, the national register is about having a single database—one place where you can go at any time of day or night, when it suits you as a small-business owner, not being told by some state department that you have to turn up between the hours of nine and five, which happens to be when you are trying to do your job as a small-business owner. It protects you against people who would otherwise steal your business name in another state or territory. It is a very good thing. It is cost-saving and it is all in one place. While I have the brief opportunity, the member for Mayo said he has not received the letter in response, dated 16 May. Perhaps he would like a copy now of the letter that I am sure he has in his office. He seems to have come in here claiming he did not receive a response from me. I have the response in my hand. It was posted, it is dated and I signed it on 16 May. (Time expired) 19:21 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde On behalf of the small-business community of Forde, I would like to thank the member for Dunkley and shadow minister for small business—the only shadow minister for small business on the coalition side—for this motion. Once again, we see an idea that has merit being very poorly implemented by this government. I reiterate what this motion seeks to note. As we all agree, the operation of the business owner register has been in place since 28 May 2012. Unsurprisingly, once again we see a government that has taken an enormous amount of time to act to fix implementation problems when they were recognised. One of the key issues has been the issue around privacy for home based businesses. In addition, we see that businesses have been waiting on hold for up to 45 minutes. I am aware of some cases where it has taken longer, and then they have been cut off, only to progress to an operator when contacting ASIC to have their questions or concerns dealt with. Equally, there are a large number of people who have been having problems registering, renewing, paying or transferring business names since the register was set up. As I said at the outset, the idea has merit, but, as with many things that this government has done, it is the implementation that leaves an awful lot to be desired. My office received calls from people, particularly early in the piece, around the difficulty of accessing the ASIC website, difficulty in transferring or registering names, loss of documentation that has been provided, and going on to register and not being able to save registration part way through and having to go back to do the whole process again. The government at the time assured the coalition that home based businesses would have their privacy protected, yet this, another of the government's broken promises, is leaving business owners exposed and vulnerable. As the member for Dunkley has rightfully pointed out, this is just not good enough. Also, despite promises being made to home based business operators, we again see small business being shunned by this government. This government cannot even fake that they have any kind of respect for the small business sector, which provides almost half of our entire workforce with employment. As the shadow minister has pointed out, since the rollout of the new system the coalition has received calls from small business owners, solicitors and accountants highlighting how the new system was botched from day one. It was heartening to see that the member for— An honourable member: Dunkley? Mr VAN MANEN 188315 No, it was not the member for Dunkley. Honourable members interjecting— Mr VAN MANEN 188315 No, the member for Chifley pointed out that there have been some improvements over the last few months, and I do congratulate them for that. But, as with anything, it takes an inordinately long time to get to these issues and to get them fixed. For those wishing to complain to ASIC about these issues, the general waiting time has been 45 minutes or longer. You can imagine that, if you are in small business and you have customers at the counter or ringing up to order a product, and you are sitting there on the phone to ASIC, you are not doing any business. You are not getting paid for it, and business are not there to be the paymaster to help solve the government's problems. They are there to build and grow their businesses, and it is from that that we continue to build the economy so that they are able to employ people and able to grow. It is just not good enough. The coalition have tried to do something about this. We alerted the government to the problems with the register some 10 months or so ago, yet they chose to do nothing to help people with being able to register new business names. Finally we see in the last budget another $7.8 million thrown at fixing the system, finally admitting that in fact they had failed in attempting to implement the national business register. This was on top of the $125 million they had already spent on it. But, as we will always see, it is a coalition government that has at its heart the interests of small business operators. When I talk to my small business operators, they long for a change of government on 14 September. 19:27 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair The Liberal Party is no friend of small business. I looked at what the member for Dunkley had to say when this legislation came before the chamber back in 2011. I spoke after him. Today he repeated this assertion that this national register of small business was a process that the Howard government had undertaken. I think I reminded him back in September 2011 that in fact he would have supported it, perhaps, in the 12th, 13th, 14th or 15th year of the Howard government. They really did nothing about this, and this approach has been a result of the federal Labor government's legislation in September 2011. We brought this legislation through. We brought this in and the coalition did nothing. They are not friends of small business; they never have been and never will be. We know which type of business they are on the side of: big business. When it comes to this particular thing, we are the ones who understand business. This particular legislation that we brought in was important at the time because we had different amounts that had to be paid in different jurisdictions. For example, in my home state of Queensland a business had to pay $133.60 for one-off registration or $255.60 for three-year registration. It varied in every state and territory. Thirty thousand businesses operated in multiple jurisdictions, and that equated to thousands and thousands of dollars a year. I know what it is like to run a business, because I ran a business for more than two decades before I came here. I wonder how many businesses the shadow minister for small business ran. I built that business up into a multimillion-dollar business, so I understand what it is like to run a business—to deal with unions, with individuals, with Telstra and with those sorts of things. This particular legislation that we brought in and that brought in this system enhanced the attitude of this government and made a difference in the lives of small business operators by reducing red tape and costs and, as the Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business talked about, bringing modernity to the system and getting rid of the paper trail. So that is what happened. We know that, with 1.5 million business names and 15 million free business name searches being conducted, of course there may be some difficulties in implementation. I had a look at what the shadow minister said. Where was he talking about these problems in his speech back in 2011? He was saying the coalition were supportive of what we were doing. He was saying that they were going to support it. In fact, he was saying, 'We actually would have done it—in fact, we were doing it.' But, in fact, they were not doing it at all. The situation is that government have given money. As the Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business referred to, we have provided another $7.8 million to assist in this regard. We have also seen ASIC take steps, including 150 new telephone lines in the call centre and recruitment of additional staff in the client contact centre. We have seen improvements in the average call waiting times and they have also decreased from almost 30 minutes in February this year to five minutes and 30 seconds last week. We have seen an additional $7.8 million provided to ASIC to do improvements in this regard. We have also seen upgrades to telephony infrastructure. We have seen an increase in the rate of service for call centres over the next two years to a target of 60 per cent of all calls answered in 300 seconds—a grade of service which is comparable to other government agencies. Those opposite who opposed small business write-offs, who want to jack up company tax, who actually opposed almost every assistance we provided to small business, including increasing the tax-free threshold for home-based small businesses, and who voted against that should hang their heads in shame when it comes to small business. In fact, this is a disingenuous motion by the member for Dunkley, because his side of the politics would never have the wit or wisdom to do this. We have done it. We are implementing it. It helps small business. Those opposite never help small business. They are always on the side of big business. We are the ones who brought in competition policy. We are the ones who brought in trade practices legislation back in the days of the Whitlam government and who upgraded it in the days of this government. We have done a good job in assisting small business. Those opposite have not when it comes to investment, infrastructure and assistance to small business. (Time expired) 19:32 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I rise to speak on the member for Dunkley's motion regarding the national business names register. As this motion notes, the national business names register has been in operation since 28 May 2012. Previously, business name registers were used in each of the eight separate states and territories, which made way for the single national register administered by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. The new register was set up ostensibly to make it easier for small businesses to register their name and to only have to do it in one national jurisdiction. However, just as this Labor government did with pink batts home insulation and the National Broadband Network, it has made a complete hash of its introduction. As the member for Dunkley highlighted, a large number of people across Australia have had difficulty registering, renewing, paying and transferring their business names since the national business names register commenced operation in 2012. On its website, ASIC Commissioner Greg Tanzer has acknowledged that: … there have certainly been frustrations for some people using the new online technology or trying to ring us for help. This has caused incredible frustration for business owners for what realistically should take a couple of minutes to do. In particular, I have been contacted by numerous constituents who have had considerable difficulty using the ASIC website. A constituent in Keperra was contacted by ASIC in early March advising him that his business name had been automatically transferred to ASIC's business names register on 28 May 2012 and that his registration was due for renewal. Instructions were provided on how to use the website. Unfortunately, it was anything but simple. According to him, for several consecutive days he attempted to use the ASIC website, enter his ASIC key and use one of their payment options all to no avail. When he tried to use the provided telephone number to call ASIC, he had to wait for almost an hour and then was simply told that he could not pay over the phone. Instead, he was told that he had to use the website, which of course could not process his payment. Another constituent from Upper Brookfield contacted my office in April after experiencing a similar situation. After waiting a considerable amount of time calling the ASIC hotline, he felt completely ignored by ASIC who could not assure him that if ASIC were unable to process his payment then his business name registration would not be cancelled. Significant privacy concerns have arisen from the new rules, which stipulate that small business owners must use a physical or street address. And if you do use your home address for service of documents, it is displayed publicly on the business names register. These concerns have been constantly raised by owners of home based businesses who have had their personal addresses appearing on the register. There have also been problems with the sale and transfer of business names. Instead of being able to seamlessly transfer from one owner to another, under the new law, business name owners have had to deregister the name, and wait for the other person to take the name without any assurance that anyone else might be able to take it. The blame for failing to support the implementation of this scheme lies squarely at the feet of this Labor government. Since its introduction, the coalition and small business have been warning the government about the problems in transferring business names and about the privacy concerns of home based businesses, which the government has continually ignored. Finally, in this year's budget announced in May, the Labor government finally acknowledged these lingering problems by proposing to spend a further $7.8 million on the scheme. In total, the register's implementation has cost government $133 million, including the $125.2 million allocated in the 2010-11 budget. The failure to implement the national business names register is symptomatic of this government's inability to listen to the concerns of small business. Labor promised a 'one-in, one-out' approach to regulations; instead, they have introduced more than 20,000 regulations while repealing only 200. The Prime Minister promised that there would not be a carbon tax under a government she led; instead, with the Greens and Independents, she set about implementing the world's only economy-wide carbon tax. In this case, Labor promised to make the national business names register easier for small business; instead, they have completely botched its implementation and have only created more headaches for already struggling small business owners. 