2013-06-24 43 1 9 House of Reps 0 0

Monday, 24 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 6589 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Parlview 6589 10:01 The SPEAKER 83S I inform the House that the Department of Parliamentary Services has today released its innovative broadcast services, Parlview, onto the APH website. Parlview enables users to watch, pause, search and download parliamentary proceedings events and historical material. Progressively, Parlview will provide access to more than 55,000 hours of archived parliamentary audiovisual recording, dating from 1991. Much of this footage has never been seen by the general public. Near-live webcasts of parliamentary proceedings are still available on the APH websites, however, unlike Parlview, these webcasts are not searchable or downloadable. DPS is also working towards providing access to Parlview on mobile devices. I sincerely recommend to everybody to have a look at this new service the parliament is providing. PETITIONS 6589 PETITIONS Radio 6589 Eden-Monaro Electorate: Mining 6589 Banking 6590 Melbourne Airport 6590 Marriage 6590 International Students 6591 Guguila, Dr Mihaela 6591 Surrogacy 6591 Richmond Electorate: Aged Care 6592 Goods and Services Tax 6592 Higher Education: Student Income Support 6592 Macquarie River Pipeline 6592 Macquarie River Pipeline 6593 PETITIONS 6593 PETITIONS Responses 6593 10:04 Mr MURPHY 83D Reid Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows: Asylum Seekers 6593 Far West Community Legal Centre 6594 Medication Dispensing Fees 6595 Child Support 6596 Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 6596 Age Pension 6597 Parliamentary Zone: Parking 6598 COMMITTEES 6599 COMMITTEES Petitions Committee 6599 Report 6599 10:05 Mr MURPHY 83D Reid Speaker, today is expected to be the last announcement of petitions and ministerial responses that I will make on behalf of the Petitions Committee during this parliament. And, as expected, we had quite a number of petitions presented today. Speaker, in addition to these announcements, on behalf of the Petitions Committee I wish to present the committee's report entitled The work of the Petitions Committee: 2010-2013, together with the minutes of proceedings. In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper. Mr MURPHY 83D by leave—Speaker, the report I present today records the work of the second Petitions Committee, the committee of the 43rd Parliament. Speaker, I could talk at some length about the committee's operations in this parliament; however, as chair of the committee I have provided the House with regular updates about the committee's work and the House's petitioning process, so I will not do that again today. Instead, I will let the report speak for itself in terms of the committee's overall operations from 2010-2013, its formal framework, the issues that recur and the issues that we expect to arise. Importantly, I want to raise something that may not be apparent from the face of the report. I want to thank the deputy chair, Dr Dennis Jensen, the member for Tangney, and all my committee colleagues—some of whom, like the member for Forde, are in the chamber today—for their unfailing enthusiasm for the process of petitioning the House of Representatives. I thank my colleagues for their wholehearted support for the work of the committee and for their cooperation and cohesion. Their hard work has made it a pleasure for me to chair the Petitions Committee of the 43rd Parliament. In particular, I would like to thank the committee's secretary, Ms Catherine Cornish. The committee could not wish for a better committee secretary, nor could the committee wish for a better inquiry secretary than Ms Sharon Bryant, ably assisted by the research officer, Ms Susan Dinon, and administrative officer, Ms Jenny Jackson. All of the committee secretariat have worked very cooperatively with the committee in a very good-humoured way, and it has been an unalloyed pleasure to work with the secretaries and the members of this committee. It is the best committee I have ever been on and it promotes democracy here in our country. I am very proud of the work of the committee and I cannot thank the secretariat, and my colleagues on the committee, enough for all their hard work. Together we have endeavoured to ensure the committee lives up to the expectations of the House when it established the committee and of those people who seek to engage with the House to bring their concerns to the attention of the executive. I move: That the House take note of the report. Report and Reference to Federation Chamber 6599 10:08 Mr MURPHY 83D Reid by leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 6600 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Private Members' Motions 6600 Reference to Federation Chamber 6600 10:08 The SPEAKER 83S In accordance with standing order 41(g), and the recommendations of the Selection Committee, I present copies of the terms of motions for which notice has been given by the members for Moore, Throsby, Fisher, Shortland and Hindmarsh. These items will be considered in the Federation Chamber later today. COMMITTEES 6600 COMMITTEES Intelligence and Security Committee 6600 Report 6600 10:09 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt () (): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee’s report entitled Report of the inquiry intopotential reforms of Australia’s national securitylegislation. In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper. Mr BYRNE 008K0 by leave—I am pleased to present this report. It has been 12 months of intense labour by members of the committee and I have five minutes to speak about it. Recent events such as the Boston bombings and the murder of a British soldier in the streets of London remind us of the impact of terrorist attacks and the continued need for the government and its security and intelligence agencies to maintain vigilance, preparedness for and defence against terrorist attacks. The committee recognises the need for our security and intelligence agencies to be appropriately resourced, and to be granted powers which are often intrusive, in order to undertake their role. However, these intrusive powers must always be balanced by appropriate safeguards for the privacy of individuals and of the community. This recognises that Australia is a democracy which values personal freedoms and imposes limits on the power of the state. The committee's report reflects these fundamental values. In May 2012 the then Attorney-General, the Hon. Nicola Roxon, asked the committee to inquire into a package of potential reforms to Australia's national security legislation. The committee was provided with a discussion paper outlining the reforms the government wished to have the committee consider. The committee was tasked with examining potential reform, of which three objectives were: to modernise lawful access to communications and communications data; to mitigate the risk posed to Australia's communications network by foreign technology and service suppliers; and to enhance the operational capacity of intelligence community agencies. The terms of reference contained 18 reform proposals involving 44 specific items across three reform areas. Importantly, the context for the committee inquiry included the serious challenge presented by new and emerging technologies upon agencies' intelligence-gathering capabilities. The committee received 240 submissions. Three submissions were received in largely identical terms from 5,300 individual members of the public. These submitters expressed opposition to the reforms put by the then Attorney-General, particularly with regard to the proposal to introduce a mandatory data retention scheme. I thank all those who contributed to the inquiry. I note that the committee was faced with several difficulties. These included that the terms of reference were wide ranging and canvassed some of the most complex and significant reforms to national security legislation ever to come before the parliament. The absence of detail in the discussion paper concerning mandatory data retention also significantly impaired both the public discussion and the committee's consideration of the issue. Against this backdrop the committee was deliberate in taking the time needed to examine carefully the issues before it. Despite these challenges, Speaker, I am pleased to advise that the committee has produced a comprehensive and, critically, unanimous report which carefully considers both the needs of our national security agencies and the right of the individual. The committee made 43 recommendations. In the time available to me, I will note three of the committee's principal recommendations. First, the committee recommends that the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act should be comprehensively revised, with the objective of designing an interception regime which is underpinned by clear privacy provisions—provisions which are technologically neutral—by the maintenance of investigative capabilities clearly articulated in enforceable industry obligations and by robust oversight and accountability which supports administrative efficiency. Second, in recognition of the need to ensure the protection of privacy and security of data and critical infrastructure, the committee recommends the adoption of telecommunications sector security reforms. Third, the committee recommends targeted reforms to legislation which supports the AIC in discharging its duties and equips it appropriately to protect the Australian community. One of the main proposals the committee examined was that of mandatory data retention—that is, a regime which would potentially require telecommunications companies to retain communications data, such as subscriber details, for a period of time. The committee felt that whether or not to introduce a mandatory data regime is ultimately a decision for government. However, the committee has taken note of the views of concerned members of the public, which are summarised in this report. In fact, the option of a committee being asked to recommend the establishment of an intrusive power, without draft legislation, provided an almost existential moment for the committee. With the events of America with PRISM, the public must have confidence in its parliamentary oversight agencies. Therefore, the committee was extremely careful in putting forward a model, if the government chooses to go down that track. It is the government's decision to include intrusive powers and then bring that back to the committee. In the time available, this work could not have been done without the committee secretariat, particularly Jerome Brown, Robert Little, James Bunce, Cameron Gifford and Simon Lee. I thank the committee members. They are the most responsible committee I have served with. They had civil liberties in mind. They had the protections of the community in mind. This committee is the best I have ever worked with; it discharged its duties absolutely admirably. I commend the report to the House. 10:14 Mr RUDDOCK 0J4 Berowra I have some observations and comments on the outstanding leadership of the chair of the committee, the member for Holt. Committees work well only when leadership is offered and is present, and the leadership of the chair of this committee, Mr Byrne, has been greatly appreciated. I am glad he got to thanking our team: the committee secretariat and, may I add, particularly the specialist advisers that assisted us with what is in fact a very difficult area of public policy. I do not intend to try to canvass all of the issues. I will go right to the nub of the matter. The nub of the matter is in recommendation 42, which deals with data retention. Data retention is a matter that the government has been asked to look at in the context of organisations losing their capacity to obtain intelligence information if required, because people will use the facilities where no data is kept and that opportunity to interrogate it would be lost. It is important to understand that, in the Australian context, no data is ever interrogated without a warrant. It requires a warrant either from the Attorney-General—in relation to the security agencies' access—or from law enforcement officers. I think it is very important to understand that, when these issues are discussed in terms of privacy, matters like these are examined only when the warrant system permits it. I am sorry the Attorney, who was here for my colleague's speech, has left. For my own part, I think the handling of this issue by the government has been appalling. The government should have brought forward, as the chair mentioned, precise recommendations in the form of draft legislation that we could comment on in a meaningful way. The committee came to a view that it was not prepared to comment on it without the government going that extra step. I want to speak about these issues in the context of some observations made by the shadow Attorney only this weekend. I have long been of the view that terrorism is something that will remain with us far longer than we would like, and I was very surprised when there was a statement by the Prime Minister about where we are, suggesting that 10 years after 9-11 circumstances had changed and the same urgency did not attach to terrorism. But, shortly after, we saw the events mentioned by the chair in Boston and the events in London, and I might add to that what is happening now in Syria. I am not blowing any secrets when I say that from newspaper reports there are suggestions that there are numbers of Australians who have gone abroad to participate in these activities in Syria, who are being trained and prepared in a way which would make them, on return to Australia, highly susceptible to engaging in terrorist activity here. All of the agencies, it is reported, believe that those are matters that they have to examine. The committee's report has dealt with a lot of matters which, if the members had been given their druthers, they would have put off as well. But we have been able to obtain a remarkable degree of unison of view, which recommends reforms that should be progressed now to ensure that our agencies are able to deal with the threats that remain in a real and substantial way. I think these issues need to be looked at with regard to privacy questions but also with regard to the risks that are there. This matter will be addressed by a new government. I hope whoever is there will be able to deal with these matters, given this report, promptly and quickly and that the substantial reforms that the agencies need will be implemented. The SPEAKER 83S The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the honourable member for Holt wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion? 10:19 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt I do. I move: That the House take note of the report. The SPEAKER 83S In accordance with standing order 39(d), the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Report and Reference to Federation Chamber 6602 10:19 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Committee 6603 Report 6603 10:20 Ms SAFFIN HVY Page On behalf of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs I present the committee's report entitled Sport: More than just a game together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee. In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper. Ms SAFFIN HVY I am going to saying the thank yous at the beginning of my report so that I do not run out time to do that. I would like to start by thanking the honourable member for Blair, Shayne Neumann, who is in the chamber with us. He was chair of the committee when this report came into being. I want to thank him for being able to take carriage of such a wonderful timely and much needed report that also grew out of a previous report the committee had done under his chairmanship. That was the Doing time report. I acknowledge that I was in the lovely position of receiving this report and being able to finalise and deliver it. I also want to thank Dr Sharman Stone, the deputy of the committee, for her wonderful work and for the bipartisanship that she and all members of the committee have shown during the time that I have been on the committee. That is why the committees are so important to the parliamentary process. I also want to thank Anna Dacre, the Secretary, and the secretariat staff including Susan Cardell, inquiry secretary, Rebecca Gordon, inquiry secretary, and Katrina Gillogly for the great support that they have given to me as chair of the committee and to the wonderful work of the committee. Overall, evidence from the inquiry supported the theory that sport has a positive impact on Indigenous wellbeing and mentoring and can contribute positively to achieving the Closing the Gap targets in areas such as health, education and employment. The role of Indigenous mentors was regarded as a critical element to the success of sport programs. The committee found that sport is much more than just a game. It can be a pathway to stronger communities and better opportunities. Sport can be the hook or vehicle to provide opportunities for communities to come together to encourage Indigenous participation in education and employment and to demonstrate positive behaviours through local and elite sporting role models. The committee makes 11 recommendations in this report. To ensure the contribution of sport will continue to improve Indigenous wellbeing and mentoring, the committee has recommended that the Commonwealth government develop an overarching framework of service delivery and evaluation for Commonwealth agencies that funds sports programs. Outcomes should be aligned with Closing the Gap targets in health, education and employment. The committee was impressed with many of the sports programs currently operating throughout Australia, including the Commonwealth government funded Learn Earn Legend! program that focuses on school retention and school to work transitions and is being facilitated by numerous sporting bodies. The committee recommended that the Commonwealth government extend the funding of the Learn Earn Legend! program. It really is a great program. The success of sports programs can be reliant upon strong partnerships fostered between government, sporting bodies, the corporate sector and communities. The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government provide base funding and coordinated assistance to Indigenous regional and state sporting carnivals which draw together governments, sporting codes and clubs, mentors and role models, corporates and businesses to address health, education and employment Closing the Gap targets. Community involvement in sport included encouraging Indigenous people to become involved in the administration, umpiring and coaching positions in addition to playing sport. The committee recommends that the government acknowledge and develop Indigenous participation in these supporting roles around sport. The rates of Indigenous females are much lower than the participation rates for males in a majority of the sporting codes and organisations, and the committee has made recommendations to government to prioritise sports programs for Indigenous women. Positive messages of cultural celebration and pride at all sporting events can also help with Closing the Gap targets. We note that several sporting organisations have reconciliation action plans and recommend that this continue. The committee received over 58 submissions and held six public hearings. I also note, in the last few seconds, that the honourable member for Blair told me that the greatest participation for Indigenous women in the twenties was in cricket, which, I think, is a very interesting fact to note. 10:25 Dr STONE EM6 Murray I too would like to speak about this particular report, Sport: more than just a game—contribution of sport to Indigenous wellbeing and mentoring. We are a nation of sports lovers, and many Australians venerate our sporting heroes. Indigenous Australians likewise love their sport and have very good reasons to be proud of their champion footballers, athletes and great tennis players like Evonne Goolagong Cawley. We have some early examples of Indigenous Australians going and challenging the UK in cricket. They were pioneering Indigenous cricket teams. The minister asked the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs to look at the contribution of sport to Indigenous wellbeing and mentoring given there are a number of sporting codes which engage with Indigenous individuals and communities and government funds are directed to many of these programs and projects. These projects often relate to physical fitness, team development or they support broader educational objectives through appealing to students interested in sport. An obvious example of this is the magnificent Clontarf program. As the chair of our committee has just mentioned, we found a big gender divide when it comes to sports engagement and funding in Indigenous communities. Girls are much less likely to be involved with the various football codes and cricket, although some hardy individuals do break through the barriers, but, of course, the football codes are most likely to be funded to go out and support Indigenous communities. As well, the highly successful Clontarf program, which began in Western Australia and is now found in most states, focuses on greater educational outcomes through boys' participation in football and long-term stable mentoring. There is no doubt in my mind that such an excellent program would prove to be just as successful if girls were also targeted, perhaps using netball or some other sport of wider appeal to girls. It seems such a shame that the Clontarf program is so long standing and has been so successful but girls do not have the opportunity to also be helped through this program. We found short-termism, one-off trials and pilots littered the funding environment when it came to sport or physical fitness and Indigenous communities. Even when a sports related program had proved to be worthwhile and, in some cases, had outstanding results, this did not guarantee ongoing funding or any long-term commitment to the program or project. This is typical of Indigenous program funding, of course, and, unfortunately, of many other levels of state and federal funding, but it has led to understandable cynicism and disappointment as remote or small communities see new faces come and go in an endless stream leaving little to show for their efforts. The committee recommended that funding of Indigenous sports program should preferably be for at least a three-year cycle. While women and girls' sport or fitness activities were frequently less supported than programs for men and boys, we also found little evidence of effort being made to engage older Indigenous Australians in sport or physical activity. We know that older Australians, some well into their 90s, enjoy bowls. Many urban Australians have access to lawn bowling or indoor bowling facilities very close by. We know that there is an obesity concern in both Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities and populations with older Australians. However, it seems that the sports support effort when it comes to Indigenous communities is focused very much on very young people or young adults. We were not given much evidence at all about any effort to engage older urban or rural Indigenous Australians, and I think we should make that effort. As well, we were concerned that the support of sport in Indigenous communities goes beyond the elite level—the elite focus—and also looks at the umpiring, coaching, training and all of the other positions of responsibility and skill that are involved in putting a sporting activity together or sustaining a team. I am very proud, as the member for Murray, to say that one of the only Indigenous AFL umpires—Glen James, who also umpired a grand final—comes from Shepparton. We are concerned that all of the evaluation of these programs and particularly in relation to the targets of Closing the Gap is better managed. We found that sports in Indigenous communities are a very positive endeavour. We had extraordinary cooperation and participation in this inquiry. I commend the report to the House and also, as with our Chair, congratulate the committee, with the support of the secretariat, for outstanding work. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83N Does the member for Page wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated in on a future occasion? 10:30 Ms SAFFIN HVY Page I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83N 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 day. Report and Reference to Federation Chamber 6605 10:31 Ms SAFFIN HVY Page I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Procedure Committee 6606 Report 6606 10:31 Mr LYONS M38 Bass On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I present the following reports together with the minutes of proceedings: Maintenance of the standing and sessional order and Electronic voting in the House of Representatives. In accordance with standing order 39(f) the reports were made parliamentary papers. Mr LYONS M38 by leave—The first report is a wide-ranging reference that successive Procedure Committees have adopted. It enables the committee to identify and exam minor irregularities and problems in the sessional and standing orders, which arise from time to time, and propose possible improvements. In this report we revisit a number of procedural changes that we recommended in previous reports on reforms of the 43rd Parliament. We consider that these proposals would improve efficiency and we hope that they will be taken up. I must congratulate former Speaker, the member for Scullin, for being the first member to use sessional order 142A to ask a question of a member during a second reading debate. However, I must apologise: he made history on 19 June, which was after the report had gone to the printer and so the report does not acknowledge this fact. We also took the opportunity to acknowledge some minor and technical irregularities in the standing orders that had been brought to our attention. We hope that our suggestions, if implemented, will assist members in their use and their understanding of the standing orders. The report also considers several procedural and policy matters proposed to the committee. We recognise that these issues go beyond the technical concerns of this inquiry, but we hope that members will consider that their possibilities and the possibilities they present. Overall, the amendments to the standing orders proposed in this report are intended to correct anomalies or inconsistencies to improve the efficiencies of proceedings and to better align the standing orders with House practice. At this late stage of the 43rd Parliament, the committee hopes the report provides a useful collection of comments and practical suggestions for preliminary consideration of the House now and in more detail in the next parliament. The second report reconsiders electronic voting in the House of Representatives. Although the committee has conducted two previous inquiries into the conduct of divisions generally, it has never examined electronic voting in detail. Technological advances and generational change together with the close numbers in the 43rd Parliament provided us with compelling reasons to examine the issue. Although the inquiry has been shortened by the press of other committee business and a short time frame, we decided to prepare this short report to review existing evidence. We hope it will provide the basis for an in-depth inquiry if a future Procedure Committee wishes to examine the matter. Electronic voting could make a significant difference to the efficiency of the House. It seems many of the previous concerns regarding electronic voting systems, such as security of votes, may have been addressed. However, important procedural and other issues remain. Questions concerning availability of technology, cost and impact of electronic voting on the House deserve further consideration. Hopefully, a future Procedure Committee will be able to collect the evidence and address these issues. In conclusion, I would like to thank my colleagues for their hard work on the Procedure Committee of the 43rd Parliament. I thank the committee members in general and the secretariat in particular. I also thank the inquiry secretary and the research officers. I commend the report to the House. DELEGATION REPORTS 6607 DELEGATION REPORTS Parliamentary Delegation to Papua New Guinea 6607 10:35 Ms GRIERSON 00AMP Newcastle I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Papua New Guinea, 8 April to 13 April 2013. From 8 to 13 April this year I was privileged to lead the Parliamentary Delegation to Papua New Guinea. The purpose of the visit was to allow Australian parliamentarians to engage with the parliament of Papua New Guinea around issues of mutual importance to our longstanding relationship. With Papua New Guinea being one of Australia's largest aid recipients, having received approximately $493.2 million in official development assistance this financial year, the delegation also wished to engage with stakeholder organisations and representatives to learn more about the current state of economic and social development in Papua New Guinea and to be informed specifically about programs being delivered there by AusAID. As the delegation's visit took place in the lead-up to Anzac Day, the delegation also laid wreaths at the Bomana and Lae war cemeteries. The delegation visited the capital, Port Moresby, and visited Lae, the capital of Morobe Province. At both locations the delegation met with government officials, business representatives and local service providers, in addition to engaging in tours of major infrastructure. Matters discussed during these meetings and tours included the broader trade investment and aid program between countries, financial transparency, immigration, parliament to parliament assistance, further developing the capability of Papua New Guinea's public sector, agency to agency exchange between the two countries, women's electoral participation, ending violence against women, the availability of and access to education and vocational training and improving health outcomes. The benefits of economic development from foreign investment into Papua New Guinea were discussed and observed in the context of major infrastructure projects such as the Papua New Guinea liquid natural gas project, major improvement and modernisation of the Lae Port and the Motukea Island international wharf project. The delegation learnt of the challenges facing the delivery of health care in metropolitan and rural Papua New Guinea through a visit to the Port Moresby General Hospital and the National Orthotic and Prosthetic Service and witnessed the tireless work being undertaken by healthcare workers and the generosity of donors from the private sector in support of their services. The delegation was informed that funding to improve health outcomes in Papua New Guinea is aimed at improving access to health services for those who may not otherwise be able to receive services because of financial disadvantage, long distance or underlying societal inequities such as low status in society, limited education and exposure to gender based violence. In learning about the progress and delivery of education and vocational programs, the delegation visited and met with representatives of the Australian-Pacific Technical College in Port Moresby and the National Polytechnic Institute of Papua New Guinea in Lae. The delegation heard about the challenges faced by education institutions and the achievements they had accomplished in assisting to upskill graduates and improve worker mobility across the Pacific region. The Australian government is continuing to work with the government of Papua New Guinea to improve health, education and training, administrative, and law and order outcomes, which in the longer term are expected to yield positive economic results for Papua New Guinea. The delegation believes that progress could be assisted by increased strategic government funding into health and education services and into programs to improve the skills base of its people. Importantly, the delegation also heard about the work being undertaken to assist victims of gender based violence by one of the eight family and sexual violence units established across Papua New Guinea as a result of funding from the Australia government under the PNG-Australia Law and Justice Partnership. In addition, programs to assist in supporting victims of family and sexual violence and programs to assist in women's empowerment are expected to improve societal attitudes and meet global development goals. There is currently a high level of foreign investment in Papua New Guinea which is expected to also make a sustained positive impact on the economy and which the government of Papua New Guinea is best placed to divest by establishing mechanisms for national wealth sharing. I would like to thank all those who gave their time to meet the delegation to discuss issues of mutual interest to Australia and Papua New Guinea. I would also like to thank Her Excellency Deborah Stokes, Australian High Commissioner to Papua New Guinea; Ms Margaret Adamson, the deputy head of mission at the High Commission, and AusAID officers who assisted and accompanied the delegation during its visit to Papua New Guinea. I also thank Stephanie Mikac of the Papua New Guinea secretariat, who supported our visit and our report. I thank the members of the delegation; I love it when we work so well together across the parties. I know this delegation was absolutely committed to seeing Papua New Guinea prosper. I commend the report to the House. 10:40 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I am delighted to speak to this report as a member of the parliamentary delegation to Papua New Guinea and, importantly, as someone who holds a firm belief that Australia's international diplomacy would be well served by a significantly increased focus on our region. I believe that the best use of our resources, knowledge and support is in assisting our regional friends and neighbours. In difficult economic times we can achieve so much more in our own backyard. These views are reinforced by my visits to Papua New Guinea—a good friend and a good ally. The links between our nations are not merely the links of geography. The link that highlights our closeness is the friendship between people. From the desperate days of World War 2, when Papua New Guineans stood steadfastly beside us, to the ready support demonstrated by PNG's response to our requests for assistance on Manus Island, to the thousands of students educated in Australia, these links have helped to define our relationship. Yes, Australia has provided substantial assistance to PNG over the years, but the point I make is that it is not a one-way street. I know from my own experience of the importance of friendships made by PNG students and their Australian classmates going back over generations at schools like Marist Brothers Ashgrove, Brisbane Boys College and St Peter's, in my electorate of Ryan. In Australia there is a great saying: mates look after mates. The people of Papua New Guinea have been strong and true mates for generations, always there to support us—and that is something that we should never forget. It is against this background that we should recognise that the time has come for Australia and PNG to build a relationship as one of equals, of good friends who come to the table to work together for our mutual benefit. What is good for Papua New Guinea is good for Australia. Together as friends we need to shift our relationship to one of economic and social partnership, particularly as PNG has already set out on the journey of managing an increasingly strong economy built on resources but showing genuine awareness of the importance of health, education, infrastructure and, importantly, the status of women. The delegation's visit reinforced that view. I am not saying that PNG is without problems. It faces all the challenges of a developing country and it is essential that we provide our ongoing support as PNG builds on its vigorous democracy and strong national institutions to fight the challenges that beset developing countries across the globe: the challenges of corruption, the challenges of geographic isolation of many of their people, continuing violence against women and unequal economic development, as well as successful completion of the peace process in Bougainville. Our meetings on this visit with PNG leaders such as Foreign Minister Rimbink Pato and Treasurer Don Polye and with Prime Minister Peter O'Neill on my previous visits demonstrated the fact that the leadership of Papua New Guinea has more firsthand experience and knowledge of Australia than many of our leaders do of PNG. Simply put, PNG leaders often come to Australia without hoopla and fanfare. On our side, apart from a few, our visits tend to be short and formal. I have been joined on visits at various times by the members for Herbert and Kooyong and Senator Ian Macdonald. Of course, the shadow minister for foreign affairs, the Hon. Julie Bishop, has met frequently with PNG leaders both here and in Papua New Guinea. She has a real understanding of our relationship and where it should go. I also make special mention of member for Macquarie, Louise Markus, who has a special understanding of Papua New Guinea and the former Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs, Richard Marles, who is very well respected. As I have noted previously in this place, the most telling point of this visit was the renewed sense of optimism that I found in Papua New Guinea. Today I wish to acknowledge the importance of visits like this—and, indeed, on this occasion, it coincided with Australia Week and a very thought provoking speech by the Reverend Tim Costello. Like the speaker before me, the member for Newcastle, I wish to acknowledge the support and assistance of the Australian High Commissioner to PNG, Deborah Stokes, and her staff, who assisted with our trip. It is only by getting to know our friends and by understanding their challenges and achievements that we can best build the informed and effective relationship that true friendship demands. COMMITTEES 6609 COMMITTEES Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee 6609 Report 6609 10:45 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton On behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I present the committee's report, entitled Troubled waters: inquiry into the arrangements surrounding crimes committed at sea, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee. In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper. Mr PERRETT HVP by leave—many Australians will recall the tragic death of Dianne Brimble in 2002 on board a P&O cruise ship. I again pass on my condolences to all of her family. The New South Wales coroner found that Ms Brimble's death was caused by the effects of a drug administered by a known person. Despite numerous prosecutions, no manslaughter convictions or custodial sentences were imposed in relation to her death. One underlying reason for this was P&O's failure to properly secure the crime scene after her death. Despite our inquiry, Australians learnt of another tragedy occurring on a cruise ship just last month. Paul Rossington and Kristen Schroder fell overboard 15 hours before vessel staff were alerted to their disappearance. Their disappearance is not considered suspicious, but it underlines the importance of safety measures on cruise ships to prevent tragedies from occurring. Although the industry is now better equipped to respond to crimes committed at sea and despite the complications of international law, there is more for the industry and for the Australian government to do. Where Australia has jurisdiction under international law, the committee has recommended the Australian government act to make cruising safer and to ensure justice for victims of crimes on cruises. Where Australia does not have jurisdiction, the committee has made clear recommendations about Australia working harder at the international level to bring about an improvement in the industry. The committee recommended that Australia introduce a mandatory crime reporting regime as well as crime scene management protocols which cruise operators would need to comply with in order to access Australian ports. The report also makes the case for Australia to pursue much stronger action within the International Maritime Organization, the international body charged with developing the laws that regulate maritime conduct. This should focus on matters like closed-circuit television systems; man-overboard detection systems, which is a developing technology; and, importantly, a responsible service of alcohol code. We have also recommended the enactment of legislation requiring cruise operators to provide passengers boarding vessels in Australia with information about protecting their safety, as well as information about crisis services and their rights when accidents or crimes occur—and let us hope they do not. Finally, and on behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to Mr Mark Brimble, the former husband of Dianne Brimble, whom we met with and from whom we heard evidence in the inquiry. Mark fought for years to ensure that justice was served for Dianne's death, and he has made an enormous contribution to the safety of all cruise passengers, not just in Australia but all around the world. He, along with the chair of the International Cruise Victims Association, Mr Kendall Carver, gave invaluable assistance to the inquiry, and their evidence has been crucial to the committee's deliberations and to this report. Mark Brimble's tireless and unwavering commitment to justice and to the safety of all cruise passengers has been inspirational to many people, and, on behalf of all Australians, I again thank him for his steadfastness. I would also like to thank the secretariat: the secretary, Dr Anna Dacre, whom I see is in the chamber and whom it has been a great pleasure to work with in this parliament and the 42nd Parliament; the inquiry secretaries, Natalya Wells, who has since gone on to different waters, and Thomas Gregory, who compiled most of the report; and senior researchers Dr John White and Ms Lauren Wilson. I would also like to thank all of the social policy and legal affairs committee. I would particularly like to thank the deputy chair, the member for Pearce, who I do not think is going to be able to speak on behalf of the opposition. This is a unanimous report from the committee. I would particularly like to thank the member for Pearce for her great contribution to the committee throughout the last three years. She has been a pleasure to work with. I wish her well in her future endeavours. I commend this report to the House. Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry Committee 6611 Report 6611 10:50 Mr ADAMS BV5 Lyons On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry I present the following reports together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee: the inquiry into the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research annual report 2011-12 and inquiry into the Wine Australia annual report 2011-12. In accordance with standing order 39(f) the reports were made parliamentary papers. Mr ADAMS BV5 by leave—These are two reports of the House's ag committee. The first report concerns the committee's inquiry into the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research annual report 2011-12 and the second report summarises our inquiry into the Wine Australia annual report 2011-12. Regarding the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, the committee's inquiry canvassed a range of issues, including an independent review, food security and the domestic benefits from the centre's work. In May 2013 an independent panel assessed the research centre's work. The committee found that the overall panel's findings were positive, despite raising a number of questions. The committee noted that it is currently unclear whether the Australian government intends to act upon all of the review's recommendations. The committee has, therefore, recommended that the government respond publicly to the review. One of the centre's core initiatives is the running of the Australian International Food Security Centre. The committee believes that the food security centre will allow Australia to take a leading role towards improving global food security. The committee learnt that around 10 per cent of the benefits for the agriculture research centre's work are applied domestically. A major domestic application is in biosecurity. The centre's research has contributed to addressing issues such as rabies, foot-and-mouth disease and other diseases. Finally, the committee has noted that better communications and promotion of the centre's work is needed. We need to do more to telegraph our expertise and findings to Australia and the world. I would like now to move to the committee's second inquiry which looked at Wine Australia's annual report. The committee's report highlighted the recent approval of the merger between Wine Australia and the Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation. The committee considers that this merger will significantly improve the Australian government's ability to service the wine industry. Wine Australia will be further strengthened through its recent partnership with Tourism Australia. Two other initiatives will also increase wine related tourism: Aussie Wine Month and Savour Australia. These events are fantastic initiatives to promote Australian wine producers, regions and associated businesses. The committee was also pleased to see Wine Australia actively working to promote Australian wines in key emerging markets, including China and India. Despite the recent drops in export levels, the committee believes that from initiatives such as these the outlook for the sector is very bright. The committee's report also considered some difficulties encountered by wine producers in the domestic market competition for retail shelf space. The committee felt that where wine producers feel retailers are impeding competition, further action was needed to produce a stronger evidence base to inform sensible decisions. Before concluding, I would like to reflect on the committee's work in this, the final sitting week of the 43rd Parliament. The committee's work has included policy inquiries and seven bill inquiries—something relatively new for this committee. Our policy inquiries included major investigations into the future of the fishery and forestry industries. If the committee's recommendations are implemented, they will have real benefits for these sectors. These are important reports containing important recommendations and I strongly encourage the government to consider them fully and act on their findings. In closing, I would like to thank the members of the committee who have contributed significantly and in a constructive manner to the committee's work. In particular, I would like to thank my deputy chair, Alby Schultz, who retires at the culmination of this parliament after a long and distinguished career. He worked tirelessly in furthering the interests of regional and rural Australians. On behalf of the committee I wish him well in the next chapter of his life. He has always been strongly supported by his loving wife. He spent some years in the New South Wales parliament representing regional and rural interests. I wish him extremely well in the future. I commend the reports to the House. 10:56 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I would like to add to the comments by the member for Lyons. These were two very important inquiries: the inquiry into the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research annual report and the inquiry into the Wine Australia annual report. Important work is done by both of these bodies, particularly because of their direct relevance to regional and rural Australia. The report into Wine Australia was very significant. There are two key points that I would like to reflect on. The first is that it is very important to see that the wine industry in Australia not only is looking at volume but is doing all it can to make sure we can continue to add value to our wine. I think that is going to be incredibly important going forward. Adding value to the wine that we produce, especially when we are dealing with the Asian market, is going to be incredibly important to the sector. We have to keep looking at ways that we can gain further market access, especially in our near region. It was very good to see that these are considerations that Wine Australia are on top of, including where they should be putting their resources—whether our resources should be more evenly spread across the globe or whether we should be starting to move away from resources in our mature markets. I would also like to add to the comments of the member for Lyons with regard to the committee. I would like to commend him as chair for the way he has gone about his job during this current parliament. He has been a very fair chair. He has made sure that the committee's work has been done very much on a bipartisan basis. I commend him for that. There has been only one bill that has in any way caused us any problems and the chair very wisely moved that bill on, so I commend him on the way he has handled himself. I would also like to thank the other members of the committee for the way they have gone about doing their job and thank the secretariat for the very professional way they have done their jobs. Finally, I would like to reinforce the comments with regard to the member for Hume, the deputy chair of the committee. The member for Hume has been on this agriculture, forestry and fisheries committee—and the previous committees that have gone before it that have had various names—for 12 years now. I think that shows quite clearly his passion to represent regional and rural Australia. He has done an outstanding job. I will never forget him relaying to us in one of the committee meetings the work that he and his wife, Gloria, did with regard to drought stricken farmers. I think it was very moving and showed their absolute commitment and their ability to roll sleeves up and actually go out there and not just talk but also walk the walk. Member for Hume, we will miss you on this committee. I must say there are probably some witnesses who have come before the committee who might not miss the member for Hume because he can be quite direct and frank in his questioning. But he saw that as very much part of his doing his job and we will miss the member for Hume. Health and Ageing Committee 6613 Report 6613 11:00 Ms HALL 83N Shortland On behalf of the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, I present the committee's report entitled Thinking ahead: report on the inquiry into dementia: early diagnosis and intervention, together with the minutes of the proceedings. In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper. Ms HALL 83N The inquiry was referred to the committee by the Minister for Ageing on 20 March 2012. The prevalence of dementia in Australia is predicted to triple in less than 40 years. That means that by 2050 there will be more than 900,000 Australians living with dementia. The challenge for Australia is how to develop a robust system of services to meet the ongoing needs of people living with dementia as well as the needs of families and carers. In its inquiry, the committee considered the far-reaching benefits of early diagnosis and intervention on dementia. Early diagnosis allows people to access appropriate treatments at the earlier opportunity. It allows them to make informed choices about their current and future needs. It also allows them to make important decisions about legal and financial affairs. Despite these obvious benefits, the committee heard that about two-thirds of people living with dementia do not receive a diagnosis. People who are diagnosed wait an average of three years from the first symptoms to diagnosis. One of the major barriers achieving early diagnosis is the lack of awareness. Myths about dementia remain widespread. Many people believe that dementia is an inevitable part of ageing and that nothing can be done about it. Others are too afraid to seek an assessment. They would simply rather not know. Improving our understanding of dementia is the key to banishing these myths and tackling stigma. Ideally, people should seek professional assessment as soon as they have concerns. To address stigma and encourage people to seek early diagnosis, the committee has called for a comprehensive national awareness campaign on dementia. As I mentioned, a benefit of early diagnosis is early intervention, but the committee heard how people still face challenges after diagnosis is made. They do not know what services they can access and how to go about it. In short, there is a lack of coordination and no clear service pathway for people post-diagnosis. To address this, the committee recommends that a case manager or dementia linked worked help connect people to appropriate services and support. Medicare Locals could be used to coordinate local care pathways and facilitate a multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis, treatment and support. Looking to the future, the ultimate goal in Australia and around the world would be to achieve a cure for dementia. Clearly we are not there yet but there are things that people can do now that exports say may reduce the risk of developing dementia or delay its onset,. A healthy lifestyle is crucial, including a good diet, plenty of exercise and continued social activity and engagement. However, more research is needed. The committee encourages ongoing support for dementia research and calls for an increased effort to determine the influence of psychosocial interventions on brain health. The committee heard that there is a call to create dementia friendly communities in Australia. These communities would support a holistic approach to dementia care. This involves educating all sectors of the community, not just health and care sectors, to understand and accommodate the needs of people with dementia and their carers. Dementia-friendly communities would need support from our shops, banks, transport services, police and emergency services, as well as from town planners—and that is just to name a few. The community supports moves towards a dementia-friendly society. Before finishing, it would be very remiss of me not to mention the Living Longer, Living Better aged-care reform package of $3.7 billion over five years. This includes a significant investment in initiatives to tackle dementia. I am confident that many of the issues raised with the committee will be addressed through this package of reforms as they are implemented over the next few years. On behalf of the committee, I would like to offer my thanks to all those who contributed to the inquiry. In particular, I acknowledge the contribution of the people with dementia and their carers who generously shared their stories with us. I would also like to thank my committee colleagues, particularly the previous chair, Steve Georganas, and the deputy chair, Steve Irons, for their participation in and commitment to this inquiry. In addition to that, I thank the wonderful secretariat for all the work they have put into putting together such a great report as I have tabled here today. 11:06 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I rise to join with the chair of the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing in speaking on the tabling of its Thinking ahead report. This is the ninth report of an inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing to be tabled in this 43rd Parliament and potentially this is the last opportunity for members of the committee to speak on matters of the committee in this term unless the report is referred to the Federation Chamber, which I believe, as the chair has told me, is going to happen but I see the chair has left the chamber so we will have to wait and see if she does come back to refer it to the Federation Chamber. As we all know, the committee work of parliament is extremely important and we need to make sure, in the processes we take through these reports and recommendations, that all those who participate are thanked, so I would like to thank all the members of the public who have taken part in these inquiries, particularly this inquiry, and for the time they invest in the process. Sometimes the testimonies they make take great personal courage, time and energy for them to participate. I would also like to thank the secretariat, whose members I see in the chamber, for their work. This was an extensive report and it took a lot of time to take evidence around Australia and make inquiries, so their effort towards the tabling of this report and the writing of this report is fantastic and I would like to thank them for all their efforts along with the rest of the committee, the chair and the previous chair as well, the member for Hindmarsh. I now return to the report that has been tabled today, which is a worthwhile report that this committee has been undertaking since 20 March 2012. It has been a very comprehensive inquiry process with 17 public hearings right across the major population centres of the country and these hearings were attended by hundreds of people who gave evidence in person as well as the receipt of 119 written submissions. Some of the highlights of the inquiry for me arose in Adelaide and in Parkes and also in Swan, at Curtin University. I was extremely interested in the evidence given by Professor Ralph Martins from Edith Cowan University and I will read into the Hansard parts of his opening statement. It begins: My focus for the last few years has been on trying to understand what causes Alzheimer's disease. More recently, we have been focusing our attention on two major areas. One is early diagnosis and the other is lifestyle factors that can impact on the disease and how we can utilise that information to prevent Alzheimer's disease or significantly delay it. … … … Six years ago there was an initiative led by the CSIRO where they asked for expressions of interest to look at setting up a cohort in Australia to try to understand ways in which we can diagnose the disease early. This is now known as the Australian Imaging, Biomarkers and Lifestyle Flagship Study of Ageing. … Collectively we recruited 1,100 people for the study and we have been following them for the last six years. The large part are healthy controls—700 of them—of whom half are memory complainers. We also have a smaller proportion who we call 'mildly cognitively impaired'. So they are not demented but they are significantly deficient in a couple of memory tasks. And then we have people with early-stage Alzheimer's. We have followed them for the last six years. The process involves brain imaging; the taking of blood for blood biomarkers; looking at lifestyle factors; and, obviously, extensive clinical overview and investigation, including neuropsychological assessments. There are only two studies of this kind in the world. One is here in Australia and the other is in the United States. As to funding, they have recruited 800 people in the US for a budget of $60 million; we have done 1,100 for a budget of around $8 million. The difference between their cohort and ours is that we have imaged the brain of a substantially larger number of people. Also, they have paid no attention to lifestyle factors, whereas that has been one of our major objectives. So we are unique in that regard. In that short period of time we have already identified a panel of blood bio-markers that can reflect changes in the brain. We are now hitting an accuracy of 85 per cent and that is almost as good as clinical evaluation. We obviously want to get it better. We have led the world in imaging the brain for early diagnosis and it has been clearly shown—Australians are doing this—that you can pick up the disease at least 15 or even 20 years before the onset of symptoms. I think this early diagnosis is critical. We are now trying to look at ways in which we can measure those changes in the blood that will allow us to predict people with Alzheimer's. We are also doing something that is highly innovative and I can see that it is the way forward. We can now see changes in the eye. The amyloid deposits in the brain can be seen in the eye. We are probably the first in the world with a partner in the US to look at that. I look forward to continuing this speech and commend this report to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 The time allocated 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 at a later hour? 11:11 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 and the resumption of the debate will be made in order of the day for the next sitting. Report and Reference to Federation Chamber 6616 11:11 Ms HALL 83N Shortland I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee 6616 Report 6616 11:12 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON 8T4 Werriwa On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report titled Trading Lives: Modern-day Human Trafficking, the report of the inquiry into slavery, slavery-like conditions and people-trafficking. In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a Parliamentary Paper. Mr LAURIE FERGUSON 8T4 At the outset I thank the secretary, Paul Zinkel, and staff members Julia Searle, James Bunce, Alexander Coward, Lauren McDougall and Kane Moir, and my fellow committee members. I also want to take the unusual step of congratulating some people who drove this inquiry, most particularly the Australian Catholic Religious against Trafficking in Humans, a group of Catholic nuns who have run a very strong campaign on behalf of those people suffering from sexual slavery. That is an area where sometimes people tend to blame the victims as much as the perpetrators, so their work has really been central in getting this on the agenda. If anyone has ever got any doubts about people being victims, I recommend the film Lilya4ever by Lucas Moodysson as a very good indication of the suffering of people in this field. The practices are egregious violations of individuals' human rights. Trafficking and slavery victims are exploited physically, emotionally and mentally and the effects of this trauma can be long-lasting and destructive. There are an estimated 20 million victims of forced labour globally. The annual profit made from these victims is estimated at $US32 billion. That is a profit of $US13,000 for every woman, man and child trafficked into forced labour. In Australia the Australian Federal Police have undertaken more than 375 investigations and assessments into allegations of trafficking in persons, slavery and slavery-like practices and 17 people have been convicted. Two hundred and nine suspected victims of trafficking in persons and slavery have been provided government support through the Support for Trafficked People program. The committee acknowledges the steps taken by the government to strengthen Australia's criminal justice framework, establishing additional offences of forced marriage, forced labour, organ trafficking and harbouring a victim in the Criminal Code. I note particularly the upsurge of interest driven by the media in regard to forced marriages, and this very much was a consideration of the committee. Australia has an opportunity to maximise its effectiveness in this area by implementing a suite of mechanisms and tools to combat these crimes and increase support for its victims at the national and international level. Nationally, Australia can provide greater support for victims of trafficking. The committee recommends that suspected victims of trafficking be provided an initial automatic reflection period of 45 days with two further extensions of 45 days if required and that the Australian government further investigate the establishment of a federal compensation scheme for victims of slavery and trafficking of persons. I note that the committee is also mindful of the implications to the integrity of Australia's migration system if this was abused. That is why we have come up with this compromise recommendation which I think is sensible given the balance between protecting victims and ensuring that people do not manipulate the system. Internationally, Australia can increase its engagement on this important issue. The committee recommends that the Australian government continue to participate in international mechanisms focused on eliminating people trafficking such as the United Nations Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review. To combat trafficking and global supply chains, the committee recommends that the Australian government investigate any trafficking and any slavery mechanisms appropriate for the Australian context with a view to creating a greater awareness of forced labour in global supply chains. The objective of the review would be to introduce improved transparency in supply chains, a labelling and certification strategy for products and services that have been produced ethically and increasing the prominence of fair trade in Australia. I sincerely thank the NGOs, civil society groups and individuals who participated in the inquiry. These groups and individuals have generously donated their time, effort and limited resources to make thoughtful submissions and to appear in public hearings and to voice their concern about Australia's efforts to address slavery, slavery-like conditions and trafficking in persons. Their dedication and support for human rights was self-evident, and, without them, the report of the committee presented today would not be possible. I also thank my colleagues. There was a very sensible air of compromise. We are all people who come to this committee through a deep interest in human rights. It is a thing that has motivated many of us and is a very central part of a political career. It has been a committee that has worked well, and I thank all participants. I commend the report to the House. 11:17 Mr RUDDOCK 0J4 Berowra I come to this tabling having heard some, not all of the evidence—I had to miss some of the hearings—but it does not in any way detract from the importance of the reference. The committee was asked to look at Australia's efforts to address people trafficking, including: through prosecuting offenders and protecting and supporting victims; the ways to encourage effective international action to address all forms of slavery, slavery-like conditions and people trafficking; and the best international practice to address all forms of slavery, slavery-like conditions and people trafficking. The committee has brought forward a number of recommendations dealing with each of those issues, primarily looking at the way in which we might deal with those issues that are relevant to us. Amongst our recommendations are recommendations that the Australian government continue to use international mechanisms including and not limited to the United Nations Human Rights Council's universal periodic review to combat trafficking and that the government renegotiate refunding of contracts of non-government organisations earlier than they do at this time. It is a pity, in a sense, that there is not more focus on the international aspects, but what we can do is constrained. When I was in ministerial positions, I was very much aware of the commitment of the Australian Federal Police and a number of our agencies to working with authorities abroad to focus on these issues, because, quite frankly, the problem is in fact very large in some parts of the world. I think it is important that that be noted because, while we would not want people trafficking or slavery of individuals here in Australia, the number of investigations here, as mentioned by the chair, has been relatively modest and the number of convictions even less so. That does not mean that we should not in any way diminish our efforts, because I would regard it as being quite inappropriate for there to be one person enslaved. But it is important—and the chair mentioned this in his observations—that we have regard to the way in which we can actually deal with the perpetrators. It seemed to me, having pressed my colleagues on some of the recommendations that we have made, that I should emphasise that what I want to see is the perpetrators prosecuted. It is not unreasonable to ask that those people—regardless of the risks in which they often feel they may be engaging themselves and their families—to assist in relation to investigations and to provide evidence against those people who are organising trafficking. One of the reasons that I was strongly of the view that we should still ensure that there be some element of ongoing cooperation is that I want to see the perpetrators dealt with within our criminal justice system. As the chair said, inquiries of this type do not occur without a good deal of effort on the part of the committee members, and I congratulate the chair on his continuing engagement with this matter, and our professional staff, whom I thank. This is an important issue internationally. It is important that Australia is seen to be playing its part. It is interesting that the international movement is in fact led by an Australian academic, who has been charged with undertaking that leadership role, and I congratulate her on her efforts collectively, on behalf of all Australians. I commend the report to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83N Does the member for Werriwa wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion? 11:22 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON 8T4 Werriwa Before I do, I recognise the role of the member for Fremantle in chairing this inquiry for a period when I was overseas. I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83N In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Report and Reference to Federation Chamber 6619 11:22 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON 8T4 Werriwa I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. DELEGATION REPORTS 6619 DELEGATION REPORTS Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee Delegation to Indonesia and Timor-Leste 6619 11:22 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports I present reports of the delegation of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to Timor-Leste and Indonesia. I present this report as leader of the delegation and not as Parliamentary Secretary for the Arts. The principal purpose of the delegation's visit, which took place between 7 and 11 November 2011, was to meet and conduct discussions with counterpart committees in the national parliaments of Indonesia and Timor-Leste. In doing so, the committee sought to deepen the connection with members of these parliaments and to help build Australia's relationship with Indonesia and Timor-Leste. The visit followed the proposal made by the Presiding Officers in 2008 for an exchange program with the foreign affairs committee of the Indonesian parliament, Komisi I, and was first recommended in the committee's report on its major inquiry into Australia's relationship with Indonesia, entitled Near neighbours—good neighbours.The Near neighbours report noted that such meetings would represent a 'valuable connection' between the foreign affairs committees of both parliaments and would allow for both parties to air concerns, exchange viewpoints and, on occasions, clarify misunderstandings. The delegation's visit provided exactly this opportunity for connections between parliamentarians to be established or renewed, concerns to be aired and viewpoints to be exchanged. In Indonesia, the committee held discussions with the chair and members of Komisi I—or Commission I—the Indonesian parliament's committee on foreign affairs and defence, and Commission VI, the committee on trade investment and industry. Our discussions traversed issues such as the suspension of live cattle exports, Indonesia's recently passed State Intelligence Law and de-radicalisation across the archipelago, the people-smuggling issue and the positive role Indonesia aspires to play in developments in the Middle East, particularly as a model for a successful transition to democracy. Encouragingly, Indonesia's counterparts stated with confidence that, although the presidential election in 2014 may be more of a test for the country's nascent democracy than other recent elections, there was, 'No road back to the authoritarian past.' The delegation was pleased to note that, despite the irritants which arise from time to time, the relationship with Indonesia is now of such breadth and depth that it can withstand such challenges. Nevertheless, the delegation is of the view that the Australian government should, at all times, adopt a respectful communication and dialogue with both Indonesia and Timor Leste. In Timor Leste, the committee held discussions with the chair and many members of Commission B—the parliament's committee on foreign affairs, defence and national security. Issues included maritime security and illegal fishing, the development of the Greater Sunrise oil and gas fields, Timor Leste's need for foreign investment, employment and other challenges. Discussions were held in a very respectful atmosphere, and I think the people in the committee were very pleased that we had come to them. Among the other appointments, the committee had the honour of meeting the President of Timor Leste, his excellency Jose Ramos-Horta. The president spoke very candidly to us, including about priorities of Australia's development assistance, greater access for the Timorese people to our Seasonal Worker Program and full vocational training in Australia, which would be clearly welcomed, as expressed by him, as would assistance to encourage investment in ongoing defence and police training support. I am pleased to note that, following the visit, the committee commenced an inquiry into Australia's relationship with Timor Leste. This is timely, as the UN mandate has now expired and the Australian-led International Stabilisation Force recently departed the country. It is an appropriate time to be recasting the relationship in Timor Leste's post-independence era. In both Timor Leste and Indonesia, the delegation was pleased to be able to visit a number of aid projects funded by Australia, such as sanitation projects in Indonesia, and support for agriculture, water and food initiatives in Timor Leste. These projects are manifestly assisting in their respective country's development and improving the lives of ordinary people. Our assistance helps create tremendous goodwill towards Australia in these countries. A theme which emerged in both Timor Leste and Indonesia was that Australia's trade and investment relationship with both countries is seriously underdone, particularly given the significance of the broader relationship between our countries. The delegation believes that this issue must be given greater attention. On behalf of the delegation, I thank our counterparts in the parliaments of Timor Leste and Indonesia, who made time to hold constructive discussions with us. I also thank our ambassadors, their staff and the officials of various government agencies stationed in Indonesia and Timor Leste for their invaluable assistance. I also thank the secretary of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Mr Jerome Brown. The delegation hopes that the exchanges between foreign affairs, defence and trade committees in Australia, Indonesia and Timor Leste will take place on a regular basis and continue to assist with the strengthening of bonds of friendship and facilitating greater understanding between our countries. There is probably nothing more important for Australia than our relationship with Indonesia, in particular. They are an enormous nation of tens of millions of people, mainly of the Muslim faith, and it is no coincidence that we have good and peaceful relations with them. Any moves to jeopardise that ought to be taken very seriously by the Australian people. In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper. 11:28 Dr STONE EM6 Murray On indulgence, I would also like to speak on the outcomes of the delegation, which I had the privilege of joining between 7 and 11 November 2011. The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade visited Timor Leste and Indonesia in order to have discussions with their national parliamentarians and to deepen the connection and understanding between our respective countries. The visit to Indonesia followed shortly after the suspension of the Northern Australian live cattle trade with Indonesia, and during the focus on the plight of young Indonesian fishermen who had been manning people smuggler vessels and have consequently ended up in detention in Australia, hence there was an expectation of lively discussion. We were pleased to find that, notwithstanding these serious matters, such is the strength of our relationship with Indonesia, with our counterparts as members of parliament and officials, that we were able to continue our dialogue quite openly on these, as well as a range of other important matters. These included our trade relationships, our foreign aid contributions, human rights and democracy, climate change responses, counter-terrorism initiatives and the development of the justice sector. In Timor Leste, we were briefed on the upcoming presidential and parliamentary elections. We were particularly concerned that we could support them with volunteers or observers as they aim to have a free and transparent election. We also wanted to talk about the exiting of the UN personnel, given that the UN mandate was expiring shortly, the country's development challenges and the efficacy of Australia's foreign aid contributions. We are in fact Timor-Leste's largest bilateral aid donor, contributing the equivalent of A$104.2 million in 2011-12. In the period from 1999 to June 2011, Australia donated $1.04 billion in emergency and developmental aid to Timor-Leste, so clearly it is most important that that aid is properly targeted and that it responds to the greatest needs of the country. When in Timor-Leste, we were able to also focus on our combined efforts to combat illegal fishing, and to promote tourism and education exchanges. We looked very carefully at the recent investments in some fishing vessels and, as we stood on the wharf and heard about the trials and tribulations associated with manning those vessels and having the resources to combat illegal fishing, we shared their concerns, including the fact that the pillaging of their fisheries, a rich natural resource, needs to be addressed urgently. In addition, they need greater support to develop their great diving prospects for tourism, and education exchanges between our two countries need to continue, as we were able to see how valuable they could be. We were keen to hear how the country aims to meet the challenge of having some 50 per cent of its population under 19, given the poverty, poor nutrition and unemployment or underemployment that typically impacts on the smaller populations away from the capital of Dili. There were also issues to be discussed in relation to the Greater Sunrise gas fields resource and associated infrastructure, a matter of great interest to both of our countries. We had full and frank discussions about the location of that infrastructure and how Timor-Leste intended to make sure that the royalties flowing from their gas fields are used for the betterment of future generations, not just for the here and now. One of the highlights of the time I had in Timor-Leste was when I went with the deputy chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—that is, the member for Gilmore, Ms Jo Gash—up to a very small village which had received support from some of her own constituents in the form of solar energy panels. Despite the very poor soils and low-level subsistence agriculture that was sustaining that village, they met us with a huge feast and some beautiful woven tokens of their friendship. The children sang songs and the leaders of the village made impassioned speeches. As the rain fell down gently, I could not help but remember how generous those communities had been in the Second World War, when they helped our soldiers to hide and then counter the Japanese invasion. These small villages continue to have real issues with poor nutrition, and the stunting of their children's growth is evident. It was an important delegation. (Time expired) BILLS 6622 BILLS Renewable Fuel Bill 2013 6622