19:36 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra My parliamentary colleagues on both sides are well aware of the fact I have a distinct passion for small business. Before entering parliament, I ran my own small business for 10 years. I am fortunate to have 25,000 small businesses in my electorate and across the ACT. That is about one small business for every 12 people so small business is a hugely important part of the Canberra economy, and Canberra is luck to have such a thriving small business community. The disparaging comments that no-one in Labor has any small business background are complete nonsense. There is me; there is my colleague here. There is also the member for Blair. There are three of us on this side speaking on this motion who have had their own experience in small business. The member for Blair was in business for 25 years. I was in business for 10 years and the member for Robertson was in business for more than a decade so we have significant experience in this area and it is complete nonsense to suggest that no-one on the Labor side has any small or micro business experience. Since elected, I have spent a great deal of time trying to improve the dialogue between small business and both sides of politics. I set up the Parliamentary Friends of Small Business with the coalition, and we have all found the discussions with small and micro businesses incredibly useful. I think that understanding the needs of small and micro business needs to be enhanced not just on this side but also on the other side. From the conversations I have had with those people who attended this bipartisan group from the other side, they have found it incredibly useful and it has enhanced their understanding of small and micro business. A few weeks ago I hosted a small business forum here at Parliament House with the Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and representatives from the Canberra small business community. It was a really useful opportunity for the Canberra small business community to explain to the parliamentary secretary the challenges they are facing in getting access to government contracts. We all know that there tends to be a favouritism towards primes. And I am concerned—as they are and as are many people on this side—that SMEs are being locked out of the government procurement process. So we had expansive discussions on the government procurement process generally, on tenders and on compliance, and it is the first of many conversations that we will be having in the government procurement arena. In the conversations I have also had with the small business community—when I am not in this House I go out and speak to small businesses in Canberra day in day out—they tell me either that the market is steady or that it is growing. And that is as a result of the economic fundamentals that we have established for Canberra and also the nation: growth, growth, growth; jobs, jobs, jobs. We have created a million jobs in this country, and we have created the right economic environment for these businesses to be able to grow and thrive and prosper and to employ people. So, the conditions have been good over many years since we were elected. But what the small business community is most concerned about at the moment, in all the conversations I am having with them, is the huge hole that is going to be punched in their potential client base, in their potential market, in their potential business existence post-September. They are particularly concerned about coalition promises of axing 15,000 Public Service jobs—well, between 12,000 and 20,000 Public Service jobs; let us just settle at 15,000. That is whole areas of my community that will be gone, wiped out, in terms of jobs. If you want to have a significant impact on small business or microbusiness in Canberra, 12,000 to 20,000 jobs is going to do it. I do not hear much expression of concern about what your plans for the future are for the Canberra business community, getting rid of 12,000 to 20,000 public servants. We saw what you did to this community in 1996. We saw how you caused an economic downturn. You stopped growth. House prices plummeted. Remember 1996, Canberra. (Time expired) 19:42 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong It is my pleasure to rise to support my colleague and friend the member for Dunkley on his important motion before the House today about the national business names register, which was established in May 2012. We would like to express our concerns, not about this idea of a national business names register—because it is a good idea, and it had its genesis in the Howard government—but about the botched implementation that has occurred on this Labor government's watch. During the register's short life, we have seen the privacy of many small business owners jeopardised through their residence being known. We have seen huge delays and waiting times as people have rung the ASIC hotline trying to get through to renew, transfer or pay for their business name. This has moved what was formerly a state and territory based system to a national system. But I have had constituents call my office and detail the problems that they have had with this national business register. The member for Dunkley, who has been extremely energetic, passionate, and knowledgeable in his portfolio, told those opposite more than 10 months ago about the existing problems, but little was done. Millions of dollars were thrown at this national business names register—$120 million in the initial budget. And because of the loud outcry from small business, another $7.8 million has been allocated. But the money is not enough, because what we have seen from this government is its botched implementation. We have seen the pink batts fiasco and we have seen the school halls fiasco. We know you cannot protect our borders, and it is little wonder you cannot run a national business names register. Small business is absolutely critical in our community. There are 2.7 million small businesses, employing more than four million people. In fact, 96 per cent of businesses in this country are small businesses, 47 per cent of those working in the private sector are working in small businesses, and 35 per cent of the country's GDP comes from small businesses. But you have taken small business in this country for granted. The fact that you have had five ministers responsible for small business in 15 months says it all. You have introduced more than 20,000 new regulations. You have introduced economy-wide taxes like the carbon tax, which comes right off the bottom line of small businesses, as well as a host of other bits of red tape. In fact, the red tape is crippling the small-business sector. We have seen more than 240,000 jobs being lost from small business, again on Labor's watch, and we have seen a 95 per cent decrease in the amount of small business start-ups in this country. There are 130,000 independent contractors who are no longer there because of this government's poor record on small business. Millions of people across this country have said, 'Enough is enough'. They want more certainty. They want people to run the government who care and who understand small business. Given the fact that there are so few members opposite who have actually run a small business themselves, it is little wonder that this government have been so unable to conduct themselves properly in the small business area. What will we do if we are given a chance at government? The first thing is that the member for Dunkley, who will be the Minister for Small Business, will sit in cabinet. He will have a seat at the cabinet table. Small business will be in Treasury. We will introduce a fair dinkum Paid Parental Leave scheme which will be of great assistance to small business. Of course we will get rid of the carbon tax which, as I said, comes off the bottom line of small business. We will introduce changes that will see more than $1 billion in red tape removed. What a great burden that red tape has been on small businesses right across the country. We will ensure that the government pays small business on time, and there will be a penalty if it does not. We will extend the unfair contract provisions to small business. And perhaps very significantly, we will conduct a root and branch review of competition laws as well to ensure that small business gets fair dinkum go. This motion before the House is extremely important because in setting up a national business names register we wanted to help small business. But this Labor Party has done everything to botch its implementation and therefore to hinder small business. Under the coalition we will do so much better for the small businesses of Australia. (Time expired) 19:47 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to oppose the member for Dunkley's motion on a national business names register. As much as I have much personal respect for the member for Dunkley, sadly this motion is off-key. He has hit a wrong note. I am particularly proud of this national business names register, which has been operating successfully since 28 May 2012. I remember my days as an articled clerk working in a law firm. It was a small business actually, though it has grown to be a slightly bigger business. Much of the work of an articled clerk was spent running around inefficiently registering business names and working in state jurisdictions. Thankfully, the federal government has taken a step up and got rid of this red tape—this dreadful red tape—that is just a cost that small businesses do not know. The national business names register in Australia became a reality one year ago today. Eight separate state and territory business name registers have made way for a single online register, which today holds more than 1.7 million names. This is bad news for articled clerks or for young lawyers. Obviously, they will not now be able to bill clients or businesses for much of their work. But it is a good thing for the Australian economy and a good thing for productivity. Mr Deputy Chair Adams, since you and I were elected at the same time, you might recall that for the quarter when we were elected, productivity under the Howard government was running at zero—a big fat zero. They had run out of ideas, they had run out of anything except spending money like a drunken sailor. The Labor government has been much more efficient, has had much more of a national approach and has had much more of a 'what is good for business ' approach. In the last 12 months ASIC has facilitated the online registration of over 260,000 new business names, made 120,000 updates to the register, done more than 14 million business name searches and issued close to 500,000 business name renewals. Can you imagine the work that articled clerks would have been doing but for the federal government's stepping up and making it a more efficient, unified nation? The benefits of the national register include one stop convenience online to create, maintain and cancel a business name. Thirty per cent of registrations are done after business hours, making it more convenient for small business. There is only one registration needed Australia wide, from Perth to Coolangatta, instead of multiple registrations state by state. As a Queenslander living in Brisbane, it is not hard to be doing business over the Tweed. That is the case throughout Australia. It is cheaper, especially for customers with multiple business names. The national business names register has saved business $34 million in the last year alone. I am sure that the member for Dunkley touched on this often in his many speeches commending the Labor government for our contributions to small business! That $34 million in savings in the last year is through reduced fees to register or renew a name. Obviously, there is increased transparency as a result of more information being available online for free so that the general public can search to find out who stands behind a business name. Once upon a time in Queensland you would have engaged a lawyer to find out this information. Now you can find it online at a time that suits you. Although the vast majority of businesses have utilised the benefits of the new online national register without any significant issues, despite this off key motion from the member for Dunkley, unfortunately some people have experienced difficulties such as accessing the website, contacting ASIC and renewing business names. That is because it is so popular. To address the congestion levels and the call wait times, ASIC recently implemented a range of strategies, including adding 150 new phone lines into the call centre. ASIC has now reached the maximum capacity of phone lines possible using our current Traralgon PABX. It has recruited additional staff in their client contact centre and registry operations team to respond to inquiries. Obviously, you respond to demand—that is what a good government does. These strategies have been largely successful in dealing with the larger than forecast call volumes, congestion levels at the exchange and call wait times. Obviously, it is so popular that too many people are trying to utilise. Bad for lawyers but good for the government in terms of improving productivity. More recent data that I thought the member for Dunkley would be privy to indicates that almost no customers are having their calls blocked at the exchange due to congestion levels. Average call wait times have also decreased from almost 30 minutes in February to five minutes and 30 seconds last week. It is good to catch up, member for Dunkley. I am sure that you will be quick to appreciate the great work that the Labor government has done in improving productivity and making it easier for small business. (Time expired) Debate adjourned. Bowel Cancer 6006 19:52 Ms HALL 83N Shortland Bowel cancer is a deadly and insidious disease. It is the kind of disease that sneaks up on you without you knowing that you have it. It is also a disease that if caught early enough can be treated and cured. That brings us to the motion that we have before us today. This is Bowel Cancer Month. It is time to raise awareness of every step possible that individual Australians can take to deal with this. They can undergo screening and treatment for this cancer. This is an issue that I am particularly passionate about. My father died of bowel cancer. He did not undergo any screening or testing. When it was discovered that he had bowel cancer it was far too late. He died a very painful death. Consequently, both my sister and I have had regular bowel screenings and if it had not been for those screenings we might have developed a similar type of cancer to that our father had. That shows that screening works. That is why the government has looked very seriously at screening. I will give a few details on bowel cancer. Bowel cancer is also known as colorectal cancer, cancer of the colon or the rectum. It is Australia's second biggest killer. We have one of the highest rates of bowel cancer in the world. That can be attributed to a number of things. It can be attributed to diet, exercise, smoking, drinking—all those activities. It is interesting when you compare the types of behaviour that cause bowel cancer with the types of behaviour that lead to heart disease or stroke. There is a similarity, but by changing little things, we can change our predisposition to bowel cancer—for example, higher fibre, more exercise or you can give up smoking if you are a smoker. It is the kind of illness or disease that, by acting, you can really turn it around. There are 277 new cases each week and out of those 277 cases that are diagnosed, 77 die. That is a very big percentage. You might as well say that about a quarter of the people diagnosed with bowel cancer die from the disease. Around 3,982 people die each year, and around 14,000 people are diagnosed each year, with 60 per cent of the people diagnosed with the disease surviving five years. Ninety per cent of cases can be treated successfully, and that is what I was talking about a moment ago. If a polyp is discovered, the polyp can be removed. If the cancer is contained within the colon or the rectum, it can be removed before it has a chance to impact on any other organs. Based on current trends in Australia, one in 12 people will develop bowel cancer before the age of 85. It is not men or women, it is all—both men and women are affected by bowel cancer. Screening is the most effective way to detect the disease. Bowel cancer screening involves a test that is given to people before the obvious symptoms appear. The aim is to find polyps or bleeding early and then treat them. It can develop without any sign or warning and usually does, and it can impact on people of any age. An electorate officer who worked for me had a daughter who was 33 years old and was diagnosed with bowel cancer. Unfortunately, the doctors did not believe that somebody so young could have bowel cancer, and she had really serious bowel cancer. Eventually, after treating her for all other symptoms with a number of treatments, they decided that they would check to see whether or not she had bowel cancer, and she did. She had very, very advanced bowel cancer. Family history is another important aspect in making sure that you take every step and every precaution possible to ensure that you do not get bowel cancer. The risk is greater in a person who is over 50. Although I talked about the young woman who developed bowel cancer, somebody who is over 50 has a much greater chance of developing bowel cancer. If you have an inflammatory bowel disease or Crohn's Disease, that increases the chances of your developing bowel cancer. Two-yearly screening can reduce deaths by as much as 33 per cent. Last year I spoke in the House about a friend of mine whose wife would have been saved if she had had that screening. The government has recognised the fact that screening is of such importance. That is why we have invested $16.1 million over four years to support the National Bowel Cancer Screening program. The member for New England has been very active in raising the issue of bowel cancer and screening within this parliament. The extra money that has been given to the National Bowel Cancer Screening program has been welcomed by the Cancer Council of Australia and Professor Ian Olver has stated his support for this program. As I mentioned, this month is Bowel Cancer Month and this Wednesday is Red Aussie Apple Day, which aims to increase the awareness of bowel cancer and to reduce any embarrassment associated with the disease. A study done by the University of New England and the Hunter and New England Area Health Service on the Hunter community showed that 20 per cent of adults with bowel cancer symptoms such as bleeding have not consulted their doctor about their symptoms. That is a pretty big figure. I know that Rotary is currently undertaking scans in my area. The screening involves taking a specimen and sending the specimen away for testing. You can also undergo a colonoscopy, like I do every few years. By doing those screening tests you can minimise your chances of developing bowel cancer. If you are having problems such as bleeding, consult your doctor. Do not be frightened. The thing to be frightened of is not consulting your doctor. I would encourage all members of this House to get behind the Red Aussie Apple Day and be very supportive of the campaign to raise awareness of bowel cancer in our community. As members of parliament, we need to get out into our communities and get the message out to people to change some behaviours. Change your eating patterns, include more fibre in your diet, exercise more and undergo regular screening tests. This will minimise your chance of developing serious bowel cancer. Catch it early. Act now.(Time expired) 20:02 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina From the outset I would like to commend the member for Shortland for putting forward this very worthwhile motion. Bowel cancer is something that affects many families, if not all families. As the member for Shortland indicated, screening is so important to getting to the cause of the problem, if indeed there is a problem. Early detection can mean a longer life. It can mean a cure. It can mean that people can stem the tide of those deadly cancerous cells and ensure that their future is far better. I also commend the government as the member for Shortland spoke about funding of $16.1 million over four years to fund bowel cancer screening. That is commendable. I know this has bipartisan support. Cancer is something that affects all families, and bowel cancer is something that affects many, many families. It has affected mine. My father-in-law, Bernard Shaw, died of bowel cancer on 4 June 2000. He had been diagnosed with bowel cancer 16 months earlier and was given just three months to live. In his true fighting spirit, he managed to ward it off for an additional 13 months but finally succumbed when the cancer spread to his liver and lungs. He was only 61 years young when he passed away. That certainly had a profound effect on my family. My father-in-law was a good man. He played a great role in my development and is greatly missed by his widow, my mother-in-law, Beverley Shaw. Never a day goes by on which she does not reflect upon the fact that he is not there for the grandchildren and the family. I commend the member for Shortland for putting this motion forward. She puts a lot of these health related motions to the House and I commend her for that. I know that she would be well aware that these sorts of motions have bipartisan support. If there is anything we as parliamentarians on any side of politics can do to improve screening processes, health and medical facilities to enable them to find cures for any cancers and to better improve the screening services for bowel cancer, we ought to do it. Health is the number one issue in my Riverina electorate as I am sure it is in McPherson, Shortland and La Trobe, I note as the member for La Trobe walks into the chamber. Bowel cancer is the general term for cancer that begins in the large bowel. Depending on where the cancer starts, it is sometimes called colon cancer or rectal cancer. Most bowel cancers develop from tiny growths called polyps inside the colon or rectum. They look like small spots on the bowel lining or like cherries on stalks. I know it does not sound very nice, but unfortunately that is what it is. The member for Shortland talked about the embarrassment of going through the screening, but let me tell you that a little bit of embarrassment is nothing compared with the pain and suffering that bowel cancer patients go through. A little bit of embarrassment at the start to have one of these screening processes done is nothing when you consider that what they are doing could save your life. Not all polyps become cancerous. If polyps are removed the risk of bowel cancer is reduced and in many cases completely taken away. Symptoms of bowel cancer include blood in faeces, an unexplained change in your bowel habits, such as prolonged diarrhoea or constipation and unexplained weight loss. We know that in regional areas the treatment and service facilities available for people with bowel cancer, along with a number of other cancers, lag behind those for people in metropolitan areas. That is unfortunate. I know that the good folk of Wagga Wagga and district self-funded their own Riverina radiotherapy care centre. That particular centre is having a profound effect on improving the longevity of cancer patients and in the early detection of people at risk. Wagga Wagga has just secured prostate biopsies at the Wagga Wagga Base Hospital. It took some months to get it and something of a media campaign to get it. But, thankfully, patients will soon be able to have prostate biopsies in this major regional referral centre. Previously, patients had to go to either Young or Griffith, a two hour drive from Wagga Wagga, to have this service done. This is just not acceptable in this day and age. I am glad that the new equipment required to undertake trans-rectal, ultrasound-guided biopsies of the prostate has arrived at Wagga Wagga Base Hospital and is currently being configured. An education session for clinical staff on using the equipment has been scheduled and the first procedure is scheduled to take place from 1 July at Wagga Wagga Base Hospital, according to Murrumbidgee Local Health District operations director Jill Ludford. Murrumbidgee Local Health District will continue to provide the procedure at Griffith Health Service and Young Health Service. It is expected that Wagga Wagga Base Hospital will perform around 120 of these prostate biopsies, called TRUS biopsies, per year. That is very pleasing for Cootamundra resident Eddie Williams, who, at age 73, was shocked last year when he learnt that he had to travel more than 200 kilometres to have the procedure done. He described it as an absolute disgrace. He was certainly right. I raised it with the federal health minister and she was rightly concerned that this service was not being done at Wagga Wagga Base Hospital. I know that Tanya Plibersek looked into the matter to ensure that something was done. I am glad that the New South Wales government has seen fit to ensure that that particular piece of equipment is supplied and the training is done for that service to be carried out. It is important too to note that bowel cancer also affects Aboriginal people. Anything we can do to help Aboriginal people with cancer screening is going to be very vital in the future. I will quote from a book titled Journeys into Medicine from the Australian Indigenous Doctors Association. The Chief Executive Officer of that association, Mr Romlie Mokak, said: 'With our numbers growing within the profession, our voices will undoubtedly grow louder and stronger and that can only mean a better future for our children.' Aboriginal people, and there are many in my electorate and certainly many more in remote areas of Australia, always have even greater difficulty accessing health services than do people even in regional areas and certainly those in metropolitan areas. When we talk about bowel cancer and screening services, we should remember that these people have such difficulty even being educated, but certainly in being aware of screening services and having access to those services. I would implore the current government and indeed the coalition—people who have the ability to improve these sorts of services—to make sure that funding is available so that those people in those very remote communities can have equitable access to cancer screening and so save lives and increase the chances of them picking up very early those deadly cancerous cells. In 2004 and 2008 the overall rate of new cases—the incidence rate—of cancer in the Indigenous population was slightly higher than for non-Indigenous people. Incidence rates vary on the types of cancer but for cervical cancer for women, cancer of the pancreas, lung and other smoking-related cancers and cancers of unknown primary site—the part of the body where the cancer started—are extremely high. Because many of those people live in remote areas, everything should be done to make sure that the proper screening services are available. Funding should be directed to those very important areas. In conclusion, I commend the member for Shortland for putting this motion forward. Bowel cancer is a dreadful, insidious disease. We should be doing everything we can to properly fund screening services throughout Australia and certainly in the regional areas. 20:12 Ms SMYTH 172770 La Trobe It is a pleasure to be able to speak this evening on an important motion. It is an important motion partly because it has been well crafted in the content and well thought through by the member for Shortland, who has obviously shown a great deal of interest in and dedication to the cause of raising awareness about the issue of bowel cancer in her electorate, and now right across the parliament. Also, it is important simply because so much of this issue is tied up in awareness raising. It is extraordinary to many of us to find out that bowel cancer is indeed the second most common cause of cancer-related death in Australia, after lung cancer. It should not really be quite so surprising; it should be well known to many more of us. Through efforts like this, putting motions like this on the public record, by having other members of parliament from various different hues speaking about it, it will go a long way towards removing the stigma associated with seeking treatment, and also removing the stigma potentially associated with revealing that one has bowel cancer or that a family member of friend may have it. It is fairly sobering to understand that on average around 80 Australians die each week from the disease. Both men and women are at risk of developing bowel cancer. In Australia the lifetime risk of developing bowel cancer before the age of 75 years is around one in 19 for men and one in 28 for women. It is one of the highest rates of bowel cancer in the world. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and the Australasian Association of Cancer Registries publication Cancer in Australia: an overview 2012, 2, 205 men and 1,777 women died as a result of bowel cancer in 2005. Screening is very important, because bowel cancer can develop without any early-warning symptoms. I am sure that many of us here will know family members, friends and members of our respective constituencies who have found themselves exposed to bowel cancer and have not had any early-warning signs. We know that bowel cancer can be treated successfully if it is detected in its early stages. By undertaking a screening test every two years one can reduce the risk of dying from bowel cancer by up to one-third. We know that international randomised control trials have demonstrated that population screening for bowel cancer by way of blood tests can reduce deaths from bowel cancer by between 15 and 33 per cent. We know that research also shows that the risk of developing bowel cancer rises quite significantly from the age of 50 and the National Health and Medical Research Council recommends that screening of people with an average risk of bowel cancer should commence at 50 years of age. We know that bowel cancer can be treated successfully if it is detected in its early stages but, regrettably, fewer than 40 per cent of such cancers are detected early. In response to these figures, the bowel cancer screening pilot program, which tested the feasibility, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of such screening in the Australian community, ran between 2000 and 2004. Just over 56,000 men and women from Mackay, Adelaide and Melbourne were invited to participate in that pilot. The overall participation rate compared very well with participation rates in other longer established screening programs. The final evaluation report of that pilot program showed that a national bowel cancer screening program would be feasible, acceptable and cost effective in Australia. It is very pleasing to say that in response to this, as part of the 2012-13 federal budget, the Australian government announced that the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program would be expanded to include Australians turning 60 years of age from 2013 and 70 years of age from 2015. Between July 2012 and 31 December 2015 up to 4.8 million eligible Australians will be offered free bowel-cancer screening, which includes one million Australians aged between 60 and 70 years. We know that the program will be further expanded in 2017 and 2018 with a phased implementation of biennial screening to commence. When it is fully implemented, all Australians aged between 50 and 74 years will be offered free screening every two years, consistent with the recommendations of the NHMRC. I am pleased to support this resolution brought by the member for Shortland and the work of Tanya Plibersek, the Minister for Health, in the budget measures. 20:18 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I rise to speak about the importance of bowel cancer this evening and the importance of bowel-cancer screening. It was almost three years ago that I met with Professor James St John to discuss his work at Cancer Council Australia and the impact bowel cancer has on the community and the health system. It was at this time that I learnt that bowel cancer is one of the most frequently occurring cancers in Australia and the second-biggest cancer killer after lung cancer. At the time, this government had still not confirmed funding for the screening program beyond December 2010. The program had three eligible age groups: 50, 55 and 60. However, the recommendation to have two-year testing for everybody over 50 was not one that the government had agreed to. I decided it was important to take up the cause, to campaign to ensure funding would be continuing and to extend the screening program so that it could be at its most effective. Today bowel cancer is still the second-most diagnosed cancer in Australia and the second-largest killer after lung cancer. There are almost 14½ thousand new cases of bowel cancer detected every year, claiming almost 4,000 lives annually because, unfortunately, fewer than 40 per cent of cases are detected early. However, it does not have to be that way. Bowel cancer is one of the most curable cancers if caught at an early stage. In fact, if detected prior to its spreading beyond the bowel, there is a 90 per cent survival rate beyond five years of detection. That is why bowel cancer screening is so critical and why it is so important for everyone to have access to. It is critical that we break the taboo that prevents some people from undertaking screening in the first place. In my electorate of Higgins, I feel very privileged to have one of the most prestigious and respected cancer centres in Australia, at Cabrini Hospital. Many may be unaware, but Cabrini Hospital treats more people with cancer than the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, another great institution in Victoria with a highly deserved national reputation. I would specifically like to recognise the work of Associate Professor Paul McMurrick and his team and commend their tireless efforts in preventing, curing and raising awareness of this insidious disease. It was during my visit to Cabrini in 2011 that I was informed of the additional economic benefits of bowel cancer screening. A full population based screening program costs around $140 million per year. The removal of a precancerous polyp is estimated at $1,600, whereas full cancer treatment for the bowel is estimated to cost over $70,000 per patient. That is just looking at the economics, leaving aside, obviously, the personal impact on people and their families. So the more cases we