Renewable Fuel Bill 2013

First Reading 6622 11:33 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy The rest of the world has moved to ethanol, and once again Australia is wildly out of step with the rest of the world. I hold up here, and I am quite happy to table, a map which shows all the Americas, with the exception of a tiny little piece up here— The DEPUTY SPEAKER E09 The member for Kennedy has made his point with the map. Mr KATTER HX4 are under ethanol, and all of Europe, China, India, South-East Asia and even half of Africa. In fact, the only country on earth without ethanol outside the Middle Eastern and Russian oil-producing areas is Australia. The only country on earth without ethanol is Australia. The Americans are the biggest producers of ethanol in the world now by a long way. They are much bigger than Brazil. Their original ethanol bill was not for renewable energy and not to help their farmers but was a health bill. It was the air quality control bill in the United States which first introduced ethanol right across all of America. Mr Iemma, former ALP Premier for New South Wales and probably one of the few people with a sense of decency in politics in Australia today sadly has left politics. He said he could not go another day having upon his conscience the death of hundreds of people in his state that did not have to die. What precipitated the action in the United States was the lung cancer cardiopulmonary mortality and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution report that was done in California. The graph is here for all to see. When there is a doubling of motor vehicle emissions, there is a doubling of the death rate from lung cancer and other lung and heart diseases. To quote the head of the AMA: More people die from motor vehicle emissions in this country than die from motor vehicle accidents. I find it silly for me to get up in this place and talk about farm suicides. No-one cares. It is silly for me to get up and say that maybe 2,000 people die in Sydney and Melbourne every year that simply do not have to die. Only one leader in this country in recent history has acted upon that matter. The LNP, to their shame, almost halved the 10 per cent in New South Wales down to 6½ per cent. The reduction gives you some indication of a reduction in the dangerous emissions. I think there are 23 reports in the US Congressional Library and 21 of them say that it is around 28 per cent reduction in CO2. I emphasise that I am not particularly worried about the CO2 but I am very worried about the deadly emissions that are associated coming out of motor vehicles. If CO2 is reduced by 28 per cent, clearly the other emissions are going to be reduced as well. In the case of sugar cane, it is more like 72 per cent. Those figures vary dramatically. If you are burning cane, obviously you get more. For those who are worried about CO2 in this place, my party holds to the position that there is a problem that will arise in the oceans so there should be some restraints on CO2, but also massive restraints because you burn ethanol and CO2 goes up, you burn petrol and CO2 goes up. The huge difference in the case of ethanol is that the grain and sugar cane pull it back down again next year, so it is just going up and down like a yoyo. It does not go up there and stay up there. I addressed a meeting in Meridian in Western Australia of 1,063 people from the grains industry in Australia. They were grain growers in a desperate plight. I know many of my friends in the grain industry are up against the wall. In the sugar industry, even though we have had good prices for the last three or four years, the long-term outlook for sugar is dreadful. We have sold all of our sugar mills and they would never have done that if they saw long-term future in the industry. We also have a dreadful situation where maybe 200,000, 300,000 or 400,000 head of cattle are going to die of starvation. If this was America that situation would not exist, because they now produce over 100 million tonnes of super high-grade feed called distillers grain. It is a by-product of the ethanol industry in the United States. I have information for those who say, 'We can't replace fuel production with food production; people will starve.' The American report I am holding—and this is also in the Australian report, that coloured document—says that one tonne of distillers grain replaces 1.22 tonnes of corn. In actual fact, we end up with more feed from distillers grain. The reason for that is that the starch is removed, so you have an infinitely more valuable product. You can put dead grass in with this product and get an outcome which is almost as if you are lot feeding. When ethanol came in there was said to be a 15 per cent improvement in grain prices. It was tremendously helpful for the grains industry, and we look forward to the same outcome in the grains industry in Australia. In the sugarcane industry about 60 per cent of Brazil's production went into ethanol, not sugar. We went into sugar. For something like 11 years, we were on $274 a tonne whilst half of Brazil's production was on over $400 a tonne. They were murdering us in the international marketplace. We worked at a loss for a period of 11 years in that industry. Most of my growers will never get out of the debt was incurred in those years. No-one seems to be particularly worried in this country that we have, probably, one of the lowest self-sufficiencies in petrol of any advanced country on earth. We went from a position where we had 90 per cent self-sufficiency some six or seven years ago, and now we are down around 35 per cent. I will not take the time of the House to pull out the graph, but the graph is there. The federal government's bureau of resources graph indicates that we are at about 35 per cent self-sufficiency now. Every year we send $19.5 billion overseas to the Middle East oil-producing countries. The United States is no longer sending their $230 billion. They will be self-sufficient in oil. Instead of sending that $230 billion to the Middle East, that money will go into the American economy. Madam Deputy Speaker, wouldn't it be wonderful if we had a government that was a little bit enlightened here and that would take that $20 billion and put it into rural Australia, where it would yield enormous benefits for us! But, no—we send it over to the Middle East. It is incompetence on a grand level. When I filled up my motor car in Sao Paulo it was 74c a litre in Australian dollars. When I filled it up in Minnesota in the United States it was 84c a litre. Why? Because those two countries have ethanol, which is considerably cheaper than the price at which you can buy oil anywhere in the world. When I came back to Australia it was $1.39 a litre. In our sugar mills we can produce electricity for virtually nothing. Cheap electricity, cheap petrol— (Time expired) Bill read a first time. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E09 In accordance with standing order 41(c), the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. COMMITTEES 6624 COMMITTEES Education and Employment Committee 6624 11:44 Mr SYMON HW8 Deakin On behalf of the Standing Committee on Education and Employment I wish to make a statement on the current committee inquiry into the role of the technical and further education system and its operation. On Thursday, 21 March 2013 the committee adopted an inquiry into the TAFE system referred to it by the minister for tertiary education. The committee received 172 submissions from interested individuals and organisations and in excess of 1,000 responses to a Unions Australia organised survey. The committee held an initial public hearing in Canberra with the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education. A further hearing was conducted in Brisbane on 7 June 2013, at which key stakeholders, including TAFE Directors Australia, appeared and roundtable discussions were held with employer and industry associations, community organisations and unions. TAFEs have played a critical role in the training and development of Australians for more than 100 years. For many Australians, TAFEs provide a critical pathway to training and skills, which are needed to access real employment. They also play a critical role in regions and in providing access for disadvantaged groups. As TAFE Directors Australia board member, Kaylene Harth, stated at the committee's hearing in Brisbane: The quality of the qualification, the usefulness and applicability of the qualification once issued, is really its value in the workplace and how it helps position the individual in getting greater skills that can be applied in the workplace. The inquiry comes at a time of significant change in the VET systems of states across Australia. All governments have agreed to reform the system through the National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development and the National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform to respond better to the changing needs of the Australian economy and the increasing need for highly skilled workers. The department noted that the continued role of the public provider—TAFE institutes—is central to our national training system. This committee heard students, teachers and school administrators alike express concerns about their public providers being placed under enormous financial pressures and strains. Unfortunately, the committee has not had as much time as it would have liked to examine the topic, with the inquiry coming to the committee only a few months before the end of sittings of this parliament. This problem with time constraints, along with the heavy workload of bills referred to the committee for inquiry, has not allowed the committee to really get its teeth into this very important area of further education. I am of the strong opinion that the inquiry should be rereferred in the next parliament to this committee's successor so that it may receive the complete consideration that it deserves. As this will be the last statement I will make as Chair of the Standing Committee on Education and Employment, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my committee colleagues for the commitment and enthusiasm they have shown in the committee's varied inquiries in this 43rd Parliament. I would particularly like to thank the deputy chair, the member for Grey, who has been on this committee as long as I have, and the former chair of the committee, the member for Kingston, Amanda Rishworth, for their dedicated work and tireless efforts. I would also like to thank the very hard-working and professional staff of the committee secretariat, who are in the chamber today, including the committee secretary, Glenn Worthington; the inquiry secretary, Siobhan Leyne; the previous inquiry secretary, Sara Edson; senior researcher Lauren Wilson; research officer Casey Mazzarella; administration officer Emily Costelloe; and a whole host of others who have helped committee do its job through this period of time. Each and every one has been an absolute pleasure to work with, and their services have proven to be invaluable. Education and employment are vital to the economic prosperity, national productivity and social fabric of Australia. The committee's program of the 43rd Parliament has been challenging and rewarding, varied and complex, and it has made a valuable contribution to work this House. I thank the House. Regional Australia Committee 6625 11:48 Mr WINDSOR 009LP New England On behalf of the Standing Committee on Regional Australia I wish to make a statement concerning the committee's inquiries. This is the first parliament that has had a committee totally devoted to regional Australia. It was part of the agreement that the member for Lyne and I made on the formation of government. I know the deputy chair, the member for Bendigo, is here today, and I think all of the committee members, including the former deputy chair, Mr Sidebottom, would agreed that the committee has worked incredibly well together in a parliament that has been so divisive in its nature—a hung parliament. This committee has looked at a number of issues, and I will get to those in a minute. But I congratulate all of the members from the government, the Liberal Party and the National Party for the way in which they have conducted themselves in these very important issues for regional Australia. I also thank the previous minister for regional Australia, Simon Crean, for the work that he did. I think Simon Crean is one of those individuals in this parliament who really has a good understanding of regional Australia. Since Mr Crean's departure, the new minister, Anthony Albanese, has reflected that understanding too. So I do thank those two ministers for the way in which they have interacted with the committee and I thank the Prime Minister as well for her oversight of the committee through its various activities. The committee has carried out a number of inquiries. In a historical context, one of the most significant inquiries, I think, of this parliament was the inquiry that the regional Australia committee undertook into the impact of the guide to the proposed Murray-Darling Basin Plan. This was an extensive document, and the committee was on the road during January 2011, normally a time when parliamentarians have a break—and I recognise Sussan Ley, who is in the chamber, was also on that committee. However, the committee went on the road for nearly a fortnight, travelling the extent of the Murray-Darling system that it could during that period of time, and there were other investigations and inquiries with various communities up and down the system, whether they were in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria or South Australia. The way in which the committee membership addressed this inquiry, in my view, was part of the reason that we were able to come to a consensus in this building. The committee was a microcosm of the parliament, and those committee members were prepared to look at the issue, talk to the communities and look at the ways in which some constructive work could be done in relation to an issue that has been out there for a hundred years. I congratulate members of the committee on the work they did, and I congratulate Minister Burke on his achievements as well. There is no doubt that the committee's inquiry, and its subsequent inquiries into sustainable diversion limits and the water for the environment special account, had a positive impact on the eventual bill that gained assent through the parliament. So congratulations to all those members. The second significant inquiry was into fly-in fly-out, or FIFO, and drive-in drive-out, or DIDO workforce practices in regional Australia. The report was entitled Cancer of the bush or salvation for our cities?The government has up until July, I think, to respond to this particular inquiry, and I would urge government members and committee members to apply pressure to the government, various ministers and the Prime Minister to make sure that some of these issues are addressed. There are significant issues in relation to fly-in fly-out—very significant issues—that need to be addressed. I will not go to the extent of listing recommendations but, again, I congratulate the committee. (Extension of time granted) I thank the secretariat, particularly Glenn Worthington, the committee secretary; Siobahn Leyne, the inquiry secretary; and all of those who have been part of the process for these inquiries and in the inaugural regional Australia committee. I urge the next government, whoever it is, to have a committee that is totally devoted to regional Australia rather than having it bracketed with other committees. 11:54 Mr GIBBONS 83X Bendigo Madam Deputy Speaker, on indulgence—I wish to correct a mistake I made in my valedictory speech last week. I omitted to mention David Kennedy as an important member of my staff. David, as some of you would know, was once the federal member for Bendigo and then represented Bendigo in the state parliament. I wanted to acknowledge his help. I also wanted acknowledge the help that Peter Thompson and Morna Whiting have been to me over the eight years I have stayed with them. I also speak in support of the work of the Standing Committee on Regional Australia. I endorse the comments made by the chair, and I agree that the inquiry into the impact of the guide to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was particularly gruelling. Participating in that inquiry was certainly a character-building exercise. As the chair said, we toured extensively in northern New South Wales in January amongst the dust and the flies. We took some valuable evidence and met a lot of very dedicated people, and it reinforced to me that some of the best environmentalists in Australia happen to be farmers. I have no hesitation in saying that, simply because they understand the environment better than most—quite often their livelihood depends on it. As I said, it was a character-building exercise and well worth pursuing. We were able to make some major changes to the government's legislation, and I think the chair should take a bow for that. There were two other inquiries. Firstly, the inquiry into certain matters relating to the proposed Murray-Darling Basin Plan was a follow-up inquiry that led to two amendments to the Water Act to provide a sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism. We are all pretty proud of that. Secondly, the inquiry into the Water Amendment (Long-term Average Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2012, which responded to a recommendation made by the committee to provide community certainty on the issue. The other inquiry that was quite time consuming was the inquiry into fly-in fly-out work practices. That issue has presented some real problems for a lot of small communities. Having an invasion, if you like, of 2,000 or 3,000 extra workers descend on a small community for two or three weeks and then go away again puts enormous strain on the resources available in those communities, such as local government, health and those sorts of things. It was a worthy inquiry with some really good recommendations. I, too, would like to acknowledge the work of the secretary, Glenn Worthington; Siobhan Leyne, Casey, Daniel, Katrina and Emily Costello. The committee has been served very well by these people. They are very capable, very dedicated and provided the committee with some superb advice. BILLS 6627 BILLS Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Bill 2013, Australian Citizenship Amendment (Special Residence Requirements) Bill 2013, Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Bill 2013, Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy) Bill 2013, DisabilityCare Australia Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013, Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2013, International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2013, Insurance Contracts Amendment Bill 2013, Corporations and Financial Sector Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, Social Security Legislation Amendment (Disaster Recovery Allowance) Bill 2013, Statute Law Revision Bill 2013, Court Security Bill 2013, Court Security (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013, Military Justice (Interim Measures) Amendment Bill 2013, Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2013, Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (Registration Fees) Bill 2013, Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment (Registration Fees) Bill 2013, International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Cape Town Convention) Bill 2013, International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Cape Town Convention) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013, National Measurement Amendment Bill 2013, Aboriginal Land Rights and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2013 6627

Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Bill 2013

Australian Citizenship Amendment (Special Residence Requirements) Bill 2013

Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Bill 2013

Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy) Bill 2013

DisabilityCare Australia Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013

Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2013

International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2013

Insurance Contracts Amendment Bill 2013

Corporations and Financial Sector Legislation Amendment Bill 2013

Social Security Legislation Amendment (Disaster Recovery Allowance) Bill 2013

Statute Law Revision Bill 2013

Court Security Bill 2013

Court Security (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013

Military Justice (Interim Measures) Amendment Bill 2013

Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2013

Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (Registration Fees) Bill 2013

Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment (Registration Fees) Bill 2013

International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Cape Town Convention) Bill 2013

International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Cape Town Convention) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013

National Measurement Amendment Bill 2013

Aboriginal Land Rights and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013

Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2013

Returned from Senate 6627 International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2013 6628