can detect at the polyp stage, the more money the system will save over time. Another critical component of cancer prevention is, of course, medical research. That is why it is so disappointing that the government has cut medical health and research and university funding through direct cuts and also through tricky accounting such as paying grants to the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Research Council in arrears rather than upfront, despite laboratories requiring capital upfront in order to operate effectively. The total cuts are now in the order of $3 billion. Although I very warmly welcome funding for the screening process, it should not come at the expense of other forms of prevention and research. More can be done in the field of cancer research and prevention, but it will require commitment from government and it will also require private sector investment. I was very proud when the Leader of the Opposition announced that the coalition would quarantine medical health and research funding from any further cuts in upcoming budgets. This is a commitment that, notably, the Labor government has not matched. Three years ago, I said: It is my view that the Gillard Government should introduce a permanent public screening program and they should not delay. Today, I am happy that the government listened to my requests and acted, in part, upon them. 20:23 Mr JENKINS HH4 Scullin I rise to support this motion brought before the House by the member for Shortland. If we look at the motion, it demonstrates that we in this place can play a leadership role. It recognises that bowel cancer can develop without any early warning signs. It indicates that, if a bowel cancer is detected before it spreads beyond the bowel, there is a 90 per cent chance of the patient surviving more than five years. It talks about the fact that regular screening every two years for people over 50 can reduce the risk of dying from bowel cancer by up to 33 per cent. It recognises that 12,000 suspected or confirmed cancers will be detected through free screening, which will save between 300 and 500 lives each year. It further commends the government on its four-year commitment to provide an extra $49.7 million boost for the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program. This is a disease that can affect all people. I often reflect that sometimes people believe that we parliamentarians live in some sort of other world and are prevented from being exposed to the challenges that confront ordinary families. But for the Jenkins family, back in November 2006, the reality of bowel cancer hit when my wife, who was being investigated for a completely unrelated condition, after having a colonoscopy was told that she had a cancer. We were very lucky, because it was found very early on. She is one of those cases that shows that if you can find it early enough, before it has spread, this is the type of disease you can get on top of. What it clearly illustrated to us was the importance of making people aware that by a series of fairly simple tests—look at the types of screening tests there are, and the sophistication of the various scopes that can be done now—there is this opportunity to take measures that can ensure that somebody does not die from an insidious bowel cancer. So I found it very interesting, and I thank the Parliamentary Library for coming up with some figures that illustrate the type of uptake within the municipalities in the Scullin electorate. I was surprised to see figures showing that, over the three municipalities, the range of people who actually participate from the pool of those who are invited to participate range from 42.3 per cent in the case of Banyule City and 40.5 per cent in Nillumbik Shire to only 32.5 per cent in the city of Whittlesea—2,200 of 6,900. Even more concerning were the rates of tests that actually showed a positive result. In Banyule the rate was 7.4 ASR per 100, in Nillumbik 7.3 per 100 and in Whittlesea nine per 100. If you then looked at the deaths from colorectal cancers between 2003 and 2007 in these three municipalities, the average annual rate in Banyule was 9.4 per 100,000, in Nillumbik was 7.7 per 100,000 and in the City of Whittlesea was 13.1 per 100,000. One of the things that really concerns me is that Whittlesea, the municipality that has the lowest participation rate, has the highest number of deaths and the highest risk as shown by the number of positive tests. I think, for a lot of reasons, that that is perhaps not a surprising participation rate; it just indicates that there are pockets of the people we represent, pockets of the people for whom we put in place screening systems like this one, who need to be properly informed of the benefit. So I take this opportunity, the opportunity of Red Apple Day, to say, let's make sure that we educate people on the importance of undergoing the proper screening tests for bowel cancer. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 140651 Let the record show that the member for Scullin did indeed bring to the chamber a red apple in recognition of the day! 20:28 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I am really delighted to be able to give bipartisan support to the motion from the member for Shortland on bowel cancer. This parliament is at its best when we find common ground. I think this is an important recognition of a critical issue, and the search is always to find constructive ways forward across the parliament. So, I want to acknowledge and thank the member for her work and note that there are people on both sides who have had family experience, electorate experience and medical experience in working in this space. Having said that, let me put this in a broader context. I want to talk about the magnitude of the issue, the steps forward and then a little bit about what we can perhaps do beyond the standard. The magnitude of the issue, as the motion notes, is that more than 14,000 Australians are diagnosed with bowel cancer each year. Of those, we lose, tragically, about 77 a week, on average. I think most of us in this House will have known directly or indirectly people who have been lost to the condition, and I can certainly speak to that myself. Against that background, recognising that there is something that will take each of us inevitably, the question is: are there avoidable things that can be done to improve the quality of life and improve patient care? The answer is: of course. The progressive extension of life over the last century and over the last half-century is testimony to that. In this particular space there is a series of initiatives which can and should be taken, in my view. Firstly, and most importantly, there is the educative work. That education comes from funding and it comes from people who are willing to speak out. And that means there should be regular screening every two years for people aged 50 and over. This can reduce the loss of life to bowel cancer by up to 33 per cent. Each of us needs to have a role in our communities, through our newsletters, through our community fora—particularly the males. It is something that males are more likely to ignore. In a classic Australian family the men are not great at acknowledging their own health challenges. Often these things are diagnosed too late. The message is that you do not have to wait until you are 50. Starting at 40, there should be encouragement for regular screenings and there should be clear incentives for screenings every two years for those who are over 50. But the voice has to go out through people in the media, in sport or in parliamentary life. I think we need to do that. In the same way that it has become standard practice for women to have searches and tests done for breast cancer, early intervention is exactly the same sort of culture we need to establish. What it can do is prolong life, give people a real shot and can also lead to avoiding the extraordinary human suffering which comes when people are taken early, both in a physical sense and in a familial sense. Looking to the long-term, I would like to talk briefly about medical research. One of my great friends in life is Dr Michael Burnet. He is the grandson of Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet, one of Australia's Nobel laureates, and a great immunologist. Michael's work, based in Europe, is on delivery therapy for, amongst other things, cancer treatments. He is not doing the work in creating the cancer treatment but he is creating the express train to get it to the parts of the body without the side effects. That is the sort of thing Australia should be sponsoring and supporting on a bipartisan basis. This medical research is the thing which allows us to act with extreme speed, to act with effectiveness. I commend the work of people around the world but I say to the Australian government, whoever it may be after September, more medical research in this space. (Time expired) 20:33 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell It is a pleasure to rise to speak to the member for Shortland's motion. It is not the first time I have spoken to motions moved by the member for Shortland in this place and I think that is probably a reflection of the many things we share in common. This particular motion on bowel cancer is very important as has been mentioned by other speakers. This Wednesday 19 June marks the Red Aussie Apple Day, which is a day that will mark the beginning of a month-long campaign where all Australians are encouraged to support the vital work of Bowel Cancer Australia through the purchase of a small pin for $2. The issue of bowel cancer, as my colleague the member for Scullin also mentioned, is a very important one. My electorate shares a boundary with the electorate of Scullin, and the demographics are similar. It is very important that as members of parliament we are involved in the process of raising awareness because awareness leads to prevention through screening. One of the things I and the members for Scullin, Shortland and Flinders are sensitive to is the fact that there are many barriers to prevention and many reasons why people do not seek to avail themselves of the preventative and screening measures available. Some of those barriers have to do with language. My electorate has a very high number of people are linguistically and culturally diverse and there is a very large ageing population. It is a very multicultural electorate. Health issues generally are going to become a major facet of the ageing of my constituency. Indeed, the so-called Mediterranean diet, which the member for Scullin would be very familiar with, has often been lauded as a diet that mitigates against bowel cancer. The question is: why is it that bowel cancer is on the increase in areas where there are lots of Southern Europeans? I think there are two reasons for that. One is that it has been proven over a period of time that the southern Mediterranean diet is one of the best diets for mitigating against bowel cancer, but people who came to Australia and have lived here for very long periods of time change their dietary habits. In this instance, they adopt a more Western diet and therefore lose the preventative qualities of their traditional diet. It is very strange that that should be the case, because we are now at a phase in Australia where we are adopting all of these diverse cuisines and diets. What do we do for constituents who started off on a very healthy diet and have change their eating habits? As a result of that change, we are seeing an increase in bowel cancer amongst this constituency. How do we assist them to be part of the screening process that could save their life? The whole issue with bowel cancer is that, if it is detected early, it can be cured. We know that cancer is generally a very difficult disease, but, just like the member for Flinders said, we have to train people to take advantage of the screening kits that they receive. For example, when you turn 50 you receive a screening kit from the Australian government. I have often said in this place that I consider it to be a birthday gift from the Australian government. Many people do not understand what the kit is about and throw it away. The government has invested an enormous amount of money in it. Indeed, in the last budget we extended the program. So we have invested a lot of money, but we were not getting value for money. I asked the Australian Cancer Foundation what the return rate on the kits is and the answer was that something like 36 or 38 per cent were returned, which is a very small number considering how many are sent out. The point that I want to make this evening is that we need to continue to talk about this issue. We must raise awareness and encourage people to take advantage of what is very much a life-saving screening kit that they not only receive but must continue to use every two or three years. I commend the member for Shortland for the opportunity to once again speak about bowel cancer prevention. 20:38 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion by the member for Shortland. I congratulate her on the motion. Bowel cancer is an issue that is particularly significant to me as a close family member, my mother, was diagnosed with bowel cancer many years ago—close to 20 years ago, in fact. We as a family are certainly very grateful that her bowel cancer was detected early. June is Bowel Cancer Awareness Month. One of the highlights of the month takes place this Wednesday, 19 June, which is Red Aussie Apple Day. I congratulate Bowel Cancer Australia on their work and on this particular initiative. The Red Aussie Apple Day is a very clever use of the humble apple. The apple pin itself, available to mark the day, is symbolic of the bowel cancer message. I will quote directly from Bowel Cancer Australia's website as they have a very succinct explanation of the apple pin that is part of the promotion of bowel cancer awareness. Its purchase will support the work of Bowel Cancer Australia. Bowel Cancer Australia says: The 'apple pin' symbolises our bowel cancer message. The outline of the apple logo appears as an abstract of a human colon. The small hole in the centre is caused by a worm. If detected early and removed, the worm is unable to infect and kill the otherwise healthy apple. It's the same with people—if bowel cancer is detected early through screening it can be removed and people can continue to enjoy a healthy life. As has been demonstrated firsthand by my mother, if bowel cancer is detected early it can be removed—as was the case with mum. She along with many other people who had their cancer detected early have gone on to live a healthy life. Australia, unfortunately, has one of the highest rates of bowel cancer in the world. It is the second biggest cancer killer after lung cancer and around 14½ thousand Australians will be diagnosed with bowel cancer this year which is far too many. There will be almost 4,000 Australians who will die from bowel cancer every year. It is one of the most curable forms of cancer when detected early, but sadly less than 40 per cent of bowel cancers are detected early. One of the issues that faces us with early detection is that bowel cancer can develop without early warning symptoms or symptoms can be overlooked or dismissed by the individual. The question is: what are the symptoms that we should be looking for? They include a recent, persistent change in bowel habit; blood in the stool; frequent gas pains; bloating, fullness or cramps; stools that are narrower than usual; a lump or mass in the tummy; weight loss for no known reason; persistent severe abdominal pain; vomiting; and feeling very tired. In the case of my mum, the only symptom that she had was tiredness. She found that by about 10 am she needed to go and have a lie down because she was just exhausted and worn out. For a woman in her early 60s, as she was at the time, that would certainly be unusual, and it was very unusual for her. Fortunately, she went to her local GP, who did a blood test and found out that she was anaemic. She then went on to have a colonoscopy, where they found that she had a tumour and she was operated on shortly afterwards, and the tumour was removed. Fortunately, mum has been clear of cancer ever since. Given that early detection is so important and sometimes the symptoms are vague or nonexistent, I believe that screening is certainly essential and it is essential even more so for those who are at particular risk. That includes those who are aged 50 years and over; those who have had an inflammatory bowel disease; those who have previously had polyps or adenomas in the bowel; and those who have had a significant family history of bowel cancer polyps. The risk is significantly increased where there is a family history of bowel cancer, if a close relative developed bowel cancer before the age of 55, or if more than one relative on the same side of the family has had bowel cancer. I certainly encourage everyone to participate in the screening program and to follow-up their symptoms—do not just ignore them. 20:43 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I rise today to speak on the motion before the House and I thank the member for Shortland for raising the important issue of bowel cancer in advance of Red Aussie Apple Day. As previous speakers on this motion have already mentioned, this Wednesday is Red Aussie Apple Day, part of the month-long national campaign to raise awareness of bowel cancer. Bowel cancer is the second highest cause of cancer death in Australia after lung cancer. Sadly, the disease claims the lives of 77 Australians every week, yet bowel cancer is one of the most curable forms of cancer when detected early. If bowel cancer is detected before it has spread beyond the bowel, there is a 90 per cent chance of surviving for more than five years. The Cancer Council has called for the rollout of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program to be accelerated after research showed it could save hundreds of lives. Research published in the Medical Journal of Australia shows that people who participate in the screening program were twice as likely as others to be diagnosed with bowel cancer at its earliest stage when it is easiest to treat. People who are not screened were twice as likely to be diagnosed at the disease's later stage, when it is much more difficult to treat. The coalition is committed to improving the accessibility of effective and appropriate screening measures for the early detection and prevention of cancer. Accordingly, the previous coalition government initiated the Bowel Cancer Screening Pilot Program in 2000. Following this pilot, as part of the 2005-06 budget initiative Strengthening Cancer Care, the coalition provided $43.4 million for the phasing in of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program. The program has been very successful in improving health outcomes for thousands of Australians through early detection. The National Bowel Cancer Screening Program was launched in 2006 and consists of one-off tests for 50-, 55- and 65-year-olds. People are sent a kit to collect, at home, faeces samples, which they send back for laboratory analysis. This Labor government announced last year that it would expand the program progressively until screening is offered every two years for people aged 50 to 74. Unfortunately, it is not due to be fully implemented until after 2030. The Cancer Council estimated screening would reduce deaths from bowel cancer by between 30 and 40 per cent in the over-50 population. It is estimated that more than 12,000 suspected or confirmed cancers will be detected through free screening, saving between 300 and 500 lives every year. However, the Cancer Council's Chief Executive Officer, Ian Olver, says the program is still nowhere near realising its potential because it has been only partially implemented and the participation rate has been low, at 40 per cent. The positive results which are being delivered as part of this program, however, should encourage the government to accelerate the rollout of the screening program. In the interim, they should be promoting the benefits of the scheme to those who are already eligible to take part. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the outstanding work of the many Rotary clubs in south-east Queensland who are involved in the Bowelscan program. The program runs during one month every year to raise the awareness of the risks of bowel cancer and to encourage those Australians most at risk to take the annual test. With the support of hundreds of pharmacies throughout Australia, the program distributes Bowelscan testing kits to local communities, giving people the opportunity to test themselves early and regularly enough to have a fighting chance of survival. Bowelscan kits are affordable and easy to use and include testing by accredited pathologists such as Sullivan Nicolaides Pathology. All proceeds from the kits are put back into the program to allow it to continue to provide this valuable community service. Rotary Bowelscan was first developed in 1982 in northern New South Wales by a local doctor and Rotarian, Dr Bill Brand, who identified the need for a low-cost, easy to use diagnostic test for bowel cancer. Since these humble beginnings, the program has grown significantly with the support of Australian Rotary Health, participating pharmacies and Rotary volunteers and continues to save the lives of thousands of Australian men and women who suffer from bowel cancer. The Rotary Bowelscan program plays a significant role in the prevention of bowel cancer by testing age groups at risk but not currently eligible for the government's program. I commend this motion to the house and I support everyone to support Red Aussie Apple Day on Wednesday. I thank the member for Shortland for bringing this motion to the chamber. 20:48 Mr ADAMS BV5 Lyons I thank the member for Shortland for bringing Red Aussie Apple Day to the attention of the house. It is very appropriate for me as a representative of Tasmania, which is also known as the Apple Isle, to support this motion—especially if, indeed, an apple a day keeps the doctor away and also creates some Tasmanian jobs. It is good roughage. As has been mentioned, Australia has one of the highest rates of bowel cancer in the world. Bowel cancer is the second most common type of newly diagnosed cancer in Australia. Around 14,410 Australians every year are told they have bowel cancer. Bowel cancer is Australia's second largest cancer killer after lung cancer, claiming the lives of around 3,982 people every year. The good news is that bowel cancer is one of the most curable types of cancer if detected early. However, fewer than 40 per cent of bowel cancer is detected early. If bowel cancer is detected before it can spread beyond the bowel, the chance of surviving for at least five years after diagnoses is around 90 per cent and most people are able to return to their current lifestyles. However, most cases are detected at a later stage and so overall close to 60 per cent of people diagnosed with the disease for five years. Early detection offers the best hope of reducing the number of Australians who die each year from bowel cancer. Based on current trends, one in 12 Australians will develop bowel cancer before the age of 85. Both men and women are at risk of developing bowel cancer, so we need to ensure that those who are vulnerable get checked. Therefore, the $49.9 million boost to the national bowel screen program is most welcome. The risk is greater if you are aged 50 years or older, if you have an inflammatory bowel disease such as Crohn's disease or ulcers in that area, if you have previously had special types of polyps in the bowel or if you have a significant family history of bowel cancer polyps. You have a significant family history of bowel cancer if a close relative—parent, brother, sister or child—develops bowel cancer under 55 years of age or if more than one relative on the same side of your family has had bowel cancer. It is a very common disease and anyone can contract bowel cancer. Well-known people who have contracted bowel cancer include Cory Aquino, the former President of the Philippines; Pope John Paul II; Ronald Reagan; Harold Wilson, the former Labour Prime Minister in the UK; Robin Gibb, the member of the Bee Gees pop group; Eartha Kitt; and the Queen Mum—to name but a few. For some it was fatal. Some survived quite well because it was detected quite early. Some people are more prone than others, especially if they are over 50, there are some incidents in one family or they have experienced some other form of cancer. But providing it is caught early it does not necessarily have to be fatal, although sometimes it is hard to detect. As a nation, we can reduce the risk of bowel cancer by eating a healthy data, including plenty of vegetables and fruit like apples and only a small amount of animal fat. We should eat moderate amounts of lean red meat as part of a mixed diet the includes carbohydrates, bread, cereals, vegetables, fruit and dairy products. Eating sensibly, maintaining a healthy body weight, exercising regularly, not smoking and not drinking too much alcohol are the sorts of things that can help us get through without contracting bowel cancer. We need to promote this. Governments need to promote this through their health policies. I am sure that we can help maintain checks to ensure that these risks are kept as low as possible, especially through proper screening programs. Debate adjourned. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 6020 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Small Business 6020 20:53 Mr MATHESON M2V Macarthur Today I would like to praise the remarkable contribution that local businesses make to my electorate. Each and every day, the hard work of local business owners and their staff play a vital role in generating employment opportunities for Macarthur residents and driving our community's economy. I recently attended a presentation of the Campbelltown local business awards and was honoured to have the opportunity to recognise and support such an impressive array of innovative and hard-working local businesses in the Macarthur community. The local business awards program is a prestigious one that is held each year. It highlights businesses across the Campbelltown district that offer outstanding customer service, products and innovative approaches to business challenges. It has become a major competition in the community and is conducted over an 11-week period. I believe the Campbelltown Local Business Awards are essential to the Macarthur community because they offer residents a meaningful way to show their support and appreciation of businesses that offer exceptional services and products to the local community. Local businesses are the backbone of our local economy. They generate employment for thousands of Macarthur residents, provide services to our local area and drive the local economy as well as the country's broader economic development. The close link between local businesses and the community is also important to the education of young people in my electorate. Many local businesses in Macarthur actively contribute directly through financial support and indirectly through social support to local schools. Partnerships between local businesses and schools provide resources to enrich student learning and improve education through upgrading facilities and equipment. For high school students, local businesses provide opportunities for students to explore different career paths, make contact with future career opportunities, develop workplace skills and integrate into the labour market. Helping to deliver educational services to schools substantially enriches student development and learning. In so doing, local businesses are supporting the future of Australia because, after all, young people are our future leaders. Local businesses also provide vital support for grassroots sporting clubs in the community. Sport is a central part of the Macarthur community. The commitment of local businesses in assisting sporting and recreational clubs plays a vital role in improving the health and wellbeing of Macarthur residents and in offering a number of social and personal benefits. Businesses assist clubs and organisations to maintain and improve facilities and sponsor a wide variety of amateur and professional sports men and women across a broad range of clubs and associations. A number of netball, soccer, rugby and hockey clubs in Macarthur could not exist without the support of local businesses. For example, when the Macarthur BMX club first began, they had no facilities, no track and no funds. However, with support from a range of local businesses they were able to open a track in the local community. For those reasons, I take great pleasure in commending all Campbelltown Local Business Award finalists. To be nominated and acknowledged for offering excellent services and products is a great achievement, both personally and professionally. I would like to especially congratulate Minto's Fruit Orchard for taking out the prestigious Business of the Year Award in 2013 and Susanne Taylor from Southwest Automotive who was awarded Business Person of the Year. The following local businesses stood out to Macarthur residents and judges as having offered an outstanding service and approach in 2013 in their respective categories. The local business winner of the antiques, art, crafts and gifts category was awarded to Sentiments Cards & Gifts. The winner of the automotive services category went to Macarthur Ford Service. The winner of the bakery/cake shop category went to Waminda Bakery. The winner of the beauty services category went to Oceana Day Spa. The winner of the bedding store category went to Sleep Doctor Holy Sheet! The winner of the butcher category went to Blue Ribbon Quality Meats. The winner of the cafe category went to Dahlia's Cafe. The winner of the childcare services category went to UWS Unique Kids Early Learning. The winner of the education service category went to the Australian Institute of Childcare Training. The winner of the electrical appliance store category went to Factory Seconds Warehouse. The winner of the fashion shop category went to Katies Campbelltown Mall. The winner of the fast food/takeaway category went to Kings Charcoal Chickens Campbelltown. The winner of the fitness services category went to Fit H.Q. Campbelltown. The winner of the florist category went to Petals and Blooms Ambarvale. The winner of the general bulky goods category went to Bunnings Campbelltown. The winner of the hairdresser category went to Strands of Colour. The winner of the home furniture store category went to Room Decor. The winner of the jewellery store category went to Michael Hill Jeweller Campbelltown. The winner of the new business category went to Campbelltown Country Fresh. The winner of the pet care category went to Macarthur Veterinary Group. The winner of the pharmacy category went to Chemist Warehouse Campbelltown. The winner of the professional services category went to Donna Fuchs Conveyancing. The winner of the real estate agency category went to Dunsheas United Realty. The winner of the restaurant category went to George's On Queen. The winner of the service and trade category went to Aussie Farmers Direct North West Campbelltown. The winner of the specialised business category went to Red Dragon Alternative Medicine. The winner of the specialised retail business category went to Minto's Fruit Orchard. The winner of the long-serving business category went to De Hall Dance Studio. The winner of the Youth Award went to Aldi Macquarie Fields. I would also like to congratulate the competition organisers and sponsors. They do a terrific job year in and year out in promoting and celebrating the much-deserved achievements of local businesses in the Macarthur community. The publicity generated from the competition provides local businesses with wonderful exposure in the community. This includes editorials in local newspapers, which keep readers and voters up to date with their products and services. This type of support for local business is more important than ever, considering that data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics census on population and housing showed that, in 2011, almost 50 per cent of Macarthur residents travelled outside the electorate for work. I want to see local business industry in Macarthur supported by the federal government so that they can become large employment centres that attract a local workforce. This will not only strengthen Macarthur's local economy but also decrease the time residents spend travelling to and from work so that they can spend more quality time with their families. However, local businesses continue to get overlooked and overtaxed and are