International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2013

First Reading 6628 COMMITTEES 6628 COMMITTEES Public Works Committee 6628 Report 6628 11:57 Ms LIVERMORE 83A Capricornia On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the third report for 2013 relating to referrals made May 2013. In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper. Ms LIVERMORE 83A by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the third report of 2013, addressing referrals made 2013. This report deals with two referrals, with an estimated total cost of $115.9 million. The first inquiry examined the development and construction of housing for Defence at Warner in Brisbane, Queensland. The project cost is $91.3 million. The project will develop land for housing construction and Defence Housing Australia will build 130 dwellings for Defence members and their families. The 355 other residential allotments will be sold to the general public. The committee was assured that Defence Housing Australia and its contracted consultants have undertaken the appropriate risk assessments in determining that the filling works for tranche 2 of the Warner site are appropriate. The committee is satisfied with this project and recommends that it proceed. The second inquiry examined the redevelopment and construction of housing for Defence at Sandford road, Enoggera, also in Brisbane, Queensland. The project cost is $24.6 million. The project will demolish the current seven two-storey brick and weatherboard town houses, which are outdated and do not meet Defence guidelines. Defence Housing Australia will then construct seven new townhouses and 48 apartments, all to be occupied by Defence members and their families. The site adjoins Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera. The committee was impressed with the proposed design and congratulates Defence Housing Australia on maximising the use of such a valuable piece of land adjacent to Gallipoli Barracks. The committee is satisfied with this project and recommends that it proceed. I would like to thank members and senators for their work in relation to these inquiries. This is the last report for the 43rd Parliament. During this parliament the committee has completed 47 inquiries with a total value of over $5.8 billion. I have been chair of the committee for the last ten inquiries and have been fortunate enough to step into the role with the committee already having a well-established bipartisan approach to its scrutiny of public works. I thank the previous chair, the member for Page, for paving the way with her excellent work as chair. I also thank all other members of the committee for their dedication. I also take this chance to thank the committee secretariat, Dr Alison Clegg, Anthony Overs and Fiona Gardner, for their professionalism and for the good-natured way that they kept us focussed on our tasks as we travelled around Australia. Finally, I acknowledge the contributions made by the member for Mallee to the work of this committee. The member for Mallee has been a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for the majority of his parliamentary career going back to 1996 and his dedication and integrity have been invaluable. His expertise, enthusiasm and corporate memory will be sorely missed and I wish him well for his post-parliamentary life. I commend the report to the House. Law Enforcement Committee 6629 Report and Reference to Federation Chamber 6630 12:01 Mr CHEESEMAN HW7 Corangamite I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION 6630 PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION Valedictory 6630 12:07 Ms LIVERMORE 83A Capricornia The chance to make a valedictory speech is a rare opportunity for a member of parliament and one I know that I should be embracing and enjoying. As the time has approached, I was finding it harder and harder to get my thoughts and feelings onto the page. I finally realised it was because I was not being honest with myself about what is going on here today. If I was not being honest with myself, then it meant I was not being honest with the people I have represented here for the past 15 years and the colleagues I have served with and who have done me the great honour today of coming in to listen to this my last contribution to this chamber. I really do appreciate it and I think I owe you a genuine account about how I feel about ending my time here as the member for Capricornia and a proud member of the Labor caucus. The truth is it is very hard to make a valedictory speech when I am still torn about my decision to stand down. I know I have made a decision that is right for me and my family and the Labor Party in Capricornia—and it is that but which hangs over this speech. But I am still young. At 43, it does not feel quite right to be bringing down the curtain on any kind of career, let alone one that holds such a special place in the life of our country. But there is more that I would love to do in a political career. I never felt like I could admit it but becoming a parent in my second term, for all its joys, did floor me. I had a newborn baby and a marginal electorate bigger than the state of Victoria. So many years of my career were just about survival and holding it all together. With those days behind me, part of me would love to be thinking about the next phase of my career, not the end of it. But there is still a fight to be had. Whenever there is a battle of ideas, Labor will always be on the side of fairness and on the side of the future. An election about better education funding, boosting superannuation, managing the transition of our economy in the interests of working people and investing in infrastructure is one that Labor has to win and one that I would relish if I thought I was still the best person to do that job for Labor in Capricornia. I feel better knowing that our candidate, Peter Freeleagus, is a true-blue Labor bloke, with a ton of experience in local government and a champion of Central Queensland. But I cannot stop asking myself why I have not been able to figure out how to be the member of parliament I want to be and to be the mother I want to be. I happily handed over my life to my branch members and then to my constituents for so many years and it felt like I was letting them down every time I chose to spend time with my family. How though to explain that to my children, who wanted me to be there for them when I came home from Canberra? Well a choice had to be made, and it was. It is bittersweet, but milestones in life usually are and if I have learnt anything in my 15-year parliamentary career, it is the importance of keeping things in perspective and staying focused on what is really behind my purpose here—not me but my electorate. It is advice I gave myself in my first speech on 23 November 1998. I was elected to parliament in October that year. It was an interesting time in Queensland. In the wake of the 1998 state election, the message to major parties in our state was clear and unmistakable: we could not take our traditional support base or electorates for granted. Those early days as a candidate in what felt like a new and challenging political environment—I had not seen anything yet—have always stayed with me. I have always felt very strongly the need to demonstrate in everything I do that I am firmly focused on serving my electorate rather than it serving my ambitions. Luckily for me, the people of Central Queensland and the individual communities that have made up Capricornia in its various dimensions have always responded to that approach. They responded most obviously by voting Labor in big enough numbers to return me at five elections. They have also responded by accepting me as someone who is genuinely part of their community and their endeavours and aspirations. It is something I will always be grateful for. On the face of it that is not such a big deal. It is part and parcel of an MP's job. I know all of you would say the same thing about your own electorates. What is so remarkable in retrospect and why I make particular mention of it today is the size and diversity of the electorate of Capricornia. Back in 1998 there were outback Queensland mayors, Bowen Basin coalminers, central highlands graziers, local school principals, Rockhampton meatworkers, Capricorn Coast pineapple growers and countless community organisations working across Central Queensland faced with this young and, let us face it, very inexperienced new MP representing them in the federal parliament. To their great credit, never once did any of those groups prejudge me or my abilities. Instead, they took me at face value when I said I wanted to listen, learn and try to help. They took the time to make me part of their communities and teach me about their industries and interests. I was invited to council meetings and aged-care homes, was taken through underground coalmines, sugar mills, railway workshops and meatworks, and was driven around cattle properties and cane farms. In some ways it was a great advantage to be as young as I was. Nobody expected me to know anything about these industries or remote parts of the electorate so I was never tempted to bung it on and pretend to have all the answers. If I had, there is no way I would be standing here today. Of course, I was also invited to take part in community events of all shapes and sizes from one end of Capricornia to the other—and those ends kept changing with each redistribution. Through those many and varied encounters I got to know the heart and soul of Central Queensland. It was really only then, despite my official starting date of 3 October 1998, that I truly felt that I was the member for Capricornia. It was a huge privilege to be given that chance to prove myself and to have the help and support of so many people to gain that understanding of the region and its challenges and opportunities. The other thing I made very clear in my first speech is that, while I had to get my head wrapped around the business of Canberra, my feet were to stay firmly planted in regional Australia. I have always identified first and foremost as a regional MP. I have always been driven by the potential I see in our regions and the gaps in infrastructure and services that too often have held us back or created inequality in the opportunities available to those of us who live outside the capital cities. Entering the parliament, I wanted to see rural and regional Australians getting all the advantages of living in this wonderful country, and that needed the support of the federal government. Well, I was a long time waiting for a federal government that was interested in making those things happen in my electorate. I spent nine years in opposition and I can only remember a couple of things of any significance that the Howard government delivered to my electorate in that whole time. It has been a very different story since Labor came to power in 2007. In regional Australia, a big part of lifting living standards is about closing the gap between services and opportunities in cities and those available in our regions. As a new member making my first speech, I pledged to do that, and I can stand here today proud of what we, this Labor government, have done in Capricornia. The Rockhampton Base Hospital now has the MRI machine we promised at the 2007 election. We have contributed $76 million to the redevelopment of that base hospital. That has allowed for the construction of a whole new building which, among other things, will house the MRI and, my proudest announcement, the regional cancer centre. The centre will be fully operational next year. I look forward to the day when cancer sufferers in Central Queensland will not be faced in their darkest hour with the prospect of travelling away from their family and the comforts of home to undergo lengthy periods of treatment in far off Brisbane. We lost our dad to cancer and my mother has just ended her own treatment for breast cancer, so this project above all others means a lot to me personally. I think it will make a real difference to the experience of those living with cancer in Central Queensland and to the success of their treatment too. This government is also making a real difference to the medical workforce in Central Queensland—doctors, nurses and allied health professionals. In partnership with the University of Queensland, we have funded a fantastic new facility in Rockhampton for the Rural Clinical School that brings UQ medical students to Central Queensland to complete the final two years of their medical degree. Of course, after two years, they cannot resist the charms of our great region and a high proportion of those doctors stay on after graduation to start their careers in our local hospitals—a huge boost to our medical workforce. Our government has also invested in the allied health clinic at Central Queensland University. Students in podiatry, oral health, nutrition, physiotherapy and other disciplines are doing their clinical placements alongside Queensland Health staff so that, by the time they graduate, they have the clinical experience they need to be fully fledged allied health professionals. Local people are getting better access to health services at the clinic at the same time as we are training the people who will fill the shortages in allied health professionals that have been a chronic problem across regional Queensland. This is just one of many, many improvements to the facilities at Central Queensland University in both Rockhampton and Mackay—a new library and accommodation in Mackay, and a total upgrade of the engineering building and the library in Rockhampton. There is more to come at Central Queensland University, with our government providing $73 million towards further developments at the university in support of its merger with the Central Queensland Institute of TAFE to become Queensland's first dual-sector university—an important step in providing opportunities for local people to meet the demand for skilled workers in our growing region. Our Medicare Local is doing great work delivering primary health care services, often filling gaps left by the withdrawal of funding by the conservative state government. It has just been confirmed as the successful bidder to run the headspace youth mental health centre coming to Rockhampton. This Labor government has been a very generous sponsor for the international beef expo held in Rockhampton every three years—an iconic event for our city, the beef capital of Australia, and a showcase for the nation's beef industry, which leads the world in quality and innovation. There has been further support for the beef industry through the funding our government has made available to the meatworks in my electorate to modernise their facilities. This will see reduced carbon emissions and dramatically lower energy costs for these companies. Mackay Sugar has seized a similar opportunity, presented by our agenda of reducing carbon and boosting renewable energy, by investing in new equipment that will burn the waste product from sugar processing and generate the equivalent of one-third of Mackay's electricity needs. It is presently Australia's biggest co-generation project and is increasing the returns to cane growers, recognising that they are now producing energy as well as an important agricultural export. How can I go any further on that list without talking about road funding—and the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport has come into the chamber just in time. If you are a regional MP, it does not matter what else you might do for your electorate: if people think the roads are crook then you are not doing a good job. I can remember my feeling of triumph when, after a ferocious campaign by mayors and local media—happily egged on by me—the Howard government announced that they would put $6 million towards an upgrade of the Peak Downs Highway between Mackay and the Bowen Basin coal mines. This is a 200-kilometre road, mind you, that links our major export industry to support services and much of its workforce in Mackay. So good of the Liberal National government to find $6 million for it. Last election in 2010, I stood with the Treasurer at the start of that same highway for the announcement of $120 million to improve its safety and efficiency. That is the difference between our commitment to infrastructure and those opposite. There has been a huge investment into the Bruce Highway around Central Queensland. There has been almost constant work resurfacing and widening the highway from Rockhampton to Sarina and major improvements on the Sarina to Mackay stretch of that road. Of course, there is the big one—the lifting of the highway at the southern entrance to Rockhampton. Those who tuned in to the coverage of the 2011 Rockhampton floods would know this place as the9 ocean of brown water with a statue of a bull sticking out of it. If you go there now, you will see construction crews hard at work building a massive bridge metres above the existing road and that work will continue until there is a section of highway bridged right across the Yeppen flood plain. No longer will Rockhampton and the northern half of Queensland be cut off for weeks when the Fitzroy breaks its banks. No longer will workers be cut off from their jobs and businesses cut off from their customers and suppliers. This has caused massive disruption and distress at an individual and regional level and I am so pleased that this government has been dedicated to helping me find and fund a solution for the communities of Central Queensland. These are just some of the biggest projects that come to mind since 2007. What they have in common with all of the initiatives and programs I have not mentioned is that they always involved a partnership between community, the government and me. Whether it was Mackay Sugar, headspace, Lakes Creek meatworks or the Road Accident Awareness Group, I always loved being brought in to understand an issue or idea, advise on the best way forward and then take up the advocacy to get a project across the line. I want to take the opportunity here to thank the Prime Minister, my ministerial colleagues and their staff who always without exception made the time, took my calls, heard me out and helped me to do the best I could for my electorate. During my time in the parliament I served my electorate, but I campaigned for the Australian Labor Party. In my first speech I described how it was the Labor government of Gough Whitlam that shaped my aspirations and the Labor government of Hawke and Keating that gave me opportunity. Other members have spoken about how humbling it is to rise in here for the first time and I remember that very clearly. What I also found humbling was going back to read my first speech. I was humbled by the strength of my conviction powered by a belief in Labor's cause. It was a belief that a Labor government would always make Australia a better place for families like the one I grew up in and for regions like the one I represent. Believe me there is nothing humble about the pride I feel in what this Labor government has achieved and continues to strive for. These achievements include keeping the people of Central Queensland in work and making sure the doors of local businesses stayed open during the global financial crisis; the apology to the stolen generation giving us the opportunity for genuine and meaningful reconciliation with Indigenous people; having the courage to stand up to the tobacco companies and become the first country in the world to introduce plain packaging for cigarettes; increasing the number of people from regional Australia going to university, including their own local universities that have been supported by this government's investments in new world-class facilities; paid parental leave giving families those precious first months with their babies; establishing the world's biggest network of marine parks; putting a price on carbon so our children are not stuck with an old economy while the rest of the world moves on; finding a way to keep the Murray Darling Basin productive while protecting its environmental values; giving people with disability and their families and carers the hope of a decent, dignified and fulfilling life; taking our place in the world as a member and now host of the G20 and sitting on the United Nations Security Council; developing a deeper understanding of what the future holds for us and embracing the challenges and opportunities of the Asian century; building on those great Labor reforms of the past with measures to strengthen superannuation and broaden Medicare. And there is, of course, our vision for a school education system that is funded to meet the needs of every child in every school so our Australian students reach their full potential and are able to match the best in the world. It is a worthy list of achievements and a powerful argument why this Labor government deserves the chance to do more. Back in 1998 I believed in what a Labor government could do—now I know. I thank my colleagues who have shared this incredible journey with me, and I thank you, Julia, for your support as a friend and as a leader who has always inspired me with the force of your commitment to fairness and opportunity, and your determination to prevail in the name of those values. I heard the advice last week of two wise women whom I greatly admire, Sharon Grierson and Nicola Roxon, to put my thank yous and tributes to those I love at the start. I have not taken that advice, so I have no-one else but myself to blame if it all falls apart. I want to say thank you to my staff, represented in the gallery here today by Sarah Byrne. I have had so many good people work in my office in the past 15 years. They have been dedicated to serving the people of Capricornia and loyal to the cause of the Labor Party. Together we won five elections for Labor, and each victory was as much theirs as it was mine. My current staff—Soe, Sarah and Katelyn—are a fantastic team. It is great to be surrounded by young people who are so bright and motivated and always supportive. Then of course there is Barry Large—the one and only— An honourable member interjecting— Ms LIVERMORE 83A who is not quite as young, yes—who is technically a member of my staff, but is so much more. Barry has been there from the start: my campaign manager in 1998 and a source of advice and support on just about everything ever since. Without the benefit of his experience, the last 15 years probably would not have been as successful and they definitely would not have been as much fun. We had a function a month or so ago where I thanked the branch members and Labor Party supporters, including the National Union of Retired Workers, for their hard work and belief in me over all these years. I will never be able to thank them enough, and will be beside them in the coming months while we take up the fight once again to keep Capricornia in Labor's hands. We have been inspired by my good friend Bill Byrne, the state member for Rockhampton, who showed us how to keep the faith in tough times when he won against the odds last year. Canberra took some getting used to in the early years, so I feel very lucky to have been taken under the wing of Michelle O'Byrne and Jane O'Dwyer. We shared what must have been the coldest house in Canberra for those first few years. Literally, I was Queenslander moving into a house with no central heating, but Jane and Michelle more than made up for that. I was very happy when Jane met her husband Marco, mainly because he is a great bloke but also because he is a fellow Queenslander and he insisted on moving to a house with proper central heating, which was set at a constant 25 degrees. In recent years I have stayed with my sister Heidi and my brother-in-law Chris. It really is my second home and I appreciate the welcome I get each Sunday night, and their brilliant cooking. I have spent too little time with my friends outside the parliament, but it has been so great to know they have been there supporting me no matter what. My friend Majella has truly special place in my life because she has been part of every important thing that has happened to me for the past 20 years. My mum and my other sister Sascha and her family have been a constant source of support. I have always thought of my dad's death in 1981 as a defining moment in my life, but in truth it was the love and security that mum gave to my sisters and me in the years that followed that has really made me who I am. I hope to be a calmer and more thoughtful daughter when this is over. In my first speech I thanked my husband, Craig, and said I could not have done it without him, by which I meant campaign for a year and win the seat. Well five elections and two children later, what can I possibly say to adequately express what he has done for me and for our family? He keeps this show on the road every single day and still has time to make sure we are having fun. Patrick and Alexandra, this is as much an ending for you as it is for me. Those years of bringing babies to Canberra were extremely stressful at the time, but they feel very special now and our family will always treasure the way we were made to feel so welcome by colleagues, by the staff of the parliament and especially the ever-patient and friendly Comcar drivers. The other person who gave me those precious years with my babies in Canberra is Paula Austin, who was our nanny for about a day before becoming a much loved part of our family. Patrick and Alexandra also insisted that I thank our dog, Maisie. In a contest for the affections of my children I would not like to test my numbers against Maisie, but now is my chance to turn that around. Colleagues, I thank you sincerely for being here today and throughout my parliamentary career. I might not be nominating for this election, but I will be campaigning for Labor and I wish every one of you on this side of the House the victory that you deserve. The SPEAKER 83S As I am not going to be able to leave my chair to congratulate her, I would like to thank the member for Capricornia for a great speech and for her friendship over the last 15 years. 12:30 Mr JENKINS HH4 Scullin Speaker, how do I follow that? Little Ms Perfect, Little Ms Organised. Here I am, Mr Grumpy, Mr Disarray. The best advice I have had for this speech is 'wing it', because there is no speech. In any case, first lyric: And now, the end is near And so I face the final curtain … But 27½ years is a long time and I really don't know where to start. So, second lyric: Let's start at the very beginning A very good place to start … In 1986 at Canberra airport I came down the stairway, across the tarmac, through the tin shed that was the terminal and outside to the open carport as the tractor brought the luggage in. You searched on the trailer, found your luggage and got the assistance of the ever-attendant Comcar drivers. First thank you: thank you, Comcar drivers, you are legends. Now we have Canberra 'International Airport', replete with street art. What a change! I arrived here to this chamber—not particularly this chamber, the one down at Old Parliament House, the provisional Parliament House—and it was a very different chamber. There were no females as clerks at the table and there was one female attendant. I was going to say that that was balanced by the fact that Hansard reporters were predominantly female, but that may not have been the case because I have since researched that the first female Hansard reporter started in 1969 so it had only been two decades. But Hansard came in and it was taken in shorthand or with cumbersome machines. How the world has changed. The first female Serjeant-at-Arms had just been appointed. And, of course, the circumstances that led me to being elected to this place, to taking my place, were the same that had led to the election of the first female Speaker of this place, the late Joan Child. And how proud am I that I will leave this place with the second female Speaker presiding—and, Speaker Burke, you are doing an wonderful job. The next lyric that we go to is: Most people I know think that I'm crazy and I know at times I act a little hazy … Well, the only reason I am here giving this speech is that Michele Jenkins—nee Sharp—exists. Without her I would not be here. I owe her all. Third lyric: Michele, ma belle. These are words that go together well— I know that members would expect me to hash a foreign language, so the words go on: Sont les mots qui vont tres bien ensemble Tres bien ensemble. Michele, like many spouses of members, has really had to share a great load. Of course, we are not the only profession that is on the road, that travels and is away from home, but when you are in the public spotlight it is a bit different. The family does not stand for election, but they are still in the glare. In the sense that Michele has been a single parent; she can look with great pride at Ben, Emlyn and Amanda. Em has turned up out of the blue; I did not even know he was going to be here. He has a great streak of social justice. Ben is the father of our two darling granddaughters. Amanda has been so inspired by the achievements of many of my female colleagues in this place. I thank my parents-in-law, Cliff and the late Barbara Sharp. It has been a bit tough for us over the last few weeks with asbestos matters being talked about, as my mother-in-law died of peritoneal mesothelioma. I thank Michele's brothers and sister for their support. To my family, of course I owe a lot. To my parents, the late Dr Harry, and my mum, Wendy: I often say that, whilst I have been fortunate enough to represent part of the northern suburbs of Melbourne in which I grew up, I recognise that mine was a privileged background compared to those whom I represent. My father was first a general practitioner and then went on to be a state parliamentarian and then a federal parliamentarian. Both mum and dad were active in the community. Both mum and dad were active within the Australian Labor Party, but at no stage did they ever say to us that this was how we had to move, that this was the path we had to follow. We were given ample opportunity to make those decisions ourselves. I think that is very important. Whilst mum is very overly protective and takes on anybody who is the least bit critical of me, I know that that is from her sheer pride, and I thank her for that. To my two brothers and my sister and to their families: I congratulate you on your achievements. I ask you to be very proud of what you do. I thank you for your love and support. Most members of parliament would agree that we are only really able to look as good as we might look by the deeds of our staff. There have been a lot of them over 27½ years in the electorate office, when I was the Deputy Speaker, the Second Deputy Speaker and Speaker. I think the churning and turnover has been minimal. I am not sure why so many of them have been so loyal. Some have gone on to better things—to be professors at the ANU, to be chiefs of staff of ministers at both state and federal levels, to be important executive assistants to the great. I think these things are really important. I only want to mention one by name, and that is the late Nick Ascenzo. Nick and I were elected to the then shire of Whittlesea in August 1979, so I have had 34 years as a public office holder as a preselected ALP candidate. I entered local government with Nick. Nick had come here as a four-year-old with his family from Italy. He was very much salt of the earth. A group of us all thought we knew how to change the world and what was required in local government. Because of the predominant migrant population of the southern end of the then shire of Whittlesea we said: 'We have to translate all of the information into the languages in the community. This will be a big step forward.' Nick was very down to earth. We would be listening to 3LO 774 and he would be listening to 3AW when it was 1278 because he said: 'That's what the punters we are representing are listening to, so we better understand.' So we would be reading The Ageand they would be reading the Herald Sun, because that is what the punters in my electorate read. Senior journalists always remind me, when they want to get a comment from me, that it should be given to the Herald Sun! But one day Nick said, 'Listen, all you guys; you think you know what's going on. All this translating stuff—there's just one problem: people like my father are illiterate in Italian. Since the age of eight, I've had to do all the form filling-in, answering the questions. That's the real issue.' It is people like Nick Ascenzo that were very important in making me understand what was important in seeking to meet the aspirations of those we represent. Nick was there for me when I had great self-doubt. When my father stepped down and nominations for preselection were being made, he was the one that convinced me to give it a go. I do not think that he envisaged the circumstances where I could come up through the middle in a three-person contest to be victorious. But, in any case, I owe him a lot. He was taken from us much too early, and there are not many days where I do not think, 'What would Nick expect of us? What would he want me to do?' And I am very grateful for that. It is a story of the comradeship of the Australian Labor Party: it is very much a story of the importance of being part of a movement that has collective action as its core. I went down to the caucus room this morning and I looked at the photographs of the leaders on the wall. There have been 20 leaders of the federal parliamentary Labor Party. Since Arthur Calwell, I have known all of them personally. I met Frank Forde on one occasion; but, from Arthur onwards, I have known them personally. Gough Whitlam will always be the great man; he will always be the person that I look up to for what the Labor Party can achieve. Having said that, I know that, administratively and in their management, the Whitlam governments were not all that great. But they had waited those 27 years, and there was a lot to be done—and it was done. Bill Hayden was one of those unlucky leaders. There was Bob Hawke—Hawkies, Hawkie. The first occasion that I had to do something official after being elected Speaker, I got sent off to the inauguration of the Korean president, and Bob was there because of his special relationship through APEC. All of a sudden, he says, 'I want to speak to you.' I thought, 'I'm in for it now.' But, knowing in the good Confucian way that I should respect my elders, I waited around until he had dealt with some things and sat down with him. He absolutely covered me in cigar smoke, but I put up with it because you respect your elders. He was larger than life, but Labor right through to the sinews of his body. We then have PJ Keating—never got a vote out of me on an election ballot, but I have to say that, upon reflection, many of the things that he did were extraordinarily great. Bill Kelty tells of the story during the Mabo decision—or it might have been Wik—when things looked really bleak. The Left sat around and said, 'This is taking too much political skin; is it really worth it?' and even conveyed that to Keating. Keating said: 'No. We're going to move on.' I remember that Christmas, as we broke up for the holidays, that he simply said, 'It was the right thing to do; it was the Labor thing to do,' and everybody knew what he meant. Kim Beazley and Simon Crean were two of the most unlucky leaders you would ever see. They were absolutely decent to the core. Perhaps that was the reason they were not successful—but, again, go through the things they championed. The great success in parliament this year has been the NDIS and DisabilityCare. I remember Beazley as leader championing that as a cause. Why did he champion it as a cause? He had sent out caucus members in working parties to look at issues—and that was the response we got from elderly parents with disabled children. Sorry, Em, I got that wrong. I mean 'children with disabilities'. He always corrects my terminology. The thing was that we discussed these things. Then, when we won government, we were able to act. Instead of wasting the time we were in opposition moping around, we investigated what things were important—so that we were able to act when we returned to government. When we did return to government, that was important. Leaders—the Lord Voldemort of leaders was Mark Latham. Even with Mark, though, if you really drilled down, among the policy issues were, from time to time, things that really challenge us. We should not dismiss those things. We should go forward, discuss and analyse. We then come to the modern era. Nothing can be taken away from Kevin. He won the election and we formed government. The greatest moment of my 27½ years here was the morning of the apology to the stolen generation. You cannot understate the way this place buzzed—throughout the grand halls and right down to the mall. People were energised and excited. These are important things. Then we had Julia as our Prime Minister and leader. All you have to do is look at the achievements of this period. Despite a hung parliament, a minority government, we have put through so many positive things, many of which we managed to get through because of her determination and her skills as a negotiator. But when we talk about leadership, we—especially those of us on this side of the place—owe it to the people we represent to remember that we are here collectively. There is an onus on us to show collective leadership, to be proud of those things we have achieved, to take ownership of those things we have achieved and to ensure that they are explained—because we are one. United we stand; divided we fall. That is clear. The motto is: unity is strength. I have to explain that there was a period when I did not actually use 'unity is strength' as my motto. This goes back to the dim, dark history of Victorian Labor around the time of the intervention which was the precursor to the election of the Whitlam government. The two major factions were the great Socialist Left and Centre Unity, which is another name for the Right. Centre Unity shortened its name to Unity—with a capital U—so I could never say, 'Unity is strength'. But I have moved on. It is important, though: unity is strength. That is what we as a caucus, as the federal parliamentary Labor Party—and the collection of other candidates who will go into the field for us—must remember. I go back to the lyrics: 'I have travelled each and every highway.' I hear the sniggers and I hear the voices saying, 'Yes, he had a toothbrush, he had passport and he travelled well.' But I just want to use that to remind people that this is a national parliament. If we do not expose ourselves to things that are different—whether it is visiting Cox's Bazar, a camp with hundreds of thousands of Rohingya people; whether it is going to a camp on the Thai-Burmese border and meeting with Karen people, whose simple message to us as we left was, 'Come back and visit us; come back and visit us in Burma'—we will not be prepared to have proper debate. I have gone to the camps of Palestinians in Jordan, where they have lived for generations. I have visited Malta and been at a Jesuit NGO as Somali refugees, who have just been acknowledged as refugees, receive a kit to set them up in a home. Why were they in Malta? Because there is a trade in illegal passage across the Mediterranean. People buy a position on a rubber dinghy to get them to Italy: no crew, a mobile phone and when the dinghy flounders, because Malta has responsibility for search and rescue, they end up in Malta to be processed. I have been on the Green Line in Cyprus and told, 'Over that mountain to the north, you're an hour's flight from Syria'. And we think that we have ownership of the challenge of asylum seekers on our own. Well let's wake up: this is much bigger than us, and if we do not challenge ourselves by ensuring that we discuss this widely, globally and regionally, then it is a nonsense. I have visited the Afghan parliament, I have met female members of that parliament, female members of parliament who live in fear of what might happen as the international forces withdraw. We stand here, so soon after the fortieth death of an Australian in Afghanistan, and we remember those sacrifices and the sacrifices of those who have been injured, and we must ensure that as we move from that military engagement to that civil engagement, that we remember we have that investment and that those sacrifices demand we do not move away from helping Afghanistan and the Afghan people in what they hope to achieve. Speaker, back to the lyrics. Regrets, I've had a few But then again, too few to mention I did what I had to do … Do not mourn for me about anything that happened to me earlier in this parliament. I have been around politics long enough. I knew that some other possibilities were inevitable. I accept responsibility. I signed the resignation as Speaker. I attended the meeting with the Governor-General to hand it in. In attending the Governor-General, I am very pleased that there was a military band to play as I came in. I was a bit disappointed when I was told it was for the ambassadors who were handing in their papers—and doubly shattered when I was shown the 'Malcolm Fraser' door to go! Came through the front door, left by the side door! But never have any regrets do I! Quickly, Speaker—because I am pushing your indulgence, because I am Mr Disarray and shambolic!—I want to state why I do not have any regrets. I first saw members of parliament when my father entered the Victorian caucus back in 1961, and they were so bitter. I later realised that that was six years after the split, so perhaps these blokes had reason to be bitter. They were turtlebacks, shellbacks, moping around. When I saw them, I decided I never, ever wanted to be like that, not only because it makes life miserable for others but also because it must be so miserable for the person themselves. That is why I want to stress optimism. The Brisbane Lions were 52 points down seven minutes before three-quarter time but had a five-point win. So just remember: it's not over till it's over! It is a long bow to draw, I know, between one AFL game and an election, but it is not over till it is over. There is a lot that I could say about the parliament—what a wonderful institution it is. Over my time in this parliament, I think it has run well. Some have confused their political difficulties with criticisms of the parliament, but it has functioned really well, and that is a great credit to people like Bernard Wright and David Elder and their predecessors. I am a bit embarrassed to be a museum piece, part of history, upon the 25th anniversary of Parliament House, given that there are only four or five of us members and senators, and 70 others, that have worked here for the whole 25 years. That is probably how I knew it was time to make the decision to pull up stumps and move on! There have been only four members for Scullin. Ted Peters was the original member for an electorate called Scullin, with very different boundaries. Between us, my father and I have represented the electorate for the last 44 years. I am not demanding that Andrew Giles change his name! He will be a great member—I expect him to be elected—and he will make a very great contribution to the people of Scullin, to the Australian Labor Party here in this parliament and to the nation more widely. I thank the people of Scullin for entrusting me with the role of their representative in this place. For the achievements of this government over not only this parliament but also the parliament before, I refer you to the speeches of my fellow voluntary Labor departers of 2013, the member for Batman, the member for Gellibrand, the member for Newcastle, the member for Bendigo and, in particular, the member for Capricornia. Kirsten made a wonderful speech, where she set out everything that has been spectacularly good about Labor in power. I simply say to the people of Scullin that to leave this place at a time there has been so much interest and investment from a federal government is extraordinary. Scullin being a safe Labor seat, I could never have expected it, but this is a government that has distributed its program resources in a very fair way. We see that when we open a superclinic, when we look at opening another trade-training centre next week and when we consider the investment in schools through the BER, which was not just about the building but about the psyche. The fact that the people and schools of Scullin have been recognised and assisted is something you cannot put into a budget; there is no way that you can allocate a value to that. But it is tangible. It is what happens here. The National Broadband Network is an extraordinarily popular program, and the take-up has been extraordinary, in the electorate of Scullin. In my first speech, I indicated that the epitaph on the memorial of James Henry Scullin would guide me in this place. The words are, simply: Justice and humanity demand interference whenever the weak are being crushed by the strong. That really did make it easy to journey through this place, to know what was required of me. Now, as I get towards the conclusion, another lyric: Wish me luck as you wave me goodbye Cheerio, here I go, on my way And to paraphrase some other lyrics, I will go placidly amid the noise and haste, and I will remember what peace there may be in silence, and: With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful— Strive to be happy. The SPEAKER 83S I commend the member for Scullin on a wonderful speech and his often-quoted phrase, 'The dogs bark, but the caravans have moved on,' but we will miss him greatly from this place. 13:01 Mr NEVILLE KV5 Hinkler Madam Speaker, it would be fair to say that I have had an interesting and stimulating adult life. Very few things have been denied me by a loving God, who has given me just about everything I have ever asked for, though, as I said in my first speech, it was generally in his time frame not mine. I have had three careers: one in theatre, one in regional development and one in representative politics. In the early sixties, I joined the Arts Council of Australia in Brisbane as its first full-time CEO. At that time, it was separating from the New South Wales division. My role was to tour theatrical, musical, visual and educational shows and exhibitions to 57 centres in Queensland. I toured the Australian Ballet; the Elizabethan Theatre Trust Opera Company, now Opera Australia; JC Williamson's stage shows; plays; jazz; and art exhibitions. It was incredibly satisfying work, sharing the culture art of Australia with regional and rural Australians; so many talented singers, dancers, actors and artists engaging with country people. If I could make an observation in passing, more in sorrow than in anger: despite the advances in transport and the electronic age, there is less touring of country centres today than there was 45 years ago. But it is not surprising that some of the sense of the dramatic, the timing and the storytelling rubbed off on me and has served me well in this place. Madam Speaker, if you would allow me the indulgence of another theatrical analogy: this speech today marks the end of the season and like the actor on stage for the last time the curtain is coming down, and I am filled with a mixture of elation and sadness. From live theatre, I moved on to cinema and to Bundaberg with Birch Carroll and Coyle, where my longstanding friend and mentor was Terry Jackman, who has gone on to play significant roles in the promotion of Australian movies, cinema and tourism. Also, for a short time, I was a partner in a drive-in theatre, but the stories thereupon will be kept for another day. They were great days in cinema, when the theatres were grappling with television. I played a part in the funding of Michael Pate's The Mango Tree, which was shot in Bundaberg, Gayndah and Wallaville. Our local theatre hosted the world premiere a day ahead of its Australian release. So it is pleasant for me to see the current revival in Australian filmmaking and the role our talented actors and filmmakers play on the international stage. We should not be shy in promoting and funding them. Anyone who thinks they come to this place solely on his own merits deludes himself. For most of us, we come here because of family, supporters and party, and the goodwill those three components generate in our electorates. We should ever be conscious of the great gift our electors have extended to us. It is a remarkable statistic that in the 112 years since Federation only 1,093 people have sat on the floor of the House of Representatives and only 866 at the time when I first joined the team in 1993. Of my seven elections, three were perilously close—under 450 votes, in fact, and one of them was 69 votes, and thanks to a 5½-week recount, Simon, 64 votes. As the goodwill of the people of Hinkler grew, the seat moved to a 10.4 per cent margin with the LNP eventually taking every booth, even traditional Labor ones. That was in 2010 and, although I was not subjected to any pressure, it was obvious that these were the circumstances where one could move on confidently. In that spirit, I wish my endorsed successor, Keith Pitt, every success. I will miss this place, its all-consuming atmosphere and, of course, all of you on both sides. Yes, the hours are long, the travel is extensive, the complexity of constituent work daunting and the righting of injustices that come across our desks challenging if not stressful. Yet, its very demanding complexity has its own reward. That is not to say that the life is not rewarding; it is. The friendships on both sides have a character, warmth and respect of their own. Strangely, I have never been thrown out of this place, though there was one time I was perilously close. At one particular question time, the Labor opposition was in a very restless mood and I took three attempts to ask my question. On the third attempt, the Second Deputy Speaker Harry Jenkins said, 'Ah, tell 'em the frog joke!' This was a reference to a particularly dull night in Seoul, South Korea, where the Australian and Canadian delegations decided to liven up a reception. Yours truly was grappling with suitable clean jokes that would not offend the local South Korean sensibilities. They loved the frog joke. An opposition member: Put it in Hansard. Mr NEVILLE KV5 I will. As Harry spoke, I got the giggles. I could not stop laughing. The tears ran down my face. I could not read the question, much less ask it. The Speaker, David Hawker, was not impressed and gave me one last chance before I blurted out the question. And so the frog joke: Nanna was visiting for the first time in four years and little Johnny had never met Nana, and it was a great event. So it was decided after a very happy weekend that on Monday, when the parents had gone to work and the other kids had gone to school, that Johnny would bond with Nanna. They had a marvellous day. They brought in the paper, watered the plants and made pikelets, and at that point Johnny said to Nanna, 'Nanna, when are you going to turn into a frog and we are going to live in a new house?' She said, 'Darling, no you're not. Mummy told me last night you loved this house.' 'No, Nanna,' he said. 'You're going to turn into a frog and we're going to live in a new street.' And she said, 'No, Johnny.' He tried three or four times and she was getting a bit twitchy with him, and she said, 'Johnny, what makes you say that?' And he said, 'Well, last night as I was going to the bathroom I walked past Mummy's and Daddy's room and I heard Daddy say to Mummy, "You know, when the old girl croaks we'll be on easy street."' That nearly got me thrown out of the parliament! My wife Margaret, who is in the gallery, worked beside me from the night I was offered the endorsement in 1992—door-to-door, backs of trucks, stalls and markets and endless public meetings. But it was her from-the-heart undoctored handwritten letters to the electorate that won me more votes than you can possibly imagine. You would go to a function after one of her letters went out and no-one would want to talk to me but, 'Is your wife here? How are the two sets of twins?' et cetera, et cetera. She also had a very good nose for trends in political life. As a result of door-knocking in Biloela one Sunday morning, she correctly predicted the start of the Hanson phenomenon. But one incident sticks in my mind following that first election. I was bemused why five of the 75 booths in the electorate had swung against me in 1993. One of these was Ambrose, which sits between Gladstone and Rockhampton. It is a small community built on either side of the Bruce Highway. En route to a wedding at Rockhampton we resolved to call in to Ambrose to see why. It was mid-Saturday morning; there was no-one in the pub; there was no-one in the shops; there was no-one in the streets on the eastern side of the town. So we went over to the western side of the town where the atmosphere was similar, but as we came around the state school and down a hill, up loomed the CWA hall with 50 or 60 cars around it. Here was our big chance. We could engage with the whole town in one hit. Margaret felt that the locals might be getting ready for a wedding or a dance that night, so bold as brass and full of confidence, I bounced in and said to women who were running feverishly hither and yon, 'Well, girls, what's on here today?' Do you know where I was? I, a lone male, had just gatecrashed a country pap-smear clinic. Margaret says I never learn, but let it be said that Paul Neville went literally everywhere for a vote. I have been blessed with a loving and supportive family. My twin sons Peter and Paul, were with me on my first speech—and Paul is here in the gallery today with his wife Cait and three of my six grandchildren, Georgie, Angus and Hugh. I know my other children, Gavin, Gaye, Peter and Sally, who is in China, are with me in spirit. I also acknowledge my landlord Mac Howell who, with his wife Marilyn, made my last 13 years in Canberra a happy, relaxed and welcoming experience overlaid by generous hospitality and far too much red wine. With me too is long-term friend and political warrior Michael Evans, who is the architect of so many of the stunning Joh campaigns. Here for this—and for other serious state-federal horticultural matters later today—is one of my three immediate state colleagues, Steve Bennett, the member for Burnett, and in the gallery is my friend of 40 years, Everald Compton. Coming to this place owes everything to a band of friends and campaign workers but pre-eminent amongst them was Rod Wilson of Calliope who was my campaign director for seven—note, seven—campaigns. He had a superb nose for local political sentiment, a rare and authoritative organising ability, a sense of advertising effectiveness and his own system of statistical analysis, to say nothing of his ability to fundraise. I will forever be in his debt. Our organisational 'light on the hill', to use a Labor analogy, has always been Dick Bitcon, who has given 50 years to the National Party in Queensland and Victoria. I rate him as a close friend and a confidant over many years. In the 14 years that I represented Gladstone, I had a marvellous team of Graham Wilson, Greg McCann, Graham Fenton, Tony Goodwin, Ken O'Dowd, who is now the member for Flynn, and deputy campaign director Don Holt, whom I can say with great confidence can mount a corflute sign anywhere—even the top of a 50 foot tree or places where he should not put them. In Childers, Fred Henke, the ever-reliable Alf Bonanno and my current FDC Chair, Bill Trevor, who has the rare art of being able to take the community pulse, have all served me well. In Hervey Bay, Steve Dixon, Norma Hannant, Brendon Falk and Len Fehlhaber have also served me well. I reserve a special place for Lin and Jan Powell. When an unexpected redistribution gave me Hervey Bay six years ago, Lin, a former MLA, Speaker and Queensland education minister, literally came out of retirement, assumed the role of deputy campaign director for Hervey Bay and eased me into Hervey Bay. This reciprocated the role I played for him two decades earlier in the eighties. I have also valued the corporate and business advice from Bill Moorheadin Bundaberg, Glenn Winney and Graham Cockerill in Hervey Bay and Graham McVean in Gladstone. Graham, Kevin Campbell from Perth and I spend every Easter on Witt Island in Gladstone Harbour, where I refocus and renew myself for the coming year, albeit with copious quantities of mud crab and a certain red cordial. Cooperative state colleagues are a vital ingredient of this job. Over the years, I have worked with Doug Slack, Jeff Seeney, Liz Cunningham, Anne Maddern, Chris Foley, Ted Sorensen, Jack Dempsey and Steve Bennett, who, as I have said, is in the gallery today. Two of these were conservative independents and the others National LNP. There were good Labor friends as well: Trevor Strong, Nita Cunningham, Andrew McNamara, and the former member for Hinkler, Brian Courtice, once my nemesis but now a friend and, would you believe, a supporter. One could not have had a better leader, mentor, close friend and electoral neighbour than Warren Truss, whom I have known for some 40 years. In all that time, across a wide range of roles, I have never known a person more across his brief than Warren nor a hostess as charming and welcoming as Lyn. That brings me to the team, or should I say my other family with whom I sit in this place, the Nationals. It is 56 years since, as a 17-year-old, I joined the predecessor organisation of the Country Party. Earlier, at 12 years of age and pre TV, I would sit up on election nights with a pad and pencil, writing down the figures as they came over the radio, trying to assess who would win what seat. I got very good at it and thought I would not mind doing that some time. From the YCP I went on to be its state president and to contest Wide Bay in 1969, then to win the endorsement for Hinkler in 1992. That brought me to this place and the fulfilment of my long-held dreams. I will miss this family, its trust and its camaraderie. We Nationals are a diverse lot with a common love of rural and provincial Australia. I hope I have played my part to make this a better place to live and to achieve the Australian dream. I have been fortunate to campaign with giants like McEwen, Anthony, Sinclair and Nixon in 1969 and to serve under the leadership of Tim Fischer, John Anderson, Mark Vaile and Warren Truss, all men of high integrity and purpose. It would be fair to say that the high point of my career was the 11½ years of the Howard government. It was exhilarating and one had a sense that as the debt was paid off the country was moving to a new beginning to be led by John Howard, Peter Costello and the previously mentioned Nationals leaders. I think history will treat that 11½ years very well. It will show that the focus on policy and positioning Australia for the long term, bolstered by Howard's strong commitment, not only gave the country a cohesive feel about it but also brought the Liberal and National Parties closer together. Within this framework I developed a taste for communications, broadcasting, transport and health. I served on various iterations of the transport and infrastructure committee where my mentor was Peter Morris, the then ALP member for Shortland. Pre politics he had helped me and the Hinkler House Committee in Bundaberg develop aspects of Hinkler's house, its history and the botanical precinct including the building of a full-size replica of Bert Hinkler's amphibian, the Ibis. Later, as chair of that committee, I led several inquiries resulting in Planning not Patching, Tracking Australia, Beyond the Midnight Oil and The Great Freight Task. These were challenging reports and they took us to highways, roads, ports and airports across Australia from cities to the most remote locations. I remember one day very well during the Beyond the Midnight Oilinquiry. We were having a public hearing here in Canberra and we had the RAAF before us explaining how they handled fatigue and the treatment of airmen. I asked one officer to explain the sleep apnoea machine. He described the facial mask, tubing akin to a vacuum cleaner pipe and a blowing machine, all of which delivered a constant stream of filtered air to the apnoea subject's face. And I said, 'How many hours a night do they wear this device?' 'Oh', he said, 'All night.' At which point a member of the committee, Colin Hollis, in one of his fractious moods that day, chipped in, 'I bet it does wonders for their sex life.' That was deleted from Hansard. Honourable members interjecting— Mr NEVILLE KV5 Not surprisingly, but it is back in. It is obvious we can construct roads and highways better in Australia and some of the newer Western Australian roads are testament to that. We waste a fortune on merely patching, overlaying asphalt over poor asphalt. Rail is also sorely neglected. Suburban rail in most states is not keeping up with the urban sprawl. Worse still, we have talked for nearly two decades about an inland rail from Melbourne to Brisbane. We have spent at least $30 million on studies and reports to no avail. It could be done for $1½ billion—$300 or $400 million over four years—or even less as a PPP with the government carrying out corridor and native title facilitation. Let me put it another way: if we spent about an eighth of what we spent on school halls and pink batts—and that is not said with any vindictive spirit—just an eighth of what we spend on those, this project would now be half complete: our freight would be moving faster and cheaper, our roads would be safer, road maintenance would be less and a corridor would exist through the most productive part of Australian. This is the type of vision that Australians crave, not the spin that suggests that we will have a super east coast railway in 2050. But if it does happen, my kids have promised me a trip for my 110th birthday present—literally, it would be my 110th birthday. We have to get better than that, colleagues. Most of you know I have loved media and communications. I have taken some pride in sandbagging the two-out-of-three rule in media ownership. We do not need corporate or regional barons controlling all three forms of media, and the days of that happening in Launceston should still be vivid in our minds. We should also see radio broadcasting licences as a privilege and responsibility. I am appalled by excessive networking of regional radio and I am pleased there is an obligation to present locally devised and presented local programs and news. That is the very least country people deserve. I have been singularly blessed with a marvellous staff who have been in all respects a third family. In 20 years. I cannot remember a serious fight or disagreement in my office. I have a happy workplace supported by a voracious appetite for constituent work and the pursuit of electorate infrastructure projects. Though never solicited, it is not uncommon to find flowers or boxes of chocolates on the front counter from some constituent who never expected to see his or her seemingly insurmountable problem solved. This sense of family, and satisfaction of work, has led to a very low turnover of staff. My chief of staff, who is in the gallery today, Heather, has been with me for 20 years; Lesley Smith, my former whip's clerk, 16 years; Leanne Ruge, now with Senator Bridget McKenzie, 12 years; Janelle Geddes, with a great sense of legal writing, an invaluable resource, six years; Darlene Dobson, with wide experience in printing, four years. All of them have made coming to work a pleasure not a chore. I have been singularly blessed with exceptionally talented media advisers: Brendan Eagan, Scott Whitby, Tim Langmead, Kate Barwick and presently Cathy Heidrich. Brendan, Scott, Tim and Kate all went on to work in the offices of deputy prime ministers or premiers. Two of them have successfully moved to the corporate world. I was fortunate to be surrounded by so much loyal and accomplished talent. This parliament is well served by its officers and staff. I have the utmost respect for Bernard Wright, David Elder, Robyn McClelland, my entitlements manager Debbie whose patience I try, the serjeants, Hansard, library, security staff, dining staff, especially Kate in earlier days and Tim at present, to say nothing of Greg and the transport office staff and Comcar. They weave the strands of a cohesive web that wraps itself around this place and makes it function so beautifully. One person who is often forgotten is Peter Rose, our Chaplain, who quietly and unobtrusively goes about the role of counselling, comforting and leading. He assists in the national prayer breakfast and ceremonies for the opening of parliament and the start of each parliamentary year. Some of us in the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship gain strength from Peter's Tuesday morning prayers in the meditation room. I am an unapologetic admirer of Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England, a saint and a patron of politicians. More, as portrayed by Robert Bolt, said: 'When statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties they lead their country by a short route to chaos.' Colleagues, how true is that today? We have seen it, as politicians, in the collapses through the GFC, in the horrors in the Balkans and in the aftermath of the Arab spring. We have seen the truth of these words in our own state and federal politics, especially over the last decade. I will not spell it out; you all know it. Little wonder so many say that they do not trust politicians. As I leave this parliament I pray that in subsequent governments we will see a return to civility in this place. Surely it is not beyond our capacity to make question time what it should be: quite simply, an eliciting of information rather than a forum for meaningless spin and invective. Like it or not, it is the vehicle by which the public judge us, because it is the forum of the parliament they get to see most often. Surely we can do as good a job as New Zealand, Canada, the UK and France. Despite the expectations of the new paradigms, it has been getting progressively worse from parliament to parliament. And so I look back over this 20 years feeling the exhilaration of success, the stings of failure, the warmth of colleagues on both sides and the common humanity of the people I have been privileged to serve. But I know it is now time to move on. Being, as I am, of National Party roots, I seek the comfort of a country setting. Like the observer in Thomas Gray's beautiful elegy, I symbolically look out through the fading sunset to the cattle returning home and the end of a day's work. As Thomas Gray put it: The curfew tolls the knell of parting day, The lowing herd winds slowly o'er the lea, The ploughman homeward plods his weary way, And leaves the world to darkness and to me. Thank you. God bless. Remember me in your prayers. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 I congratulate the member for Hinkler for the valedictory speech. I also commend him on the wonderful work he has done in this place and on committees, and his great advocacy for the people of rural and regional Australia. I also advise the member for Hinkler that, whilst there are no Hansard reporters in the chamber these days, it is all done on voice recognition from below this chamber so it will be interesting to see how the two wonderful jokes that we heard—giving a real sense of the member's humour—are recorded and whether there was an inaudible point in some of those jokes. 13:31 Mr SOMLYAY ZT4 Fairfax I say farewell to this House after being a member for over 23 years. That period of time effectively represents a generation. In 1990 I was only the 845th to be elected to this parliament, this House of Representatives, in 89 years. I believe that number is just over 1,000 now. We are a pretty exclusive lot of people honoured to be in this place. It is with some sadness of course I retire. But I am doing so of my own accord and in my own time because I believe in change and renewal. I have been honoured to serve the electorate of Fairfax with its constant and vast boundary changes for those 23 years. I recognise that it is time for fresh blood and time for new ideas. When I entered parliament in 1990, things were different. There were no such things as Facebook and Twitter. MPs did not have faxes. Of course there were mobile phones then—it was just that you could not fit them in your briefcase, let alone your pocket. Travelling parliamentarians could always be seen looking for a phone box to stay in touch. Interestingly, I am the longest-serving Liberal from the great state of Queensland, which is why I have chosen to wear this tie. I was going to wear a maroon tie but I could not find it in this morning. Trust me, there is no subliminal message in my choice of tie! I also consider myself Australia's most accidental parliamentarian, in that I was preselected by the Liberal Party without contest for the seat of Fairfax. I was considered more of a sacrificial lamb then a legitimate threat. In fact, the banner headline in the local newspaper the day after I won the election—and it was a National Party seat; sorry about that, boys—was: 'John Stone loses election'. When I was preselected, the Liberal Party only had 22 members on the whole of the Sunshine Coast. The National Party, on the other hand, had 23 branches to help John Stone win the election. That is why I say I was an accidental member. Politics is never predictable. I retire not only never having lost an election, but not having faced preselection either—not unique I am sure, but I believe it certainly is rare. It is not bad as a seemingly accidental career for a former refugee kid. I can assure you that my retirement is on purpose and with a purpose. The purpose is to spend more time with my wife, Jenny, who is up in the gallery, and with my family—daughters Michelle and Victoria and son Mark, who, with their respective spouses, John, Ross and Deanne, have blessed me with five beautiful grandchildren. Jenny and I met in Canberra more than 40 years ago. We were married at St Christopher's in Manuka in 1970. Her support, love and devotion have sustained me through the turbulence of my professional life. Our backgrounds could not have been much more different. She was a country girl from the Darling Downs in Queensland where her family had lived for generations. I arrived in Australia as part of a refugee family, escaping from a then communist country. After I became a minister in the Howard government, my late father-in-law who was a bit iffy about new Australians, made a major concession. He said to Jenny when I was sworn in by the Governor-General, 'This bloke might turn out all right after all.' Those here today who have children know that it can be tough on our kids. My children have always been unwavering in their support and fiercely defensive particularly when there may have been episodes with negative publicity, which hurts us all and is inevitable in politics. All of my three children are now adults with families and successful careers of their own and I am so very, very proud of them. The wonderful thing about kids, though, is that they can keep you grounded. Mine certainly did. In the best of times, they are a great antidote to any head-swelling, and at the worst of times your children show you just what the best things in life really are. When my parents brought my brother and me to Australia in July 1949, they had fled Hungary with nothing. My father was fleeing torture and incarceration, but I am sure that they were also looking for better opportunities for their children. They escaped from a communist regime in Hungary to a UN refugee camp in Naples where they waited for transport to a new life in Australia. I can still remember as a three-year-old arriving in Sydney aboard the USS General Harry Taylor, a US troop ship, and sailing under the Sydney Harbour Bridge. After docking in Sydney we were taken to a migrant camp in Bathurst. Some might consider these fairly inauspicious beginnings, but I am very proud to be the first person who came to this country as a refugee to be elected to this parliament. All of his working life, my father worked two jobs in order to provide for and educate his family so they could grasp the vast opportunities Australia had to offer. He did not own a car—he could not afford one. He rode a pushbike or caught public transport everywhere. My father was taken too soon but he lived long enough to see my election to this House. My mother was able to share more of my parliamentary experiences. She came down to listen to my maiden speech, and that day the tactics committee were kind enough to give me a question at question time, because she was in the gallery. Of course when I asked my question of Prime Minister Bob Hawke and he responded, there was raucous behaviour in the chamber as we see from time to time. My mother was horrified at the lack of respect in the House and, when I went out to Mum after question time, I asked, 'Mum, what did you think of that?' She said, 'If I ever see you being disrespectful to the Prime Minister of this country again, I will disown you.' She was adamant that I must always show respect to this chamber and for all those within it, regardless of their politics. To this day, I honour my late mother—this will not win me many brownie points, but I have never moved a point of order, although I have four days left. I have never been brought to order by the Speaker and I have never been asked to leave the chamber. I have never been warned. If we, as members, do not demonstrate our respect for this House, its office bearers and rules, how can we expect others to do so? I fear that my mother must look down and wonder about the further decline in the standards of parliamentary behaviour over the years; however, her code of etiquette has served me well and I recommend it: good manners and respect are never unfashionable. After graduating from the ANU in Canberra, I sampled government and political life from the other side as a public servant and, eventually, as chief of staff to Evan Adermann, who was the only National Party minister within the Fraser government. I will be like Paul Neville and tell a little story. I had a reputation of being somewhat of a raconteur and most ministers, when they were about to make a speech somewhere that had a theme, used to say to me, 'Hey, have you got a yarn that tells a story about this?' Doug Anthony sent me a note saying, 'I'm making a speech in Alice Springs and the theme is things are not always what they appear to be. Can you give me a joke or a story?' I wrote to him and I told him the story about the blind man at the pedestrian crossing with his seeing-eye dog. The seeing-eye dog leads the man across the street against the red light. Cars toot their horns and run up onto the footpath, and he calmly walks across the other side of the street, reaches into his pocket and pulls out a dog biscuit. He is about to give it to the dog when someone in a car yells out, 'Hey, mate! You're not going to reward that dog after what he just did, are you?' The man replies, 'No, I'm trying to find his head so I can kick him in the backside.' That went over very well in Alice Springs where Doug was, but he flew from there to Thailand and tried tell the same joke through an interpreter in Thailand and it wasn't funny. Those were the days when the party room was sacrosanct. Anyone who worked in the old House will know that staff did not go into the party room. Walking into the party room after my election in 1990, I really felt that I had made it. I sat down next to Michael Baume, a senator from New South Wales and said, 'Michael, who's taking minutes?' He said, 'Mate, we don't take minutes in here; we get it out of The Herald tomorrow.' I then took my place in the back row, partly because of my recognition of my fledgling status but mostly from the advice in politics: never let anyone sit behind you. While I stand here as a veteran—and I hope as a Liberal elder of some sort—in my first term, I was simply another young member on a steep learning curve, and maybe the difference was that I knew it. I was appointed secretary to shadow cabinet in my first term and then was deeply involved in policy development. This appointment provided a valuable foundation for the rest of my parliamentary life both in parliament and in Fairfax. The bookends of my political career are such that I came to the parliament as a member of the then opposition and now leave it as a member of the opposition team. The years in between have been defined by many triumphs, particularly during the Howard era, as Paul Neville mentioned, from the years 1996 to 2007. The pinnacle of my career was my appointment in 1997 as Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government. In a ministerial capacity, you are able to influence and introduce policies and strategies that ultimately drive outcomes. Regional issues were at the heart of my own electorate, and I made it my task to make them a mindset for all of government. There was one instance with Peter Costello as Treasurer when I had to argue with him on behalf of regional Australia. I said to him, 'Peter, it's different for you living in the city: you can run around your electorate three times before breakfast. It takes me eight hours to drive across mine and back.' He said, 'Hmm. I used to have a car like that once.' The Regional Solutions Program, which evolved to become Regional Partnerships, was crafted during my ministerial watch. This initiative was an economic lifeline for regional communities throughout Australia and provided valuable funding for its infrastructure beyond our capital cities. This was at a time when regional communities were being abandoned by banks and other services, and Rural Transaction Centres were being established. It was an honour and a privilege to be appointed a minister, and I am eternally thankful for the opportunity to serve in that capacity. In one way, I got to play for Australia—anyone who is a minister in this House is really playing for Australia. In the last term of the Howard government, I was fortunate to be able to bring my background in health financing to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing. The passion, professionalism and dedication of members of that bipartisan committee formed for that inquiry is a memory that has not faded, and I congratulate them all. The document produced from that inquiry, The blame game, remains a model for health funding today. It was tabled on a game-changing day—the day that Kevin Rudd became Leader of the Opposition. The blueprint not only survived a change in government but it lives on, and I am pleased that the recommendations continue to be actioned. The health and ageing committee was also to be the genesis of an investigation into the health benefits of breastfeeding. Behind the often melodramatic scenes of federal politics that we see played out in the media, the reality is that a lot of exceptional work does happen at a parliamentary committee level. It can sometimes go unnoticed in the mainstream, but its impacts are far reaching. The inquiry into the benefits of breastfeeding is a strong case in point. Yet again, the subsequent report, Best start, has been a trigger for initiatives that have been introduced Australia wide as the National Breastfeeding Strategy. As chair and a strong advocate of that inquiry into the health benefits of breastfeeding, a misogynist I am not. After 11 years in government under John Howard came the stark reality of being in opposition. As Chief Opposition Whip for three years, I embarked on another learning curve. I learnt that the job also entailed being counsellor, confidant, organiser, shop steward and, most of all, a friend. I served under three leaders. I served under Brendan Nelson, Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott. Roger Price, the government whip, and I were the respective shop stewards for our parties. Together we negotiated many conditions for the parliament, including, among other things—and I know this will please some people—payment for shadow ministers. I have also been a trustee of the Parliamentary Superannuation Trust for six years. When I was first elected I promised myself that I would never do the things people hate about politics. People hate deceit and untrustworthiness in their politicians—perceived or real. My word is my bond and I can honestly say that, in my 23 years in parliament, I have never betrayed a confidence—yet. These values were integral to my work as Chief Opposition Whip. I take this opportunity to thank the special staff who worked with me during that time: Nathan Winn, who is in the gallery today and who has come all the way from Darwin to help me celebrate this day; Robert Hardie; Suzanne Newbury; and Denise Picker. My parliamentary career has been punctuated by my own health challenges. Whether all my professional aspirations may have been realised had I not endured a stroke in 1993 followed by two lots of heart bypass surgeries, seven angioplasties, a pacemaker, diabetes and cancer in subsequent years—they call me lucky—I will never know. But they say what does not kill you makes stronger. Despite the illnesses, as debilitating as they were, I always continued on with my work here in parliament and in my electorate. Sometimes I just had to do things a little differently. I had to learn to speak again after my stroke. For some time my speech was slow and difficult, but that taught me some valuable lessons about life. It taught me not to take everyday things like the ability to walk or speak for granted; it taught me to be more understanding and compassionate for those with a disability; and it forced me to listen more than I talked. The people of Fairfax have been extraordinary in their support. Whilst some of the faces and communities have changed over the years with the constant boundary changes, I have been blessed with an electorate that has returned me to office time and time again with increasing margins. I have seen many thousands of constituents during my time as a member, and I have found that the small differences that you can make to people's lives inevitably have the greatest impact on you. I am reminded of Albert Einstein's quote: 'Strive not for success, but rather to be of value.' I like to think that I have been of value to many in my electorate who sought my help over the years. To the people of Fairfax: thank you for standing by me and believing in me regardless of political persuasion. How do you condense 24 years of signature activities in an electorate into a few words? I will try to remember some of the achievements. The Sunshine Coast University would not have happened if it were not for my intervention. Simon Crean, the member for Hotham, actually gave the initial approval for the Sunshine Coast University to be built in his term as education and training minister. I was responsible for referring the Traveston Dam to the Commonwealth under the EPBC Act, which resulted in that dam not going ahead and not being built, and for funding for the Nambour, Yandina and Cooroy bypasses. There have been many others, and I am proud of this legacy. Fairfax is a place that deserves respect and attention, but not as a platform for political stunts. It is not a plaything for billionaires—and we have got one up there that is well known—and I am sure that the people of the electorate will discern the difference between the genuine and the opportunistic. Longevity in politics is not possible without the great support of many people. You are not elected to parliament on your own. I acknowledge the enduring support and genuine friendships of the party, the branches, the campaign teams and the volunteers. Thank you so very much. Similarly, longevity in the electorate workplace is impossible without loyal, committed and excellent staff. So often I have been complimented on the customer service and competency of my team. I will mention Roz and Lorraine, who are in the gallery, Gillian, Cynthia and Kathy. Lorraine has been with me on and off for 20 years. Gillian has been with me for six years. I can tell the House that she is a cousin of Wayne Swan. She went to Nambour High School, as did Wayne. So that brings about some interesting conversations. Canberra was once home to me, and there are people who have worked in this House that I have known for 40 years. I will not go through them, in case I miss somebody. I will mention the parliamentary staff; Tim, in the Members Dining Room, who has been excellent in looking after our guests that we take up there; and the long-suffering Comcar drivers and the transport office. Most of all, I want to mention one Comcar driver: Anne Lymberry. Anne Lymberry has provided me with accommodation for the past 11 or 12 years, and it has been great to be able to go home to a family atmosphere. To my colleagues in this esteemed environment: thank you for your friendship and wisdom. Wisdom is only acquired through time and experience. You cannot learn it from a book and it is not conferred with a university degree—though often it seems to arrive with grey hair. I believe it is a dangerous mistake for leaders to assume that all wisdom in this House lies on their front bench—it does not. Whether you are on the front bench or the back bench, each member has much to offer and, collectively, you have the knowledge, the talent and the wisdom to make extraordinary contributions to this nation and this parliament. Yes, we need the energy and fresh ideas of younger generations, but we also need to balance that with the experience and wisdom of those who have served in the longer term. I will leave you today with my plea for all of you—like Paul Neville said—to act to restore the respect, trust and confidence of the Australian people in our parliament. I will also leave you with a quote that Jenny gave me from Dr Seuss: 'Don't cry because it is over, smile because it happened.' Thank you. Honourable members: Hear, hear! The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Can I add my congratulations to the member for Fairfax for the work he has done and of course for his friendship as a fellow colleague. It being past 1.45 pm, I call on statements from honourable members. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 6654 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Boer War Memorial 6654 13:52 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan As a member of parliament I regularly receive many petitions. However, 7 May, I must confess, was the first time that a petition was delivered to me on horseback. My colleague Senator Ronaldson, the shadow minister for veterans' affairs, and I received this petition with 10,200 signatures, calling on the federal government to support a national Boer War memorial on Anzac Parade in Canberra, to honour the 23,000 men and women of Australia who served our country in the Boer War; some 1,000 of whom gave their lives. I particularly want to pay tribute to Vietnam veteran and Boer War veteran descendant Lieutenant Colonel Miles Farmer OAM, and Captain Mike Fitzgerald, who, in Boer War Light Horse uniform and with his horse 'Boy', came from Sydney especially to present the petition. Like many other families, I have a special interest, as my great-uncle, Major Edmund Righetti, volunteered as a private to join the Victorian first contingent to go to the Boer War in 1899. Sadly, there is still no national memorial to honour those who fought so courageously in this battle, which marks the birth of the Australian Defence Force which has served our country so well these past 110 years. Those involved in this conflict deserve to be remembered with a fitting memorial. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know you join me in urging everyone here to support this project. I seek leave to present an out-of-order petition. There is one wrong word; that is why I need to seek leave to present it. Leave granted. Ponting, Mr Ricky 6654 13:54 Mr LYONS M38 Bass I rise today to acknowledge and pay tribute to the career of Ricky Ponting, who announced his retirement from cricket last Thursday. From humble beginnings in Mowbray in my electorate, Ricky rose all the way to the top, becoming Australia's most prolific batsman of all time. He is also one of Australia's greatest captains. But his achievements are not confined to the cricket field. Ricky should also be commended for his charitable work, notably the establishment of the Ponting Foundation with his wife Rianna, which raises funds for young Australians with cancer and their families. He also helped out with the footy club where he played in his junior days North Launceston Football Club, at the time of their financial crisis, with timely donations, showing that he has not forgotten where he came from. It is these things that often go unrecognised and get glossed over when people discuss Ricky Ponting. It is very important that his achievements and legacy should be noted. The community of Bass, indeed the nation, is immensely proud of you, Ricky. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you for an unprecedented cricket career. I know Ricky would not be happy with North Melbourne last weekend, but if the AFL club is to move to Tasmania, I know he will be happy. He is now moving to Victoria, which is only 45 minutes from his beloved Tassie and so close to his North Melbourne. Just as you love cricket and North Melbourne, Ricky, you will always have a special place in the hearts of Tasmanians. Hospitals 6655 13:56 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins Today is a rather auspicious day. It is the third anniversary of when the Prime Minister was installed by the faceless men, after having knifed Kevin Rudd in this place. As those think about this time, they might think as to how it could be characterised. Is it a characterisation of spin over substance; incompetence over competence; self-interest over the national interest; disunity over unity? Only the people will decide that, and they will decide that in the coming months. But let me say this: when they contemplate that, let me remind them of something that should weigh on their minds—and that is to do with the funding of our state hospitals. The Minister for Health said that they would increase funding to state hospitals. Government member interjecting— Ms O'DWYER LKU She instead cut $107 million to Victoria. That was restored just recently after a very significant public campaign. As of 1 July, this minister will again be cutting hundreds of millions of dollars to public hospitals not only in the state of Victoria, but throughout— Ms Plibersek interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! The minister will resume her seat. Ms Plibersek interjecting— Mr Robert interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 No. I am reluctant—I will not be interrupting in a 90-second statement. The minister and the member will resume their seats. The member for Higgins has the call. Ms O'DWYER LKU This minister will go down as the minister who has cut more than $6 billion from health across the country over the forward estimates period. Ms Plibersek interjecting— Ms O'DWYER LKU That is unparliamentary. It is unparliamentary to use that term. (Time expired) Canberra Electorate: Economy 6655 13:57 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra BIS Shrapnel, the business research and forecasting firm, recently released its 2013-15 report on regional building in Australia. The report confirms my worst fears for Canberra. It confirms that the coalition's proposed job cuts of up to 20,000 public servants will devastate the economy of the whole ACT region, should it be elected in September. According to the report, the ACT will see a 32 per cent reduction in new dwellings compared to 2012-13, if the promised public sector job cuts come to fruition. This means the building market in the ACT will be contracting at the third-highest rate of any region in Australia. Canberra is already starting to feel the pain of these cuts, with public sector workers who fear losing their jobs demonstrating their reluctance to make big financial decisions such as those relating to property. BIS Shrapnel has also warned that, if 12,000 public sector jobs are cut, which is the minimum cut being threatened by the coalition, Canberra's office vacancy rate could rise to 15 per cent; 12,000 job cuts means 216,000 square metres of occupied space being vacated—that is the equivalent of 11 per cent of Canberra's entire office workforce. These figures confirm my worst fears. A coalition government would be devastating for the economy of Canberra and the ACT region as it was in 1996. Remember 1996, Canberra. Brisbane Electorate: Teneriffe Festival 6656 13:59 Ms GAMBARO 9K6 Brisbane I rise to draw the attention of the House to a very exciting event which will be held in my electorate on Saturday 6 July. I am of course referring to the Teneriffe Festival that has become an integral part of Brisbane's festival calendar. The Teneriffe Festival was conceived after Brisbane's inner-city area of Teneriffe was officially named a suburb in 2010. This is the fourth year that the Teneriffe Festival will celebrate the suburb's history, energy, cultural diversity and beauty. Brisbane has put on some gorgeous weather in the past couple of years and this festival will be no different. I also enjoy the rich program of events, from street markets, concerts, historical displays, drinking areas, cultural food tents and many more interesting displays. A significant event is always the running of the rams, which is a great way to kick off the festivities of the day. The running of the rams is a fun, energetic event and I thank Murray Sutherland. The SPEAKER 83S In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 6656 CONDOLENCES Baird, Corporal Cameron Stewart, MG 6656 Reference to Federation Chamber 6659 14:13 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler by leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 6659 MOTIONS Parliament House: 25th Anniversary 6659 Reference to Federation Chamber 6661 14:21 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler by leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 6661 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:22 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I inform the House that the Minister for Climate Change, Industry and Innovation will be absent from question time today for personal reasons. The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government will answer questions on his behalf. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 6661 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Gillard Government 6661 14:22 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind her that three years ago this very day she promised a strong and responsible government, a budget surplus, a community consensus on climate change, an effective mining tax and strong management of our borders. I ask: why should the Australian people believe the promises she makes at the coming election when she has so signally failed to deliver on any of her earlier ones? 14:22 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question and I would have to say it is not an unexpected one. To the Leader of the Opposition: what I am proud of is that I have led a government focused on jobs and growth, and what of course we have seen under this government is jobs continuing to be created for working Australians, opportunities for themselves and their families to make a life—a focus on jobs and growth. That focus on jobs and growth has informed our budget strategy. Yes, we have made billions of dollars of responsible savings—more than $40 billion in the last budget alone—but we have focused our economic strategy, our budget strategy, so that there will be more jobs. We do not accept the Leader of the Opposition's plan to cut to the bone and to drive our economy into an economic standstill and to cost people jobs. At the same time we are investing in the sources of growth for the future. We have a strong economy, but it is one undergoing a number of transitions: a transition from the peak of the investment boom in mining to the peak of the production boom; a transition as we look to seize the opportunities that will come from growth and change in our region of the world; a transition as information technology remakes our age; a transition as the world tackles climate change and moves to decouple economic growth from growth in carbon pollution. On these things the government I lead has a very proud track record. We are the political party committed to investing in the future: investing in the National Broadband Network so our nation is not left behind; investing in traditional infrastructure so that there are no blockages which prevent us from seizing the opportunities of this century; investing in our relationships in the region so that those opportunities flow to our country; ensuring that we price carbon in the most efficient way, the way that former Prime Minister John Howard believed in getting it done, so that we can grow our economy without growing carbon pollution; and, most importantly of all, having the faith that if you invest in the skills and capacities of the Australian people you inevitably build a stronger, smarter and fairer country. That is what our early childhood agenda has been about, and more apprenticeships and traineeships than ever before, more university places than ever before, including places for poorer children, and now, this week, ensuring that through this parliament we see a new way of funding and improving Australia's schools because they are our future. I am proud of that track record and we will be pushing to deliver on it for the future. (Time expired) 14:25 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister finally apologise for misleading the Australian people with her statement: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'? The SPEAKER 83S The question is out of order. Mr Pyne 9V5 Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Prime Minister talked at length about the government that she leads and he is asking her whether she stands by her statement: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' He did not say she was misleading the parliament. The SPEAKER 83S The Manager of Opposition Business— Mr Pyne 9V5 He said she was misleading the people, which is palpably obvious. The SPEAKER 83S The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I have ruled the question out of order. Economy 6662 14:26 Mr SYMON HW8 Deakin My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government is building a stronger and smarter economy and creating a fairer future for Australia? 14:26 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I thank the member for Deakin for his question and his focus on jobs and growth in his electorate. This morning I had the opportunity to address the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, or CEDA, as it is known. CEDA are here to participate in a rational discussion about the future of the Australian economy and, because they are interested in the facts, my message to them was that irrational threats to confidence are a threat to jobs and growth. Of course, there will always be legitimate debate about the policies to best guide Australia's economic future, but what there should not be are irrational assessments that are designed to smash confidence and to mislead the Australian people. It is important therefore that our nation recognises that based on the most recent information, the national accounts for March, we have an economy that is continuing to grow solidly, at 2.5 per cent; new business investment, around 50-year highs as a share of GDP, at around 17.5 per cent; non-rural commodity export volumes growing, and that is showing the move from the peak investment phase in mining to the peak of the production phase; and new dwelling investment showing the strongest annual growth in 10 years, further evidence of the non-resource sectors of the economy picking up. What we have seen recently too is a moderation in the value of the Australian dollar. Whilst our national accounts have been misrepresented in some quarters, so has the dialogue about the dollar been simple and calibrated to frighten people. Indeed, there are some people who have said as the dollar went up that it is bad for business and then said as the dollar has come down that it is also bad for business. Well, the truth about what is happening with the dollar is we are seeing particularly more growth in the American economy that is to be welcomed as an injection into the global economy, and of course that has an effect on our currency and that effect does make it easier for those in manufacturing, in tourism, in export industries to ply their trade. Against all of this backdrop, solid growth, low unemployment, low government debt, AAA credit ratings from each of the three major ratings agencies, we are continuing to invest to build our country's economic future: investing in our people, investing in our infrastructure, investing in the National Broadband Network, the key infrastructure of the future, and investing in a clean energy future in accordance with what people like former Prime Minister Howard acknowledged was the cheapest and most effective way to bring change—all of it designed to build a stronger, smarter and fairer Australia. Carbon Pricing 6663 14:30 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that three years ago today she promised to establish a community consensus before any carbon price and later announced a citizens assembly for that purpose. Why did she break that promise and instead introduce a carbon tax that has forced up prices, cost jobs and disadvantaged manufacturing, all while emissions have gone up from 560 million to 637 million tonnes? 14:30 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I thank the member for Flinders for his question. On carbon pricing, perhaps I could use the following words to best describe the view of the government: Perhaps our most important domestic policy was the decision of the Howard Government that Australia would implement a national carbon emissions trading system. … … … Importantly, the Coalition pledged to establish a Climate Change Fund to reinvest a substantial proportion of emissions trading revenues in clean energy technology, and support for households most affected by the impact of a carbon price … We hope that the new Government will take up this proposal. Who spoke those words? The member for Flinders did. What did we do? Yes, we did follow in former Prime Minister Howard's economic footsteps, in line with his economic legacy—that is, as a rational man he realised that climate change is real, that it is caused by human activity and that the best way of tackling it is through an emissions trading scheme. Of course, what we have legislated for is a price on carbon now which is fixed and will take us to an emissions trading scheme in two years time. So I can inform the member for Flinders that if he wants to realise the vision that he spoke so eloquently about in his speech, presumably to the Sydney Institute, in April 2008, what he should be saying in this parliament is stick with the policies of this government because that will get us an emissions trading scheme. On further support for an emissions trading scheme— Mr Pyne 9V5 You said you wouldn't introduce one. Ms GILLARD 83L the list of people in support of this policy just goes on and on. Mr Pyne 9V5 Why did you lie? The SPEAKER 83S The Manager of Opposition Business is warned! Ms GILLARD 83L Let me quote the following words: The Howard government [in 2007] proposed an emissions trading scheme because this seemed the best way to obtain the highest emissions reduction at the lowest cost. Who said that? And who went on to say: We don't want to play games with the planet. So we are taking this issue seriously and we would like to see an ETS … I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his ringing endorsement of this government's policies of an emissions trading scheme. For those who are interested in reason in this debate, I know that the opposition are coming here today to rerun— Mr Hunt 00AMV Madam Speaker, a point of order on relevance: before the Prime Minister finishes, she may wish to address the question of why she broke her own promise. The SPEAKER 83S The member for Flinders will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call. Ms GILLARD 83L I thought the member for Flinders might be tabling a copy of his thesis in favour of an emissions trading scheme! To the member for Flinders, in the 2010 election I spoke about the need for pricing carbon and an emissions trading scheme. Because this government has had guts and because it has had fortitude, we are going to have that emissions trading scheme. You support it. He supports it. Your frontbench supports it. You stood at an election supporting it in 2007 and no amount of shaking your heads or playing politics now changes that truth. (Time expired) Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting— 14:34 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah Madam Speaker, I ask a supplementary question— Mr Albanese R36 Madam Speaker, a point of order: the member for Mackellar might like to withdraw. The SPEAKER 83S Member for Mackellar, withdraw. I may ask others to withdraw if they are not careful. Mrs Bronwyn Bishop SE4 I withdraw. The SPEAKER 83S I thank the member. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 It is to the Prime Minister. How does the Prime Minister reconcile the answers she has just given with her pre-election pledge, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' 14:34 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor The best policy for Australia is putting a price on carbon. Ever since I have understood the science of climate change, I have believed that and that is what we have done. I refer the Leader of the Opposition to my statements during the 2010 campaign about the need to put a price on carbon, and we have. But if the Leader of the Opposition wants to get into this game then how does he explain his statement: We don't want to play games with the planet. So we are taking this issue seriously and we would like to see an ETS … How does he possibly justify his months and months and months of reckless fear campaigning with that statement? How does he possibly justify that he went to the 2007 election as a member of the Howard government standing on a platform of an emissions trading scheme? And he sits amongst colleagues who are all— Mr Abbott EZ5 Madam Speaker, I rise on a point order. I asked the Prime Minister to justify her statement and I suggest she should answer that particular question. The SPEAKER 83S The Prime Minister has the call. Ms GILLARD 83L To the Leader of the Opposition, I spoke in the 2010 campaign about pricing carbon. We have priced carbon and we have priced carbon in accordance with the policy prescriptions and belief of the Howard government, which is why I can stand here and quote the Leader of the Opposition in support and why I can quote so many of the other frontbench members in support because that was in the days that they actually stood for pricing carbon rather than playing this ridiculous, reckless and ultimately silly fear campaign. The SPEAKER 83S Is the member for Flinders seeking leave to table a document? Mr Hunt 00AMV I am indeed. Actually, I am seeking to table the Prime Minister's statement of three years ago. The SPEAKER 83S Is leave granted? Mr Albanese R36 No. I have already tabled the thesis! Education Funding 6665 14:36 Mr LYONS M38 Bass My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the National Plan for School Improvement and what will this mean to schools in my electorate and across Tasmania? 14:37 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I thank the member for Bass for his question. I know that he is very focused on the quality of schools in his electorate. I have had the opportunity to talk with him about that and I have had the opportunity when I have visited with him to talk about local schools and to meet those people from local schools. I can advise the member for Bass that, just like we want to invest in and improve schools around the country, we want to do that in his electorate. We want to do it right across Tasmania. I do not want to see Tasmanian students being left behind as schools, for example in New South Wales, the ACT and South Australia, are improved with not only new money but also, importantly, new ways of working—ways of improving schools that we have proved make a difference—because we have done it in national partnership schools where we can say today that more children read, more children write, more children do maths at satisfactory standards because of the investments and reforms brought under this government's program for change. Now we want to take that program for change right around the country, including to schools in Tasmania. We have calculated with the best information available to us what our school improvement agenda will mean in Tasmania. Take one example from the member's electorate—Prospect High School: currently it receives around $7.5 million in total public funding. Under our plan that will increase by over 30 per cent with an extra $2.3 million. This will see an increase of substantial proportions because this is a school with a high number of children from poorer backgrounds, and I want those kids to get a great education too. It is those schools, indeed, every school, that I do not want to see left behind. For this week, the agenda for the nation, for this parliament, is whether or not we will come together to improve Australian schools. Premier O'Farrell has already proved that every Liberal does not need to be a wrecker. I am calling on Queensland, Victoria, the Northern Territory and Western Australia to sign up to our plan for school improvement and new resources. It follows from what I have said in answer to the member for Bass's question that I believe Tasmania must sign up too. This parliament must pass our legislation. This will be the defining moment of this week; a defining moment when our nation endorses a better future for our children and, as a result, a stronger, smarter and fairer country for the future. Budget 6666 14:40 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of her promise three years ago today that the budget would be back in surplus in 2013. Given that her government has presided over $110 billion in deficits since then, and a further $29 billion of deficits are forecast, why has the Prime Minister not kept her promise to the Australian people that the government would live within its means? 14:40 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I thank the member for North Sydney for his question and note that in the past he has commentated on some important economic matters. I remind him, for example, of his words: 'Our very strong view is we were the initiators of an emissions trading scheme and we believe in a market based approach'. I thank him for his endorsement of the government's policy to price carbon and our emissions trading scheme. His endorsement is very welcome. On our economic and budget strategy, the shadow Treasurer, who asked the question, well knows that what you need to do with the budget is you need to make decisions, and they are not easy decisions, so that they are appropriate for your economy and they support jobs and growth. We are involved in a major fiscal consolidation—that is, we are making billions and billions and billions of dollars of savings in responsible changes in the budget. I do note that the opposition has waved these changes through—more than $40 billion worth of changes in the budget papers. I remind the shadow Treasurer of that. I also remind him that he has had his fights within his political party as to whether or not those responsible changes will be endorsed. But we have calibrated our budget strategy so that we not only improve the budget bottom line but also we support jobs and growth in our economy, because, if we did what the shadow Treasurer is suggesting, you would need to cut to the bone and that would bring our economy to a standstill. I make this offer to the shadow Treasurer: I do think that this is a debate that needs to be had clearly and accurately with the benefit of very accurate figures. The government's budget is there. If, any day, the shadow Treasurer wants to table where he thinks cuts should be in that budget, to bring it back to surplus more quickly, then he should do so. Then, of course, we will have an honest debate about the government's economic strategy versus the cuts to the bone of the shadow Treasurer. If he genuinely believes that he can bring the budget to surplus more quickly then he should have no difficulties at all tabling a document that shows tens of billions of dollars worth of cuts. The people who are going to feel the pain of those cuts deserve to know. So step up, table the document showing where the billions of dollars of cuts are going to go—where they are going in Health, where they are going in Education, where they are going in payments to families, where they are going in child care. Step up, table the document and we will have a red hot honest debate about it. In the meantime, we will keep supporting Australian jobs and opportunities for Australians. Economy 6666 14:43 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy My question is to the Prime Minister. In the last seven weeks, inter alia, Holden, Fairfax, Ford, Telstra and SPC have announced nearly 4,000 job closures with Simplot and SPC threatening another 2,000. In the light of this continued collapse, can the government as a matter of urgency: one, impose upon food imports the WTO provision for temporary emergency tariffs; two, mandate all motor vehicles purchased under a government contract will be Australian made; three, pressure down the Australian dollar? 14:44 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. As I said a little bit earlier to the House, the dollar has been going down—that is a reflection, particularly, of market views of increased strength in the American economy. That is obviously good news for the people of America, but it is good news for the global economy. A strengthening American economy is good news for the world and it is good news for us. Those movements feed into our currency and feed into the value of our currency. I know the moderation in the value of the dollar will be very welcomed by many in manufacturing, many in tourism and many in other trade-exposed sectors of the economy. He specifically asked me about food imports and he specifically asked me about motor vehicles. On food imports, I can advise him of the following. On Friday the Assistant Treasurer, Minister Bradbury, and the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness, Dr Emerson, announced that the Productivity Commission would undertake separate safeguard inquiries into the impact of imports of processed fruits and tomatoes on Australian producers. The inquiries have been initiated at the request of SPC Ardmona and will consider the introduction of safeguards measures against imports of canned tomatoes and multi-serve canned fruit products. The Productivity Commission is Australia's competent authority to investigate whether safeguard measures are justified under WTO rules. It will conduct the inquiries in accordance with Australia's safeguards procedures. Australia will notify the WTO and relevant training partners of these investigations. The commission is to provide the accelerated report to the government as soon as practicable, and in any event within three months. So that process is underway. SPC is one of Australia's largest food processors, employing more than 800 full-time equivalent staff directly. Of course it makes a very substantial contribution to the regional economy in which it is located. I can see the member for Murray, Dr Stone, nodding her head in agreement with that. In addition, we of course have made significant reforms to the anti-dumping system. On the question of motor vehicles, we are not in the business of mandating but we are certainly in the business of leading by example. That is why we have purchasing policies which mean for the federal government we would look locally when it is possible to do so. We have urged that on other governments, including local governments, around the nation. We will continue to support our car industry and refuse to endorse the cuts to car-making proposed by the other side of politics which would, of course, bring thousands and thousands of jobs to an end. Education Funding 6667 14:47 Mr MELHAM 4T4 Banks My question is to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. Will the minister outline what the consequences are for schools and students in Victoria and Queensland if these states do not sign up to the National Plan for School Improvement? 14:47 Mr GARRETT HV4 Kingsford Smith I thank the member for Banks for his question. There is no doubt that education for this country is the foundation of our character and our future prosperity. The great danger that we are faced with is that, with some education standards declining Australia-wide, too many young Australians will be left behind in the future if they do not get the support from the National Plan for School Improvement to provide more resources for better teaching and support in the classrooms where it is needed. I thought it might be worthwhile just having a look at a state like Victoria. Too many disadvantaged students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, year 9 students, are achieving at a standard that is approximately three years below the reading and numeracy equivalent of students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. In Queensland too many Indigenous students are being left behind. Again, year 9 students are achieving at a standard approximately three years below for reading and numeracy. To be that far behind in year 9 absolutely puts a handcuff on your capacity to go any further in the future. That is why our plan to reform schools with an investment of almost $10 billion is a matter of national importance. We are not the only ones who see it that way of course. The words of the Premier of New South Wales should be ringing in our ears this week, where he says, about the national plan: … it provides additional resources, fairer distribution, to deliver higher standards and better outcomes in schools across— his state of— New South Wales. The same would apply in every state in the Commonwealth. So in Queensland, sign up to the national plan, see schools benefit from around an additional $3.8 billion over the next six years, or do not sign on, stick to a broken funding model and see government schools lose on average around $2.4 million per school. For Premier Napthine it is pretty clear as well: sign up, schools in Victoria benefit from an additional $4 billion over the next six years; do not sign up and government schools will lose about $1.9 million on average per school. Those figures are very stark. What is crucial, in understanding how important this is, is to reflect on what would happen if young students in each of those states were denied the opportunity for the additional resources and reforms under the National Plan for School Improvement. Bendigo Senior Secondary College Principal Dale Pearce got it right. He said simply, 'The proposed reforms are welcome and necessary.' That is how education stakeholders see it. So to the Premier in Queensland, who seems hostage to ideological enmities from another age: get on board and understand that it is in the interest of your students, as it is in every state, that we have better schools for all Australians and a national plan for school improvement that will support them. Migration 6668 14:51 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that three years ago today she promised to restore strong management of our borders. Since then there have been 38,340 illegal arrivals by boat on nearly 600 boats, almost six times higher than under Prime Minister Rudd. Can the Prime Minister explain how she has kept that promise? 14:51 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I thank the member for his question. Of course the member, I believe, knows the answer. The answer in part lies in the fact that this parliament was called upon to respond to a High Court decision to put us in the same position that the former Howard government was when it came to refugee and asylum seeker issues. In response the member who asked the question came in and voted for more boats—voted for more boats! This joins just a welter of negativity from the opposition to undermine the nation's ability to deal with refugee and asylum seeker issues. The opposition said no to the recommendations of the expert panel which the government has fully accepted. To the extent that we cannot implement all of those recommendations, it is because the opposition has said no and is standing in our way. The opposition said no to the Malaysia agreement, something that would have made a contribution sending a shock up the people-smuggling pipeline, but the opposition said no. The Leader of the Opposition has been out with a document pointing to what he claims is an increase of 20,000 public servants and saying that he will cut those if he is ever Prime Minister. I urge him to look at the details, because many of those cuts would fall on agencies involved in security and border control. Then, of course, we have seen the opposition insult the Indonesian government. We have seen— Mr Morrison E3L Speaker, a point of order on specific relevance. I asked why the Prime Minister had not kept her promise and I did not invite her to make more excuses. The SPEAKER 83S The member for Cook has abused the point of order. The Prime Minister has the call. Ms GILLARD 83L In dealing with the refugee and asylum seeker issues, we have not only seen the expert panel recommendations thrown out by the opposition, we have also seen them throw out the advice of defence personnel about how to deal with boats on the high seas. Against that track record of the negativity, what has the government done? Even in the face of that negativity, even in facing the determination of the opposition to vote for more boats, to hope that there are more boats to see their political advantage in more boats, we have gone about implementing the recommendations of the expert panel, and that is what we intend to continue to do. The SPEAKER 83S The member for Mackellar on a point of order other than relevance. Mrs Bronwyn Bishop SE4 Madam Speaker, page 543 of Practice requires that a minister must inform herself to be ready to answer questions placed by the opposition and others. Giving the answer that— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. There was no point of order. Mr Albanese R36 Speaker, my point of order goes to that—that is, disruptive conduct which is contrary to, as the member for Mackellar has pointed out, page 191 of Practice. Ms GILLARD 83L As the government continues to implement the recommendations of the expert panel, I say to the member who asked the question: perhaps he ought to provide some clarity to the Australian people—given the opposition is now shambling around unable to answer the question when it would 'stop the boats'—how on earth the opposition says it would implement the policy. We have seen the ludicrous boat phone policy of the Leader of the Opposition. We have seen the insults to Indonesia. It is time to stop the sloganeering and start dealing with the policy substance. (Time expired.) Economy 6669 14:55 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh My question is to the Treasurer. How have Australia's economic strengths helped us come through the worst global economic conditions in 80 years? How will investments in education, jobs and national savings make Australia a smarter, fairer and stronger country in the future? 14:56 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley I thank the member for Hindmarsh for that question, because over the past five years the Australian economy has outperformed most other developed economies. We did not go into recession and we have not experienced the very high levels of unemployment and the destruction of businesses that we have seen in so many other developed economies. When the going got tough, we put jobs and growth first. We had the courage to take the big decisions to support our economy. The consequence of that is that the economy is 14 per cent larger than it was at the end of 2007 and eight per cent larger in the last three years alone. The consequence of that is almost one million additional jobs created, 500,000 of those jobs in the last three years alone. That is a record that everyone on this side of the House is very proud of. And it is a record that is envied right around the world. Because we have the strength, because we have this resilience, we are up for making the big investments for the future, in particular the investments in education which are key to future prosperity. We want to see our school system in the top five internationally by 2025. To do that, we have to get rid of a broken funding model, and that is why we are putting in place a funding model which puts our schoolkids first and politics last, unlike those in opposition. We are also making the very big investments in superannuation: building a national superannuation savings pool, increasing the superannuation guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent. That will add half a trillion dollars to our national savings by 2037. If you are a 30-year-old electrician on an average sparky's wages you will end up with $124,000 more when you retire at 67. When you look at what we are doing with the funding of education, the school improvement program; if you look at what we are doing in terms of strengthening our superannuation, making sure people have enough resources to have dignity in retirement—all of these reforms are opposed by those opposite. They made it very clear before in the interjection of the shadow Treasurer that, had they been in power over the last five years or indeed the last three years, they would have taken an axe to public expenditure, which would have pushed unemployment through the roof and we would have seen the destruction of our social safety net. That proposition was put forward by the shadow Treasurer before, and that is the reason why they will not put forward any funded or costed policies. They have had five years to put forward accurate, costed policies, and in those five years we have not seen one. What we saw was their $11 billion hole in the last election. We on this side of the House will build the nation, make the investments for the future. Those on that side of the House will impose European austerity policies which will push up unemployment and rip up the social safety net. Gillard Government 6670 14:59 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that she promised to preside over a government that was 'more open, more accountable and more transparent'. Why then has the Prime Minister failed to comply with the decision of the Information Commissioner for the release of the documents relating to the appointment of her communications director, who holds a 457 visa? Ms GILLARD 83L As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition ought to be aware, I do not personally make decisions about freedom of information matters. Superannuation 6671 14:59 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 delivering on its plan to build a stronger economy through better jobs and more secure retirement incomes? Are there any obstacles to increasing the retirement savings of Australians? 15:00 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I would like to thank the member for La Trobe for her question. She understands, as everyone in the government does, that superannuation is a very important institution. Indeed, as Australians grow older, increasing retirement income and superannuation become even more important. That is why there is a clear and distinct debate in Australian politics at the moment between Labor on one hand and the coalition on the other. Labor has always supported increasing compulsory superannuation over the years—zero to three per cent in the Hawke government, three to nine per cent in the Keating government, and nine to 12 per cent in the Gillard government. On every occasion when the opposition has had a chance to vote to increase superannuation, they have voted against it. They have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity on superannuation, I am afraid. But it gets worse than that when we talk about the choice between the two parties. We have axed a 15 per cent tax on the contributions paid by people who earn less than $37,000, and the coalition wants to put a brand new tax on the contributions of low-paid Australian workers. But when you look at the consequences of this coalition policy that is when the story becomes most clear. Take for instance, 30-year-olds in select occupations and what they get if Labor is returned on 14 September, or what they get if the coalition is elected. This is very important to the retirement savings of people. A receptionist on average wages stands to gain an extra $79,000 if Labor's policies are upheld in this nation. A hairdresser stands to gain an extra $66,000 at retirement if Labor's policies are upheld in this nation. Childcare workers would gain an extra $75,000 in retirement. Even the occupation of media professionals—more affectionately known as journalists—stand to gain an extra $156,000 in retirement if Labor is elected. This is the choice in superannuation in Australia, first of all. The conservatives have never liked superannuation and, as recently as last year, the Leader of the Opposition said: We have always as a Coalition been against compulsory superannuation increases. Mr Pyne interjecting— Mr SHORTEN 00ATG That was on 23 March 2012—just to help the leader of opposition business. What we know about the coalition is that the track record counts. A leopard cannot change its spots; the opposition cannot be trusted to increase superannuation. If you want to see Australians retire with more income, the only choice on 14 September is to re-elect a Labor government. Gillard Government 6671 15:03 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt My question to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that three years ago today she promised to lead a strong and responsible government. Given that she has presided over an Australia Day riot initiated by her office, the replacement of the members for Scullion and then Fisher as Speaker, the scandal associated with the member for Dobell— The SPEAKER 83S Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Mr Albanese R36 I rise on a point of order, Speaker. It is just a bit of argument there. The question is out of order. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Order! I was going to request the Manager of Opposition Business to rephrase the question without the argument. Mr PYNE 9V5 Certainly, Madam Speaker. I remind the Prime Minister that three years ago today she promised to lead a strong and responsible government. Given that under her prime ministership an Australia Day riot occurred, initiated by her office, the replacement of the members for Scullion and Fisher as Speaker— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Dr Southcott interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S The member for Boothby! Mr Albanese R36 You tried to help him, Speaker, but he could not be helped. We need to move on. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S The Manager of Opposition Business advised the media today that we were going to see more adult behaviour from the opposition at question time. I am waiting to see some more adult behaviour from the Manager of Opposition Business. He can come to the end of his question without argument. Mr Hockey interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Order! The member for North Sydney does not have the call; the Manager of Opposition Business does. Mr PYNE 9V5 Given the litany of issues that I have now raised in this question on two occasions, I ask the Prime Minister: how has she kept her promise to lead a strong and responsible government? The SPEAKER 83S The first part of the question was out of order. The last part is in order. The Prime Minister has the call. 15:05 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor Nothing could better illustrate the difference between the government's approach and the opposition's approach. There they are mired in filth without any policies for the nation's future, the very few things that they stand for being things that would hurt our nation. Their promise in clean energy is to trash the legacy of the Howard government and to knock our economy into a standstill as they desperately tried to scrabble around to end carbon pricing. There are the cuts to the bone that they stand for: hurting families, ripping benefits away, basic benefits like the School Kids Bonus, a promise to make sure that our economy is no longer in a position to offer jobs and growth. There is the Leader of the Opposition with his plan for increased tax: putting up taxes on companies, which would flow through to the things that Australians buy, and may well cost jobs in those companies. These are the only plans that they stand for before the Australian people—economic vandalism, cuts to the bone, hitting jobs and growth, more taxation on companies—and because they know that they are ill-equipped to debate any of the real issues for our nation's future, they come in here with rubbish like this. It says everything about the Leader of the Opposition that he would authorise a question like this. It says everything about the Leader of the Opposition that he knows he cannot sustain a debate on the economy. He cannot sustain a debate on carbon pricing. He cannot sustain a debate on the future of school funding. He cannot sustain a debate on the National Broadband Network. He cannot sustain a debate on the economic opportunities of the age in which we live. He cannot sustain a debate on foreign policy and engagement in our region. He cannot even sustain a debate on border security; having thumped his chest so many times about stopping the boats, he knows he has actually got no way to stop the boats. Because he has no policies, because he has no plans and because he is mired in negativity, what he authorises is filth. Tasmanian Forestry 6673 15:07 Mr ADAMS BV5 Lyons My question is to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Could the minister please advise the House on action the government has taken to support jobs during the downturn in forestry in Tasmania? 15:08) Mr BURKE DYW Watson ( The forestry industry in Tasmania has been going through an extraordinary downturn over the last couple of years, and that is what caused industry and the environment groups to sit down at the same table to see if there was a way forward other than the previous conflict model that had been plaguing Tasmania for about 30 years. It was no surprise that, once you actually had a constructive way forward on the table, those opposite said they would prefer to settle the issue in the car park. Those opposite preferred the old style of conflict so that we have had in the last couple of days two massive steps forward—one for industry; one for conservation—with those opposite opposing both of them. Yesterday we had the member for Franklin and the member for Braddon standing up with Ta Ann, one of the most significant millers in Tasmania, responsible for the peeler billets that underpin the rest of the timber industry, with $26 million there to allow that business to restructure itself in the wake of the new situation that Tasmanian forestry has been facing. We had Senator Colbeck describing that sort of assistance as economic vandalism for Tasmania—$26 million for the key mill that underpins the rest of the sector in Tasmania and the jobs that go with it, which is not just the people that Ta Ann employ but the people who work as contractors, for the neighbouring mills and the rest of industry. That was described as economic vandalism by those opposite. I am also pleased to inform the House that they have not just opposed everything relating to helping industry; they have been even-handed: they have opposed anything about conservation as well. They even took the opportunity to send their own letter, it has been reported, to the World Heritage Committee saying, 'We're not the government but we would still like you to please not go ahead with the World Heritage listing.' I am pleased to inform the House that, half an hour before question time, the World Heritage Committee have accepted in full the boundary extension for Tasmania's forests: the Styx, the Weld, the Upper Florentine, the Great Western Tiers—areas that industry had said should be part of the agreement to be taken out of production; areas that were put forward to the World Heritage Committee, not as politicians drawing a line or bartering but, for the first time, a government saying, 'We would allow the stakeholders to negotiate and we would back their position in.' That provides a path forward for Tasmania different to the conflict model that those opposite are completely wedded to—an outcome for jobs in Tasmania, an outcome for conservation but, because it involves peace, they can only say no. Ms Gillard 83L Given the opposition has demonstrated it is out of questions about the nation's future, I will ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 6674 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:14 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I seek leave to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 83S Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Yes, again today and repeatedly by the Prime Minister on this same subject. The SPEAKER 83S Please proceed. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 The Prime Minister says that somehow the opposition is responsible for the failure of her Malaysia people swap; the fact is, we did not vote against it in the parliament— The SPEAKER 83S The Leader of the Opposition must show where he has been misrepresented. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 the Prime Minister never had the courage to actually bring it into the parliament for a vote and she should cease these falsehoods in the parliament. The SPEAKER 83S The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. 15:14 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I seek leave to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 83S Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr MORRISON E3L Yes. The SPEAKER 83S Please proceed. Mr MORRISON E3L Today in the parliament the Prime Minister stated that I had voted for more boats and that I wanted to see more boats. That is an outrageous and offensive accusation to be made, and I refer also to the comments that the Leader of the Opposition has just made. The migration amendment bill that she said we voted against was never— The SPEAKER 83S The member for Cook will resume his seat. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 6674 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 51 of 2012-13 6674 15:12 The SPEAKER 83S I present Auditor-General’s Audit report No. 51 of 2012-13 entitled Performance audit: Management of the Australian Taxation Office's property portfolio: Australian Taxation Office. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 6674 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:12 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 83S Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Ms O'DWYER LKU Yes. The SPEAKER 83S Please proceed. Ms O'DWYER LKU I claim to have been misrepresented. The member for Sydney, the Minister for Health, claimed in the chamber just before question time today that I was a liar when I said that the minister was cutting more than $6 billion from the health budget. This is not true. The minister is not only cutting $6 billion from the health budget— The SPEAKER 83S The member will resume her seat. DOCUMENTS 6675 DOCUMENTS Presentation 6675 15:13 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. BILLS 6675 BILLS Australian Citizenship Amendment (Special Residence Requirements) Bill 2013, Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Bill 2013, Corporations and Financial Sector Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013 6675

Australian Citizenship Amendment (Special Residence Requirements) Bill 2013

Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Bill 2013

Corporations and Financial Sector Legislation Amendment Bill 2013

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013

Assent 6675 Grape and Wine Legislation Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013 6675

Grape and Wine Legislation Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013

First Reading 6675 Second Reading 6675 15:15 Mr SIDEBOTTOM 849 Braddon I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Grape and Wine Legislation Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013 creates the Australian Grape and Wine Authority. The new authority will commence its operations on 1 July 2014. It will take the roles and functions of the Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation and the Wine Australia Corporation. This is a reform that has been raised and discussed a number of times over the last 20 years, and it is with great pleasure that I introduce this bill to make the reform a reality. The government agreed to merge the two wine statutory corporations following an industry proposal from the Winemakers' Federation of Australia and Wine Grape Growers Australia. The proposed merger is widely supported by industry. A single wine industry statutory authority will support the industry by providing links between the investment initiatives and functions of the Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation and the Wine Australia Corporation. The merger will provide further benefits through improving administrative efficiency and service delivery to the industry. The merger aligns with the Australian government's 2012 Rural Research and Development Policy Statement. In particular, the statement noted that combining research and development and marketing functions in one organisation can lead to administrative savings as well as synergies. On 19 June 2013 the government introduced the Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 to implement the policy statement. Once this bill has been considered by parliament the government will amend the Grape and Wine Legislation Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill to ensure consistency between the two pieces of legislation. The merger of the two statutory authorities is in also accordance with a broader policy goal to reduce the number of government statutory corporations. This bill proposes amendments to the Wine Australia Corporation Act 1980 to establish the new authority and renames the act as the Australian Grape and Wine Authority Act 2013. Although the bill amends the existing Wine Australia Act, these amendments are significant and the merger is not a takeover of the Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation by Wine Australia. This is a strategic merger of the two statutory corporations. This bill is divided into two schedules. Schedule 1 amends the Wine Australia Act to create the authority itself. Schedule 2 covers matters arising from the transition from two statutory corporations to the authority. It covers matters such as the transfer of staff to the authority. Schedule 1 is divided into two parts. Part 1 of schedule 1 commences on the day after Royal Assent. This part amends the Wine Australia Corporation Act 1980 to establish a selection committee to select and nominate to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry possible members of the board of the authority. The bill gives the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry an alternative option of appointing a first board of the authority for a 12-month period without reference to the selection committee. Part 2 of schedule 1 commences on 1 July 2014. This part provides amendments to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and the Wine Australia Corporation Act 1980. This part establishes the authority and provides the governance framework for its operation. Schedule 1 provides the research and development functions, including provisions for the Commonwealth to match research and development levy funding dollar for dollar. The authority will be required to spend research and development levy money and government matching funds on research and development activity. Industry has highlighted the importance of this issue for the new authority. It is also important to the government to ensure that Australian government money appropriated for research and development is used for this purpose. The bill does not include any changes to the structure or the amounts of the levies that currently fund both statutory corporations, or to the existing regulatory, marketing and compliance roles of the Wine Australia Corporation. The bill transfers definitions of research and development from the Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act 1981. It establishes an authority with a skills-based board of five to seven directors selected and nominated by a statutory selection committee and appointed by the minister. The board is led by a chair appointed by the minister following consultation with industry. The authority is required to prepare a five-year corporate plan to outline the authority's strategies, policies and priorities to achieve the objectives. The authority is also required to prepare an annual operation plan but this plan unlike those of the two statutory corporations, is not required to have the minister approve it. Schedule 2 provides for the transition of the Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation and Wine Australia to the authority, including that the operations, assets, liabilities and staffing conditions are transferred to the authority. Of particular note is that schedule 2 provides that the minister may engage consultants to assist with preparations for establishing the authority, and preparations to appoint a chief executive for the authority. The bill allows the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to reappoint the first board after Royal Assent. The board will commence on 1 July 2014. Between the date of appointment and 1 July 2014, the minister can engage the future board directors as consultants to prepare for the authority's commencement and to assist it in becoming fully operational on 1 July 2014. Before 1 July 2014 the future directors, in their role as consultants, could not make decisions that would bind the authority. However, it can be expected that any recommendations they make would be ratified by the board at its first meeting. The costs of the consultants will be met by the Commonwealth through the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Once the authority commences any and all Commonwealth funding provided for the purpose for engaging consultants will be refunded by the authority. As the consultants are the future board directors acting in the interests of the authority, it is reasonable for the authority to reimburse the Commonwealth for the costs of the consultants. The bill ensures that all employees of the Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation and Wine Australia are transferred to the Australian Grape and Wine Authority along with all employee entitlements. The bill also provides for a number of amendments to be made to outdated sections of the Wine Australia Corporation Act 1980 and also introduces modernised language to bring it up to date with current terms. The wine industry has a unique regulatory structure, with the Wine Australia Corporation enforcing the Label Integrity Program, licensing exporters and maintaining Australia's wine geographical indications system. These important roles are not affected by the merger. The Australian Grape and Wine Authority will therefore have a strong focus on controlling exports and developing domestic and international markets for Australian grape products, along with investigating, coordinating and funding grape and wine research and development. The authority will be responsible to report on these to the parliament or minister and representative organisations. The government has introduced amendments to the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 and the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. If these amendments are passed, this bill will be amended to ensure consistency with the new legislation before being reintroduced following the election. The merger of the wine industry statutory corporations is being undertaken at the request of industry and continues to have the support of industry. This is a reform that will help the industry to function better. It will improve linkages between marketing and research and development and achieve these benefits at no additional cost to winemakers and grape growers. Two companion bills are being introduced alongside this bill proposing minor amendments to the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999 and the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Act 1999 to enable levies collected to be paid to the new authority. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Poker Machine Harm Reduction ($1 Bets and Other Measures) Bill 2012, Anti-Money Laundering Amendment (Gaming Machine Venues) Bill 2012, Interactive Gambling Amendment (Virtual Credits) Bill 2013 6678