over-regulated. Under the existing Labor government, the number of employed in small business has declined by 243,000 across the nation and the rate of small business formation has halved. Unlike the Labor government, the coalition recognises that it is tough running a small business and it has been made even tougher because of Labor's carbon tax and red tape. These are the two main issues raised in my regular meetings with business owners across Macarthur. Local businesses across the nation have to carry the full weight of the carbon tax without the compensation or the carve-outs afforded to others. At the same time, local businesses have been disadvantaged by more red tape and compliance costs than ever before. Labor has introduced more than 20,000 regulations and only repealed 104, despite promising a one in, one out approach to regulation in 2007—another one of Labor's broken promises. I recognise that café owners, fruit and vegetable shops, butchers, tradies and retailers are the backbone of the Macarthur community. Yet the Labor government is doing nothing to offer them the support they need and deserve. Businesses in Macarthur should be concerned about the revolving door of Labor's federal small business ministers—with the appointment of the sixth person to the role in six years. This is not a portfolio that Labor has ever taken seriously. Local and small businesses in Macarthur deserve better than a divided and dysfunctional Gillard government that is more interested in itself than the country. In comparison, a coalition small business minister will be included in the cabinet to ensure that small business interests and concerns are represented during decision making at the highest level. I want to be able to see more and more local businesses in Campbelltown and the Macarthur region participating in the annual local business awards and, more importantly, achieve personal and professional success in sustaining and growing their businesses. However, local small businesses need a strong, stable and reliable government to give the community confidence in the economy—and a coalition government plans to do just that. Last year I held a small business forum with our shadow minister for small business, Bruce Billson, to give our small business people the opportunity to have their voices held. Shadow minister Billson and the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, have been talking with small business across Australia to understand what you want a coalition government to do to better support you. The coalition has real solutions for reversing the Labor government's gross negligence of small and local businesses. A coalition government is determined to double the rate of small business formation by cutting the carbon tax to boost consumer and business confidence and by cutting $1 billion worth of red tape out of the economy. The government should be doing everything it can to help our local businesses stay competitive, because they are the backbone of our successful local economies. They employ more than seven million Australians, which is over 60 per cent of our workforce. They are significant investors in the education of young Australians and the sporting life of our communities. Therefore, it is about time the Labor government starting making the prosperity of local business a priority. Child Labour 6022 21:03 Mr LYONS M38 Bass I rise in the House today to speak on manufacturing and Australian jobs. The big supermarkets in Australia should be more scrupulous about the products they put on Australian shelves and make sure that the shelf labelling is large and accurate. Australia should not import products that are produced in situations where child labour is abused. Australian producers and manufacturers have strict standards to adhere to and deserve our support. I support free trade, but what we need is fair trade. Child labour violates our nation's minimum age laws, threatens young people's physical, mental and emotional wellbeing and often involves intolerable abuse, such as child slavery, child trafficking, debt bondage, forced labour and illicit activities. It also prevents children from going to school and uses children to undermine labour standards. The ACTU state that world wide there is an estimated 250 million children working as child labourers and 73 million are under 10 years old. Twenty-two thousand children die each year in work related accidents and many others fall ill or may be injured through work related incidents. The conditions these children are working in is often unsafe. The BBC reported just last week that, only two months after the collapse of a factory in Bangladesh, new building inspections have revealed that six out of every 10 factories there are unsafe. More than 1,100 people were killed when pillars supporting the Rana Plaza factory building in Bangladesh gave way. This is an absolute tragedy. The safety of factory workers in developing countries is not unattainable, although it will mean that we have to accept that we must pay more for goods we buy. After years of embarrassing publicity about working conditions in Asian factories where its products are made, Nike took major steps to improve conditions. Major retailers can and should avoid having to respond to consumer anger by getting out in front of the problem and ensuring safe working conditions for their workers. There are numerous industries where child labour is used, particularly in agriculture and manufacturing. An estimated 60 per cent of child labour occurs in agriculture, fishing, hunting and forestry. Children have been found harvesting bananas in Ecuador, cotton in Egypt and Yemen, cut flowers in Colombia, oranges in Brazil, cocoa on the Ivory Coast, tea in Argentina and Bangladesh, and fruits and vegetables in the US. Children in commercial agriculture can face long hours in extreme temperatures, health risks from pesticides, little or no pay and inadequate food, water and sanitation. Millions of children around the world are estimated to be directly involved in manufacturing goods including carpets in India, Pakistan and Egypt; clothing sewn in Bangladesh; footwear made in India and the Philippines; soccer balls sewn in Pakistan; glass and bricks in India; fireworks in China, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, India and Peru; and surgical instruments in Pakistan. These children are involved in work that under any circumstances is considered unacceptable for children. There are many approaches to how we can reduce child labour but a simple solution does not exist. A starting point could be that consumers and retailers stop buying products that are made using child labour. You should check the products you buy and find out where and how they are made. Consumers are, however, at a disadvantage because of the labelling on the products we buy. Coles and Woolworths have a moral responsibility in this space. Australian unions have done a great job in raising awareness of child labour issues through involvement in the Australian Child Labour Network and Union Aid Abroad—APHEDA. I firmly believe that the Australian government needs to look at the things we import. If products are made from child labour they have no place on Australian shelves. We know this issue is not black and white, though. There is much to consider. As global citizens, we have a responsibility to do what is right and to understand how our actions might inadvertently encourage slavery. I know that many parliamentarians care deeply about this issue, notably Senator the Hon. Ursula Stevens and those members and senators of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. The dignity that employment provides is tremendous. Labor governments ensure that workers get the protections they need to be happy and productive at work. Creating and supporting jobs is a key objective of this Labor government. That is why we acted to keep the economy growing through the global financial crisis. As a result, our economy is strong. Australia has solid growth, low inflation, massive investment and low levels of public debt. But we know that the manufacturing sector is experiencing pressures due to the resources boom, a high Australian dollar and intense international competition. That is why we are acting to support and create jobs in manufacturing, both now and in the future. Manufacturing employs around one million Australians. It provides jobs and good skills and decent wages. It generates investment for research and development in technology and capabilities we need in an Australian economy. Labor is committed to a strong and dynamic manufacturing industry. Our $1 billion Clean Technology Investment Program is helping manufacturers invest in new, more energy-efficient equipment to reduce their costs and improve their competitiveness. The Prime Minister has established a manufacturing task force bringing together manufacturing industry leaders, workforce representatives and government to map out a shared vision for the future. The manufacturing task force found that there are significant opportunities for Australian manufacturing from rapid growth in the Asian region. A brief summary of the measures includes reforms to the antidumping system to ensure Australian manufacturers face fair competition on a genuinely level playing field, supporting jobs now. The Manufacturing Leaders Group, to be headed by Boeing Australia and South Pacific president Ian Thomas, is developing strategies for the future of manufacturing, ensuring a dynamic manufacturing sector for the future. We recently outlined our Plan for Australian Jobs, which includes three core strategies: backing Australian firms to win more work at home; supporting Australian industries to increase exports and win business abroad; and helping Australian businesses to grow and create jobs for the future. This plan is about what we can do right now to get more work into Australian factories, workshops, offices and construction sites and the service sector. What we must do for Australia is get a bigger slice of the export opportunities in our growing region of the world and secure well-paid, high-skilled jobs now and for the next generation of Australians. It is a plan to harness our best minds, keeping more Australian skills and innovation here and value-adding to further our national interests. This is a $1 billion investment in supporting and creating jobs. By helping industries to adjust to the structural changes of the resources boom, the high Australian dollar and the rise of Asia, we support existing jobs; by ensuring our firms get fair access to major projects generated by the mining boom, we create new local jobs on existing projects; by establishing innovation precincts to bring together industry and the research community, we create new jobs for the future; and, by growing small businesses to create mid-sized businesses, we can prosper on world markets and create new jobs. This is how we are creating the jobs of the future. As we build future jobs, opportunities and fairness, the federal Labor government are determined to support modern families as they cope with the pressures of modern life. We cannot be at our strongest as a nation unless we help families to be at their strongest. The Leader of the Opposition does not understand the pressures that working Australians have. Australians overwhelmingly are people that work hard and show personal responsibility. They want the government to work with them as they live modern, busy and pressurised lives. They want to stop the negativity of those opposite. Whether for new dads wanting paid parental leave so they can spend time with their children, teenagers being supported to stay on at school, steps to counter cyberbullying, women wanting a government that understands their lives and respects their choices, or older Australians wanting dignity and choice about their care, the Labor government have acted better to meet the needs of Australians who need it most. We have created opportunities for Australian families. I am proud of a government that looks after those who need it most. Fair trade and proper labelling are part of the answer, and Coles and Woolworths owe the people of the world their best efforts in this regard. Public Interest Disclosure 6025 21:13 Mr OAKESHOTT IYS Lyne I rise tonight to talk about the Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2013 and trying to progress it over these final two weeks as a matter of priority and urgency. I am increasingly worried that we may not get there, for all the wrong reasons, such as senior executives within government potentially worrying that this is somehow an attack on them, is somehow going to encourage employees in the APS to run some sort of public sector revolution by leaking every single issue that they deal with, and in some way will lead to poorer government. On the contrary, the reason I rise tonight is to say that nothing could be further from the truth and to try and put in place some reminders about the first principles of the importance of whistleblowing reform for best practice within the public sector. Just as the House passed legislation today to try to establish better practices through the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Bill and rolling the FMA Act and the CAC Act into the one piece of legislation to deal with greater autonomy for the 196 Commonwealth bodies and agencies and to put in place better risk management principles for all those bodies and agencies, this is no different. This is about building best practice and best culture within the human capital that makes up the Australian Public Service. It is not radical. The ideas of whistleblowing have been around for some time in both the public and the private sectors. There is actually now an Australian standard on whistleblower protection programs for entities. For the wonks in the room, the Australian standard was published as AS 8004-2003. That is both for the business and civil side of society to follow, and there is no reason why the Australian public sector should not commit to those same Australian standards of best practice that all others are seeking to do. Other levels of government should do likewise, New South Wales for example, and I understand Queensland passed public interest disclosure acts in September and October 2010. This is common practice, and common practice for good reason. Four issues I wanted to outline and remind government of, from my point of view, are the following. The first is that, if organisations do not manage whistleblowing effectively, it is now well known that complaints are more likely to be taken outside the organisation, including into the public domain, leading to greater conflict, embarrassment and cost. It has taken three years for agreements to be reached with government to try and get whistleblower legislation to this point, and we are now down to the final two weeks. Senior agency figures are worried that this is going to lead to more information being in the public domain, but it is actually the opposite that is trying to be achieved. To deal with whistleblowers effectively internally means fewer of these issues have to be spilt into the public domain, and there will be less conflict, less embarrassment and more reputation-building for the agencies involved. The second is that organisations that support employees in fulfilling their duty to report concerns are more likely to become known as good workplaces and employers of choice, while organisations that do not are more likely to become liable for failing to provide employees with a safe, healthy and professional working environment. Surely that is a no-brainer: we want an environment where the very best in human capital work for the Australian Public Service. The third is that public sector agencies are increasingly subject to specific statutory obligations to manage whistleblowing to a high standard as part of their jurisdictions' public integrity systems. So, in annual reporting, in oversight, in the whole range of integrity measures that are already in place, this is not adding to the burden of reporting too much. If anything, this is empowering employees culturally through an entire organisation to participate in building and owning the culture of good governance within that agency or body. The fourth, which is actually the one I think is the most important, is that it is increasingly accepted that employee reporting is often the