Poker Machine Harm Reduction ($1 Bets and Other Measures) Bill 2012

Anti-Money Laundering Amendment (Gaming Machine Venues) Bill 2012

Interactive Gambling Amendment (Virtual Credits) Bill 2013

Report from Committee 6678 15:24 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform, I present the committee's final report, incorporating dissenting reports, Poker Machine Harm Reduction ($1 Bets and Other Measures) Bill 2012, Anti-Money Laundering Amendment (Gaming Machine Venues) Bill 2012, Interactive Gambling Amendment (Virtual Credits) Bill 2013, together with evidence received by the committee. In accordance with the standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper. Mr WILKIE C2T by leave—Thank you. I would like to take this opportunity to briefly provide a few final comments on the work of the committee over the past three years. In essence, I believe that the committee has produced valuable work which I trust will help progress further reforms to minimise the harm from gambling in Australia. The committee's first report covered the design and implementation of a mandatory precommitment system for electronic gaming machines. Of course the government ultimately decided on voluntary precommitment, and this is examined in the committee's fourth report on the National Gambling Reform Bill 2012 and related bills. As I have stated previously, my personal view is that the government should have gone much further and achieved more during this parliament in the area of the poker machine reform. Mind you, the government's modest reform is at least a start, and one that establishes the precedent of federal government intervention in poker machine regulation and rolls out machines and systems capable of mandatory precommitment at the flick of a switch at a future point in time. The committee's second report covered interactive and online gambling and gambling advertising and a related bill. It looked at access to casino type games via overseas sites and sports wagering via domestic providers. Originally I indicated that the best response to Australians using unregulated overseas websites to access casino type games would be to allow Australian operators to offer limited gaming options with appropriate harm minimisation and consumer protection measures in place. But, having seen more evidence and taken more advice, I have decided that the best response is not to liberalise the Australian market, but rather to tighten it up and put in place strategies to deter Australians from accessing the dangerous offshore sites. Responding to the continuing concern over the promotion of gambling services in sport, the committee undertook another inquiry, and the committee's fifth report was tabled recently, covering the advertising and promotion of gambling services in sport and a related bill. The committee's third report considered the prevention and treatment of problem gambling. This report emphasised the importance of preventative measures as well as treatment and emphasised that it is the responsibility of all stakeholders to minimise harm rather than just the individual affected by problem gambling. The report card is in for gambling reform for this government. My personal view is that, overall, progress has been made, but it has been disappointingly modest. Yes, the federal government stepping into the area of gambling reform is positive and leaves the door open for further reform. And, yes, while voluntarily precommit being rolled out is pretty useless, at least the machines will be capable of mandatory precommit. But that leaves so much work still to be done—for instance, the government really does need to look again at including maximum $1 bets in the mix of measures to address poker machine harm. Obviously, this would be simple for people to understand and compatible with precommitment as an additional level of harm minimisation. And it was recommended by the Productivity Commission. More broadly, the action apparently being taken to reduce gambling advertising during sport is welcome. Although again, I believe it should go further and there should be a total ban not only on live odds promotion, but in fact on all gambling advertising during sport. My thanks go to Mr Tom Waterhouse for becoming the catalyst for the overwhelming message from the community to reduce the amount of gambling advertising during sport. During its enquiries, the committee heard about the need for more research, the need to improve the evidence base, the need to fill knowledge and data gaps, the need to improve coordination and that need to develop the national research capacity. I note that the Australian Gambling Research Centre within the Australian Institute of Family Studies will be established from July this year, and that is welcome. While this does not completely fulfil the call for a national independent gambling research centre, it is a positive development nonetheless. In closing, I wish to thank all the people and organisations who contributed to the committee's inquiries. It appears that achieving meaningful reform in this area will be a marathon rather than a sprint, but I do believe that the work of the committee has drawn necessary attention to the area of gambling and the harms it can cause. I trust that the work of the committee and the wealth of information gathered and contained in its reports will continue to be used to progress gambling reforms. I also wish to thank committee members for their spirit of cooperation of the life of the committee. I would like to thank especially the committee secretary, Lyn Beverley, for her excellent advice and support and the committee secretariat more broadly for their first-rate efforts. I commend the report to the House. I move: That the House take note of the report. Debate adjourned. Report and Reference to Federation Chamber 6679 15:30 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison by leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013 6679

Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013

First Reading 6679 Second Reading 6679 15:31 Mr SIDEBOTTOM 849 Braddon I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013 is a companion bill to the Grape and Wine Legislation Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013. The companion bill provides consequential amendments to replace references to the Wine Australia Corporation and the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999 with Australian Grape and Wine Authority to reflect the Australian Grape and Wine Authority Act 2013 that will govern the new authority. The change will allow for levies collected to be paid to the Australian Grape and Wine Authority. The bill also repeals clauses that provide for Wine Australia following an annual general meeting to make recommendations to the minister about the levy rate. The Australian government has a process for consulting with industry about levy rates that provides for consultation, a vote of industry and an objections process. The bill provides that the process for changing wine industry levies is consistent with other industries. Debate adjourned. Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013 6680

Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013

First Reading 6680 Second Reading 6680 15:33 Mr SIDEBOTTOM 849 Braddon I move: That this Bill be now read a second time. The Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013 is a companion bill to the Grape and Wine Legislation Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013. The companion bill provides consequential amendments to replace references to the Wine Australia Corporation in the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Act 1999 with Australian Grape and Wine Authority to reflect the Australian Grape and Wine Authority Act 2013 that will govern the new authority. The change will allow for levies collected to be paid to the Australian Grape and Wine Authority. The bill also repeals clauses that provided for Wine Australia following an annual general meeting to make recommendations to the minister about the levy rate. The Australian government has a process of consulting with industry about levy rates that provides for consultation, a vote of industry and an objection process. The bill provides that the process for changing wine industry levies is consistent with other industries. Debate adjourned. PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION 6680 PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION Valedictory 6680 15:34 Mr HAASE 84T Durack I rise today heavy of heart to address the House for the final time, to reflect on my career, to give thanks to all who have helped me along the way and to say goodbye to colleagues, many of whom have become friends for life. On Monday, 23 November 1998 I delivered my first speech to the House. At the time I was the member for Kalgoorlie and I felt it an honour to have been elected to represent the electorate in the 39th parliament, an honour I humbly accepted and a responsibility I did not take lightly. Here we are in the 43rd parliament and I remain humble that I represent an electorate in the federal parliament, although now my responsibility has moved to the seat of Durack. As the inaugural member for Durack following the 2010 election and the 2008 electoral redistribution of the federal seat of Kalgoorlie I represent the constituents of hundreds of towns and communities within the huge electorate of Durack—63 per cent, more than 1.6 million square kilometres, of the great state of Western Australia and a quarter of Australia's land mass. Durack is the powerhouse of the nation. We have great natural resources, we have pastoralists, we have horticulturists and farmers, fishers, manufacturing, service industries and retail. No other electorate in Australia is as large, as diverse or as financially beneficial to the nation. I have for 15 years represented the largest electorate in Australia, first Kalgoorlie and now Durack. How times have changed in the past 15 years. I have seen prime ministers, ministers, Speakers of the House come and go but never have I seen such turmoil in a reigning government as now. In recent years, much to my embarrassment, I have seen the once highly regarded position of prime minister tarnished. I have seen the position of Speaker of this House tarnished. I have witnessed the demise of our international reputation as a low sovereign risk destination. I have seen our once strong border protection policies dismantled, giving way to thousands of economic opportunists arriving on our shores. A number of pastoralists have lost their livelihoods and others are still struggling to recover from the financial setback dealt to them with the abrupt halt to live exports. Vocal minority groups are now dictating government action. Political correctness has come to the fore over the past 15 years, much to my dismay. To quote Mark Twain: Sometimes I wonder whether the world is run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. I am told that Santa no longer says 'Ho ho ho' for fear of offending prostitutes. Fairy penguins are now little penguins, for fear of offending homosexuals. We now have a chalkboard instead of a blackboard, for fear of offending the non-Caucasian, and children are no longer ankle biters, in case we upset dog lovers. Non-Caucasians can no longer call us 'whities' and people of another religion can no longer call us Islamophobic when we do not want burkas worn in banks. Hang on a minute! Of course they can. Do you see anything wrong with the picture? Minorities and the 'Speech Police' are taking over and we are letting it happen. Political correctness is not only undermining free speech, common sense and personal responsibility; it is prohibiting it. We must stop kowtowing to vocal minorities and stand up for the majority. We are a democracy—the greatest democracy in the world—and we must retain that greatness for our children and grandchildren. We are known internationally as lovable, hardworking, honest larrikins. Future generations, just like my generation, must be allowed to enjoy all that it is to be Australian. However, if we do not stop political correctness from weaving its insidious web into all aspects of our lives, who and what will be an Australian in the future? I now turn to a more positive note. Something that retiring members often do is talk about their achievements. I have had a few. Some of them include $3 million seed funding for the creation of an intermodal hub freight in Kalgoorlie. At the time I was representing Kalgoorlie, I won the establishment of a Child Support Agency office in the Kalgoorlie electorate, which has 16 per cent of the adult population tied up with the Child Support Agency, the highest percentage of any federal electorate. I secured $10 million for the Outback Way, a road that links Winton in Queensland through to Laverton in Western Australia. It is referred to as the diagonal route or the third route across Australia. I chaired the 'Outback Way' committee for some three years. I got $2.5 million under the Centenary of Federation fund for the prospectors and miners Hall of Fame and later, on two separate occasions, secured an additional $1 million to keep it operating. I got $63,000 for the Shire of Leonora Stamp Mill to construct a shelter over the mill to preserve it as a tourist attraction. I got $20,000-plus for the shire for properly equipping the Leonora general practice clinic. These were huge achievements that many smile about. I got Giles on the weather map. The Central Australian weather data collecting centre did not have Giles on the weather map, because the ABC told me there was simply no room on the map of Western Australia to get Giles noted. Think about that! I got letterboxes for Ninga Mia, an Aboriginal community in Kalgoorlie, because they did not previously have any letterboxes in the place. So we had Australia Post install letterboxes and feed them mail at the community gate. Handguns for pastoralists is a huge issue in Western Australia and in the pastoral industry generally. I campaigned for years and now pastoralists may apply for a handgun licence. Mixed breed wild dogs, although we are getting some state government funding, remains a problem and it needs to be fixed. I do not know what we are going to do about that into the future, but I do know that we will not have a wool industry in remote areas of Western Australia unless we fix the problem. I have been vocal in my opposition to alcohol bans and have voiced my opinion widely in relation to the banning of alcohol. It is just a bandaid solution. What we need is alcohol management, not the banning of alcohol. We need changes to youth allowance. A lot of work has already been done. Much remains to be done in relation to creating a level playing field so that regional students can access city institutions just as readily as their city cousins can access those institutions. The capping at $150,000 for household income for the cut-out of youth allowance is an absolute nonsense. Do you remember the Telstra $2.20 charge for paying of Telstra accounts. We had to knock that off and I contributed to that effort. One major and satisfying achievement that my colleagues have reminded me over this most recent period was the creation of Friends of Mining and Resources here in the House. I believe that now, six years after the establishment of that body, my colleagues in city electorates have a much greater, better and fuller understanding and appreciation of what the mining industry does for our lives, when we come across products of the mining industry in every step of our lives and yet so many city populations would decry the fact that Australia is nothing more than a quarry. As somebody famously once said, 'The area of Australia's hotel car parks is in fact greater than the footprint of Australia's mines.' One of the great problems we have these days, apart from both the carbon tax and the supertax on resources—and the coalition will remove them—is cane toads. I think people are a little tired of hearing me wax lyrical about the problem cane toads are creating right across Northern Australia. I thank Lee Scott-Virture, from Kununurra, for her efforts in creating the Kimberley Toad Busters and for the work she has put into that, having now recruited some 5,000 members to the Kimberley Toad Busters. We need to find funds, to come up with an effective biological or viral control of cane toads. It is a major problem. They are now right across into the Kimberley and many people are saying that it is a given that they are now part of the Australian environment. I do not accept that for a moment. At some point in time we have to put sufficient funding into research, to come up with an answer to get rid of them because they are destroying our native environment. One thing yet to be done is the fixing of the livestock export problem. I was very active at the time when this government tried to hold Indonesia under siege. We have many bridges to build there and I am pleased to note that Julie Bishop, our shadow foreign affairs minister, is doing a lot of work to bring that relationship back together. Some people in Western Australia are in fact talking about the West Australian Nationals' call for a federally funded Royalty for Regions program. Major campaigns are underway, in the hope they can drag themselves over to Canberra on that very platform. Even though all candidates need to hang their hat on some aspirational issue, it is worth pointing out that these candidates have apparently not done their homework. First and foremost, the federal government does not collect royalties. Secondly, one of the great Howard government programs was the Regional Partnerships Program. The electorate of Kalgoorlie, which I held for four terms, saw huge improvements and multiple projects supported by that initiative, including: $150,000 to the shire for the Mother of the Goldfields project, enhancing the Coolgardie worksites and townscape; $1.3 million to the Kambalda community for recreational facilities, constructing a centralised multipurpose community recreation facility; $132,000 for the Boulder Promotion and Development Association to renovate the historical Palace Theatre to make it safe and more functional for community and youth programs; $5,500 to the Kalgoorlie-Boulder Cemetery Board's Kalgoorlie-Boulder Cemetery Heritage Trail project for the development of a self-guided walk trail through the Kalgoorlie-Boulder Cemetery with an accompanying guidebook; $100,000 to the Eastern Goldfields YWCA to assist the Eastern Goldfields YWCA to complete works on an existing room within the Y Centre in Kalgoorlie and develop it into a youth-friendly space; $500,000 to the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder for the Goldfields Oasis stage 2—the first publicly owned wave machine in the southern part of Australia—upgrading the Goldfields Oasis leisure and aquatic facility; $220,000 to the shire for establishing the Great Beyond—Australia's inland explorer's centre; and the list goes on. This highlights the fact that Regional Partnerships, that wonderful Howard government scheme, has done a great deal of work—appropriate work—in regional Australia, and we do not need to fantasise about the creation of yet some other fund to get money out of Canberra and back into questionable causes in Western Australia. However, we have much to do, and, as I leave this place, contributing to my heavy heart today is the knowledge that so much remains to be done. There is much talk today about closing the gap, and we know that Indigenous Australians are not enjoying the benefits of a mainstream Western society's standard of living. There needs to be a collective realisation that the major problem in closing the gap is the differential between the basic education enjoyed in mainstream society and Indigenous society. We have to do it. Education is the key, and, until such time as we collectively have the wit and wisdom to tie school attendance and welfare together, there will not be an underlining of the imperative of school attendance. It was a very sad day when I reflected upon the loss of the seat by Malcolm Brough because I calculated it took me about 10 years to convince Mal that we had to exercise some tough love, and, of course, having done that with the cooperation of this place, we then saw him lose his seat. We then lost government and saw so many of those fine initiatives reversed. That was a shame because, so long as we have that great gap between standards of living of our original Australians and our mainstream society, we have a lot more to do. The financial support for rural students to attend tertiary education or the tertiary access allowance is, as I said before, an issue of equity. Until such time as you fully appreciate the very high wages and the very high cost of living in many parts of remote Australia, you will not appreciate that there is a genuine need for the removal of this $150,000 cap per household for the payment of youth allowance. It is a very expensive exercise to send a student from regional Australia to attend a city university. The taxation zone rebates that have been paid since the end of the Second World War across this country need review. Under previous governments, the review process has been carried out about every decade. It is now nearly three decades since there was any substantial review of that program, and the light at the end of the tunnel, I suggest, is the coalition's proposal of the Northern Australia policy. I have faith that within that there will be the opportunity for the creation of taxation zones and, hand-in-hand with that, I sincerely hope that some genuine work is done to create a taxation zone rebate for remote area living that in some way reflects the high cost of remote area living. One of the issues that I have been pressing since coming into this place is the idea of assisting explorers in this country to offset the high cost of exploration and allow them to attract investment in mineral exploration in this country. We have, at best, 17 years of mine life left for our existing mines. If something is not done in a very positive way to encourage investment in exploration, we are going to run out of a mining industry that gives us the wealth and standard of living that, as Australians, we enjoy today. Thank you, Macca, and I know you, personally, are working very hard for that. We need to attract additional funding into remote Australia for the provision of aged-care facilities. The feedback I get from the rural providers is that we need at least a 40 per cent increase in rebates for remote area aged care before the commercial sector will even contemplate the situation. Workers' compensation for older workers—that is, 65 plus—is another issue. We are encouraging people to stay in the employment field after age 65, but we have not addressed the issue of workers' compensation. If you ask any underground miner who turns 65 what he is going to do about workers' compensation after that, you get a very blank look. We need, in my humble opinion, a sunset clause for Indigenous-specific departments in government. Until such time as we set a target for the solving of some of these problems in relation to Indigenous affairs, I do not believe we are going to install the motivation to do so, because there is the ongoing issue of employment. We need to stop the widespread rorting in the area of Aboriginal heritage surveys. Ask any miner that is trying to get access to country and they will tell you that one of the great hurdles is getting onto country because either they cannot identify anyone who is officially associated with the country or the associated costs are just too exorbitant to consider, and when it is brought to those people who could intervene in such a situation there is no proof because there is no written evidence about the deals that are being demanded. We need to streamline the environmental assessments process for the mining and resource industry and for development projects right across this country. The absolute litany of red and green tape that developers are forced to meet is unacceptable. I have spoken about the cane toads and their involvement in destroying all our wildlife. On that topic, we need to do something in the future about the feral cats in this country. Famously, an ex-member of this place raised the issue of feral cats. There would be a few here from Western Australia especially who remember him. He was considered to be either very, very brave or very, very foolish—perhaps he was both. I do not believe it was during a valedictory speech; I think it was during his career and it was certainly no asset to that career, although he will never be forgotten. We need to take the issue seriously. Feral cats are destroying our fauna at a rate that no amount of land development or mining or tourist development would ever achieve, and yet we choose to turn a blind eye. It is truly not acceptable. We have to increase the services to regional Australia, as I have said, and especially medical services and GPs. We must reinstate our livestock exports to Indonesia, our nearest neighbour, and we must do a great deal of work to re-establish mutual trust. In relation to the export of livestock, something that is important is that we need to re-educate Australia's city and urban children, we need to encourage curriculum input from rural-savvy educators, in order to introduce schoolchildren to the reality of food production, because presently they are far removed from that reality. We need to replace that natural condition of half a century ago that saw city families visit rural relations with an organised arrangement of country-city school student swaps. Anyone that takes up that cause in this place will do the livestock production industry a great favour, because until such time as city kids understand country situations we are going to lose the battle to have the public on our side when it comes to the continued, very necessary raising of livestock for live export. If we allow the current evolution alone to dictate outcomes, remembering that 87 per cent of the Australian population occupy three per cent of the landmass, we will see animal production outlawed. We need to develop the north of Australia. Northern Australia is capable of becoming not only the food bowl of Australia but also the food bowl for Asia. We need to further develop the tourist potential of Northern Australia. I know by leaving the seat of Durack in Liberal safe hands many things left undone can be achieved. It is imperative to the nation that Durack is not left floundering in the great halls of this place with no voice. It is not possible to further entrench Durack as the powerhouse of the nation without the backing of a party room. It is vital for the economy of Australia that Durack remains a Liberal seat. Now I take this opportunity to thank those who helped me along the way. Great leaders like John Howard; a joy to work with Dr Brendan Nelson; Malcolm Turnbull; and now the next great leader of Australian politics as Prime Minister, I sincerely hope, Tony Abbott. The help to me along the way from Julie Bishop; from Peter Costello; and believe it or not—and many will not know why I single him out—from Peter Reith. The first House mentor that I had was one Geoff Prosser, whom many of you will remember, and I thank him for the wisdom of his experience and for giving me the choice of which examples he set to follow. To all my colleagues, but especially Dr Mal Washer: the services you provide this House are exceptional. To Senator Alan Eggleston. To Don Randall, a fellow Western Australian. To Warren Entsch—where would we be without that lovable Entschie? Sometimes on the right track, many say! To Rowan Ramsey, a great neighbour. I mention here my first whip, Ronno—Senator Michael Ronaldson. To Greg Hunt, who has advised and helped me a great deal. To the indomitable Ian Macfarlane, who I do hope will successfully lead this nation with regard to resources and all of those things that are vital to the Australian economy. To Nola Marino, for her wonderful, wonderful, wonderful homemade soup, thank you. To Russell Broadbent and Bronnie Bishop, who could forget you. I particularly thank the best state director, in my opinion, that Western Australia has ever had: Ben Morton. He possesses an extremely rare combination of integrity and compassion. It is very reassuring for people who have to move through the difficulties of electorate representation in the party to seek advice in confidence from time to time. It is a difficult situation and Ben does it better than anyone I have ever seen do it in Western Australia. I need to thank my previous staff: Marilyn Baran, my PA who set the standard, so to speak; Jodie Richardson, who started with me the day before she turned 18 and spent the last six years with me as my PA—she possesses knowledge beyond her years and was a very, very effective PA; Linda Crook, who took over from Jodie and managed the election in 2010 and did an absolutely wonderful job, but having worked hard to win that election then lost her job because I moved to Geraldton—some would say proof positive that there is no justice; Samantha Dalton, hardworking Sam; Jackie Green, who is a wonderful front desk girl; Nikki Flemming;andPam Foulkes Taylor, who recently won a marathon, which pleased her a great deal. I thank my current staff: De-Arne O'Neil—a lot to be said there but I do not have the time or the indulgence; Leanne Thurstun; Tammy Corby; Jackie Feeney; Lorraine Turner; and Louise Waldron. And my past campaign managers: Peter Durrant; my brother Murray Haase; and Linda Crook, an eternal tower of strength. I thank the ever-obliging House staff. You tolerate us with good humour and good grace. We would fail without your services and your help. I thank the secretariat staff—competent and committed, assisting the numerous committees I have served on over the years. I thank the shire presidents and the CEOs from my 47 local government areas. I thank the vital hardworking Liberal lay party members who toil in an apparently thankless task, staffing the 100-plus polling booths over my last five elections. My thanks to the dozens of Liberal branch presidents who keep branches viable across a third of Australia in the case of the Kalgoorlie electorate, and now a quarter of Australia in the Durack electorate. I especially thank Tony Proctor, who recruited members to the Broome branch to make it the most successful branch in Durack. My thanks toJames Falls for having the vision and honesty to give me the confidence to plan stepping down in the knowledge there was someone with the skills, experience, understanding and commitment prepared to stand to take my place, and for telling me about it two years in advance. Having said that, I am grateful to Sir Robert Menzies, who had the integrity to bring together like-minded people to give birth to the Australian Liberal Party that would attract and recruit members who, having served in the parliament, are prepared to come back following defeat and have another go. A major concern I have had in planning to leave parliament was that the people of Durack have a great Liberal member serving them in a Liberal government with a real plan to get Australia back on track. I thank the fine people of the Durack electorate for placing their faith in me in the highly competitive 2010 election and for their ongoing support. I hope their future support for a competent, hardworking Liberal candidate will see their needs well-articulated in the party room, contributing to a Liberal government, providing hope, reward and opportunity for all Australians. I pay special thanks to my children: my son Shane, who would have liked to have been here today, and his fiancee Kate; and my daughter Danielle, who is here today. They have both been so supportive during the election campaigns and through their hard work on polling days. I thank my sister Diane, her husband Ken Cunningham and my brother Murray Haase for their unwavering support and hard work. I do not know where my life will take me from here on in—that is the beauty of life: its twists and turns, the mysteries and even the mistakes. But in the words of Errol Flynn: I've had a hell of a lot of fun and I've enjoyed every minute of it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 I congratulate the member for Durack on that great valedictory and thank him for the wonderful work he has done on behalf of rural and remote Australians. We have worked together on a number of projects and I wish him well in the future. I remind the House, as I call the member for Mallee, that this is his valedictory speech and I ask you to accord him the same courtesies as we would in a maiden speech. 16:05 Mr FORREST NV5 Mallee Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity for this my final contribution. There are a few homilies to leave for my successor, whoever that might be. I wish to reflect on some of my successes from my 20 years of contribution in this place. I wish to thank all those people, as other members have, who have made things happen here. John Forrest was not some superhuman sent to Canberra in 1993. It happened because people were prepared to put the hard work in and make it happen. I commence with a reflection on the very start of my federal political journey here when first presenting for preselection to the Nationals. Preselectors said to me that they were unsure of whether to give their support. 'You don't fit the mould,' they said. 'You're too much of a gentleman and you haven't got enough mongrel in you.' I am delighted to be honoured with the presence of my predecessor, Peter Fisher, in the gallery today. He has come down here. He will remember all of that back in 1992. How do you respond to that? I was to say, 'Well, that may be true but send me and you will have a genuine hard-working member who will always put the electorate first.' And, by the way, maybe there is something wrong with the mould. I came to this place after a 20-year career as a civil engineer. It seems that it is a two-decade cycle in a changing of engagement. My plan was to play a constructive role in the development of Mallee as well as this great country, to see investment in important infrastructure—roads, rail, ports, bridges—and improved water supply. That is what civil engineers do; they build things. Problem solving—that is what engineers do. They are not antagonists and that has meant, apparently, that my approach to this place has been somewhat unusual. Solving problems for constituents and tackling the great challenges of the nation have been more of a priority for me, which has meant a lesser focus on the antagonism of this chamber and a greater focus on the work of committees for it is in committees that persuasive contribution can actually influence the outcome. You can sway colleagues to a point of view and influence an outcome. Rightly or wrongly, no matter what has been written about the member for Mallee, I have absolutely no regrets about adopting this approach. On the challenges, I have achieved a reasonable amount of success and there have been some satisfying outcomes which I will detail briefly later. But there has been one initiative that I put to the nation and that is a notion that this nation needs to address its infrastructure challenges. I promoted this. You see, the parliament has a Chief Scientist, a Chief Medical Officer, a Chief Nurse, a Chief Veterinary Officer, a Chief Consul-General, a Solicitor-General, a soon-to-be-appointed Chief Allied Health Officer, the Chief of Defence Force as well as the chiefs of Navy, Army and Air Force. We have chief justices of the Federal Court, the Family Court and the High Court. Yet there is no chief engineer to guide the nation on infrastructure investment priorities. For the nation to maximise its potential, then, efficient infrastructure is the key. To maximise productivity, it is vital that the goods produced here, particularly those from regional Australia, are efficiently and economically transported. To achieve this, efficient roads, rail and ports are vital. For example, it is a nonsense for a modern 21st century economy to have to rely on a colonially based rail system of different gauges in every state—and how many times have we heard that said? That is just one example. Another is our 100-year-old water infrastructure. When we ask our food and fibre producers to compete with countries with much more modern supply arrangements, and also because water is such a precious commodity in this dry arid continent, we cannot continue to waste it. 'Less water, more often' is an adage that I was taught at university. We desperately need bold thinking, I believe, in the tradition of the Romans. If we are to think seriously about a population of 40 million by 2040, water will be the limiting criterion. So it is my contention that a chief engineer will help drive this imperative in the national interest rather than relying on the competitive interests of the states. I want to leave this place continuing to hope that such a notion will be seriously considered in the future. It will not cost much. The Australian Institute of Engineers will probably do it for us. Now, I will focus on my electorate. Following the member for Durack, I am a little embarrassed by my figures, but when first selected in 1993, Mallee was 67,000 square kilometres—not measured in millions. After four electoral redistributions it now stands at 74,000 square kilometres, which is probably a little bit more closely settled than Durack and presents the same challenges in terms of giving it the representation it deserves. Those redistributions highlight the challenge confronting regional Australia with relative population decline. This needs to be reversed by focusing on regional Australia's strengths. For example, there is a strong sense of community throughout Mallee, which is the hallmark of country people. Such valuable projects as aged care, nursing homes, education centres, and community centres would not occur without the sacrificial contribution of so many community members. Time and time again I have witnessed that during my 20 years and it has spurred me on in my desire to give them the best representation they deserve. Mallee also offers the advantage that what is produced there is lean, clean and green, free from the contaminants suffered by our international competitors. We need to continue to develop the export marketing edge this provides for our food and fibre. And, colleagues, we must work harder to ensure that Australian-owned commodity handling and marketing entities manage the sale of what we produce, and I am anxious that this is not happening. As I said earlier, being elected to this place did not happen because John Forrest was some superhero but instead because so many loyal people out there made it happen. So I express my deep appreciation to the membership of the Nationals for providing me with the honour that I have enjoyed in representing such a great grassroots based and regionally focused political party. A huge amount of work goes into the electorate office behind the scenes and to those many thousands of constituents out there who have received assistance from my office, I express my appreciation for continuing to send me back here with ever-increasing majorities. None of this is possible without a dedicated team. My thanks go to my current staff including JulieTripodi, who has been with me the whole time. Of course, she started with my predecessor. To Tracey Mooney, Alison Bradley, Jenny Blackman, Peter Lamb, Melissa Adamson, Christine Cracknell and Faye Taylor, and to the other 17 staff who remarkably, in various ways, have made contributions to the office over the years and who have now moved on to other things: to each of them I offer my deep appreciation for their loyalty and dedicated service. Often when walking down the street people will approach me and thank me for some service that you have delivered. You have been my shopfront and to you belongs most of the credit for the electoral success Mallee has achieved over those seven elections. Also the work of so many voluntary community groups, local government, health and welfare, commodity and industry groups is to be acknowledged. Working cooperatively with so many organisations over such a vast spread-out area of Victoria has made my job so much easier. It seems remarkable to me to be advised by the library that over the 20 years of my contribution here there have been 335 members and senators who have left the federal parliament in that time, who have retired, resigned, passed away or been defeated. That just seems incredible to me. That is 17 per year. I think it confirms the relatively high turnover of people in this place. I wished I had known all of them. Many of them I have known, like the 22 of my own political family, the Nationals. In referring to the National Party, I have witnessed four leadership changes in my time here. I am proud to say that three of these occurred when I was the Nationals' Chief Whip and they occurred seamlessly as a result of good whip's work in getting agreement and consensus. I am proud of that contribution. To my current team of Nationals I say how much I have enjoyed our camaraderie, 'our family 'as the member for Hinkler made reference to this morning, and our team approach to tackling challenges. Warren Truss provides a safe and thorough pair of hands as a leader. I am going to miss you all but I offer you my best wishes for electoral success at the forthcoming election. There is no doubt my greatest infrastructure achievement was carrying the argument forward to procure significant funding for the Wimmera Mallee Pipeline. This is a project, now valued at close to $1 billion, entirely contained within Mallee. It has assured confidence of water supply to agriculture and the small towns throughout the Wimmera and Mallee. This effort earned me the title of 'Mr Pipeline', but it is not a title I sought. There have just been many hundreds of people have worked on its promotion throughout the electorate as well as my predecessor Peter Fisher. I remember saying at my first election, in 1993, 'Send me. I will get it piped in my term'. It gives a great deal of satisfaction now to see that pledge delivered. This was a 100-year-old unlined, open channel system, the largest stock and domestic supply system in the world, but so efficient in its use of water. Piping it was the engineers' solution. The election commentator Antony Green described my political successes as 'modest' before the 2004 election. That is probably because he uses a different yardstick for measurement than I do. I suggest that for a real measure of success he consult with the people of the farms and in the regional towns of Mallee who now rely on this pipeline for their livelihoods and lifestyle in an environment of serious climate change. There have been hundreds of other projects but time only permits me to share a few. The Calder Highway was classified as a road of national importance—duplicated now from Melbourne to Bendigo with the shoulder sealed from Bendigo to Mildura. It is a significant highway for my Sunraysia constituents and the produce that is produced up there. I pushed hard for upgrades to the Western Highway including the Sunshine Freeway and the Ararat to South Australia fatigue zone project. Millions of dollars, multi-billions of them—this highway is so important to Wimmera constituents. I was delighted to play a role in the introduction of Roads to Recovery funding direct to local government. I continue to be concerned about the constitutional validity of this funding and, whilst I am not confident that the proposed constitutional referendum on local government will succeed despite my intention to support it, whatever the outcome of the referendum I encourage the parliament to find a way to resolve this constitutional challenge. It is very much an essential source of road funding for the nine local government municipalities of Mallee, as it is for many of the other rural constituencies throughout the country. Rail funding of $20 million was achieved for the Mildura line. Originally intended for standardisation, it was eventually used as an upgrade in readiness for standardisation. It was disappointing that an opportunity to advance the cause of standardisation for Victoria by the then Labor government was not seized. So that remains an ongoing work in progress for Victoria. In my first election, Mildura only had two television channels. Most of the rest of the nation had full aggregation, as did most of Victoria. But Mildura only had two. Since then, with a lot of hard work and representation, we have seen full aggregation including SBS. In more recent times the Mildura television licence was chosen as the guinea pig for conversion of analogue to digital. Working cooperatively with the Labor government ensured a smooth switchover and ensured that residents at Ouyen, Robinvale, Underbool, Warracknabeal and Murrayville were not disadvantaged. I am quite proud of that outcome given the noise that was made in my first election in 1993. The member for Mayo, as you may remember, was a young student in those days in Mildura. Then I get to water. I thought I was making genuine, real progress on water reform when the member for Wentworth, Malcolm Turnbull, announced the National Water Initiative in January 2007. I shall remain ever grateful to him and the Howard government for recognising my call for this initiative. This was a bold 10-point plan to see national investment in irrigation infrastructure, to assemble good science to deal with water overallocation, to establish a new set of governance arrangements to do so both for surface and groundwater, and to encourage the Bureau of Meteorology to collect good science to better address the challenges of climate change. This was not just in reference to the Murray-Darling Basin but also to set out to explore future water development in northern Australia and address the restoration of the Great Artesian Basin—big nation notions, thinking like the Romans. I thought that we were there and the cornerstones of this plan was to allocate $6 billion to modernise irrigation infrastructure and a fix-the-plumbing approach, so it has always been a disappointment to lose government in 2007 and to witness the way in which the present government have used this initiative. However sincere they think they have been—and I acknowledge they believe they have been sincere in tackling the challenges of the Murray-Darling—they have changed the emphasis for which I urged. Instead of an infrastructure emphasis, a fix-the-plumbing approach in the Roman tradition, they have followed a water-purchase focus to tackle the challenges of the Murray-Darling. This has done so much damage to the confidence of my Murray River communities. I truly hope that a change in government will redirect this emphasis and use it as an initiative for which I always intended it to be—that is, a greater focus on modernising irrigation supply throughout the Murray-Darling Basin. As I have always said, there are no quick solutions to the challenges of the river system; there are only expensive ones. Whilst I am on the issue of water, can I say how disappointed I have been as to some of the nonsense that has been written in regard to my position on climate change. It is this very issue that has driven much of what I have tried to achieve in my time here. As a resident of my part of the world for most of my life, I have witnessed a steady decline in precipitation across the Wimmera Mallee over the past 60 years. In fact, in the mid-nineties I was raising the issues of precipitation decline in this parliament and I remember being ridiculed by now members of the government for arguing so. I set about trying to develop ameliorative measures to tackle the issue. Precipitation enhancement is mainstream science in the rest of the world—the USA, China, Israel and South Africa all invest heavily in this science, and ironically they use Australian equipment and technology developed through the seventies and eighties before Australia dropped the ball on the science. I encouraged Snowy Hydro to develop snow enhancement in the Snowy Mountains and was instrumental in convening an international symposium on precipitation enhancement in May 2007. It is very pleasing to see now, after years of trial, that project in the Snowy has progressed to being fully operational, delivering an estimated extra 190 gigalitres of water per year to the Murray system. The cooperation from Snowy Hydro to get to this point is much appreciated, and many thanks go to CEO Terry Charlton. The funding of the Murray-Darling Freshwater Research Centre at Mildura was similarly successful. This facility is tasked with researching the impacts of climate change and recommending responses to the subsequent issues for the river. All I have ever said on this subject is that imposing a massive cost penalty on businesses already struggling to be competitive with the rest of the world was not the best policy response to the issue. Others can waste energy arguing about whether climate change is anthropogenic in its cause. I would much rather get on with addressing it with practical measures. Most challenges confronted by this lonely planet are due to the humans that occupy it. It is obvious that we need alternatives to our unsustainable and avid dependence on fossil fuels. That is why I offered Mallee with its latitude, because it offers maximum opportunity for solar power generation. After securing $70 million in federal funding for a solar power investment before the 2007 election, I boasted my vision to make Mallee the solar power generation capital of the world, only to lose government again and be disappointed. But it is still pleasing to see that after a struggle that project has proceeded to a 1.5-megawatt installation at Carwarp near Mildura, intending to expand to 100 megawatt in the near future. Many of the issues of neighbouring regional electorates are common, and there has been a positive working relationship on committees and with coalition solidarity in finding common causes. Neighbours have included the members for Murray and Farrer. Indeed, federal funding was obtained for a new Murray River bridge at Robinvale, and it was a great day to walk that bridge at its opening with the member for Farrer. Mallee's southern neighbour has been the member for Wannon. Previously it was David Hawker for many years, and we shared the common interests of the wellbeing of the Glenelg river boundary. The water saved by piping to Wimmera Mallee has done much to enhance the wellbeing of that river. Of more recent times it has been young Dan Tehan, to whom I offer my best wishes for a successful parliamentary career. Whilst referring to younger members, I have already mentioned the member for Mayo. It was on a visit to St Joseph's College in Mildura in my first term that I met a young Jamie Briggs as a college student. Perhaps it was a result of that visit that has inspired him to a political career. I wish him well for the future. I wanted to mention him because I know his parents who are my constituents in Mildura and that they are very proud of him. On Mallee's western boundary my neighbour has been the member for Barker, Pat Secker. He has my ongoing best wishes as we now leave the parliament together. We share common interests in the wheat and horticulture associated with the Riverland and Sunraysia and when it was going to rain next, so I wish Pat all the best. Being the federal member for this part of the world has been just one of the greatest honours of my life. To my successor awaits the privilege and responsibility of continuing to ensure that those dreams, hopes and aspirations of the folks of north-west Victoria are fully realised. The Nationals have preselected young Andrew Broad, who shares the same life values system that I do, and I will be very pleased to promote him to the constituency as a worthy successor. There will be a three-cornered contest so may the best candidate win. As a homily to whoever that might be, may I offer the following advice. There will always be critics of a parliamentarian's performance, but if one looks after the electorate—something that I have tried to do and do well—and fight hard for a fair deal for constituents, word gets around and the efforts of critics have little impact. The people who have been helped will be one's staunchest voluntary defenders; I can guarantee it. There are just so many people to offer appreciation and thanks to. I wonder if you might pass on to the Speaker my encouragement to continue to enforce standing order 65(a), that members address their remarks through the Chair. I have raised this point of order to many Speakers over the years, believing that it would do much to enhance the demeanour of this House if members would stick to it. To her credit, she has been trying to do something about it. The use of that word 'you' often delivered with an accusing finger over the dispatch box is so unparliamentary it leads to rancour in the House. I remember the member for Scullin, Harry Jenkins, not taking me all that seriously once by saying that I was accusing the member for Rankin of being rancorous. Whilst I have always enjoyed Harry's quick wit and friendship, I was rather hoping to be taken more seriously. Other Speakers have mentioned the behaviour of the parliament, and I affirm that. It causes me great distress. Frankly, I am tired of trying to defend it to my many schools who visit. I leave colleagues with this message, a comment that often reminds me of my late father. He used to say, 'Son, if you are ever involved in a debate and, if all the other side have is scorn and derision, then you can sit down considering that you have won the debate.' Other Speakers commented on this. I think that it is something that the parliament needs to make a determined effort to address to return statesmanship to the chamber. I ask colleagues to reflect on my late father's comment there. To the Clerk, Bernard Wright, following a long line of capable clerks over 20 years of my time, and his whole team, my appreciation is due. Your courtesy, good humour and advice are much valued. Thank you, and special thanks to all of your team. I will not name them, but they will know who they are and they are much appreciated. To the attendants around the building, to Comcar drivers for their long-suffering when waiting in the night, to Greg Zakharoff and his team in the transport office for their early-morning good humour when ordering a vehicle. To Peter Rose, the parliamentary chaplain, in addition to the member for Hinkler's remarks I offer my gratitude for what always seemed his timely visits to my office when I was confronted with some crisis back at home. I wonder how he actually did that, but it always seemed to coincide. For his efforts to support the activities of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship, thank you, Peter, for helping me stick with the conviction that it is He who is the centre of the Christian expression of faith who is the best example and inspiration to follow in public life. I should mention the member for Macmillan who providence enabled me to have located opposite my office in the corridor. For good-natured exchanges and convivial conversation in the late nights in this place, thank you to Russell Broadbent and his staff, Jenny and Prue, for their many courtesies. To the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, I offer my sincerest best wishes for the coming election. May I express my heart of hearts that Warren Truss and Tony Abbott in strong coalition will succeed in their efforts to secure the confidence of the Australian people. The nation is due a government of strong fiscal discipline—currently lacking. That is evident, and I am sure that Australians are starting to be very concerned. It is not scaremongering; it is about addressing a very serious issue of fiscal responsibility. I leave the ace till last, but certainly not least, to thank. Colleagues, the most precious resource you can have in this role is a life partner to share your highs and lows, someone to keep the castle well-resourced for you to retreat to when it all gets a bit too tough. I have been blessed to have such a person in my wife, Pam, and confess my awe as to her achievements. I could not have done it without you, precious, thank you. To our two daughters, Tanya and Anik, now getting on with their lives despite the legacy of a too-often absent father, to Pam belongs all the credit for that, thank you. To so many I offer my appreciation and thanks. I conclude my remarks where I started with this valedictory—that is, to suggest that however naive it might be to suggest that perhaps I may have made some small contribution to the notion that the expected so-called 'mould' of members of parliament needs some very serious reconsideration, there is room for the authority of humility and the power of the quiet achiever. Colleagues, God bless you all. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 From the chair I acknowledge the member for Mallee, his great contribution to this place and the way he has worked with so many of us. As he said, the very quiet achievements he has achieved during his term probably have not been widely acknowledged. I do wish him and his family well into the future wherever that may take him. COMMITTEES 6694 COMMITTEES Broadcasting Legislation Committee 6694 Report 6694 16:37 Mr MURPHY 83D Reid From this side of the House and on indulgence, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Mallee on his valedictory speech. I know that I can sincerely say that the member for Mallee is a much loved and widely respected member of this chamber and I congratulate, you, Member for Mallee, on your service to your electorate and your service to this chamber. I have had the great privilege and honour of working with you on committees and I also congratulate you on your service to this nation. I hope that you and Pam in your future endeavours succeed in everything that you set out to do and, when you finally depart public life, may you and Pam have a long, happy and healthy retirement. Well done. On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Broadcasting Legislation, I present the committee's report incorporating dissenting reports entitled Three broadcasting reform proposals. In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper. Mr MURPHY 83D by leave—The parliament established the committee at the same time as the government released its broadcasting legislation reforms in March of this year. The government's package of bills was in response to two thorough high-profile reviews—the convergence review into the policy and regulatory frameworks around converging media and communications; and the Finkelstein review into codes of practice, convergence and the production of quality news. The committee's terms of reference centred on three potential policy changes that the government considered could also be implemented: abolishing the 75 per cent audience reach rule for television; providing that a program supply agreement alone could indicate control of a broadcaster; and giving the Australian Communications and Media Authority the power to require on air reporting of its findings. The committee held a public hearing into the first term of reference on Monday, 18 March 2013 here in Canberra. It received submissions on all three terms of reference from 13 organisations. The committee supports the first policy proposal, because the reach rule is becoming redundant with the advent of the internet and converging media; however, there was concern at the hearing whether local regional news would continue if the reach rule were abolished. Therefore the committee's support for the proposal is based on two conditions: there should be legislation or legally enforceable undertakings to support local content in regional Australia; and there should also be a clear definition of local content to ensure that regional viewers have access to appropriate levels of high-quality, locally devised and locally presented programming. The committee does not support the second proposal. There was no support for it during the inquiry; however, it may be appropriate to revisit this issue at a later date, especially given that governments and the parliament regularly review and change broadcasting policy. The committee supports giving the Australian Communications and Media Authority the power to require on-air corrections, clarifications and directions based on its findings. The authority demonstrated to the committee that there is a gap in the sanctions it can impose on broadcasters. Industry expressed a range of concerns during the inquiry about on-air reporting of regulatory findings; however, these issues can be addressed and doing so will ensure that the measure will be fair on broadcasters. Finally, on behalf of the chair, I thank the organisations that assisted the committee during the inquiry through submissions and participating at the hearing. I also thank my colleagues on the committee for their contribution to the inquiry and the report. I thank the House. BILLS 6695 BILLS Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013 6695

Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013

Second Reading 6695 16:43 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I am pleased to be able to continue my remarks on the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013. Before the debate was adjourned on Thursday, I was speaking about the general context of this legislation, in particular, suspicion in the community and in this parliament that the legislation is being constructed by the minister and the government for two reasons only: the first as an attempt to seek to divide Australians on the basis of place of birth for some sort of perceived political advantage; and, second, as an attempt to distract from their real policy failure—the decision to weaken Australia's border protection laws. Over the past weeks the evidence that these suspicions are correct has proved compelling, so much so that the Australian Financial Review has concluded in its editorial this morning under the heading 'Populist policies an embarrassment' that: The federal government has yet again been caught out using hyperbole to position the 457 visa scheme as a core issue in the populist politics that dominate its agenda. Freedom of Information documents obtained by The Australian Financial Review have revealed that Immigration Minister Brendan O'Connor had no evidence from his department to back his claim in late April that there had been "10,000 rorts" of 457 visas as he sought to justify a government crackdown on the scheme. Mr O'Connor's error is an embarrassment to a government that will today attempt to force changes to the scheme through Parliament in a last ditch attempt to find issues it thinks will appeal to voters who are likely to desert it at the September 14 election. Its continued pitch to protectionist elements within the labour movement runs contrary to all objective evidence suggesting the 457 scheme is as a modest and controlled system for allowing guest workers to supplement the workforce. If the government can provide no justification for changes to this visa then there is not a basis for this legislation. The 457 is a temporary visa designed to fill temporary skills shortages in the short term. It can be held for a maximum of four years by the visa holder. The role of the government should be to analyse the figures, find out where the skills shortages are and provide Australians with the opportunity to gain the skills to fill these in-demand occupations. That is where the focus of this government needs to be. The government's cuts to higher education in the budget certainly do not assist with this goal. A point that needs to be remembered is that it is a temporary visa only and the statistics show that it is working as intended. In 2012-13, Western Australia recorded 21.1 per cent of lodgement applications by location. This 6.4 per cent decrease on the number from the previous year demonstrates the flexibility of the current system and perhaps indicates a slowdown in the boom that many commentators, including the former resources minister, have been discussing. For members interested, the top nominated industry for application in Western Australia in the last year was mechanical engineering technician. There was a notable 51 per cent decrease in geologist 457 applications in Western Australia, however. The point to make here is that the 457 visa seems to be flexibly responding to the market conditions and doing exactly what it is supposed to do, and there would seem to be no need or justification to change that status quo. I note that on 21 March 2012 the then immigration minister, Chris Bowen, stated: 'The statistics clearly show that the 457 visa program is working extremely well for Western Australia.' Referring to a young kid sitting at home in Kwinana, the Prime Minister said: I believe we’ve got the visa settings right particularly with short term 457 visas. On this basis, it was a surprise to many when straight after the third Rudd-Gillard leadership crisis in March, which precipitated the resignation of Minister Bowen, the new immigration minister, Brendan O'Connor, backed by the Prime Minister, starting putting about some divisive rhetoric on 457 visas—and I will speak about that divisive rhetoric. I was in my electorate on the weekend and met Mick from Atlanta, Georgia. He was originally from India but came through the USA and he is over in Western Australia doing a job for a company. No-one in Australia was available to do that work, so he was brought in from the USA on a 457 visa. He says that he now feels like he is the pariah in the system because of this legislation. He said that, because of this legislation, he feels as though he cannot tell anyone that he is on a 457 visa as he feels as though he is stealing other people's jobs. He asked me to please pass on a message to the government: 'I'm not here stealing anyone's jobs; I'm here because no-one else can do this job.' He said, 'I've been trained in the US to do it and that's why I'm here.' The government started talking about rorts in the system and, under pressure to provide some sort of justification, the immigration announced 10,000 cases of abuse in the system. In trying to justify these comments on the program in March, Minister O'Connor referred in the House to a Department of Immigration and Citizenship document on strengthening the integrity of the 457 program, provided to his Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration earlier this year. However, when the coalition managed to obtain a copy of the document under freedom of information, we found that the document did not suggest any widespread rorting or concerns with the program, but rather put forward a number of sensible housekeeping measures to improve program integrity. Subsequently, it was revealed in the Financial Review that the minister's personal office admitted within two hours that it had no evidence to back up Minister O'Connor's claim of 10,000 rorts; however, the pretence has been kept up ever since—culminating in this legislation today. The bill intends to amend the Migration Act to reinforce the obligations of employer sponsors of 457 visas; require prescribed classes of sponsors to undertake labour market testing for Australian workers prior to recruiting from overseas using the 457 program; require evidence of that labour market testing and provide for exemptions from labour market testing in some circumstances; enshrine the kinds of sponsorship obligations that the minister must ensure are prescribed in regulations; empower Fair Work inspectors under the Migration Act, including their access to employer premises, for the purposes of the act; provide for inspectors to determine whether an employer has contravened a civil penalty provision or other employer sanction provision; and extend the period that an employee can seek new sponsored employment from 28 days to 90 days. I understand feedback from the Migration Council of Australia and a number of industry groups to these changes has been universally negative towards the new labour market testing requirements in particular. It does seem that this is a major area of concern associated with this bill. The people I employed from overseas never came on a 457 visa. They were from New Zealand, but we were required to employ them initially back in the eighties because there was a shortage of skilled refrigeration mechanics. I am sure the intent of most companies in Australia is to provide jobs to Australians before having to employ overseas people on 457 visas. So I do not support this bill. 16:51 Dr STONE EM6 Murray The Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013 is about a very serious matter, and that is the capacity of the country to bring in skilled workers when we cannot find those people in Australia, where we do not have the particular skills or skilled Australians are not prepared to move to parts of the country where the jobs are going begging. This is particularly the case in rural and regional Australia. I have to say that, without access to temporary sponsored visas—which we colloquially call 457 visas—the food manufacturing and processing industry in northern Victoria would have suffered very significantly from lack of human capacity. Northern Victoria is an ideal place for conducting the business of raising pigs. Huge piggeries which are very scientifically advanced are to be found in places like Yarrawalla and on the Patho Plains. These are very sparsely populated areas. They are flat and they have access to good quality water, but they are a long way from any capital city. In fact they are a long way from major country towns. So when we try to employ qualified piggery managers or operatives, ideally with some veterinary background and experience, the owners and managers of these piggeries have drawn a blank. They have not been able to attract skilled workers to come and work in these piggeries. One enterprise I would like to refer to is at Yarrawalla, which is about three or four hours from Melbourne and about another hour or so from a major centre. They now have a skilled workforce who have been attracted by the use of the 457 visas—these people have come from the Philippines, where many of them had in fact been trained as veterinarians. I had the great pleasure of conferring citizenship upon the three families of these skilled workers in this local piggery this Australia Day. These younger family members now attend local schools. The schools were in decline in terms of their population numbers. As a result of these families now filling up the desks in small schools in places like Pyramid Hill, we have revitalised the communities themselves. So, as a consequence of being able to access the skilled workforce, in this case from the Philippines, to work in these enormous piggeries, some of the biggest in Australia, and benchmarked as world's best practice, we have also revitalised our communities and managed to have new citizens who can be given all the opportunities that our country has—with their young children now attending our local schools. We also have had numbers of 457 skilled workers taking up the important and significant work in our abattoirs in places like Tongala. Again, the local managers and owners of these abattoirs would be more than happy to engage local people, to employ local people, without going through the hassle of the application process for a person via a 457 visa. But unfortunately when they put out applications for workers in the abattoirs—these are skilled workers, people who can also take up a management position—they draw a blank. They do not get applicants for these positions. At the Tongala abattoir, run by Greenhams, a very successful, 100 per cent export abattoir that sends ground beef to the USA, they are now dependent on international backpackers for their workforce, given it has been made that much harder for them to attract skilled 457 visa holders. That abattoir is a major employer in its own right and it is of critical importance to the dairy industry, since it processes cattle that are no longer required to produce milk. We have dairy operations in Kyabram in my area—again, some of these dairies are among the biggest milk producers in Australia. They employ 457 visa holders—again many of them from the Philippines—who are prepared to work long hours, the back-to-back shifts, in a dairy operation where there are thousands of cows milked over a 24-hour period, seven days a week. The suggestion guiding this legislation or what has prompted this legislation, we are told, is major rorting of the whole business of temporary sponsored visas in Australia. As the previous speaker said, when we asked for the evidence of this 'massive rorting'—apparently 10,000 rorts Minister O'Connor proclaimed in this place—none was forthcoming. An FOI inquiry could not give us any documentation or information that backed up the allegation that the 457 visa system was corruptly used and, to use the old-fashioned term, was simply being rorted. There is no evidence of systematic or widespread rorting of the system. In fact it is a brilliant scheme. I was particularly pleased when I was the shadow minister for immigration to track a lot of the sponsored visa holders, including Chinese workers who were making sure that abattoirs could still be operated along the Murray River. I tracked all of the state government employed 457 visa holders, who backfill the long-term vacancies in allied health positions through much of regional Australia and also in metropolitan Australia. It is ironic that some of the biggest employers of 457 visa holders in the country are state governments. I was shocked, I have to say, and I suspect my colleagues were equally amazed, to hear that the Prime Minister herself has even had to find a temporary sponsored visa holder to fill a media position in her office. I am not suggesting she rorted the system in finding that person. I am not suggesting that person is replacing somebody else. He undoubtedly has a unique set of employment characteristics that brought him to that position. This is not evidence of rorting the program. What I worry about is that again it is the dead hand of the unions getting engaged in a program where people who come do not typically end up joining a union; they simply go to work with the sponsor and they simply fill a position which has not been able to be filled by an Australian worker. We are told that this new legislation will require evidence of labour market testing to accompany an application for nomination. Does this government seriously think that employers do not first look around in an informal way and see if there is an applicant who is nearby or who can be lured after fairly careful efforts in recruitment? Does this government seriously think that employers turn first to a 457 visa holder, given the paperwork involved and given the costs involved in establishing a new temporary skilled visa holder in the workplace? Of course it is nonsense to suggest that the local market is not now tested by someone contemplating as a last resort having to go offshore to find themselves a temporary sponsored visa holder. That is not the case. And then we are told that there will be exemptions from the labour market testing regime in circumstances where there has been a 'major disaster' or where the skill level of the nominated occupation is equivalent to skill level 1 or skill level 2 as provided for in the Australian And New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations or ANZSCO. So we already have exemptions to all of this. Again there was an implication, I have to say, from the minister when he talked about the rorting, that a lot of these 457 visa holders were somehow being paid less than the equivalent locally employed person in the same industry in a similar job. Again, the evidence is to the contrary. When you are desperate to have someone give you the skilled work that you need to keep your enterprise going, when you perhaps look forward to a transfer of their skills or technology to further enhance your own domestically recruited workforce, you certainly do not lure them paying them less. You typically find that the 457 visa holder in my part of Australian is paid equivalent to or more than a locally engaged staff member. I have to say that in the case of my 457 visa sponsors they typically also find accommodation for the person, they ensure that families are properly accommodated and are quickly integrated into the community, because they are very concerned that their efforts in attracting the 457 visa holder do not lead to a very short-term relationship. They want that new skilled worker to stay. When the coalition was in government, the Australian expectation was that a lot of these skilled workers would in fact become Australian citizens and there was a rate of about 30 or 40 per cent conversions when we were in government to people taking up permanent residency and citizenship. I would hope that number has grown since that time. So this Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill is based on a fallacy. The fallacy is that there is widespread rorting and abuse of a system which has skilled workers coming in to fill positions that cannot be filled in Australia. I now have in my area of northern Victoria numbers of employers who are in despair because they were able to access these sponsored visas in the past and now the red tape, the go-slows, the innuendos about their motives are such that they are finding that they cannot access the temporary sponsored visa regime at all. So what do they do? They cannot get local workers to step up and do the tasks. We are an area of declining population and we have a brain drain in our part of the world where people who are more technically qualified tend to leave the area and go to metropolitan alternative places to live and work. We have had an experience of the most superb workers coming and becoming enmeshed in our communities under this 457 visa scheme. I have to restate that in meddling with this scheme it appears to me to be nothing more than the dead hand of the unions trying to take control of a workforce with no regard to the needs of the employer, with no regard to the needs of the actual industry itself. There seems to be no perception or conception of the difficulties in rural Australia in attracting a skilled and qualified workforce. I think that is a huge shame. The fact that half of these amendments to the bill are to do with inspectors, enforceable undertakings with the minister, looking at special civil penalty provisions for those who have committed an offence against the relevant provisions—the whole thing sounds like the earlier era of some fascist regime. I think it is a shame. I with the coalition oppose this business. I hope that common sense will prevail or it will be just another piece of legislation we have to make sure does work when, if the Australian public sees fit, we return to office after 14 September. Finally, let me stress that this is an excellent government run skilled migration program which uses temporary sponsored visas. We have provisions in the regulations to ensure that people who come have an adequate English-language facility. We have within this set of migration regulations already adequate safeguards should there be a rare moment of someone trying to exploit the system. There are rules about wages that have to be paid. This was a well-managed system but, sadly, it has been destroyed under this government. If there is an abuse of the system now, let me say that it is by this government trying to insert into the workforce of Australia a whole lot of additional regulations which will simply make it harder for our manufacturing sector and our service sector, our health services sector, and will make them even more despairing of how they going to sustain and retain an adequate workforce. I have to hope for the sake of my piggeries, my abattoirs, my dairy operations, my hospitals, all the allied health professionals who come out here on a 457 visa; I have to say to them, 'Just hang on and we will do our best to make sure that the system is not destroyed as we wait for the next election.' 17:05 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I am quite staggered at the previous speaker. What an extraordinary contribution. I have heard her in this place on a number of occasions say she has 200 empty shops in Shepparton. If we allocate two jobs per shop, which is pretty moderate, that is 400 jobs gone in Shepparton. SPC said there would be a 500 jobs gone as a result of the cutbacks there. So that is 900 people in your town who have lost their jobs, yet you say we should be bringing people in from overseas to man the jobs in your electorate. That is what you said. You also made reference to a brain drain from your areas. Everyone left behind is brainless, are they? What an extraordinary contribution. We are desperately short of jobs in country Australia and this member is advocating that we bring people in from overseas to take what jobs we have got left there. Extraordinary. It never ceases to amaze me. Dr Stone interjecting— Mr KATTER HX4 The member in her Murray electorate has 7.1 per cent unemployment. I would think that means thousands of people without any employment in the electorate, and she is advocating that we bring people in from overseas to take what few jobs are there. What an extraordinary contribution. People come in here and they do not think at all or have absolutely no communion with ordinary people. Another extraordinary part of the member for Murray's contribution was that she was condemning the ALP. They brought in 125,000 people, whereas her mob brought in only 38,000 people. She should have been congratulating them. I am condemning the ALP for bringing in 125,000 people; she should be praising them. The implication of the Liberal speakers in this debate is that Australians are lazy and useless. The member for Murray also added that we had a brain drain, so we need these people to come in. So we are also stupid. That was a most extraordinary contribution. Why in the year of our Lord2013 do we suddenly need to bring in 100,000 migrant workers—section 457 workers—a year? About 200,000 migrants are actually coming in as well. So there are 300,000 people coming into Australia each year. I do not know how many jobs we have in Australia, but I know that we have lost 1,500 in my hometown of Charters Towers. When we were desperately waiting for the jobs to come down from the opening up of the giant coalfields called the Galilee Basin, which will double Australia's coal reserves, we suddenly found out that all of the big developers involved in it were announcing that they were going to bring their workers in from overseas. Who was facilitating it? Not the Liberals, but the Labor Party. Then the Labor Party wonders why they are on 29 per cent of the vote. Do you think all the people out there are stupid, do you? You bring 125,000 workers in here for one reason: to undermine our pay and conditions. When I walk out that door there I look with great pride at the picture of Charlie McDonald, the first member for Kennedy. I have copies of six of his first seven speeches to this place. Men literally died. Three were shot dead at the picket line at Dagworth Station and Waltzing Matilda was written two weeks later. The entire executive of the AWU was thrown in jail for three years with hard labour because they went on strike. When we fought and won our pay and conditions, one in 31 were going down the mine and dying. What did they do? They brought people from supercheap countries overseas to come in and take our jobs in the mines. Then they brought people in from supercheap countries to cut the cane in our canefields. We fought and died for the pay and conditions and then we got nothing out of it. Is it any surprise that about 100 years ago, the member for Kennedy—God bless him, his picture is out there—in six of his first seven speeches tried to protect the pay and conditions which they had fought and died for? But they have been sold out by the Labor Party. God help this country if the Liberals get in. They will bring in 400,000 workers a year. If they are praising the Labor Party for bringing in 125,000 workers, clearly they will bring in a hell of a lot more than that. They say these workers are going to go back overseas. I have not noticed any in my electorate going back overseas. They are put in pretty permanent digs here. I think we are all human in this place and we do not like to throw people out of the country— An honourable member interjecting— Mr KATTER HX4 I would have to go along with the interjection—it is probably a bit of an exaggeration with respect to some people in this place. I do not notice these workers going home, but I do notice them bringing in their families. Even if you are bringing in only 300,000 a year, 200,000 migrants are now coming into the country every year. If you add those figures up over 10 years and the fact they are bringing in their families, what will be left for existing Australians? Where are we going to get jobs? When a 457 worker is brought in, the employer holds the deportation order. He can send them back any time he likes. So he has much more than a master-servant relationship. If anyone says, 'They're not being brought in on account of pay and conditions; they are all paying award wages,' why are they bringing them in? Out of 1.3 million people seeking full-time employment in Australia we cannot find anyone to man the mines in the electorate of a member for Western Australia, who allowed 1,700 workers in because poor Gina could not find any workers for her mine in Western Australia. It is funny: Andrew Forrest could find them. I am told that he found almost 2,000. He trained up our First Australians. A lot of them do not speak English really well and a lot of them cannot read or write but, over a long period, he trained them and made them into very worthwhile employees. He still has 400 or 500 working in his mines today over in Western Australia. He can find them. But the member representing Fremantle and Rockingham has 25 per cent unemployment in his electorate, yet he is saying that we have to fly 1,700 people in from overseas to man the mines in his area. I am a person who believes in the power of the streets, the power of the ordinary people whom you run into when you walk down the street in your town. In my first speech in this place I said, with some anger and rage, 'Ask yourself the question: how many times have you walked down the street in your town and just listened to people—not talked to them but listened?' That day, after this big mining magnate in Western Australia made the statement: 'We have 1,700 workers to be flown in,' so they could work for, I would suspect, a lot less than she would get Australians working for—and my parliamentary Chief of Staff was with me—I said, 'We're going to record everyone we run into today who can't get a job.' That afternoon, in a little country town, we ran into nine people and the next morning we ran into nine people who had been seeking work for over a year. One of them came over to me and was almost in tears. He was selling his motorbike. He had been trying for over a year to get a start in the mines. He was a qualified tradesman and, as far as I was concerned, a decent bloke. A week later, I was in the RSL in Townsville and nine young blokes—very decent style young blokes—all soldiers, all of them qualified tradesmen, had been applying for over six months to get a start in the mines, and they could not get a start in the mines. The last speaker was crying about her farmers—probably a quarter of the farms in Queensland would be foreclosed on now if it was not for the jobs that we got in the mines. There would hardly be a family that did not have someone working in the mines in Queensland. Those properties are only allowed to survive because we have our sons and daughters working in the mines and, in many cases, the farmers themselves working in the mines. One of my very good friends, one of the Fish family, had to go away from his property for two years, working in very courageous circumstances in the mines to try and keep body and soul together. He came out and survived the crash at the time in the market and a drought that he was having. It was only those jobs in the mines that enabled us to survive. As the last speaker said, some of her farmers have people working for them. I do not condemn them. Heaven only knows how they are making ends meet, but it would be worthwhile if the people in the opposition and the people in the government spent their time trying to give the farmers a fair go instead of forcing them to get people from overseas to work on their farms. I am not going to go over today. We are not talking about the value of the dollar, which the Liberal Party doubled from 52c to over 90c. That drove all of our farmers in Australia into penury and closed stacks of mines in Australia, including mines in my own electorate. The other thing that intrigues me is why we came to this conclusion in the year 2010. We never had to bring any section 457 workers in before that date. Why did we suddenly have to bring in 100,000 year? What went on? I suspect it is a very interesting story. I suspect that some people got in the ears of the government and I can tell you they were not trade union leaders as the last member of parliament asserted. I can assure you they are not. But some people got in the ears of the ALP government. They already control the mob on this side—they are all puppets on a string. This mob over here who profess to look after the workers of Australia—shame upon them! That great party was founded on the principle that we do not fly in workers from overseas to take our jobs off us as Australians. There are a few people who need a bit of a kick in the backside and a bit of a cattle prod to go and do some work. That might be true and that was the fault of the free marketeers in this place who separated the function of writing the dole cheques from the function of allocating the jobs. They were separated under the free market policies—I cannot remember whether it was Keating or Costello, but one of them. Once those jobs were separated, there was no way you could compel anyone to work because they could continue on the dole indefinitely. The mechanisms for stopping the dole were completely destroyed. The people involved in the job allocations have made an awful lot of money. I do not begrudge it to them. Good luck to them if they see the opportunity to make money. I do not begrudge it to the people who are getting 457 workers, particularly people like farmers. Who can begrudge it to them? What else are they expected to do? We have a parliament that sits aside, and we are on a policy now of bringing in 20 million people over the next 10 or 15 years. Twenty million people are being brought into this country. Have we got enough expansion in jobs? Have we got enough money to pay our welfare? Have we got all these things so that we can afford to bring people in from overseas? Can we do that as a nation? Have you spoken to a person on the pension in the last few weeks? I have, and they are doing it damn tough. Yet you are bringing these 457 workers in to take those jobs worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Remember that all of our mining companies were flogged off to foreigners. The six mining companies that account for 85 per cent of our production were all Australian owned 16 years ago. Thanks to the Liberal Party, the National Party and the ALP, all of the six of them are gone. They all foreign owned. If we are not getting the wages—they go into the pockets of fly-in foreign workers—and if the profits are going into the pockets of foreign owners of the mines, what the hell do we Australians get out of the mining industry? A big hole in the ground: that is what we get! (Time expired) 17:20 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013. This is another piece of legislation which must be condemned by this parliament. This bill has all the hallmarks of policy failings that this government is renowned for. It is a bill which is essentially seeking a headline rather than delivering good public policy for our nation. It is a bill which has been drafted without any facts to support its intent. It is a bill that seeks to distract Australians from the government's failed border protection policies. Before I address some of the specifics of the bill, I think we need to reflect for a moment on the context in which this immigration bill is being presented to the parliament. When federal Labor was elected to government in 2007, there were just four people in detention. Under John Howard's leadership, the federal coalition government had successfully implemented a border protection policy which had essentially stopped the boats—a policy based on temporary protection visas, the Pacific solution and turning boats around, where safe to do so. It was so successful that federal Labor endorsed the coalition's border protection policy in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election. But, as we now know, this election commitment would become just another broken promise. It started in 2008 when the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, changed the rules and relaxed the processing procedures for those who arrived illegally by boat. The abolition of the Howard government's border protection policy sent a very clear message to people smugglers, and the message was that Australia was once again open for business to people smuggling or, at the very least, to those who could afford to pay the people smugglers for their passage to Australia. Just over five years later, all Australians are paying a very big price for a policy which Mr Rudd created and Prime Minister Gillard has exacerbated. Since 2008 we have seen more than 700 boats arrive illegally on our shores. They have transported more than 44,200 illegal arrivals and the cost to the taxpayer has now topped $10 billion. These facts are very relevant to the bill we are debating today because all members would be very well aware how angry hardworking ordinary Australians are about this policy failing. It is this anger which the government is attempting to appease. It is the attention to this issue which the government hopes to distract with this legislation. But the reality is the government cannot hide behind the facts. They failed with the East Timor solution, when Prime Minister Gillard did not even consult the East Timorese government. No-one was therefore surprised when it fell over. The Prime Minister then proposed the Malaysia solution, but Malaysia was not a signatory to the UNHCR refugee convention. Hence, another ill-conceived thought bubble never saw the light of day and was never brought before this parliament for a vote. And as the government struggled through a botched policy process the boats kept coming, the number of illegal arrivals exploded— The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! The member might like to refer his remarks to the bill before the House. Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM I am. This is very relevant to the bill. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 The member is not referring to the bill. Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM It is very relevant to the bill before the House, Deputy Speaker. I am putting the bill in context; it is very relevant. We had the number of arrivals exploding, which brings us to where we are today: a desperate attempt to create a distraction. The government has confected an issue alleging systematic abuse of 457 visas. That is despite the government's own advisers saying there is no evidence of the widespread rorting of the 457 migration program. While it is true that under this Labor government the number of 457 skilled migration visas issued has grown to their highest level, the government has failed to demonstrate that this has occurred because Australian employers are employing skilled workers from overseas in preference to Australian workers. Indeed, it is clear that the majority of Australian businesses prefer employing Australians who have the skills rather than employing skilled people from overseas, but the reality is that many businesses cannot find someone with the skills and experience they are seeking. Given such a circumstance, one would have thought the government would have welcomed a situation where businesses which cannot find Australians with the skills to fill a vacant position would employ an overseas worker through the 457 visa program. The 457 visa recipient would earn wages, pay their bills, pay taxes, cover the cost of things such as health care—they would be contributing to our nation's productivity and delivering a skill which would otherwise not be available. In most other progressive democracies this would be viewed as a good thing, but not in Australia under this government. This government would prefer to support illegal boat arrivals. It is ludicrous that this situation would exist in Australia, but we should not be surprised by this government's approach to those who wish to contribute to our nation's wealth and we should not be surprised by this government's attempt to demonise Australian businesses. What is happening here is that uncertainty for business is being created, business confidence is being undermined and we are putting a brake on growth. It is of great concern. The 457 migration program plays an important role in securing short- and long-term skilled migrants that Australia has always needed and will need into the future, and we need certainty. In my electorate there is a dependence on 457 visas. Over the past decade we have seen an explosion in the blueberry industry on the Coffs Coast. We have seen double-digit growth in blueberry production and this has been delivered through two major business models. Costa Berries, or Blueberry Farms of Australia, as many know them, is a massive operation which employs more than 2,000 people over a 12-month period. They produce premium blueberry product which generates tens of millions of dollars in wages and the cost of production, but their work is very labour intensive. Peter McPherson of Blueberry Farms has advised me of the difficulties of recruiting highly skilled labour in the field of horticulture. The business is reliant on the use of 457 visas and it brings workers in from countries such as Mexico and Chile. Why does the government want to impose more red tape on this business? Why is the government so keen to drive up the cost for this important industry? Also on the Coffs Coast is a group of around 70 farmers who independently grow blueberries. Many of these farmers are members of the Indian community, which is heavily involved in the local community, particularly in the area of Woolgoolga. These farmers have got together and built a processing facility and they call their venture Oz Berries. The ongoing expansion of Oz Berries is one of the true industry success stories on the Coffs Coast. The processing facility was established in 2006 with the support of a $233,000 grant from the Howard government. From day one it has been a challenge to cope with the growth within this industry. Stage 1 was complete, then they leased a neighbouring building, and only last year installed a new packing machine to improve the service provided to local farmers. The exponential growth of the blueberry industry has been great for farmers and a real boost to the local economy. Today Oz Berries employs more than 60 people and turns over more than $27 million each year. The 70 farmers employ hundreds of additional people on their properties. Both Oz Berries and Costa Berries are vital to our local economy and they both need to use 457 visas in order to get the skills and the labour that they need. I would like to address some of the specifics of the legislation in the time I have left. The bill will do a number of things. It will be amending the Migration Act to reinforce the obligations of sponsors of 457 visas. It will require prescribed classes of sponsors to undertake labour market testing for Australian workers prior to recruiting from overseas using the 457 visa program. It will require evidence of that labour market testing and provide for exemptions from labour market testing in some circumstances. It will enshrine the kinds of sponsorship obligations that the minister must ensure are prescribed in regulations. It will empower Fair Work inspectors under the Migration Act, including their access to employer premises for the purpose of the act. It will provide for inspectors to determine whether an employer has contravened a civil penalty provision or other employment sanctioned provision. And it will extend the period that an employee can seek new sponsored employment from 28 days to 90 days. So here we go again: the heavy hand of a federal government is effectively going to make the 457 application process not worth the effort of applying. The whole intention of the 457 visa system is to provide a quick solution—and I stress 'quick solution'—to the fluctuations in demand for skilled and semiskilled workers where such demand cannot be met by the Australian workforce. But this government wants to make it so difficult that business will throw its arms up in the air and say it is all just too hard. Not only is this legislation wrong; it also represents another broken promise from this government. I remind members opposite of some of the comments made by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and other members of the Labor government. I will start with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said in a doorstop interview in Beijing on 27 April 2011: So I’ve got a very clear focus on lifting labour force participation by Australians and lifting skills—so a young kid sitting at home in Kwinana without a job and without any hope can get the skills he or she needs to get that opportunity in the northwest of our country. Now even with increased labour force participation and increased skills we will need skilled migration. I believe we’ve got the visa settings right particularly with short term 457 visas. 'I believe we've got the visa settings right' were the Prime Minister's words. It cannot get any clearer than that. The Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer, Wayne Swan, had an interview with Chris Uhlmann on 7.30 on 20 April 2007. Uhlmann asked: You've been talking a lot about workforce participation recently, but do you still need to lift the skilled migration intake? The Treasurer said: Well certainly what we do need to do is to respond to the needs of our economy, and we have done a lot domestically in terms of training skilled labour. We will have to do more and we'll also have to do as much as we possibly can to lift domestic labour force participation. And the Prime Minister has made that very clear. I think you would be aware that in terms of temporary skilled labour, the 457 program is not capped, so business does have the opportunity to bring in more skilled migrants, should they require them, for particular projects. So both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have been spruiking their support for the 457 visa program, but now, because of the asylum seeker debacle, they have decided to target skilled migration. The coalition believe there should be a crackdown on any rorting of the 457 visa system but it is incumbent on the government in the first instance to produce the evidence that demonstrates that there is a problem. As we debate this legislation today this government has been unable—and I stress 'unable'—to table any evidence. As a result, the coalition will not support this bill and we will seek to refer it to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. We will oppose this legislation and call on members opposite not to let this government further undermine the productive capacity of our nation. This is government by the unions for the unions. You would imagine that the government would have learnt by now that bad policy is bad politics. This is another example of bad government policy foisted upon this country because the government needs a political distraction. We will oppose this legislation. It is bad legislation: it is bad for business and it is bad for our nation. 17:33 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013. On what is now possibly the fourth last day of this 43rd Parliament the government is attempting to ram through this migration legislation, a contrived solution from this Labor government to a nonexistent problem. The coalition has serious concerns with this bill because it adds to the burden of regulation, obligations, compliance and enforcement on employer sponsors using the 457 visa program. This bill is the culmination of a union and government campaign to discredit the program and demonise foreign workers for political gain. The 457 visa was introduced in 1996 and is the dominant component of Australia's temporary skilled migration program. In general, this visa allows a business to sponsor and employ someone from outside Australia in a skilled job. People holding this visa can work in Australia for up to four years, bring their family with them and travel in and out of Australia as often as they want. They pay their own way, including health care, and they do not access welfare. People holding this visa can work in Australia for up to four years, bring their family with them, and travel in and out of Australia as often as they want. They pay their own way, including healthcare, and they do not access welfare. Fundamentally, the program is designed to provide a quick response to fluctuations in demand for skilled and semi-skilled workers where such demand cannot be met by the Australian workforce. Therefore, temporary skilled migration is vital to the efficient operation of the labour market, delivering significant benefits to the Australian economy. Since its introduction the 457 visa program has grown in use and proven to be highly effective in meeting skill gaps in a number of industries for large resource or infrastructure projects. Approximately 70 per cent of 457 visa holders are in professional or managerial occupations, while 30 per cent are in trade, technical and clerical positions. According to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship's Subclass 457: summary reportfor 2012-13, as at 13 April 2013 there were 108,810 primary 457 visa holders in Australia. This figure is up by 20 per cent on April 2012. This represents less than one per cent of Australia's workforce. I strongly welcome the contribution of migrants to this country. On this point I note that the 457 program is not about what country people happen to come from but rather about what skills they can offer and what they can contribute to Australia. In 2012-13 some 21.1 per cent of applications granted were for citizens of India, 19.6 per cent from the United Kingdom and 8.3 per cent from the Republic of Ireland, while many countries from Asia, including the Philippines, China, South Korea, Japan, Nepal and Malaysia make up a significant component of 457 workers. These figures reflect the fact that Australia is a very attractive place to come to work and that people from all across the world want to contribute to the Australian economy and to Australian society. The bill amends conditions in four areas: first, it introduces new labour-market testing; second, it amends rules relating to sponsor obligations and undertakings; third, it establishes powers of authorised inspectors; and, last, it extends the period during which a 457 worker can find new sponsored employment. The most concerning aspect of this bill relates to the reintroduction of labour-market testing. At present, skills shortages are based on inclusion of an occupation on the Consolidated Skilled Occupation List, CSOL, which is updated annually by DIAC, drawing on advice from Skills Australia. These changes will require employers to provide evidence of labour-market testing, including information about their efforts to recruit Australian workers, relevant labour-market research trends, expressions of support from relevant Commonwealth or state authorities and any other evidence determined to be relevant. The actual period of labour-market testing required is not clear in this bill but will likely be variable, depending on the occupation. These changes represent a significant regulatory impost on employer-sponsors. However, the Labor government has neglected to provide a regulatory impact statement, because the Prime Minister's office granted an exemption based on unspecified exceptional circumstances. This is despite the fact that labour-market testing requirements will undermine the very purpose of the 457 program to rapidly fill temporary skills shortages. Adding draconian measures such as labour-market testing to visa approval processes will add significantly to 457 recruitment lead-times and costs. At the very least, a full analysis of such potential impacts of this bill must be clarified in a regulatory impact statement, let alone in a full Senate inquiry as proposed by the coalition. The Australian Industry Group, the Business Council of Australia and the Migration Council of Australia have together called this, 'unwarranted legislation which risks penalising all employers, their employees and skilled migrants, as well as undermining investment, skills transfer and development, and broader job creation. In fact, in the DIAC document on the 457 program produced earlier this year, obtained by the shadow minister for immigration under freedom of information, labour-market testing is not suggested or even mentioned. Clearly, the department does not believe that this is a worthy proposal—and neither does the coalition. The strongest disincentive against abusing this program is that the costs involved in recruiting an overseas worker are significantly higher then when recruiting an Australian worker. It simply does not make rational economic sense for an employer to spend considerably more money to bring in someone from overseas, when the labour supply already exists in Australia to do that same job at the same level. That does not mean that the system is perfect. I have heard from constituents who are concerned that their employer might be discriminating against Australians in favour of workers on 457 visas. It is absolutely critical that those concerns are reported and that DIAC identifies if an employer is abusing the 457 program. However, while individual cases have been identified, the Labor government has not in any way demonstrated why they cannot be handled within current safeguards. For months this Labor government has claimed that there has been widespread rorting of 457 visas, yet it has failed to produce any real evidence that it exists. This bill is therefore based on a false premise. In May this year, the minister publicly claimed that there were in excess of 10,000 cases of illegitimate use of 457 visas. He later admitted that he was merely 'making a forecast' and admitted that he did not have an exact or precise figure. In fact, we need only look at what the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and previous ministers for immigration have been saying on 457 visas. In 2011, the Prime Minister claimed I believe we've got the visa settings right particularly with short-term 457 visas. The then minister, the member for McMahon, publicly declared: … demand-driven migration is delivering migrants effectively to the regions where they are needed—exactly how the 457 visa program is supposed to work. And anyone who tries to tell you the 457 visa program is not working, needs to take another look at the facts. As recently as 20 January 2013, only five months ago, the then minister said: The 457 visa program is designed to address genuine labour shortages that cannot be met from the Australian labour market and we believe we have this balance right. What we see with the measures in today's bill, however, is this government inventing a problem. This Labor government has concocted a cynical, political ploy to demonise 457 workers to the detriment of the Australian labour market and the Australian economy. Those who know what is actually happening on the ground have pointed out to this government that there is absolutely no evidence of problems or rorting. The minister cannot produce an inquiry from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, because such an inquiry does not exist and there has been no reason to hold one. Business groups, including representatives from the Australian Industry Group, the Business Council of Australia and Migration Council Australia, have all disputed Labor's claims and have condemned the Prime Minister for demonising 457 skilled migration visa holders. They have called on parliament to reject this bill unless, as they said, 'the government provides hard evidence to back up its claims of widespread problems with the 457 program'. In fact, this government's own advisers have said that such evidence does not exist. This includes Michael Easson, chairman of the Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration, who said: I do not believe that there is any credible evidence that the management of the 457 visa program is out of control … Demographer Professor Peter McDonald, a member of the government's advisory council, has labelled the rhetoric coming from this government as 'nasty'. Since 2007-08, as a result of Labor's mismanagement of the budget—now approaching $300 billion of gross debt—the government has cut resources for compliance work in DIAC, including 457 monitoring, by over $20 million, or 30 per cent. This government has reduced monitoring visits to employers by two-thirds, and the number of employer-sponsored formal warnings has also dropped by two-thirds. The track record of this Labor government demonstrates that it has not been serious about supporting the safeguards already in place, and we must treat the measures in today's bill in that context. The shadow minister for immigration has therefore proposed an amendment which proposes that consideration of this bill not be concluded until we know all the facts about why we should consider this bill in the first place and what ramifications it will have should it be passed. This means that three processes must take place: firstly, that DIAC completes a full research report on the true incidence and nature of abuses and non-compliance within the 457 visa program, in comparison to other programs, to substantiate the requirement for the measures; secondly, that consultation by DIAC take place with industry and other stakeholders on the impacts of the measures contained in the bill; and, thirdly, that the government produce a regulatory impact statement related to the proposed labour market testing regime, as required by the Office of Best Practice Regulation. Only when these actions take place can this parliament truly assess the merit of this bill. The coalition's position on 457 skilled migration visas is simple, clear and consistent. We recognise the critical importance of skilled temporary migration to the Australian economy and the well-being and living standards of all Australians. The 457 skilled migration visa program must be well-managed, providing rapid access to skilled workers not available in the Australian labour market and with strong compliance action to ensure high standards of program integrity. The coalition would never support the use of 457 skilled migration visas at the expense of Australian workers, and would not tolerate any employers who try to abuse the system. We must recognise, however, that skilled migrants have made a vital contribution to the building of our nation. The coalition will not support this bill and is seeking referral to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The coalition has always been consistent on 457 visas and will be strong on policing our immigration laws on our borders, in the community and in the workplace. 17:46 Ms GAMBARO 9K6 Brisbane The Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013 must rank as one of the most disgraceful bills ever to come before this parliament. The bill adds to the burden of regulation obligations and compliance enforcement on employer sponsors using the 457 visa program. If one is to subscribe to the view that bills should only be presented in this place if they address a real and known mischief or for a bona fide purpose, then this bill fails on all accounts. Ostensibly, the government claims that this bill is necessary to stop the rorts of the 457 visa scheme, but, when asked to produce evidence of these great rorts, Minister O'Connor first claimed that there were 10,000 cases of abuse. Only later, he incredulously said that the figure had been made up and he tried to back out of it. There is no evidence in the department, there are no reports, showing this alleged 10,000 cases of abuse in the program. Make no mistake, this bill has nothing to do with what is good for Australia—absolutely nothing to do with what is good for our country. This bill is about a desperate and dysfunctional government doing anything, saying anything, and attacking anybody in a last-ditch attempt to stay in power. It is all about the Prime Minister pitching to divide immigrants, seeking to create a stir in Western Sydney and scaremongering about foreigners taking the jobs of Australians. This bill declares a false war on skilled migrants to this country, and it is doing that because it is trying to support the unions and it is trying to stir up some perverse attempt to pit the political welfare of the unions against the good of this nation. There is no crisis in the 457 visa program. There is no evidence of systematic rorting. What there is, though, is an overwhelming evidence of systemic policy failure by this government, and, in case anyone has any doubt about that, let us consider these not-so-impressive facts. After six years of the Rudd-Gillard government, Labor has delivered runaway cost of living increases. Labor has broken its promise on the carbon tax, and there is its administration of private health insurance, along with Grocery Watch and FuelWatch. We have seen a complete loss of control of the federal budget, with five consecutive budget deficits—with even more deficits forecast for the coming years. There is record government debt now approaching $300 billion and a yearly interest bill of $8 billion, and we have had a complete failure of border protection policies with almost 45,000 arrivals on 733 illegal boats resulting in a $10 billion budget blow-out. There was the gross incompetence and mismanagement of major projects like the overpriced school halls. There were the dangerous roof batts and now there are the blow-outs and delays with the National Broadband Network. And, of course, who can forget the ongoing saga that we are subjected to day and night of disunity, chaos and dysfunction with the Julia and Kevin soap opera of 'Who wants to be Prime Minister?' What is evident is that these proposed changes are being driven by not only an increasingly irrelevant union movement to improve union coverage and control of workplaces with 457 visas but also a desperate government and a desperate Prime Minister who are prepared to trash Australia's history of a migrant success story as part of their deeply flawed political strategy of class, gender and now ethnic warfare. Immigration has made Australia the nation we are today. Many of Australia's most significant nation-building infrastructure projects are built on the back of migrant labour. The most famous of these is the Snowy Mountains Scheme. In my own electorate of Brisbane, migrants helped to build the iconic Story Bridge. This theme of contribution and achievement throughout the nation is one that existed in the past and continues today. Another example from my electorate of Brisbane can be seen with the researchers employed under the 457 scheme at the Queensland Institute of Medical Research, where world-leading research is being undertaken at the moment into AIDS and HIV, as well as dengue fever and malaria. Doctors on 457 visas provide health care to the people of Brisbane at the Royal Brisbane Hospital and at other hospitals in my electorate, but under this bill those doctors are 457 visa holders; they are second-class citizens. Immigration has made us a stronger Australia. Community confidence in the immigration program provides a foundation for social harmony and the continued success of our immigration program. As Judge Rauf Soulio said in his welcoming address at the inaugural Australian Multicultural Council lecture last year, 'multicultural Australia transcends the usual division of politics' and 'diversity is a defining strength of Australia'. Well, not any more. If this desperate and divisive government has its way with this bill, what we will have here is a divided country—a country made up of first- and second-class citizens; a country of those who are Australian and who were born here and those who are second class who were not born here. As a daughter of Italian migrant parents, I find this bill deeply offensive. My parents, like so many migrants from all over the world, came to this country seeking a better life. They were not born here, but they made Australia home for themselves and their children. They worked hard. They went to where the jobs were. They cut cane in North Queensland, and later they owned and operated the local corner store. I see the member for Indi is sitting at the table. Her parents, who are of Greek origin, also operated a local corner store. They worked hard, as did my parents. My parents then went on to run supermarkets. They were successful in developing a seafood export and wholesale business, which expanded to include one of Brisbane's finest dining restaurants. Since World War II, immigrants like my parents transformed Australia from a nation of some seven million to more than 22 million people from 260 different cultural backgrounds. In that time, immigration has seen more than seven million people settle here, including 750,000 refugees. Australia is arguably and without question one of the most successful immigration nations in the world, but the bill before us in the chamber today puts all of that at risk. In the event that there is any ambiguity, it is worth looking at exactly what the 457 visa actually does as opposed to what the government falsely claims it does. The 457 visa class was introduced in 1996 and has been highly effective in meeting skills gaps. That is why it was brought in: to meet skills gaps in a number of industries and for large resourcing and infrastructure projects. The majority of 457 visa holders are professional and managerial occupations and, as at 30 April 2012, there were 108,810 primary 457 visa holders in Australia. That is less than one per cent of Australia's workforce. So much for Labor's and the unions' scaremongering about stealing the jobs of other Australians! The 457 skilled migration visa program plays an important role in securing the short-term and long-term skilled migrants whom Australia has always needed and will always need into the future. More than half of all permanent skilled visas sponsored by employers are granted to skilled migration visa holders who are already legally in Australia, and 457 skilled migration visas account for more than 30 per cent of all permanent migration to Australia. The 457 visa is the dominant component of Australia's temporary skilled migration program. It is designed to provide a quick response to fluctuations in demand for skilled and semiskilled workers where such demand cannot be met by the Australian workforce. Temporary skilled migration is vital to the efficient operation of the Australian labour market. It delivers significant economic benefits; 457 visa holders pay their own way. They pay for their own health and they do not access welfare. Once again, I point out that they are totally legal. They have come to this country in a totally legal way. But it is not just the coalition that is saying that this is a bad bill—and it is; it is a bad, bad bill. On 17 June this year, the Australian Industry Group, the Business Council of Australia and Migration Council Australia released an open letter that raised concerns at a lack of evidence and proper process associated with proposed changes to the 457 visa scheme in the bill, along with the considerable risks posed for investment, job creation and economic growth. The AIG, BCA and MCA all identify the proposed return of labour market testing as one of the most damaging initiatives in the bill. That was abandoned after a major departmental review in 2001, because it was not found to be effective. It was costly, ineffective and inferior to the system that we have in place today. The AIG, BCA and MCA specifically state: Unwarranted regulation risks penalising all employers, their employees and skilled migrants, as well as undermining investment, skills transfer and development, and broader job creation to address a relatively small number of instances that may be dealt with through other means. But all these groups do not just stop there in their criticism of the bill. They call on all parliamentarians to reject this bill unless: the government provides hard evidence to back up its claims of widespread problems with the 457 program, and furthermore, shows why the few individual cases that have been identified … Why can't they be managed within the scheme's existing frameworks? It has only been a few cases and they need to be examined under the existing structures. The groups continue: the government subjects any proposed changes to the 457 visa scheme to a rigorous and transparent Regulatory Impact Statement before putting forward a legislative response. As we have seen, the government has no hard evidence to back up its claims of widespread rorting of the 457 program, nor is it able to show how the few individual cases that have been identified cannot be managed within this particular program. What we do know, though, is that this government, in conjunction with the unions, have started their scaremongering campaign and their false war—and it is a false war—on 457 visa holders. We know that employer confidence in the program has been significantly undermined. Most disturbingly, in the government's own report—theSubclass457 state/territory summary report: 2012-13 to 30 April 2013, from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship—there have been disturbing results. In my own home state of Queensland, there have been huge decreases in the number of primary applications granted in key areas that will have dramatic impacts on the economy and the community: in construction, we have them down by 10.2 per cent; in health care and social assistance, they are down by 11.8 per cent; in education and training, they are down by 6.4 per cent; in information, media and telecommunications, they are down by 14.6 per cent; in manufacturing, they are down by 12.8 per cent; in mining, they are down by a massive 32.3 per cent; and in professional, scientific and technical occupations, they are down by 12.8 per cent. What these figures show is the extent to which the government and unions have undermined the confidence of employers working in the engine room of the economy, an impact that will be felt by many constituents in my electorate and by the people of Queensland and Australia. It is appropriate that I am speaking on this bill today, because this is an enormously significant bill for immigration in our country—and the government has lost its way. Not much has changed in the three years since the government lost its way, on this third anniversary, except for the fact that it is more lost than ever. Labor has definitely lost its way on this bill. The demonising of 457 visa holders who come to this country and contribute to our nation's wellbeing is a new low in divisive politics, even for this government and even for this Prime Minister. The role of government is to bring people together, not to set them against each other. Any government that seeks to pit Australians against other Australians for its own political gain is not fit for this office. The coalition remain consistent on our policy with 457 visas, a policy that all employers and all Australians can have faith in. 18:01 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak on the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013 today. Skilled migrants play a very valuable role in my electorate of Leichhardt. Whether it is as the chef at the local restaurant, a sugarcane worker, bed-and-breakfast operators or an engineer at one of our mines, these new migrants are employed, paying taxes and making a positive contribution to our society. Unfortunately, the changes with this bill simply add to the burden of regulation and compliance on sponsors who use the 457 visa program. It represents a culmination of union and government campaigns to discredit the program and demonise foreign workers. It also highlights the absolute hypocrisy of the Gillard government, which clearly would prefer to see illegal boat arrivals put into the community on welfare rather than skilled migrants paying their own way and helping our economy to grow. To state facts plainly, the measures contained in the bill require a thorough parliamentary inquiry. Skilled migration has been a key driver of Australia's economic performance, and the 457 program plays a very important role in securing the short- and long-term skilled migrants that Australia has always needed and will certainly go on needing in the future. More than half of all our permanent skilled visas sponsored by employers are granted to 457 skilled migration visa holders already in Australia, and 457 skilled migration visas account for more than 30 per cent of all permanent skilled migration in Australia. What confuses me is that the Prime Minister and the previous minister for immigration spent years telling Australians and the international audience that they had the balance right on 457 skilled migration visas. Yet now, according to Labor scaremongering, there are 10,000 people rorting the system and it is out of control, so—guess what—let's have another knee-jerk reaction and again push something through the parliament and leave it for somebody else to mop up in the future. We now find that these proposed changes to the 457 scheme have not been based on any real rorting or widespread abuse, as the government claims. Labor has failed to produce any credible information from the department or anywhere else to suggest that widespread abuse exists. Unlike Labor, we recognise the critical importance of skilled temporary migration to the Australian economy and to the wellbeing and living standards of all Australians. The coalition would never support the use of 457 skilled migration visas at the expense of Australian workers and would not tolerate any employer who tries to abuse the system. As I have mentioned, in Leichhardt there are a wide range of businesses and organisations that benefit very much from this program. Among the hundreds of roles on the skilled occupation list, those relevant to my region include livestock and aquaculture roles, artists, professionals, tradespeople, park rangers, school teachers, university lecturers, childcare centre managers and fishery officers. However, it is hospitality and accommodation that are the keystones in our regional economy, and there are a number of roles that would not be filled if it were not for this program. From cafe and restaurant managers to chefs and cooks, to caravan, hotel and motel managers: these skilled migrants are vital and appreciated. The Cairns Chamber of Commerce is a strong supporter of the 457 system, and it sees these visas as playing an important role in filling skill shortages, providing that the position cannot be filled locally. It recognises that our region has a small market in certain fields due to our location, particularly in higher skill positions. People holding these visas can work in Australia for up to four years, bring their families with them, and travel in and out of Australia as often as they want. This visa program exists to fill the temporary gaps and fluctuations in the market, and is very important in the tourism industry. These visas allow businesses to respond to any sudden need to fill positions. The chamber also works hard to ensure that the system has integrity and that our employers are actually doing the right thing. I am not saying that the system is perfect by any means, but unfortunately the changes proposed by this bill fail to address any of the current flaws that I see in the system. I would like to highlight two case studies from Cairns. The first is a local Indian restaurant, Marinades, owned by Dev Rao. Dev is incredibly hard working and produces amazing food, but he has been driven to the wall because of the 457 visa situation for three reasons. Firstly, as a result of new rules brought in, his chefs are not able to renew their 457s unless they pass an International English Language Testing System. While Dev appreciates that people living in a new country should learn the local language, the extent to which these chefs are exposed to English gives them a workable standard, but not enough to pass this very rigorous test. And understand this: these are not people coming here on full-time migration visas; they are coming here on 457 visas for up to four years. The skills that they have, particularly in the case of Dev, are skills that are picked up on the streets of places like Calcutta; they are not necessarily skills that come out of your normal trade schools and what have you. Unfortunately, if a chef fails the test, Dev has two options: the chef can pack their bags and head back to India, or—this is really blew me away when I learnt about this—Dev must pay the chef an annual salary of $92,000, plus nine per cent super before the IELTS requirement is waived. This essentially says to the department of immigration that the chef is so important to the business that you cannot live without him. Dev did take the second option, and pays his chef what must be one of the best wages in the region. But again he is penalised because, as he says: 'I'm suffering financially. Restaurants don't make huge profit margins generally, but if I do find a candidate who has acceptable English, the department says that I'm not making enough profit, so how can I afford to be able to employ him?' They must realise that chefs in India who do speak good English are able to work in the Sheratons and other international chains. If they are that good, they do not need to leave their families and come to Australia to make the same money. Dev said that this must be addressed as the English language requirements are killing multicultural employers. Secondly, Dev is required to ensure that his Australian employees receive industry training. Unfortunately, there is no accredited facility in Australia that teaches Indian cooking. Therefore, Dev has to create his own training modules, teach them, gain signatures from the staff to show that they have undergone the training, document all of this and then submit it to immigration. What a waste of time for a small business owner already battling staffing costs and compliance costs. Thirdly, Dev tells me that the government-sponsored employment agencies will provide $6,000 to an employer if they give a new migrant on Centrelink benefits a job for 25 hours a week for 13 weeks. It does not matter if they do not speak a word of English; if they speak Hindi they can work in the kitchen. This is despite the fact that the chef on a 457 visa has worked for four years, understands all the health and safety laws, and yet is considered to be a risk to the community. It just does not make sense. The second case I would like to highlight is that of the JCU dental school. This is a fantastic facility and one that I helped to establish. It trains young dentists and provides low-cost dental treatment to local residents. The dental school has five Irish dentists who, because they are not receiving enough hours at the dental clinic that brought them in on 457 visas, are volunteering their time to train students JCU students in Cairns. JCU wrote to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Bowen, to see if they could legally employ them part time and pay them to continue training their students. As they said, 'We would of course prefer to pay these dentists, as it is unreasonable to expect them to volunteer their time continually.' Unfortunately, they were refused. Why, you ask, Madam Deputy Speaker? Because, even though medical doctors are able to work for other practices in addition to the one that sponsored them on their 457, dentists are not allowed to do so. JCU wanted the guidelines changed to allow the dentists to do likewise, which surely would have been a win-win situation on all fronts. The fact that this could not happen demonstrates yet another key flaw in the 457 process. The bill that we are debating here today seeks to amend the Migration Act with a range of new requirements. It is important to note, from the feedback from Migration Council Australia, that a number of industry groups have been universally negative towards the new labour market testing regulatory requirements. I was in this place in 1996 when the 457 visas were first introduced and labour market testing applied. We remember that it proved to be cumbersome to implement and difficult to monitor, and it was dropped by the Howard government in 2001. Now Labor wants to reintroduce it by requiring certain classes of sponsors to undertake labour market testing for Australian workers, and show evidence of it, prior to recruiting from overseas using the 457 program. Employers are concerned that it will add to costs and delay for recruiting, for no effective purpose, if reintroduced. They also note that the costs to them for recruiting 457 workers from overseas are much higher than for recruiting a local worker, and overseas recruitment therefore only occurs when there are no local workers available. This is common sense to me. No employer is going to go to the effort and expense of recruiting and assisting a worker from overseas if somebody local down the road is suitable to fill that position. Another key element of the bill is that it establishes the powers of authorised inspectors. There are two types of inspectors: compliance staff in the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and the workplace inspectors from Fair Work Australia. I recognise that feedback from industry groups has been less concerned with this aspect of the bill, in that they believe that the vast majority of employers will not be impacted and that any employer abusing the program should be identified. However, it should be noted that the bill also gives inspectors coverage of workers on student and working holiday visas in low-skill occupations with employers who do not have a sponsor obligation or role as such. In my electorate, many, many young people arrive on working holiday visas and seek to earn a bit of extra cash on their travels by picking fruit or working in one of the local bars or restaurants. Of course I do not condone any employer taking advantage of young people in this situation, but we need to be very, very careful that increased compliance costs are not seen to outweigh the benefits of employing these young people. Lastly, the bill looks to extend the period that people can seek new sponsored employment. At the moment, if a 457 worker stops working for their sponsor, they have 28 days to find new sponsored employment or they must leave Australia. The bill proposes the extension of this time period to 90 days. This is consistent with one of the recommendations of the recent Migration Council Australia survey report and it has the support of industry groups. It provides some sensible flexibility to provide workers with a more realistic opportunity to find new sponsored employment. This particular element of the bill will certainly be supported. As a whole, it is plain to see that this attack by Labor on skilled migration is a desperate distraction from their failed border protection policies. These policies have seen almost 700 boats arrive with more than 44,200 people on board, resulting in chaos and tragedy on our borders and more than $10 billion in budget blow-outs, not to mention the opening in my electorate near Weipa of the facility at the Scherger base, which has been converted from an Air Force base to a prison colony, which I think is absolutely appalling and certainly not the purpose for which it was built. The hypocrisy is quite blatant. The Gillard government would rather focus on discouraging skilled migrants who make a contribution from day one in favour of supporting illegal boat arrivals, who are put into the community on welfare. It just does not add up and that is why the coalition will not support this bill. We stand consistent in our policies on 457 visas and will be strong in policing our migration laws on our borders, in the community and in the workplace. 18:15 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013 and to support the outstanding contribution of the shadow minister, the member for Cook, and the subsequent statements by my coalition colleagues. What is abundantly clear to all on this side of the chamber is that the measures contained in this bill require parliamentary inquiry. As a result, I do not support the government's bill and I strongly support the amendment moved by the member for Cook. Our nation has largely been built on skilled migration. We often hark back to the great engineering projects like the Snowy Mountains Scheme that have defined our nation's character. Skilled migration has been absolutely vital to these projects. Yet the Labor government are now attempting to ram through legislation that is nothing less than an attack on skilled migrants purely for short-term political purposes. This is also a hypocritical gesture as this government are determined to belittle and demonise overseas workers at the same time that they have 457 visa holders on their own staff in the highest office in the land. If the government's rhetoric is to be believed, their own staff members are stealing Australian jobs. As they well know, this is nonsense. The government's bill has some serious problems, not least the fact that it has no regulatory impact statement and there has not been proper consultation. Just like in so many policy areas, this government seems determined to ignore the long-term consequences of its actions in the interests of its own short-term survival. This bill contains a bizarre back-to-the-future attempt to reintroduce labour market testing, which operated from 1996 to 2001 and was found at the time to be ineffective and costly, and produced a significant delay to employer recruitment action. The whole point of 457 visas was to enable the rapid assignment of skilled workers into vacant temporary positions, not to increase red tape and stifle the economy. As stated in a press release last year, the member for McMahon, the former Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, said: Skilled migrants deliver major benefits to the Australian economy in terms of contributing to economic growth and offsetting the impacts of an ageing population. Yet here is the Prime Minister attacking 457 visas to hide the inadequacies and incompetence of their failed border protection policies, which have enabled the arrival of 44,200 people on boats and contributed more than $10 billion to the current budget deficit. We must see Labor's attack on skilled migration for what it is: a desperate distraction designed to divert attention away from the chaos and tragedy that have occurred on our borders and their failed border protection policies. The 457 visas are a well-established class of visa in Australia. They were introduced in 1996 and since then have grown in use and proven to be highly effective in meeting skill gaps in a number of industries for large resourcing or infrastructure projects. They are the dominant component of Australia's temporary skilled migration program and were hailed by this government as international best practice in facilitating access to skilled labour in 2011. The 457 visas are designed to provide a quick response to fluctuations in demand for skilled and semiskilled workers where such demand cannot be met by the Australian workforce. They allow a business to sponsor and employ someone from outside Australia in a skilled job. People holding this visa can work in Australia for up to four years, bringing their family with them, and travel in and out of Australia as often as they want. The 457 visa program plays an important role in securing the short- and long-term skilled migrants that Australia always needed and will need well into the future. Around 70 per cent of 457 visa holders are in professional and managerial occupations, and the remainder contribute to trade, technical and clerical positions as part of the program. As at 30 April 2013, there were 810 primary 457 visa holders in Australia, up by 20 per cent on April 2012. Perhaps most concerning about this bill is that it is based on a false premise. The government have completely made up numbers to suggest the widespread abuse of the 457 visa scheme. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has publicly stated that there have been 10,000 cases of abuse in the program. However, he has subsequently admitted that he made this number up. He had no evidence to support it. The government have provided this House with no evidence of rorting, no inquiry from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship or from anywhere else to suggest that widespread abuse exists. The government's own advisers say that there is no evidence of widespread rorting of the 457 skilled migration program. Demographer, Professor Peter McDonald, a member of the government's Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration, has called the Prime Minister's rhetoric 'nasty'. Business, including representatives from the Australian Industry Group and the Business Council of Australia, as well as the Migration Council of Australia, have further disputed Labor's claims and condemned the Prime Minister for demonising 457 skilled migration visa holders. Temporary skilled migration is vital to the efficient operation of the labour market. It delivers significant benefits to the Australian economy. The 457 visa holders pay their own way. They pay for health care; they do not access welfare. Yet this Labor government is effectively saying they prefer illegal boat arrivals who are put into the community on welfare, but skilled migrants who make a contribution from day one pay their own way and help foster growth in our economy and in our community. The Prime Minister and the previous minister for immigration spent years telling Australians and international audiences that they have the balance right on 457 skilled migration visas, yet now the Prime Minister campaigns in Western Sydney, telling people that the system is out of control. Interestingly, the previous minister for immigration said in 2011 that anyone who tried to tell you the 457 visa program was not working needed to take another look at the facts. The Labor Party has failed to produce any evidence that the 457 visa program is failing or is being widely abused or rorted as it currently stands. I invite the Prime Minister and all members supporting this bill to take another look at the facts. Under Labor, 457 skilled migration visa grants have grown to their highest level ever, with 125,070 visa applications granted between 2011 and 2012. If any rorts occurred, they happened on Labor's watch. Despite the Prime Minister's numerical fabrication, 457 visa holders represent less than one per cent of the Australian workforce. Yet despite this, skilled migration has been a key driver of Australia's economic performance. Labor's eagerness to trash-talk our skilled migration program by demonising skilled migration visas has two effects: it damages our international reputation and makes a mockery of the Asian century white paper, which barely lasted the Australian summer. It demonstrates that the Prime Minister has truly lost her way and has lost touch with the community she is elected to represent and to lead. Since 2007-08 Labor has cut resourcing for compliance work in the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, including 457 monitoring, by over $20 million or 30 per cent. Monitoring visits to employers are down by 67 per cent. The number of employer sponsors formally warned has also dropped by two-thirds. Just as Labor cannot protect our borders, they cannot police the immigration system here in Australia. Unlike Labor, the coalition's position on 457 skilled migration visas is simple, clear and consistent. We recognise the critical importance of skilled temporary migration to the Australian economy and the wellbeing and living standards of all Australians. The 457 skilled migration visa program must be well managed. It must provide rapid access to skilled workers not available in the Australian labour market. It must have strong compliance action to assure high standards of program integrity. Skilled migrants have been vital to the building of our nation. Talking down skilled migration for political gain is a desperate distraction from the disastrous border protection policies and is a Labor tactic that just will not work with the Australian public. The coalition will be strong in policing our immigration laws and our borders—in the community and in the workplace. The coalition would never support the use of 457 skilled migration visas at the expense of Australian workers and would not tolerate any employer who tried to abuse the system. Another effect of this bill is the immense burden of regulation, obligations, compliance and enforcement that it proposes to place on employer sponsors using 457 visa programs. It represents the culmination of a union and government campaign to discredit the program and demonise foreign workers. Early this year, Minister O'Connor's Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration put forward a number of sensible housekeeping measures to improve program integrity. Unfortunately, there is nothing to suggest that these sensible departmental suggestions are being advanced by the government through this bill. Rather, the minister is plainly doing the bidding of the unions through labour market testing and Fair Work inspectors which position unions to play a more active role in workplaces with 457 visa holders and constrain the use of the program. The coalition supports robust integrity in the 457 program and would support measures such as these to strengthen the program. Feedback on this program from the Migration Council of Australia and the responses of a number of industry groups to these changes have been universally negative towards the new labour market testing regulation requirements. Overall, the general view is that these changes are being driven by the union movement to improve union coverage and control of workplaces with 457 visa holders rather than being supported by any genuine evidence of widespread abuse in the program. As mentioned, this bill re-introduces labour market testing requirements across all skilled level occupations. Under the bill, nominations from sponsors must demonstrate that they satisfy these new labour market testing requirements before a 457 visa is approved. These same labour market testing requirements applied when 457 visas were first introduced in 1996, however, they were dropped by the Howard government in 2001 after it became clear to us then that they were overly cumbersome to implement and difficult to monitor. Employers are concerned that the proposed re-introduction of this cumbersome obligation will add to costs and delay recruitment for no effective purpose. Employers note that the costs to them of recruiting 457 workers from overseas are much higher than a local worker. Overseas recruitment therefore only occurs when there is no local worker available. The bill does not make clear the actual period of labour market testing required but it is to be set based on the nominated occupation. Clearly, the requirements for labour market testing represent a significant regulatory impost on employer sponsors, yet the bill has been granted an exemption from a regulatory impact statement by the Prime Minister on the basis of unspecified exceptional circumstances. The bill therefore excludes any assessment of the real significant employer regulatory impacts. The new labour market testing requirement undermines the very purpose of the 457 visa program which requires rapid filling of temporary skill shortages. The ability to quickly fill the vacancy by a skilled overseas worker is a paramount feature of the program. Indeed, the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities was quoted in the Australian Financial Review as saying that when there are genuine skills shortages employers are able to quickly recruit temporary overseas workers through the 457 visa to fill skill gaps and keep the economy growing. However, the cumbersome process requirements proposed in this bill will add significantly to 457 recruitment lead times and costs. The extent of additional time and cost burdens for employers will be subject to decisions taken outside the legislation at ministerial and departmental levels on detailed aspects of the testing regime. Ultimately the time and cost burdens on employers as a result of these changes undermine the integrity of the 457 visa program and represent a desperate, ill-conceived move by a government focused too much on its short-term survival than the long-term wellbeing of the Australian economy supported by skilled migrants. The coalition will not support this bill and is seeking referral to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislative Committee. The amendments moved by the coalition prove our consistent position on this policy issue. (Time expired) Debate adjourned. Homelessness Bill 2013 6721