most effective and fastest way for senior management of organisations to become aware of problems in their organisation. We would all know of war stories of senior management of agencies and bodies being the last to know about something going on within that agency or body, and that senior management, when something does blow up, just wishing they had known earlier so they could have dealt with it in a more appropriate way. To build that culture within agencies and bodies is exactly what this legislation is trying to achieve. That can be achieved by senior management in a number of different ways. We could be arguing the case to try to establish some sort of national independent commission against corruption or some sort of outside independent reporting body, which some states have done. But there seems to be some resistance at a federal level, for some justifiable reasons, to not go down that path. We could look at hardware and software systems—the non-human capital systems—which I know have been built into many agencies and bodies, and spend a bucketload of money pursuing all of the spyware that we can think of to achieve the anticorruption standards that we are looking for. Or we could put in place legislation that has been sitting in this House and that is in danger of not making it through this chamber and invest in human capital in the Australian Public Service, as the cheapest way but most respectful way of engaging every single employee in the APS in the role of lifting, enhancing and creating a governance standard that we all desire. If everyone owns it, the culture is at its best and if senior executives have nothing to worry about, then this is the most effective model possible. I raise this matter tonight for one other reason. Last week, I saw some extraordinary reports coming out of the US, saying that government as a body was data mining private sector companies. The comment 'spying' was used, and we can call it spying; I do not know the exact definition of that. Trolling or trawling through all of this information that private companies hold of their citizens should be of great concern to all of us. In fact, there are many Australians who may have communicated with friends, relatives, business associates and any number of contacts in the US that may very well have had that contact trawled over and considered by various agencies of the US government. That is of great concern and for that reason, as well as all the reasons of best standards within the public sector, we should not put ourselves in the position of just trusting government. We should invest in people as part of being government and by investing in people, through mechanisms like whistleblowing, we are doing the best that we can to minimise corruption and build a culture of a governance standard that taxpayers and Australian citizens quite rightly expect. My call tonight is to urge government to progress the public interest disclosure legislation. Do not let it lapse. This does matter. It is good practice. It sits well alongside existing reforms and it is a good opportunity to progress a long-lasting reform that really does matter. Chifley Electorate: Services 6027 21:23 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Tonight I want to raise and represent the grave concerns of constituents about the scale and breadth and impact of cuts to local government services and also other services provided by both the Liberal-controlled Blacktown City Council and the New South Wales Liberal government. For all of my life, and for years before that, the part of Western Sydney that I am proud to represent has been more than capably cared for by a Labor-controlled local government alongside dedicated Labor state and federal members of parliament. As a young adult, what attracted me to become a member of the Labor Party was a record of service that I could see, delivering for the breadth of our community and taking care to do what could be done to help those sections of our community that had many low-income families and the disadvantaged. For the benefit of members who have not ventured into the Chifley electorate, I would not mind providing a brief overview of the challenges faced by many families who live there so that they can better appreciate the devastating impact that cuts have, particularly cuts on essential services in an area like ours. The electorate of Chifley sits wholly within the most populous local government area in New South Wales, Blacktown. Chifley has the second youngest median age in the country. We have the highest proportion of single-parent households in Australia. More than a third of residents live in rented accommodation and a disproportionate number of those live in public housing. Large numbers of people in Chifley rely solely on public transport to get around. We have stubbornly high rates of heart disease, diabetes and cancer. Despite the challenge, I am especially proud of the way communities and neighbourhoods band together to improve the quality of life in our area. I am proud, in particular, of the achievements and the energy of our younger generation, who have been strengthened by that challenge. But we should see government helping make life easier. It should provide a platform for advancement and progress. Instead, we see the opposite, with state and local governments, who are supposed to pride themselves on being closer to communities, actually making it harder by running down services and infrastructure. I want to provide some examples, starting with transport. Just before the 2011 New South Wales election, the state Labor government announced plans to install lifts at two railway stations in our area. They had actually done a very good program of completely rebuilding Blacktown station and providing lifts at Mount Druitt and Marayong stations, refurbishing Seven Hills station in the neighbouring electorate of Greenway, and providing a significant commuter car park to make it easier for people to use public transport. We had promised, in that last state election, to build lifts at the stations of Doonside and Rooty Hill. These suburbs and the surrounding areas have large proportions of older residents, defying the electorate trend. Both of the stations have island configurations and the only access to them is via stairs, long gangways or long, elevated platforms that go to the overhead footbridge, where you are presented with stairs, yet again, to access the platforms below. The very first thing that the O'Farrell Liberal government did after coming into office was to scrap the draft plans for the lifts, remove the funding and, in my belief, redirect resources to the North West Rail network. Not a week goes by in which this matter is not raised with me. The failure of Premier O'Farrell to deliver on essential accessibility to public transport infrastructure only serves to make public transport less attractive and more difficult to access. The other issue that has been raised with me is the matter of car parking alongside these stations. On the weekend, on Saturday, I had the pleasure of attending a very well attended Edgeworth residents' association group, who raised with me the fact that it is hard to park at Doonside, in a close proximity to the railway station—and, by virtue of that, not add to congestion on Sydney's roads. Those residents have been asking—and rightly so—for an investment in that associated infrastructure to make public transport more accessible. I will be raising this with my colleague, the state member for Blacktown, John Robertson. In a further blow to our community, the state Liberal government announced earlier this year that it intends to close the Mount Druitt Hospital cardiac ward so that services could be rationalised with the larger Blacktown Hospital. However, they do not like the term 'close'; they prefer the term 'relocate'. For people who cannot access Mount Druitt Hospital's cardiac ward, that is cold comfort. The decision has mightily angered the community, which knows all too well how many lives have been saved by this critical health service. I mentioned earlier that we have stubbornly high rates of heart disease. Closing a cardiac ward makes no sense. It has prompted the largest grassroots movement I have seen locally, with over 10,000 people signing petitions in the space of a few short months to keep the cardiac ward open in Mount Druitt. I was pleased to support the work of my state colleague, the member for Mount Druitt the Hon. Richard Amery, who is petitioning the Speaker of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly in order to bring on a debate about this issue on the floor of the lower house and ensure residents' voices will be heard. Mr Amery told me about a couple who turn up to his office every week with more and more pages of the signed petition. They are motivated by the simple fact that the cardiac ward saved the husband's life. This person has now been going out into the community getting people to sign the petition. Liberal service cuts are not restricted to the state government. Last year's council elections delivered a council chamber with an equal number of Labor and Liberal councillors, but with the support of a lone Independent the Liberal Party now controls the Blacktown City Council. It has been a source of pride locally and it inspired the disadvantaged in the area. Blacktown City boasts community service and recreational facilities as good as anywhere in the country. Successive Labor governments have had the vision to plan for population growth in our area and invest in the social fabric of our community, and levels of government have been able to work together. For instance, I was delighted, after lobbying, that the federal Labor government was able to match funding of $4 million with Blacktown council to deliver a refurbishment of Blacktown Library and the creation of the Mt Druitt Community Hub, which has become an asset to our area. It provides for the community's library, a senior citizens centre, community service offices and meeting spaces. The new Liberal controlled council appears to be on a pathway to undo a lot of this good work. In just its first year the council voted to wind back or discontinue a number of services. Just recently, with little notice or consultation, they shut down the Mt Druitt Swimming Pool, a sporting and recreational facility used by thousands of people, primarily school students or clubs like the Rooty Hill RSL Youth Swimming Club. Their justification for the decision was that the pool was not operating profitably. Since when have community services provided at taxpayer expense had to turn in a profit? In another stunning move, the council scrapped the pension rebate on council rates. For the life of me, I cannot understand how they could do this in such a cavalier and callous manner. This is on top of the state government increasing rents to 4,000 public housing residents who are pensioners by pocketing the increases to pensions that the federal Labor government delivered to them. It is simply a powerful reminder of the best Liberal tradition, which is to cut services and take funds away from the vulnerable in our community, figuring that they do not have a voice to defend themselves. Liberal councillors have looked to privatise council owned child-care centres, again because they are not turning a profit. They are affordable services provided to families who pay for them through their rates. More contentiously, the council threatened the homes of people living in the suburb of Blacktown with a draft local environment plan giving them the power to acquire properties to develop high-rise dwellings or turn them into recreation space at the same time as the council was looking to sell other parks. When residents asked councillors to shelve the LEP and redraft it, Liberal councillors voted as a block to oppose the proposal, but then some broke ranks later to help stop the sale of a dog pound. Animal welfare is certainly a serious matter, but how do you stand up for the protection of a pound while not standing up for a roof over a resident's head? It is just staggering that these decisions are being made. There is no doubt that governments have to make difficult decisions, but what is painful for the local community is the lack of consultation on these decisions, and there was no warning prior to any of the elections that this would be done. Certainly, the same could be said for the state Liberal government. People have witnessed what has happened there. While many people voted Liberal for the first time in their lives in our area, I am certain that they are now having second thoughts about this decision. I would certainly ask that the Leader of the Opposition defies this trend, is upfront and transparent with the Australian public and tells them what he has in store for them should he become Prime Minister. What would he do to residents in our area? Local Government Grants, Consumer Confidence 6029 21:33 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I would like to raise two issues in tonight's grievance debate. The first is the announcement that we had from the local government minister today about the no case in the question in the referendum on whether the federal government is able to apply terms and conditions when giving grants to local governments. He said that the no case will receive one-twentieth of the public funding for the yes case. The government is giving $10 million to the yes case, but it is only giving $500,000 to the no case. This is on top of already $10 million of public funding, which the Local Government Association is giving. What is of great concern are the words of the government's Attorney-General which he used in parliament immediately before the question on the Constitution was put to a vote. I quote: What the government has committed to—and this is set out in the budget papers—is $10 million to fund a neutral, non-partisan civics education campaign. That campaign will provide the community with information about the Constitution and the process for considering any change in the roles of the Commonwealth, the states and local government, and about the terms of the proposed alteration. This is the punch line: This education campaign will not advocate either a yes vote or a no vote but will help ensure electors are aware of the issue and in a position to make an informed vote … I put it to you that the only interpretation than anyone can get from those words of the Attorney-General is that Commonwealth funding on this referendum question would be neutral. It would at least give both sides of the argument equal public funding. Yet, today, we hear that the no case will get one-twentieth. This is an abuse of our Constitution. It is an affront to our democratic process. It is just another example of the fact that you cannot trust a word that this government says. They say one thing and then they go and do another. The excuse given was that it was proportional as to how the vote went in the House. Many people actually abstained from that vote—I was one of them—on the understanding that there would have been equal funding for both cases. We now know that that was simply not true. The other thing about a so-called proportional vote is that the Senate is yet to vote on this. What happens if the Senate splits 50-50. How can that be reconciled with one-twentieth of the funding going for the no case. The other issue concerns what was actually voted on in the House. The vote in the House was for the referendum question to be put. Even though a lot of people on the coalition side were not in favour of the question, they were in favour of the question being put. That is quite a logical position to have in our democracy. We understand there was a call for this question to be put, so you could argue that the referendum should be held, but you are quite entitled to argue the no case. The question put to the House was not about those who were for the yes case and those who were for the no case; it was one of whether you are in favour of the question being put. This shows complete disrespect for our constitutional processes. To fund the no case with one-twentieth of the funds for the yes case shows disrespect for our democracy. It is something you would expect from a tin pot government in a tin pot country and it is an absolute— Mr Perrett HVP Point of order. I find that term offensive and I ask that it be withdrawn. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 140651 The member for Hughes would assist the Federation Chamber if he were to withdraw the reference— Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 By way of clarification it was 'tin pot government'. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 140651 We do not want clarification. You would assist the chamber if you withdrew that comment. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 I withdraw. It really reflects very poorly on this government that they have done this double-cross of the people of Australia on this constitutional issue. There is a strong no case and, yes, there is also a yes case. Both cases should be funded equally. I am very pleased that the Leader of the Opposition has written to the government and asked them to reverse that decision and make sure that both the yes and no cases are equally funded. The other issue I would like to raise tonight is the extreme difficulty that our Australian retail sector is experiencing at the moment, especially our small and medium sized retailers. Many people I speak to are telling me that the trading conditions they are experiencing are the worst they have ever experienced in their lifetime. They are being squeezed by a lack of consumer confidence, increasing costs and increasing foreign competition from online sales. When it comes to falls in consumer confidence, why wouldn't we see falls? We have a dysfunctional and divided government that is tearing itself apart. It is obsessed with internal squabbles rather than getting on with the job of governing the country. We have also seen consumer confidence being hit by the longest election campaign in the nation's history. It is evidenced that when a federal election is called, it has an adverse effect on consumer spending and consumer confidence. Tragically, for the Prime Minister to have this long election campaign, knowing that there will be that extended effect on consumer spending and consumer confidence, is just another example of putting her interests ahead of that of the nation. There is also the fall in consumer confidence as a result of the carbon tax, which is making everyone's electricity rise in price. Let us not forget that in two weeks the carbon tax goes up. Of course retailers are being squeezed from increasing costs. They are having to pay higher charges themselves on their electricity bills. Every retailer requires good lighting for their store and they are now seeing that cost go up. Retailers often require their stores to be air-conditioned or heated in the winter. They are seeing those costs escalate and go through the roof. On the distribution of goods and making deliveries, should this government be re-elected it plans to put their carbon tax onto diesel fuel, which will see the cost of diesel increase by 7c per litre, increasing the price of moving every good around our nation. One of the greatest cost increases that our small- and medium-sized retailers face is their retail rents, which keep going up. An analysis of retail rents in Australia compared to the rest of the world in terms of occupancy costs—that is, the amount of rent expressed as a percentage of the retailer's sales—found that Australia has the highest occupancy costs in the world for small- and medium-sized retailers. The reason for that is we have made some very bad policy decisions in this country in years gone by. We have decided that retail shopping centres should be protected from competition. We have decided that retail shopping centres can actually use the argument that a new competitor entering the market will harm them and therefore the competitor should be stopped. We have seen some disgraceful decisions. In my electorate, there was the notorious Orange Grove affair. We had a fully functioning shopping centre that was well patronised by the local consumers. There were ample shops that employed over 400 people in an area of Sydney with high unemployment. We saw the Labor government of New South Wales, headed by former Premier Carr, current Senator Carr, close that shopping centre down because he did not want competition with other areas. That was a tragic and mistaken decision. We need to have a close look at our retail sector. We cannot continue with these protections from competition, especially when retailers today are facing competition from online retailers, who have the advantage of being able to ship goods to Australia with lower costs and without any sales tax. 21:43 Ms SMYTH 172770 La Trobe What an extraordinary contribution to follow. Apparently, not only are we responsible for everything on our own agenda; we are responsible when the member for Hughes does not turn up to vote. That old turning-up-to-vote chestnut on a Constitutional matter probably would have helped your cause and we may have needed fewer contributions to a grievance debate. I tend not to take the contributions from the member for Hughes particularly seriously, and I will just get on with my own. This grievance debate is really quite a curious instrument of the House. It sounds a bit archaic, which is perhaps fitting in the context of the matters that I am about to raise as grievances in a report to the House. Obviously, all of us here come to this place with views that reflect our experiences, our outlook on life and our philosophical position on important issues. Needless to say, often those world views differ quite substantially. It is an unusual type of person who comes to parliament with a desire to stop the discussion and debate of ideas in the broader community. So this debate is an appropriate place for me to raise a grievance about the actions of conservative governments right around the country which seek to limit the opportunity for elected representatives to speak with their communities and which seek to limit the opportunity for organisations to criticise government. Over the weekend, in my home state of Victoria, two of my colleagues—one state and one candidate for federal office—were out in their local community speaking to residents about the whole range of local, state and federal issues that inevitably, and rightly, are raised with all of us when we go out to street stalls and street corner meetings or are door-knocking or holding community events. This time, however, those particular colleagues were prevented by security guards from entering a Collingwood high-rise where they had intended to speak to local electors. It has been reported that the security guards were acting on the advice of the Office of Housing from the state Department of Human Services. I would say that this was quite an extraordinary situation, were it not for the fact that the same kinds of restrictions seem to be being applied in a slightly different context by other conservative governments around this country. The guidelines in question that restricted the movement and the capacity of my colleagues to go and speak to public housing tenants were put in place by the Baillieu-Napthine government in relation to certain types of public housing. One can only conclude that this is all about trying to shut down debate, discussion and community information. It is very much to be regretted, and I would call on Victorian opposition members in this place to encourage their state colleagues and the Victorian Minister for Housing to reverse this decision. It is a very bad precedent. It stymies public discussion and it is an incredibly petty political measure. So what is it that conservatives do not want Labor people to talk about with public housing tenants—and, indeed, anyone else? Could it be the fact that our government has directly contributed to the construction of one in every 20 new homes since coming to office through measures such as a $6 billion investment in social housing, which is delivering over 21,000 social housing homes right across the nation? Could it be the $4.5 billion National Rental Affordability Scheme, which provides incentive payments to the private sector to build 50,000 affordable rental homes? Could it be the fact that we are making an unprecedented investment of more than $20 billion to address housing supply and affordability issues? Perhaps they would rather that we did not mention that the federal coalition ripped $3.1 billion out of the housing budget and actually voted against the building of 20,000 new homes the last time they had a chance to support affordable housing. Perhaps it is the fact that this government provides over $3 billion annually in Commonwealth rent assistance, which assists over 1.1 million Australians to pay their rent. All of these are things that, presumably, could have been spoken about by representatives going to visit residents in their community and talk to them about public policy issues and the whole range of other issues that constituents rightly raise with us as representatives and prospective representatives. Alternatively, I guess they might not want us to talk about the 37,000 people who are waiting for housing in Victoria, or perhaps they do not want us to have the conversation about the Victorian government having provided no new funding for building new housing since coming to office in 2010. Perhaps it is that they do not want us to talk about the Victorian government's failure to rule out selling off public housing. Perhaps it is that they do not want us to talk about threatened increases to rents and limitations to the time that people can stay in public housing in Victoria or the fact that the Victorian government has cut frontline staff who support some of the most vulnerable people in our community. Indeed, the Victorian government has slashed funding to the Social Housing Advocacy and Support Program by around $2.8 million. All of these things, I imagine, would have been slightly uncomfortable to have raised, amongst the range of other things that those representatives could have spoken about. But, ultimately, I guess it is not all that surprising based on previous forms. Many would remember that a comparable approach was taken by the Howard government in relation to the gagging of community service providers. Mr Perrett HVP Shameful! Ms SMYTH 172770 Indeed, Member for Moreton. It was indeed shameful—and you would know only too well that this is being replicated in Queensland. Members might recall that confidentiality clauses were included in many of the purchaser-provider contracts that were drawn up between the Howard government and not-for-profit service providers. Those clauses carried with them a requirement that the organisation in question could not make public comment about their service or program without first obtaining the approval of the relevant department or minister, so I imagine in many instances critical comments were only too willingly received by the relevant department or a minister. The clauses in question were well understood in the not-for-profit sector as a mechanism—a very crude mechanism—by which the Howard government could prevent or reduce their capacity to advocate for groups to whom they provided services. They were also well understood to be a mechanism for reducing criticism of the Howard government as a whole and its policies. I am very pleased to say that since 2008 it has been government policy not to include gag clauses in Commonwealth agreements in order to remove any restrictions on the not-for-profit sector from engaging in policy and debate. But, of course, what was old is new again in Queensland. The Howard government approach to gag clauses is being used by the Newman government in Queensland and last year a spokesperson for the Queensland health minister confirmed that in funding agreements with some community service organisations the Queensland government had introduced conditions that would restrict those organisations from advocating for state or federal legislative change. Those conditions reportedly also stipulate that the organisations must not include on their website links to other organisations that advocate for state or federal legislative change. At this stage I gather that the conditions have been confined to those organisations which receive a majority of their funding from the Queensland government. But to complete the set, we also have the Newman government refusing to give permission to the federal education minister to visit a state school last week. Mr Perrett HVP At Nyanda State High School. Ms SMYTH 172770 Truly extraordinary stuff, Member for Moreton. So, for an archaic grievance debate we have quite the archaic set of circumstances presented by conservative governments around the country. Not so many weeks ago they were all very loud on the topic of free speech—very loud indeed. But how things change. What was old has become new again and I do not doubt that precisely the same attitude would be revealed very early under a coalition government were they to be elected. I am speaking today about concerns that I have in relation to my own state government in Victoria, concerns in relation to the Queensland government and concerns relating to conservative governments right around Australia. They are the stories about housing and what this government has done and is doing in relation to housing, and the apparent lack of housing policy at a state level, that obviously people in conservative parties around the country do not want to be discussed within community settings or do not want to be discussed by not-for-profit organisations. It is the same with our policies on education. They do not want us to talk to schools; they do not want us to talk to parents; they do not want us out there in the community speaking to people about progressive, future-looking policies that are in the best interests of this nation. And rather than rebut them, rather than debate them on their merits, they scurry away and deny people the opportunity to debate. On that note, I must put on the record that I look forward to the opportunity to have a debate with the representative of the Liberal Party who is contesting the electorate of La Trobe. I am yet to have the opportunity to have that debate and it is regrettable. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! In accordance with standing order 192B the debate is interrupted. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 21:54   QUESTIONS IN WRITING 6035 QUESTIONS IN WRITING Hearing Devices (Question No. 1511) 6035 1511 Mr Oakeshott IYS asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 14 May 2013: (1) How many clients of Australian Hearing over the age of 26 years have cochlear implants. (2) What is the eligibility criteria for access to Government-funded replacement and upgrade of hearing devices, including cochlear implants, for people over the age of 26 years. Ms Plibersek 83M The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As at 1 February 2013 Australian Hearing had 2,152 clients over the age of 26 with at least one cochlear implant. (2) The Australian Government Hearing Services Program (the Program), funds free hearing aids and rehabilitation services for children and young adults under 26 years of age through the Community Services Obligations (CSO) component of the Program, and for Australian citizens or permanent residents who are 21 years of age or older and in one of the following eligibility groups: Pensioner Concession Cardholders; Gold Repatriation Health Card holders; White Repatriation Health Card holders issued for conditions including hearing loss; people receiving Sickness Allowance from Centrelink; a dependant of a person in one of the above groups; a member of the Australian Defence Force; or a person in an Australian Government Disability Employment Services Program and is referred by an approved Disability Employment Services Provider. Eligibility to receive free hearing services under the Program is prescribed by the Hearing Services Administration Act 1997. Children up to the age of 21 years, and Young Adults aged 21 to 26 years inclusive can receive cochlear implant speech processor upgrades and replacements, and batteries and maintenance for their implants as CSO clients of Australian Hearing. For eligible clients over the age of 26 years, the Program supports the provision of cochlear implant maintenance and minor repairs through Australian Hearing under the CSO. The Program does not support the provision of replacement speech processors or upgrades, maintenance or repairs for those over the age of 26 years who are not eligible for services under the Program.