Homelessness Bill 2013

Report from Federation Chamber 6721 Third Reading 6721 Homelessness (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 6721

Homelessness (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013

Report from Federation Chamber 6721 Third Reading 6721 18:32 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013 6721

Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013

Second Reading 6721 18:33 Mrs MIRABELLA 00AMU Indi In a number of respects I am disappointed that it is necessary to rise to speak on the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013. It should have been quite clear by now to the people in the Labor Party who are responsible for this bill that it is simply not ready for introduction into the parliament. I am sure this is of no concern to some on the other side of the House who seem to cling to the view that the success of this parliament is marked and should be judged exclusively by how many pieces of legislation have been introduced during its life. To put it mildly, this bill represents another example among many of poorly conceived legislation and poor drafting from the government. When I watch yet another attempt being made to ram a bill through the House in disregard of various third party criticisms of its content, I find it hard to believe that this can really be the final sitting fortnight of two terms of a Labor government. You would think after nearly six years of practice it surely should have learned some lessons about sensible legislative process by now. Obviously it has not. Sadly, what makes all of this worse is that the basic intent of the bill is fine. Obviously the coalition is not philosophically opposed at all to sensibly amending the Patents Act to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of Australia's intellectual property system, as stated as the intent of the legislation in the explanatory memorandum, but there is nothing wrong in principle with pursuing changes that, for example, create better arrangements under which Australians can export pharmaceuticals to developing countries in order to help them address public health problems. So it should not have been a hard task to bring the parliament together in support of a well-drafted bill that advanced that kind of aim. It is very clear that the preparation of this bill has been both rushed and botched and the coalition cannot in all good conscience simply let this go through in its current form. This is especially so when individuals such as Luigi Palombi and groups such as AIPP Australia and the Intellectual Property Committee of the Law Council of Australia have made it clear to us that there are a number of significant problems with this bill and that its passage should not be expedited. That is before we get to the problem, a very familiar recurring one with this government, that clearly many affected stakeholders had not been adequately consulted. In fact, in some cases they were not aware of the existence of the bill until we sought comment from them about it. Among many potential problems with the bill there are clearly at least two sets of inconsistencies between the content of clause 160A and the content of the Australia-US FTA. Article 17.9.7 of the FTA allows for Crown use of an invention without authorisation by the patentee only in the case of public non-commercial use or national emergency. But this legislation takes it much further. This legislation now proposes to allow application of Crown use of an invention to a much wider set of contexts. Under this bill, the Crown could use inventions without authorisation in any situation in which such use is considered necessary for the proper provision of services, where those services are primarily funded by the Commonwealth or a state. If it is passed, it seems to us that the bill would also override the conditions of article 17.10.4(a) of the FTA which require that, in respect of regulated goods such as pharmaceuticals, a product cannot be marketed where the product is claimed in a patent, at least without the clear consent of the patent owner. There are some further serious questions around whether the passage of this legislation would place Australia in breach of a number of its obligations under the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Protocol, or TRIPS as it is commonly known. Firstly, the bill's wording defies the 2003 decision made by the WTO General Counsel that a country can grant a compulsory licence to produce and export pharmaceutical products to what is termed 'an eligible importing member', where that eligible importing country is a member of the WTO. Instead, the legislation clearly says that such a country does not have to be a WTO member at all. I might also stress that one of the reasons for the General Counsel's decision to limit waivers under article 31(f) of TRIPS in such a way to member countries was that it provided a clear incentive for nonmembers to join the organisation. To add to that, any sensible reading of the WTO's decision would suggest that to be classed as an eligible importing member, that member would need to have registered its intention to import. But in stark contrast to that principle, this bill allows any person at all to apply for a licence and therefore to do so in an ad hoc way. To compound the issue, the WTO requires an eligible importing member to have made a prescribed notification to the council for TRIPS as a precondition for the requirements of article 31(f) to be waived. But that requirement clearly cannot be practically enforced if the conditions relating to registration are so significantly watered down in the first place. We are also dubious about whether there is genuine consistency between the WTO approach, on one hand, and the provisions that appear in this bill, on the other, that allow for orders for ancillary compulsory licences and cross-licences. That begins with the changes in the bill that seem to permit compulsory licences to be granted for blocking patents yet do not appear to be consistent with the obligations outlined in article 31(f). More to the point, the provisions in the bill relating to ancillary compulsory licences and cross-licences give rise to what are surely a series of unintended consequences. In fact, it has been put to the coalition by a number of parties that the provisions of clause 136F are so odious that they should be removed from the bill altogether. They have the domino effect of making other clauses, like clauses 136H, 136J, 136L and 136M, unworkable as well. Moreover, the drafting work that has been undertaken on the bill in the explanatory memorandum seems to have taken next to no account of the findings of the Productivity Commission report on compulsory licences that was publicly released at the end of May, only a few weeks ago. That report contained a very specific recommendation that the government should seek to remove altogether section 136 of the Patents Act. And yet the government has not only failed to do that but has significantly extended the reach and force of section 136 instead. It also seems to be a strange piece of timing, to say the least, that this bill is being introduced not only straight after the Productivity Commission report has been completed, but also when the government continues to delay publicly releasing the report of the committee that has conducted its pharmaceutical patents review. That critical work was completed in May, but no-one seems to be clear on when the findings of the panel will be released let alone be met with a response from the government. The introduction of this legislation clearly should have been part of a coordinated and holistic approach to remedying existing problems in the patent system. But in many respects the decision to do the reverse has been a metaphor—a metaphor for Labor's erratic actions in the development of this bill more generally. It is symptomatic again of Labor's muddle-headed approach to so many of its decisions and actions in the innovation, industry and science portfolio and its unwillingness to take responsibility and to be accountable for its litany of mistakes. Among many other examples, I am reminded of the criticisms made by the government's own hand-picked expert adviser on innovation, Terry Cutler, who continues to make pointed critiques of the government's incapacity to understand, let alone implement, almost anything that he has advised on or told the government to do, especially in relation to the strangling of the R&D tax incentive and activity in Australia, such a crucial plank of our future economic success. I am also reminded of the government's stubborn unwillingness to bring the CSIRO to account for a series of inaccurate and misleading statements that have been made to the Senate estimates committees, including the recent incomprehensible answer to question AL156 which says that no CSIRO employee provided false evidence under oath during cross-examination in the AAT case involving Martin Williams, when an analysis of the transcript of that case suggests that there are at least 100, and more precisely around 128, separate instances of CSIRO officers providing false evidence in the case. All of this takes me back to these sweet-sounding words that Labor shouted from the rooftops upon the release of its so-called New Car Plan, only for its car industry policies to subsequently completely unravel with tens of thousands of jobs lost, Mitsubishi's local manufacturing gone, Ford's local manufacturing sector end and now Holden anxious about its future. It is particularly disappointing that false promises and undertakings have now been made yet again, with the presentation to the parliament of legislation that plainly does not honour its stated intent and that simply should not be passed. The minister should have appreciated the very constructive efforts of the shadow parliamentary secretary, Senator Colbeck, to identify the succession of flaws and to improve this legislation before us. He should have shelved the bill at least in its current form, gone back to the drawing board and started again, not to mention that in such circumstances the time, or more specifically, the lack of it, that has been provided to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs to consider and report on the legislation has been utterly inadequate. Indeed, my colleague and one of the members of that committee, the member for Pearce, provided the House with a clear insight into those problems last Wednesday morning. In essence, the inquiry was, extraordinarily, only allocated one hour of hearings and there was no call for submissions. Coalition members were also unable to attend the committee meeting where the report was discussed because there were problems and inflexibility in finding a time from a very limited range of options that was mutually suitable. It is also my understanding that in addition to what the member for Pearce told the House, coalition members of the committee were not even able to write a dissenting report because the process was so rushed that they were not even given a copy of the draft committee report until shortly before she was required to address the House. This is a disgraceful precedent to set. We have processes in this place to ensure adequate scrutiny and discussion of intended legislation. There is an utter and arrogant disregard for that process which could end up having extraordinary implications and unintended consequences. But again, there is a nil-care factor from this government. In characteristic fashion, Minister Combet has neither welcomed nor listened to sensible and well-meaning advice and he has presided over a process that has been appallingly and poorly handled. I would urge those members who are in any doubt about whether to pass this bill, not to do so. There will be many problems to which it is likely to give rise and the best course at this stage for the government is to start rewriting the legislation and, as part of that process, drafting some sensible, practical wording that will allow such damage to be avoided. 18:47 Ms PARKE HWR Fremantle I welcome the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013 and thank the Minister for Industry and Innovation, Greg Combet, and Parliamentary Secretary Yvette D'Ath for bringing forward these reforms which represent an important step towards improving the current patent system. Some of the flaws in the system were highlighted a number of years ago through the unacceptable behaviour of a patent holder. In July 2008 an Australian company, Genetic Technologies, which had acquired the exclusive patent rights to a number of Australian patents granted by IP Australia to Myriad Genetics of the breast and ovarian cancer genes, or BRCA genes, wrote to all of Australia's publicly funded clinical laboratories demanding that they immediately cease providing Australian women with BRCA genetic testing or they would be sued for patent infringement. No government at the state or federal level or the regulator, IP Australia, stepped in to challenge the conduct of this patent holder. It was only a public outcry that forced Genetic Technologies to back down on its threats. Crown use is an important safeguard in the Patents Act that allows governments to access patented inventions without the consent of the patent owner. However, despite the fact that Crown use provisions have been in the Patents Act since 1903, they have rarely been used in this country. The Productivity Commission, in its recent report into compulsory licensing of patents, found there was uncertainty around the scope of the Crown use provisions. This bill seeks to clarify the operation of the Crown use provisions so that governments are not impeded by patents which are in effect Crown grants, from acting in the public interest. Crown use can be exercised when a government has the primary responsibility for providing or funding the provision of the service. This means that governments can intervene to address unreasonable patent holder conduct that could result in patients being denied reasonable access to health care, such as occurred with Genetic Technologies unreasonably refusing to allow Australian laboratories to test for breast cancer. I hope that it would also deal with a situation that was highlighted in the Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into gene patents. During that inquiry the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre gave evidence that its research into breast and ovarian cancer had been delayed by two years and ended up costing three times as much because gene patent holders Myriad and Genetic Technologies refused to grant it permission to use the genes in its research. To the extent that there may have been uncertainty in the operation and scope of the Crown use provisions in the Patents Act, with this amendment there will now be no impediment to governments in Australia, state and federal, taking action in the public interest to prevent despicable behaviour by corporations like Genetic Technologies and Myriad that have demonstrated repeatedly that they are motivated only by greed and self-interest. Another aspect of the bill will be very important in assisting developing countries to access vital medicines. Much of the world's population is suffering from treatable diseases including HIV AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria and yet developing countries are often unable to make essential medicines themselves and cannot afford to buy them at normal market prices. A 2010 study commissioned by the World Health Organisation and Health Action International shows that the continuing high price of medicines is having catastrophic effects on the world's poorest people. The WHO has stated that the availability of generic products is a major contributor to reducing the cost of medicines. Of course we have seen that here in Australia with the costs to the PBS being dramatically reduced whenever drugs come off patent and are able to be produced generically. The TRIPS protocol—that is, the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Protocol, agreed by the General Council for TRIPS in 2005 and accepted by Australia in 2007—enables pharmaceuticals to be exported under compulsory licence. As noted in the bill's explanatory memorandum, the aim of the protocol is to encourage patent owners to either practise price differentiation and provide medicines to least-developed and developing countries in need at affordable prices, or to issue voluntary licences to generic manufacturers to provide medicines at affordable prices. If the patent owner is unwilling to do this, then the protocol provides a mechanism to force the patent owner to issue a compulsory licence. This bill will implement the TRIPS protocol in Australia by amending the Patents Act to enable the Federal Court to grant compulsory licences to generic pharmaceutical manufacturers to make and export a patented pharmaceutical product. Patent holders will receive adequate compensation for the use of their patent. Another welcome aspect of the bill is the amendment of the Plant Breeder's Rights Act to extend the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit Court to include plant breeders' rights, thereby avoiding the need for expensive actions to be commenced in the Federal Court. In addition, the bill allows for a single trans-Tasman patent attorney regime and examination process for Australia and New Zealand, which has been agreed as part of the trans-Tasman single economic market agenda and which will reduce duplication and costs. Finally, I would note that the amendments in the bill are a welcome first step along the path of greater and long overdue reforms of a flawed patent system. The patent system is a notable exception to the principle of competition that is supposed to underpin the Australian economy. Patents are monopolies sanctioned by law as a way of encouraging inventive contributions. The fundamental principle on which the patent system is based is that there must be an invention; however, currently, the Australian patent system allows the patenting of things that no-one invented: things that are natural, things that make us who and what we are—our genes. The practice of IP Australia over the past more than two decades has been to grant patents over human genes where such genes have been isolated from the human body and to grant patents over diagnostic tests that consist only of mere comparisons of genetic sequences. Therefore corporations can patent genetic materials that they did not invent and, by patenting simple genetic tests, they can exclude pathologists from looking at patients' DNA sequences to assess the risk for disease. In these ways, corporations gain legal monopolies over genetic materials to the exclusion of scientific and health researchers and practitioners. This is not some theoretical issue but has very real ramifications for scientific and health research as well as clinical practice and, ultimately, is detrimental to patients. I referred earlier to the example of Genetic Technologies ordering public laboratories not to test for breast cancer and to their denying the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre permission to use the breast cancer genes in their research into breast cancer. Another example was provided in the ABC Four Corners program Body Corporate in September 2010. That program highlighted the fact that doctors at Westmead Hospital were sending children's DNA samples to Scotland for epilepsy testing rather than paying the fees and royalties demand by Genetic Technologies, which holds the patent rights for the epilepsy gene and genetic test. This company holds these rights, despite the fact that most of the research to identify the epilepsy gene and to develop the genetic test for epilepsy was publicly funded. I am happy to say that a significant development has recently occurred that will change the way that companies like Myriad and Genetic Technologies are able to operate in the future. Just over a week ago on 13 June, the US Supreme Court delivered a 9-0 unanimous decision finding in the Myriad case that isolated genes are not patentable. During the hearing of the case, Justice Sotomayor noted that she could bake a chocolate chip cookie from natural ingredients—salt, flour, eggs, butter—and that, if she combusted those ingredients in a totally new way, she could get a patent on that. But she could not imagine getting a patent on the basic items of salt, flour and eggs simply because she had created a new use or a new product from those ingredients. Similarly, there is no objection to patents being granted over actual inventions such as medicines, vaccines, therapies and new methods for diagnosis that use genetic materials in them. The objection is to the patenting of the underlying genetic materials themselves, because (a) no-one invented those materials—they are products of nature; and (b) the patents prevent others accessing fundamental genetic information needed to diagnose disease and develop new health treatments. This decision that isolated genes are not patentable is consistent with the previous unanimous 9-0 decision of the US Supreme Court in Prometheus v Mayo on 20 March 2012 where the court held that laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas are not patentable. It noted: This Court has repeatedly emphasized a concern that patent law not inhibit future discovery by … tying up the use of laws of nature and the like. The court made the further point that 'monopolisation of natural phenomena through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it.' The US Supreme Court decision in the Myriad case regarding the nonpatentability of human genes will be strongly influential and will have serious implications for IP practice here in Australia. The full Federal Court of Australia constituted by five judges, not the usual three, will hear the appeal of the decision of Justice Nicholas in the Myriad case in Sydney in August. This case too will be the subject of intense local and international scrutiny. It is certainly extremely unusual to have a situation where the same legal principle is being determined at almost the same time by appellate courts in both the US and Australia. In my view, this important issue should have been dealt with administratively or legislatively a long time ago and should not have been left to make its slow and expensive way through the court system here and in the US. This action is only happening in a court system, one that is stacked in favour of corporations with deep pockets, because of the goodwill and persistence of organisations, including the American Council of Civil Liberties in the US and Cancer Voices Australia here in Australia; the assistance of dedicated lawyers acting pro bono in the public interest; and the courage of many cancer patients such as Yvonne D'Arcy here in Australia and their advocates, including the Cancer Council of Australia, the National Breast Cancer Foundation, Civil Liberties Australia, the Royal College of Pathologists, the Royal College of Surgeons, lawyers like Professor Luigi Palombi, David Catterns, Peter Cashman, Maurice Blackburn law firm and many others to stand up to big pharma. The patenting of human genes is fundamentally flawed, because knowledge about human genes should not be private property but rather should belong to everyone. This is why when the human genome was decoded 13 years ago, US President Clinton and British Prime Minister Blair issued a joint statement which said: To realize the full promise of this research, raw fundamental data on the human genome, including the human DNA sequence and its variations, should be made freely available to scientists everywhere. Unencumbered access to this information will promote discoveries that will reduce the burden of disease, improve health around the world, and enhance the quality of life for all humankind. A couple of weeks ago, here in Parliament House, I attended the 65 Roses event for Cystic Fibrosis Australia where it was noted that the identification of the cystic fibrosis gene was the genesis of the human genome project which has enabled the flourishing of genetics research and the development of personalised medicine. Medicines are now being tailored to suit particular genetic profiles, thereby ensuring people get the exact treatment for their condition and preventing wasteful ineffective treatments. However, this transformative development in the health field will become more and more difficult, the more that knowledge about genes is privatised and the more that genes become the subject of private property rights in the form of patents, thus preventing scientists and health researchers from getting free access to genes. I have long advocated for changes to the Australian patents system, in particular to prohibit the patenting of human genes. This bill does not do that but it does implement a number of measures that will improve the system in other ways. I welcome that. I also welcome the government's recent announcement that it would undertake a number of measures to further clarify the patents system and strengthen mechanisms for oversight, including appointing a patent audit committee to advise on patent policy settings and undertake audits of patent approvals for certain technology groups. Commencing consultations on a new objects clause for the Patents Act, and consulting on excluding certain inventions that would be offensive to the public. This is a public policy debate that will continue until the imbalances and injustices of the present system are overcome. There are many members in this place and the other place of different political stripes who will ensure that this is so. 19:00 Dr JENSEN DYN Tangney The coalition does not support this bill, the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013, and I say so clearly and deliberately so that there is no misunderstanding. The community of IP lawyers and judicious practitioners take issue with the contents of this bill. I put it to the House that it is incumbent on the government to assuage the fears of the community, not for the community to assent to governmental whims. For how else is it to be viewed but as a whim if due process is not put in place? If the most rigorous checks and balances are not insisted upon, what is it but a whim? If this bill were anything other than a whim, there would be no need to rush it through this ultimate week of this parliament—rushing and rush. Take for example the fact that the Productivity Commission report on the issue is 300 pages long, the explanatory memorandum is 100 pages long, and the bill itself is 60 pages; yet only one day was given to digest and discern this critically important information. This is completely unreasonable, and that is why I am calling for more time to be given to this debate. I beseech the reasonableness of the government to put this bill through the scrutiny that is customary and expected of all other pieces of legislation. This is especially relevant and important given the complex and technical nature of this bill. However, if one is to look at the sorry saga that has become this bill, rushing and haste is one consistent theme. Again, a standard meeting running for three hours somehow becomes one. Just one day was given to consider the above, and with only two coalition members on the committee. The member for Pearce was unable to attend the final meeting when the opportunity for dissent was available due to a longstanding commitment. This is an egregious affront to decency and common sense. The member for Pearce had signalled her absence well in advance, and the said member is critical of this tale as she has taken it upon herself to independently seek out expert opinion and counsel, such as obtained from many learned and practised IP lawyers. Their concerns were real then and they are real now. Facts and problems do not change just because the leaves do. The problem of unintended consequences attached to this bill are huge and frightening. Take for example just one aspect relating to the TRIPS protocol. Under the TRIPS protocol signatories to the protocol must be full WTO members, with all the attendant obligations, commitments and constraints. A TRIP, which is the framework under which generics can be issued in times of emergency, when amended, as in the case in this bill, is a noble thing. However, I have questions and concerns. Is the government giving due weight to the geographic reality of Australia? Many of our neighbours in the region are in the process of getting WTO membership, but are not there yet—and that is the key. If this bill is passed and this amendment to an amendment becomes our standard then, much like a copy of a copy, we get poor results—not only poor results but potentially costly too. If under the TRIPS amended provision the Commonwealth were to provide generic drugs in the event of a pandemic in, say, East Timor—noting here that East Timor is not a WTO member—there is nothing to stop East Timor, or any other non-WTO member, from acting unscrupulously and selling on to generic and occasioning profit contrary to the humanitarian intent. So what does it mean for Australia? Some may like to see it is a small or trifling matter. In fact, that is the very line the government has tried to use to ram home this flawed piece of legislation. I wish to remind all in this place that breaking an international treaty is no small matter. It is no trifling matter. The Commonwealth exposes itself to the full weight of sanction of the WTO. How reckless and irresponsible a measure to endanger the economic sustainability of the nation and the livelihoods of millions. To entrench the budgetary emergency borders on treason. Forgive my incredulity, but the Gillard government is actually rushing to this treason. For the multifarious moments of unintended consequences that may arise upon assent of this bill, I am calling for more cool and more consideration. Significant, complex law cannot be debated in one hour. Indeed, it would seem to me that because the legislation is significant and complex the minister just wishes it would go away. The minister is doing the 'William Wish Wellington'. Well, Australia deserves a minister less candied and more candid. I urge all to pass through the six schedules of this bill—six schedules affecting four acts. Ministerial insouciance is insanity. Sanguine is not a safe policy. Looking at the schedules it is clear the minister of the day would be one to challenge the large industrial invested interest stakeholders; a challenge that the Commonwealth would be unlikely to win. This may in time be strategically used and exploited by the larger industrial corporate actors. Going back to first principles—and as to why I am calling for more time for this bill and hence opposing it—this bill ultimately fails to achieve what it sets out to do. The raison d'etre of this bill was to clarify and improve the existing amendments to the legislation. I am at a loss as to how clarification and improvements can occur when so much rushing has occurred, when so little time has been given to study the reports of the Productivity Commission and when so little consultation with relevant industry stakeholders, such as the Law Council, has taken place. It should not be the expectation that the onus falls to a member to actively seek out reports. Parliament should have by right and reason all number of relevant experts as a facility at the disposal of a member. I find a one-hour Senate inquiry hardly sufficient to achieve the sole purpose of this bill—that is, the improvement of clarity. I find that having no provision for the member for Pearce to her duty and honour a longstanding and flagged commitment is a disgrace and an insult not only to the member for Pearce but a shameful slur on the character of this government. I submit that the public record on this debate has been and is bastardised. Think of the two-person committee; think of losing the experience and enterprise of the member for Pearce. Think of the nonsense that is rushing this bill through at five minutes to midnight. Nonsense is what the Gillard government does best. The only 'sense' they know is the 'cents' that come out of my pocket and your pocket, and the Australian people's pockets. More and more, Labor is addicted to spending. That is the nonsense that we are all living under; a nonsense economic model that is fundamentally broken because you cannot spend money you do not have and will not ever have. I hope the public see why it is nonsense to believe the government on this bill; and why it is nonsense to trust them that everything will work out as IP Australia say it will; and that the small matter of breaking international treaties does not matter. 'Trust in Labor'. That is just unbelievable. Like soap on a toothbrush or reds in a wash of whites, they always sneak in and they always leave a bad taste. That is what in essence we are being asked to do with this bill. Instead of doing the hard yakka and developing a brand spanking new act that would deliver real solutions, this tired and troubled Labor government has handed down a dirty patchwork of an amendment to an amendment based on irrational exuberance. That is not good enough. It is time to give more time to this bill. It is time to set the record straight regarding the dissenting report and the many voices of concern that pour across our community. It is time to give mature and responsible government a go for once. The expression goes: 'It is never too late for a change'. If it is too late for Labor, do not let it be too late for Australia. Let clear heads rule on this debate. More time and more consultation makes more sense. This bill provides no indication as to the process of negotiation; saying simply, 'compensation for the patent holder will be negotiated'. How can such a cavalier attitude be enshrined in the law of the land? Surely our parliament can do better. Better is the better way forward. And there is an obvious and easy way forward: the coalition. The coalition's approach is to, as a matter of first principles, benchmark our legislative proposals against leading international practice. This is because the coalition appreciates that, with scientific reference to an area like IP, it is complex, detailed and fluid. For those reasons a clear articulation of a procedural framework is necessary. Churchill once said that 'empires of the future are empires of the mind'. The attitude of this Labor government epitomised in this bill is one of 'no matter, never mind'. I would like to acknowledge the significant work done on this by the member for Pearce. She has done the due diligence that the government, with all of its resources, could have done and indeed should have done. It is shameful that the government chose not to do so and instead is attempting to rush through this ill-conceived legislation. We can do better. Better is a bill that develops hope, reward and opportunity. Better is the coalition. 19:13 Mrs D'ATH HVN Petrie I thank my fellow members for their contributions to the debate. It is disappointing to hear those on the other side will be opposing this legislation but unfortunately we hear that all too often in this chamber. I would like to take a moment to thank all of the members of the community who contributed their thoughts and suggestions on this bill. Despite what we have heard from the two speakers on the other side, the proposed legislation covers a wide range of intellectual property issues and is the product of various consultations with stakeholders over a number of years. Finally, I extend my thanks to the New Zealand government for its contribution to the development of the Australia-New Zealand single economic market provisions. Before summing up this debate, I would like to take the opportunity to note the recommendation made in relation to this bill by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs and address some comments of the committee's deputy chair, the honourable member for Pearce. On the issue of TRIPS protocol, provisions applying to developing countries that are not members of the WTO, I note that the TRIPS protocol is designed to help developing countries address public health problems. It does so by enabling access to vital medicines that these countries may otherwise not be able to obtain. Arguably, non-WTO members are the countries that need our help most. These provisions are consistent with the humanitarian principles of the TRIPS protocol, Australia's international obligations and the approach successfully taken by several other WTO members, including Canada, Norway and Switzerland. The member for Pearce also queried definitions of 'exploit' and 'work' in the bill. The term 'work' has been used for various purposes in the Patents Act. Under the amended Crown use provisions, the Crown retains the right to fully exploit a patent. The term 'work' is used only in relation to prior negotiations with the patentee and does not limit the Crown's rights in relation to use of a patent. I now turn to the key elements of the legislation. This bill introduces sensible and important amendments to Australia's intellectual property system. Through modifications to Crown use provisions this bill provides the Australian public with greater confidence in the patents system, particularly over access to the latest innovations in health care. Crown use is an important safeguard which, while rarely used, provides the government with the power to be able to make use of patented inventions to serve the interest of the community. The bill clarifies the scope of Crown use, adopting recommendations made by the Productivity Commission. There has been public concern over patents over genetic material, particularly patents over the BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 gene sequences, which are linked to an increased risk of breast and other cancers. The validity of these patents is the subject of an appeal to be heard by the Federal Court later this year. While the government monitors the progress of these proceedings, this bill gives confidence to the community that the government can act if necessary. It clarifies that the government has the power to intervene in circumstances such as where a patent holder would deny patients reasonable access to healthcare services. On 13 June 2013 the United States Supreme Court found that patents over naturally occurring genetic material were invalid, including patents over the BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 gene sequences. The United States is one of our leading trading partners and we are party to international agreements with the United States that influence our intellectual property system. As a result we will be closely considering the implications of the US decision for Australia. This bill also recognises the needs of developing countries facing health crisis. Implementation of the TRIPS protocol will allow Australian industry to help the most disadvantaged countries by providing them with vital medicines that would otherwise be beyond their means. In addition, the bill implements agreements between the government of New Zealand and Australia that will provide for a more streamlined business environment across the Tasman. It will also provide parties to disputes over plant breeders' rights with a faster, more cost-effective and less formal way to protect their registered rights from infringement. Finally, the bill makes minor technical amendments to the Patents Act to ensure that the Raising the Bar Act operates as intended and reduces the costs involved in running our IP rights system by bringing storage requirements for applications into the modern age. In conclusion, a strong and well balanced intellectual property system is essential to drive the innovation and research that benefits so many Australians. The previous amendments to the Patents Act passed in this House in 2012 did much to assist Australian inventors. This bill further strengthens our intellectual property system for innovators and the Australian public and allows Australian industry to give a hand to our neighbours when most needed. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The question is that the bill be now read a second time. I think the ayes have it. An opposition member: The noes have it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY In accordance with standing order 133(b), the division is deferred until 8 pm. The debate on this item is therefore adjourned until that time. Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013 6733

Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013

Second Reading 6733 19:19 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013. This bill will add further regulatory burden on sponsors using the 457 visa program. I also believe that this bill is a politically based bill in an attempt to demonise foreign workers in this country and build support for the government in maybe some of its metropolitan areas. The 457 visa program is designed to quickly fill the skilled worker vacancies that emerge in different industries. I find it disturbing that the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship publicly claimed that there had been 10,000 cases of abuse of the 457 visa program yet he has provided no evidence to support these claims. Particularly in regional Australia, the 457 visa program plays a vital role. In my electorate alone there are many vacancies filled by workers on 457s in the more obvious professions. We have got boilermakers and welders, spray painters, carpenters and auto-electricians playing a vital role. In Moree alone the engineering companies that provide infrastructure to the agriculture sector rely heavily on 457 visa workers. One company in particular is struggling to be able to meet the demand of infrastructure for the irrigation industry since the breaking of the drought three years ago in jobs in building irrigation infrastructure. These people are not taking work away from Australians. Because of the already quite significant regulation and paperwork attached to 457 visa holders, it is preferable to employ Australian workers who have those necessary skills. But the reality is that many people with those skills do not want to work in regional Australia. Quite frankly, I cannot understand why. I could not think of working anywhere else. But that is the case. With the added competition from the mining sector, many Australian workers with those skills have gone into that sector. The changes this government has made in the last three years to the criteria for 457 workers in the agricultural sector has meant that very few people have come in to work in the agricultural sector under the 457 program. With the removal of the category of farm overseer, it has made it almost impossible for farmers to sponsor workers under the 457 program. As we speak here tonight, a lot of the work on the very large wheat crop that has been planted right through the wheat belt of New South Wales, right through my electorate, is being done by people here on holiday visas—the 417s, the backpackers—who come and spend a couple of months working on a farm, driving a tractor, planting wheat or harvesting wheat, planting cotton or picking cotton or something like that. That in itself has created a problem in filling the worker gap in regional Australia. Indeed, I have been working with former immigration minister Bowen and shadow minister Morrison, and with a large committee in the northern part of my electorate, on providing a pathway for some of these holiday visa workers to actually transition to a more permanent footing. Either you have a liking or an aptitude for farm work and a liking for living in that sort of location or you do not. Unfortunately, for many of those people who do get to work on these large farms and find they do have an aptitude for it and would like to stay for perhaps a year or two, that option is not open to them because it does not fit into the 417 category. So there is still room in regional Australia for a more direct pathway. I think the New South Wales Department of Health is one of the largest employers of 457 visa workers, nurses and trained health workers in the aged-care sector right across regional Australia. This is a real issue. I was absolutely flabbergasted when I heard that this government was performing this onslaught of negativity and attack on 457 visa workers. I just wonder how many of these workers the government knows and whether it knows or understands what they are doing. I have worked with a lot of people here on 457 visas from China, India and other countries and have been in admiration of the dedication and skill that they put into the job and also their determined efforts to undertake courses to improve their levels of English and hard work that they put into becoming members of the community. One of the 457 visa people in my electorate, who came here as a radio announcer, has worked for some years in western New South Wales at a station that struggles to keep other staff there for any length of time and has provided a great service. 457 workers are working in specialised earthmoving sales—the sorts of jobs that perhaps you are thinking 457 workers would not be doing. That is happening right across regional Australia. As it is, the productivity of regional Australia at the moment is being severely hampered by the lack of skilled workers, without impacting on us any further. Many family businesses are under a lot of stress because they are actually carrying the extra burden of trying to meet deadlines or getting crops planted or harvested using family members. Indeed, it is leading to a lot of excessive hours being worked and having a real effect on the quality of life of people in those areas. I would also like to touch on the unemployed people who I have in my electorate. I think it is important in this debate that we do not forget those people. At the moment, many of the people who are unemployed do not have the skills necessary to fill these jobs that the 457 visa workers are doing. But we must not forget them and we must not just rely on overseas workers. In many instances, the 457 visa workers are role models through their skills, ability and work ethic to some of the people transitioning into work from long-term unemployment, particularly to the Aboriginal communities and workers in western New South Wales. We must keep working as a community and as a government. We must keep striving to provide opportunities, particularly for our young ones, and encourage them to stay at school, get a trade, become skilled and take on these roles. Indeed, the Clontarf Foundation, which has been operating for 15 years in Western Australia and which has just opened four academies in the last 12 or 15 months in my electorate, is doing just that. The Clontarf foundation has been mentoring young Aboriginal boys and men right through school into trades and employment, ultimately giving them a life that many of us take for granted. I am not going to stand here and say that 457 visa workers are the answer to all our problems, but what I am saying is that they play a vital role. I think this legislation is horrendous in the fact that it is not addressing an issue that is genuine. This is, I believe, quite a xenophobic and racist piece of legislation designed to apply the prejudices of some sections of our community in an attempt to garner support for the government. This comes at the expense of not only these workers who play a vital role in the Australian workforce, but the many businesses throughout Australia, particularly in regional Australia, that rely on these 457 workers to provide a vital role. This applies not only in their businesses but in providing an economic base for regional Australia and the country as a whole. 19:31 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh I rise to support the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013. I do so because I think this bill is common sense and good legislation. I say that because all of us in this place have had to face mums and dads and people who have come to see us in our electorate offices talking to us about their children who perhaps are unemployed or struggling to find work. We have heard about cases of people who have degrees, finished certain technical schools, their apprenticeships completed and are still looking for work. This bill ensures that we in this place as legislators and members of parliament do all that we can to ensure that people who are unemployed for whatever reason and people who are fresh out of school or trade centres are given every single opportunity and every single chance to be employed. Of course, there will be a requirement for 457 visas. There are many occupations that cannot be filled. I just heard the member for Parkes talk about nurses and medical staff. There is a shortage in many areas where we need to fill those skills, and the only way we can do so is by bringing people in from overseas. I chaired the health and ageing committee inquiry into overseas-trained doctors. There we saw firsthand many areas around the country where they just could not get medical doctors and medical staff. Of course, in those situations they are granted the 457 visas—and so they should be, just like any other industry or any other employer who has tried all that they can to employ locally. This legislation is good legislation, and I think the majority of Australians would support it. It talks about ensuring that we employ locally, that we employ local people were the positions can be filled and, if they cannot be filled, that is fine. No-one is putting a stop to the 457 visas. No-one is saying to industry out there that they are not to employ anyone from overseas. All it is asking them for is the requirement that they have done all that is possible to employ someone locally or someone who is unemployed and looking for work here in Australia. I do not think that is unreasonable. I do not think for one moment that that it is unreasonable. As I said earlier, I have faced mums and dads every week who come into my electorate office to tell me that they have an unemployed son or daughter who has been seeking work and cannot get work. Sometimes, they may not be suitable for the particular positions that they are applying for, but I think it is very reasonable and sensible that an employer shows that they have done all they can to employ locally and to employ someone from their particular region or from their particular city. As I said, there are skill shortages in Australia. There have been skill shortages for sometime now. We have the booming mining industry that is sucking tradespeople into the mining industry. It astounds me to hear those opposite talk about the skills shortages when for 11 years, whilst they were in government, they did absolutely nothing to ensure that we train people to fill those skill shortages. We know that there are now more trades training places. Just about every secondary school in my electorate is training people to learn skills, and I have some great schools within my electorate. We hope that in the future we will be able to fill those shortages that we face today with our locally trained people. We need to train our people here to ensure that we can fill those positions. I know that this legislation looks at ensuring that employers do all that they can to employ people locally, but I would go a step further. If you do want a 457 visa, you should employ a couple of apprentices as well to ensure that you are securing the future for your industry. That would be very reasonable. That is something you would want to do if you are a business: to employ people in apprenticeships so you can fill the shortages that you can perhaps see in the future. That is why I think it is sensible legislation and I will be supporting it as this side of the House has, of course, proposed it. As I said, I think most people can see that this is sensible legislation and that all it is asking is that employers do whatever they can to employ locally; and, if they cannot, that is fine. No one is saying you cannot have a 457 visa. I think that is reasonable. When I speak to parents and I look them in the eye and they tell me that they have children who are unemployed, I want to know that the legislation that we put in this place does everything possible and everything within our means to ensure that we employ people here in this country who are unemployed. Mr RUDDOCK 0J4 Before the member for Hindmarsh leaves the chamber might I—lament the fact that he has now gone! But I will take up the point he was making, frequently, that there are people who have skills who cannot get jobs. They do not always offer their skills where the jobs are, though, and that is one of the major difficulties we have in our society. Very often, employers who wish to engage employees, and want them if they are suitably trained and qualified, find that they are not available in the area in which they are working and they seek people from further afield—and it is more expensive and more difficult to seek people further afield. I wonder why this matter is being progressed and I wonder why, particularly when I note the amendment moved by member for Cook, the government is continuing to press this matter. I want to take these matters up in some detail, if I may. The amendment calls for the consideration of this bill, the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013, not to be concluded by the House until a: 1. full research report is completed by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship on the true incidence and nature of abuses and non-compliance within the 457 visa program in comparison to other programs to substantiate the requirement for the measures proposed in the bill; 2. full consultation program with industry and other stakeholders has been conducted by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship on the impacts of the measures contained in the bill; and 3. regulatory impact statement has been completed by the Government in relation to Schedule 2 of the bill relating to the proposed labour market testing regime as required by the Office of Best Practice Regulation and the statement be submitted to the Parliament." That does not seem unreasonable to me, and yet the matter is being progressed in a period in which we shortly expect to have an election. I would expect that if this matter is being progressed on substantial grounds then the research would have been available and the matter substantiated. I come to this matter having had an interest over a long period of time in the 457 visa regime. I was in the parliament back in 1995 when a former Labor government commissioned a gentleman whom I know well, Neville Roach, to undertake a study in relation to temporary skilled visas and what the requirement should be. He handed down a report which bears his name, the Roach report, on business temporary entry and it was accepted by the former Labor government. These visa classes were implemented following that recommendation; in fact, the Labor government at the time was strongly of the view that we needed the streamlined access to skilled temporary workers from overseas. Senator Bolkus said in the Senate when he was the minister: The policy objective for this government is to place Australia, through our rules and regulations in this temporary migration area, in a position to benefit both now and into the future. He went on to say: … it is crucial that we ensure smooth movement of key personnel into and out of this country. That report was accepted, they did not remain in office all that much longer, and I accepted the recommendations and implemented the report. I noted in a speech that I made in the House of Representatives in September 2006 that it was interesting that in the eight years of the operation of the new scheme resulting from that report that the then Labor opposition leader had 'no complaint' at all. What occurred at a later point in time was that they then started to raise some issues and I might say that that prompted me to look more closely at the way in which the 457 scheme was operating at that time and whether there were really any reasons for complaint. The reality was that, in the economic circumstances of the time, there had been a substantial increase in the number of visas issued, but it has been acknowledged, even in this debate, that there is an ebb and flow in relation to these matters: the more prosperous the economy the greater the need and when there is a downturn it tends to come off. I had to say at that time that in the context of the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years, a jobs growth of 180,000 and the longest period of sustained economic growth that we had experienced in Australia, it was not unreasonable to see an increase. I made the point that the visa was demand driven; its size did not fluctuate with the strength of the economy, and I made some comments about research that had been undertaken at that time. The research showed that the program had been highly positive in its impact on living standards of Australians and the Commonwealth and state budgets. Access Economics had done a considerable amount of work in relation to the visa class and had been able to substantiate those benefits. The sponsored temporary business workers were seen to raise the average productivity of Australian workers. They provided fiscal benefits to the Commonwealth, state and territory budgets. The intake of about 37,100 persons a year—that is, 22,000 principal applicants and their dependants—provided benefits to the standard of living of existing Australian residents of $43 per year. So we can see that this class of visas benefited Australia generally, and I think that is the point that needed to be made. It had brought people to Australia with skills that we needed. The primary resource countries then were the United Kingdom, India and South Africa. Managers, professionals and associate professionals were the largest users of the 457 class and registered nurses were the largest denominated occupation at that time. So the point that I have made in relation to the scheme as it operated when I was minister, and that was over an eight-year period, was that there were few complaints. There have been something of the order of 6,471 business sponsorships monitored to test their compliance with the sponsored undertakings during 2005-06. Of those, 1,700 business sponsors were also site visited on a basis of targeted risk profiling, and they were random samples. At that period, they found some 15 allegations with four investigations finding that allegations were proven. The department was investigating 200 employers in relation to potential issues of abuse of the 457 class. It certainly was the case under my stewardship that there was a conscientious checking of the way in which these visas were dealt with. There was no evidence of any substantial abuse. It was seen to be positive and beneficial to the Australian community as a whole. I have had a look at the situation since that time. I noted recently in the work that was done on this matter that the number of applicants for temporary skilled migration had again risen to levels that were much higher than they were before the so-called economic crisis. In 2010-11, the number of lodgements of 457 primary visa applicants, not including dependants, was 39 per cent higher than the previous year. So with changes in economic circumstances, we have seen that that number again rose—nothing unusual; that is what has happened in the past. We saw that the top industries of primary visa applicants were health and social assistance classes of 13 per cent, other services 12.4 per cent and instruction 12.3 per cent. It seems to me that there was nothing particularly out of the ordinary in relation to those matters. There have been further reviews. When Kevin Andrews was the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in 2007 the government announced several reforms to the 457 program, including civil penalties for employers who had breached the law and greater powers for the department and the Office of Workplace Services to investigate. An English language requirement was also introduced into the program in July 2007 to ensure that overseas workers were able to contribute effectively to the workplace. The point that I make is that it seems quite clear that there was a continuing monitoring of the program to ensure that it was proceeding satisfactorily. In April 2008, even the Labor government announced the establishment of a major review to look into 457 visas—the Deegan review. As part of that, three issues papers were released for comment. The review found that concerns about exploitation of 457 visas was evident to a degree and it recommended a number of changes aimed at improving the system. Those changes were announced by the then minister in 2009. That included a market based minimum salary for all new and existing 457 visa holders from September 2009 to ensure that people were not exploited. It included that conditions were not to be undermined. Prior to this, 457 visas were required to be paid according to a minimum salary level set by the government which was below market salary rates. It increased the existing minimum language requirements for trade occupations and chefs. It progressively introduced formal skills assessment from 1 July 2009 from high-risk countries as to certain trade occupations such as chefs. It introduced requirements that employers seeking to access the 457 program had a strong record of demonstrated commitment of employing local labour and non-discriminatory employment practices. And there was the development of training benchmarks to clarify existing requirements on employers to demonstrate a commitment to training local labour, and there was the extension of the labour agreement pathway to all ASCO 5 to 7 occupations to ensure employers using the program to access those occupations satisfied obligations of local training and employment. Why do I mention all these matters? It is because the 457 visa class has been the subject of continuing review and monitoring. One has to ask: why, without any justification, without any inquiry, without any further evidence, after implementing changes recommended by this government as a follow-up to the Deegan report, are we being asked to look at these issues again? It is not unreasonable to ask why this is occurring. I think it is occurring for base political reasons that have very, very little validity. Acting Deputy Speaker Murphy, I am sure you know that in relation to the government's management of border issues there is a good deal of concern in the community amongst people who have migrated to Australia from a wide range of backgrounds—and they say, 'I came through the front door' or 'I came the right way'—and who ask this question: 'Why are we losing control of our borders and why are a whole lot of people arriving here who have not been through similar processing?' That is the concern that they have. That is the matter that the government ought to be addressing, but the difficulty we have is that they have found no way of substantially dealing with those issues because they are not prepared to adopt the measures that were known to have worked under the Howard government. What we have seen is the attempt to divert people's attention from those concerns which I believe are real and substantial by creating an issue in relation to 457 visas that does not exist. That is the reason that I believe this legislation should not be supported. The amendment is one that is real because it calls for research before any further changes are adopted. Given the way in which these issues have been dealt with in the past, I do not consider that that is at all unreasonable. 19:51 Mrs GRIGGS 220370 Solomon I rise today to speak on the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013. Admittedly, there is some confusion here on this side of the House: along with my colleagues, I was under the impression that Australia's biggest immigration issue was the fact that 734 boats have been intercepted entering Australian waters since the Labor government came to power in 2007. But it appears that the Gillard Labor government may have missed those 734 boats. Those on the other side of the House seem to think that the 457 visa program is our most pressing immigration issue. Maybe you could tell them, Mr Deputy Speaker Murphy, that they should take time to speak to people in my electorate of Solomon and, indeed, in the Northern Territory. Territorians will tell you that recently there have been 19 illegal boats headed for the Top End, and that is more of a concern for my community than the 457 visa holders. The Gillard Labor government are attempting to rush through this attack on our skilled migration program before the parliament rises, at the end of this week, oblivious to the public's outrage at the billions of dollars they have wasted on their own failed border protection policies. In their cover-up of this immigration disaster, the Labor government have belittled and harassed overseas workers. The Gillard Labor government have members of their own staff working on 457 visas, including in the Prime Minister's office. Talk about double standards! I wonder how the Gillard Labor government's own overseas workers feel when the Prime Minister attempts to demonise and stereotype them at every turn? The Gillard Labor government's attacks on skilled migration is a desperate distraction from the biggest immigration issue we have faced—their failed border protection policies which have seen, as I have said, 734 boats with 44,946 people arrive unannounced in our waters. Since Prime Minister Gillard assumed office three years ago today, there have been 38,340 illegal arrivals arrive here by boat. That is over half of my electorate and more than the entire population of the City of Palmerston. This chaos, disarray and absolute pandemonium is also met with great sadness and tragedy. It is horrific that over a thousand illegal arrivals have drowned while trying to reach our shore. These thousand people were led to believe that they could achieve a better way of life for their families by hopping on a leaky boat bound for Australia, only to meet their end on their way here. The Labor government needs to look at the problem before they sink their teeth into the 457 visa program and rip it apart. As I said earlier, there are mixed messages among the rabble on the other side. The former minister for immigration, Mr Bowen, said on 3 September 2012: The 457 visa allows businesses to employ overseas workers in designated skilled occupations only. The program cannot be used by a business as a substitute for training and employing Australian workers. As I said, in the Territory we do things a little bit differently. Many business operators have told me that they rely very heavily on the 457 visa program to retain a skilled workforce in the midst of big demand from business and booming major projects around Darwin and Palmerston. Local business operators tell me that they are afraid of the Gillard Labor government's attack on any skilled migration program as they often struggle to fill positions within our local workforce. One small business operator I spoke to recently has owned a business in Darwin for 20 years. She attributes the strength of her business success to the 457 visa program. She says that without this program it would have been extremely difficult for her to retain semiskilled workers. She told me that the 457 visa program provided both security and stability for her staff and her as an employer. Before she employed overseas workers she found it very difficult to find semiskilled workers to run her small business. With the number of major projects in the Territory at the moment it is becoming even more difficult for hard-working small businesses to compete for local workers against conditions and wages offered by larger corporations. The skilled migration program has allowed small business to access a workforce that can fill the gaps left in the local market by the major projects that are happening right across the Territory. As you can imagine, this bill has generated only further unpredictability for small businesses in these uncertain economic times. The deep concern they feel is resonating throughout the coalition. After investigation into this legislation we have found some serious flaws within the bill, not the least the fact that it has no regulatory impact statement and there has been no proper consultation. You might find that very hard to believe, that the Labor Party is not consulting, but, believe me, it has happened. This bill contains a bizarre attempt to re-introduce labour market testing which operated from 1996 to 2001, when it was found to be highly ineffective, very expensive, a significant delay and one of many setbacks for employers' recruitment action. I would like to share some more hypocrisy on the 457 visas from those on the other side. The Prime Minister's press release titled 'Changes to the ministry' in Canberra of 2 February 2013 stated: As Immigration Minister, Senator Evans shaped the temporary and permanent skilled migration system to serve our economy and restored integrity to the 457 visa program. Well, a lot has changed in a few months because now they are saying that it has been rorted and all sorts of other mixed messages. We can all agree that what small business in Australia does not need is more red tape. This bill adds to the burden of regulation, obligations, compliance and enforcement on employer sponsors using the 457 visa program. This bill represents the Gillard Labor government's and the unions' scare campaign in an attempt to demonise foreign workers. Most concerning about this bill is that it is based on a false premise. The Gillard Labor government has completely manufactured numbers to suggest widespread abuse of the 457 visa program. As I said, just a few months ago the Prime Minister was saying, and I will repeat that quote: As Immigration Minister, Senator Evans shaped the temporary and permanent skilled migration system to serve our economy and restored integrity to the 457 visa program. Under Labor, 457 skilled migration visa grants have grown to the highest level since its inception, so if any rorts have occurred they have occurred under Labor's watch. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83D 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 for Solomon will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013 6741

Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013

Second Reading 6741

The House divided. [20:04]
The Speaker—Ms Anne Burke

 72 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 Clare, JD Collins, JM Combet, GI Crean, SF Danby, M D'Ath, YM Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Emerson, CA Ferguson, LDT Ferguson, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Garrett, PR Georganas, S Gibbons, SW Gray, G Grierson, SJ Griffin, AP Hall, JG 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) Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Roxon, NL Rudd, KM Saffin, JA Shorten, WR Smith, SF Smyth, L Snowdon, WE Swan, WM Symon, MS Thomson, CR Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Wilkie, AD Windsor, AHC Zappia, A 68 NOES Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Bishop, BK Briggs, JE Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coulton, M (teller) Crook, AJ Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Forrest, JA Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gash, J Griggs, NL Haase, BW Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG 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 Somlyay, AM Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Tehan, DT Truss, WE Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Washer, MJ Wyatt, KG 4 PAIRS Gillard, JE Abbott, AJ Hayes, CP Hockey, JB Plibersek, TJ Schultz, AJ Sidebottom, PS Bishop, J

Question agreed to.
Debate adjourned.

COMMITTEES 6742 COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee 6742 Report 6742 20:10 Dr JENSEN DYN Tangney On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report entitled Care of ADF personnel wounded and injured on operations. In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper. The SPEAKER 83S The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Tangney wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion? 20:10 Dr JENSEN DYN Tangney 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 the next sitting. Report and Reference to Federation Chamber 6743 20:10 Dr JENSEN DYN Tangney I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 6743 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Human Rights: Vietnam 6743 20:11 Mr RUDDOCK 0J4 Berowra In the few minutes available to me, let me reiterate how this issues arises. A motion was moved by my colleague the member for Fowler, I believe, on Vietnam and political prisoners in Vietnam. It detailed many cases. The issue was broadly discussed by members on both sides raising concerns about a wide range of human rights abuses that are believed to occur in Vietnam. The debate occurred on the very day that the Australia-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue occurred. The debate progressed up until the lunch break and some divisions were imminent, and I thought there would be five minutes for me to report on the dialogue. These dialogues occur quite regularly in relation to China and in relation to Vietnam. Members do not always have the opportunity to participate, but on this occasion I, with the member for Werriwa, was able to participate in the Australia-Vietnam dialogue, representing the Australian parliament. I believed it was desirable to report to the House on the way in which that dialogue was conducted. I was particularly impressed with the way in which the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in the 10th Australia-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue raised a number of issues that were of substance, were real. I was particularly impressed with the way in which Vietnam responded to those matters. I would like to brief colleagues who are interested in what is happening in Vietnam on those matters. The objectives for the 10th round of the dialogue were to streamline the discussions and affirm Australia's view that human rights issues continue to be an integral part of the broader Australia-Vietnam bilateral relationship. There was a concern about freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of information in Vietnam. We wanted to discuss a list of cases and to encourage Vietnam to release those in detention and to lift restrictions on others, and to express concern at the sharp rise in the number of cases on our lists over recent years as well as the severity of sentencing that had occurred, and to welcome what we believed were some areas of improvement in relation to legal reforms, women's issues and religious freedom. I was present when Australia took up particularly the cases of Father Ly, bloggers Diev Cay, Ta Phong Tan Phan Hai as well as the 14 bloggers convicted in January, and a number of musicians, and also took up cases of some of the Buddhists, particularly the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do, whose case I have been particularly interested in. It was quite interesting during the discussions to see the way in which Vietnam was responding. I am fairly open in relation to these matters. I examine fairly critically what I believe are the facts, but it was of interest to me that Vietnam reported that, in relation to some of the more significant sentences that have been imposed, they were more frequently using the system that we understand to be parole. They spoke of that and, to the extent that we receive reports that people are being released earlier than might have been expected, it was a very positive development. There were also issues raised in relation to the death penalty. The death penalty is a human rights issue, which is of concern to members of this House. The interesting aspect of the report from Vietnam was that, while they had not abandoned the use of the death penalty, they were narrowing it in relation to the types of offences for which it might be used particularly focusing on those relating to drugs and those relating to injuries to individuals and the like, these sorts of offences that we would regard as being fairly serious in the Australian context. I wanted members to know that these issues were being progressed. The discussions were very positive and it all demonstrated to me the desirability of members of parliament participating in these dialogues in the way in which the member for Werriwa and I were able to on this occasion. Debate adjourned. Protection of National Parks 6744 20:16 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I move: That this House: (1) notes with concern the lifting of restrictions, by State governments, on activities that present biodiversity and environmental risks to designated conservation parks within their care and control; (2) recognises the importance of conservation parks in protecting natural environmental assets, creating biodiversity corridors and refuges for threatened flora and fauna; and (3) calls on the Government to consider measures that can be implemented to protect national parks from activities such as land clearing, mining, grazing and hunting. Over the years, state and territory and national governments have set aside areas of land and water as designated national parks. They have done that not only to preserve natural areas so that future generations could experience and appreciate the beauty and wonders of nature, but also as much in recognition of the importance that a healthy biodiversity has to sustaining all forms of life. Biodiversity includes not only the diversity of species of plants, animals, fungi, bacteria and viruses, but also the genetic material within those species. It also includes the diversity of ecosystems, habitats and communities within which they live and the diversity of processes that are performed by genes and species and the interactions amongst them. Australia has a rich biodiversity with between seven and 10 per cent of the earth's species found here. Many are unique to Australia. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that Australia has experienced the largest documented decline in biodiversity of any continent over the past 200 years. More than 50 species of Australian animals and 48 Australian plant species are listed as extinct. Australia's rate of species decline is amongst the world's highest and is the highest amongst OECD countries. It is not a rating that we should be proud of. Only last week Birdlife International reported that since colonisation of Australia, 27 bird species have become extinct, 20 are now on the critically endangered list, 60 are endangered and 68 species are vulnerable. The cause of those losses has to date almost entirely been because of human activity. In recent years climate change has begun to impact on biodiversity. However, the more profound effects of climate change on the natural environment are yet to come and will more likely be felt in the years ahead. The latest report from Australia's Climate Commission, released only this month, notes that one quarter into this, the 'Critical Decade', many consequences of climate change are already evident and the risks of further climate change are better understood now. Extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and climate change, in combination with other stresses, is increasing the risks of species extinctions and threatening many iconic ecosystems including the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu National Park and the alpine zones of Australia. Australia's ecosystems are already subject to considerable stresses including habitat loss and degradation, pests and weeds, overallocation of river flows, overharvesting of commercial species, pollution and other similar kinds of threats. Climate change will interact with, and in many cases exacerbate, those existing threats. Critically, our ability to lessen the added risks of climate change is very much dependent on having a healthy ecosystem to begin with—having biodiversity corridors for species to travel through and protected areas for threatened species to take refuge within. A healthy natural environment is critical to all forms of life and the production of food which sustains all of us. That is why our national parks are so important, why previous governments established them and why more than ever before they need to be protected. That is also why decisions in recent times by state conservative governments along the eastern coast in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria to ease restrictions that protect national parks from human risks are so irresponsible and will undo all the good efforts of so many people over such a long time, people who have devoted their lives to carrying out research or volunteers who have given so much of their time, energy and money to conserving the natural environment. For all the protestations by vested interest groups that land-clearing, mining, cattle grazing, logging and so on can be compatible with protecting natural areas, the fact remains that all of those activities pose serious risks and threats to the natural environment. Pests and diseases are easily brought in. Natural vegetation which harbours endemic species is destroyed and waterways are contaminated. As Dr Graeme Warboys, Vice-Chair of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, Mountains and Connectivity Conservation, and an executive member of the World Commission on Protected Areas, told the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts, when he was giving evidence to our last inquiry on managing Australia's biodiversity in a changing climate and when he was responding to a question in respect of the risks in the alpine areas from cattle grazing: The assessment of the expert managers shows that the Alps are not in a good condition for responding to climate change in the long term. …   …   … Grazing is a disaster for the high country. The mountain soils are deep, usually, organic and easily disturbed. The Climate Commission's report, in referring to the alpine zone, states: The alpine zone, which has already suffered significant loss of snow cover over the past few decades, and is home to many rare and threatened species, is considered one of the most vulnerable regions. Decisions such as those by the Queensland government to allow cattle grazing in national parks, reversing progressive efforts by the previous Bligh government to expand Queensland's national park network from five to 7½ per cent of the state's land area, are short-sighted and grossly irresponsible. In New South Wales I understand that the O'Farrell government is allowing amateur hunters into 77 national parks to kill feral animals whilst logging in protected areas is also being contemplated. Further south, the Victorian government is opening up national parks for fossicking, prospecting and tourism. As we saw in 2010, cattle grazing in the alpine regions was also allowed by the Victorian government. As well there are reports that the Victorian government is preparing to allow 99-year leases of some of the land that is currently under conservation. Given the time constraints I have in this debate, I have not even begun to touch on the similar risks that are associated with our oceans and coastal areas where we also know that many of the state governments are allowing human activities which also pose real threats to the coastal waters and to the waters that come within the jurisdiction of the Australian government and which are also critical as natural habitats for the biodiversity of the oceans and life in the sea waters. The federal government's powers to intervene are limited to the powers found in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. These powers cover matters such as World Heritage sites, natural heritage places, wetlands of international importance, nationally threatened species and ecological communities, migratory species and Commonwealth marine species. I note that the COAG discussions and negotiations currently under way relating to the EPBC Act and the efforts to streamline processes and avoid duplication are currently being considered by the Council of Australian Governments and the federal government. Such reforms, however, should not undermine the preservation of the natural environment or devalue it. Australia's natural reserve system covers just 13.4 per cent of Australia. That means that nearly 87 per cent is still available for use and Australia, as we all know, is a large country. Regrettably, conservative state governments have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to protect Australia's natural assets. I therefore call on the federal environment minister, the Hon. Tony Burke—who has shown in the past that he understands the intrinsic value of our natural environment and the biodiversity that it sustains and that he is prepared to intervene when necessary, as he did with respect to the alpine areas of Victoria when the Victorian government was allowing cattle grazing to resume—to consider what powers are available to him under the EPBC Act and to use those powers to protect Australia's natural assets; and, if the powers are not there, for him to consider appropriate amendments to the act. The damage we do is quite often irreversible. If we fail to responsibly manage our natural environment, it will be our children and future generations who will carry the burden of our mismanagement. As the ancient American Indian proverb says: we do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. I commend the motion to the House. Debate adjourned. BUSINESS 6747 BUSINESS Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders 6747 20:26 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler by leave—I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent: (1) the time and order of business for Tuesday, 25 June 2013 being as follows: (a) the House shall meet at 1 p.m.; (b) during the period from 1p.m. until 2 p.m. any division on a question called for in the House, other than on a motion moved by a Minister during this period, shall stand deferred until the conclusion of the discussion of a matter of public importance; and (c) during the period from 1 p.m. until 2 p.m. if any member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House, the Speaker shall announce that she will count the House at the conclusion of the discussion of a matter of public importance, if the Member then so desires; and (2) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister. Question agreed to. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 6747 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Protection of National Parks 6747 20:28 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important motion, because it allows me the chance to discuss a range of natural resource management issues that are important to my community; in fact, more broadly, throughout regional Australia. I am always fascinated when we have city based Labor members and city based Greens members lecturing regional Australians about environmental issues. It must be the view from those leafy suburbs that apparently brings brilliant insight into the management of distant national parks and conservation reserves. This motion amounts to an attempt to take over national parks management by the federal government from the states. This is one that the environment minister tried himself in about 2011, I think, and he failed miserably, just as he has failed in relation to EPBC reform and his planned takeover of the states' national parks was a stunt in 2011. He has dusted off an old idea in the lead-up to this new election in 2013 . It is a stunt again today. Back then, Mr Burke was challenged to come up with clear and comprehensive evidence to justify a federal takeover of the states' national parks. He failed to do so then. He has failed to do so today. It has only reinforced my view that this is purely a political stunt from a desperate minister. We are talking about the same minister who, when he was the minister for agriculture, actually stripped money out of Landcare. He actually stripped money out of the practical environmentalists in our community. I think it was in 2010. He simply cannot be taken seriously when it comes to issues of practical environmental management. He is big on hyperbole and grand gestures but, when it comes to actually rolling your sleeves up, getting your hands dirty and doing that practical environmental work, this minister has been missing in action. 'Lock it up and leave it' is not an environmental policy; it is a recipe for disaster. But it is the preferred policy of the Greens and, increasingly, it has become the preferred policy of the inner-city Laborites who never have to work or live in the environment or make a living off the land they pretend to protect. The classic example of this is prescribed burning, which has long been opposed by the inner-city Greens—but, when it comes to prescribed burning, those same individuals have been strangely silent on the issue since the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria. I strongly believe in multi-use, with people accessing our parks—actually getting out there and enjoying the facilities that are on offer and enjoying everything that there is to be enjoyed in the national park environment—because they have more respect for it as a result. In the time I have available to me, there are three issues that I want to discuss that are directly linked to this motion. They are this government's failure to get serious about the control of pest plants and animals in our nation. I also want to discuss the Commonwealth's interference on the issue of alpine grazing, which the member for Makin quite helpfully raised on my behalf. Another issue I also want to discuss is the Commonwealth's abject failure to meet its international commitments when it comes to Ramsar listed wetlands, such as the Gippsland lakes in my electorate. I want to begin with the reference in the motion to biodiversity and environmental risks. One of the biggest risks to the native species in our nation is the impact of feral species. I am not going to talk about weeds so much tonight; I will talk about the feral animals in our nation. We are talking about cats, pigs, goats, camels and foxes. But in my electorate probably the biggest threat to biodiversity is the impact of feral dogs. They are of enormous economic concern and also take a very heavy environmental and social toll in my community. The state government, to its credit, is doing its part. The current coalition state government has come to the party and has increased funding for trapping and shooting. It has introduced a bounty to encourage hunters to go out, but it also wanted to do aerial baiting. You would think that aerial baiting would be well received. After all, it has been successful in New South Wales. The research has been done and the impact on the spotted quoll was found to be minimal. But this federal government, the minister, actually blocked aerial baiting in Victoria. Even though it has been successful in Victoria and even though the research has been done, he actually got his department to call for more research. So the Victorian state government had a choice: they could do research on the quolls in Victoria—even though we know they are the same as the quolls in New South Wales—or they could spend the money killing wild dogs. Funnily enough, the Victorian state government made the choice to put more money into their baiting program and their shooting and trapping program and decided not to go ahead with the aerial baiting of wild dogs, as long as this minister is in his position. So it confuses and concerns me when members opposite come here and talk about biodiversity and environmental risks, when their own minister refuses to support a proven technique for killing wild dogs, for controlling them in a way that is actually beneficial to native species—let alone the enormous benefits that flow through to the primary agricultural sector in my community. If this minister wants to interfere in the management of these environmental reserves, as referred to in the motion, at least he could interfere and do something positive for the people in my electorate who are concerned about feral species. Another issue that was raised by the member for Makin which concerns me was his reference to alpine grazing. This is an issue that was specifically referred to in a motion and was the subject of a disallowance motion in March 2012. So my thoughts on that issue are well known. They are on the Hansard and they have been put on the public record many times since. The Victorian state government won a clear mandate at the 2010 state election. The coalition government campaigned for the return of alpine grazing as a bushfire mitigation measure. The coalition won the election. So what did they do? They introduced a trial of grazing in the alpine country to try to reduce the impact of bushfires. So what did the Labor Party do at the federal level? Well, the minister just had to intervene. In a scurrilous attempt to enforce a federal takeover—which is what it amounts to—in relation to the EPBC Act upon the Victorians. That was the subject of the disallowance motion which was defeated by one vote—when some of the Independents teamed with the Greens and the Labor Party to defeat the motion. The member for Makin talked about cattle and about the enormous damage that they had supposedly done to the Alpine National Park, but he did not make any reference to any other hard-hooved species in the Alpine National Park. In fact, the Saturday Age of this very weekend had a story about brumbies—10,000 brumbies in the Alpine National Park. But there is never a mention from those opposite about that feral species. There is never a mention—'There's The Man from Snowy River. We'd better look after the brumbies. We won't talk about the real environmental issues; we will use the mountain cattlemen to try to score some very tawdry political points.' They never talk about the real risks to the environment of the alpine region. All of this gives me pause for thought. Why do Labor MPs feel so compelled to support the Greens? It is a reasonable question. When you look opposite and you look at their primary vote, you understand that there are about 40 Labor members of parliament who actually need the preferences of the Greens to win their seats. Mr Katter interjecting— Mr CHESTER IPZ The member for Kennedy will have his turn. They need Greens preferences to try to get across the line; hence they have been prepared to decimate the mountain cattlemen's 150 years of tradition—all in a desperate bid for Green votes. If the member for Makin was sincere in his belief that the cattle in the Alpine National Park and alpine country Victoria had done so much damage, how is it possible that they were able to go to the Alpine National Park—go to that high country—for more than 150 years and that region was so badly damaged and yet we made it into a national park? They had been going there for 150 years and yet we made it into a national park. It cannot have been that bad. And they do not talk about skiing and putting ski lodges in there, as that would really offend the inner-city Lefties and the Greens. So I say to those opposite: I will give you some free advice. When it comes to the Greens, let me promise you: they are never satisfied. Just because you do one deal, do not believe they will not be back tomorrow knocking on your door for another deal. They will shaft you at the first chance they can get. They are a party of protest. They need to fight for something to exist. They are not a party of government. In order to exist, they have to campaign against something. When you do deals with the Greens, you are doing deals with the devil. I just urge those opposite to stop telling regional Victorians how to live their lives and stop doing deals with the Australian Greens. Finally, in the short amount of time I have left—and I agree with the member for Makin that there are many other issues we would like to discuss tonight—I would like to mention this government's miserable record when it comes to natural resource management as it relates to the Gippsland Lakes and their catchment area. The state government has just announced $10 million over three years to support practical environmental works in the catchment. Even though these are Ramsar-listed wetlands and the federal government recognised in 2007 that it had some obligations and gave $3 million to the Gippsland Lakes catchment, there has not been a cent since. This government has not given a cent since to water quality, to nutrient reduction or to control pest species that would impact on these Ramsar-listed wetlands. It is vital that the Commonwealth recognise its responsibilities in relation to the Gippsland Lakes and their catchment areas for the economic, social, environmental and cultural benefit they bring to the broader Gippsland region. I thank the House. (Time expired) 20:38 Ms SMYTH 172770 La Trobe This is indeed a timely and very welcome resolution put forward by the member for Makin, because we are starting to see precisely what happens to our environment and to our biodiversity when people elect a conservative government. It was enlightening to hear the words of the member for Gippsland. When the Baillieu-Napthine government came to office, what was amongst the first things that it chose to do? It was not about fostering industry. It was not about providing extra assistance to schools or to health. It was all about shoring up support amongst its own supporter base and taking 'decisive action' in relation to the 'critical issue' of alpine grazing—really decisive action! So, if we are talking about whose supporter base is being spoken to with the actions of government, we know very clearly, Member for Gippsland, where the Baillieu government and now the Napthine government lined up on these issues. But it is not just in Victoria that these sorts of issues persist in coming up; it is in Queensland and New South Wales. In Queensland, for instance, we have seen the Newman government moving to allow cattle grazing in drought times in some five national parks, I believe, and eight state parks. In addition to that, I understand the Queensland government has also commenced a review of all protected areas created after 2002 to consider the potential for logging of those areas. So it is yet another conservative government pushing ahead with its retrograde moves on the environment. In New South Wales we have seen a cattle grazing trial launched in the Millewa National Park at the determination of the O'Farrell government. We have also seen the New South Wales conservatives agreeing to allow recreational shooters into national parks. As I said, we have seen the Baillieu-Napthine government in Victoria launching a cattle grazing trial in the Alpine National Park, although of course that has now been prevented by ministerial intervention, and rightly so. However, notwithstanding that, the Napthine government has gone back for another bite and is in fact considering letting weekend gold and gemstone hunters prospect in some Victorian national parks. It is interesting to have a look at the report that has been prepared in relation to this by the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council, which had as its chair Mr Phil Honeywood, a former Liberal Party minister. He has made some interesting comments in relation to the prospect of damage that may be occasioned by prospecting in national parks, but I will come to that a little bit later if time allows. Removing cattle from the Alpine National Park, as has been touched on by the last two speakers, was a move that was originally pursued by a Labor minister for environment in Victoria, John Thwaites. It was a step taken by Labor, and it is something that this side can rightly be proud of, because national parks are places which provide a protected habitat for local wildlife. They are a means by which we can preserve our biodiversity and provide support for what can be fragile ecosystems and threatened native wildlife. National parks should not simply stand for the benefit of commercial operations, graziers or business owners; they are for the benefit of this generation and the next. Particularly at a time when we are talking about the damaging effects of dangerous climate change on our national biodiversity, they are more important than ever. The seemingly scientific arguments presented by the Victorian government in support of the benefits of alpine grazing as a means of reducing the risk of bushfire have been shown to be rubbish. Scientists did not even have the opportunity to assess the environment within the Alpine National Park that was likely to be affected before the Victorian government rushed in cattle. In the time remaining to me, I might refer again to the use of national parks for gold and gemstone prospecting. I said that the relevant decision-making body advising in relation to this, chaired by Phil Honeywood, had already talked about the evidence of the damage from prospecting. It noted evidence from Melbourne Water, which raised concerns that prospecting could undermine other efforts to improve the health of the river system. Indeed, Phil Honeywood suggested that prospecting did not 'sit well with the purposes of national and state parks'. Indeed that is correct. Ultimately, what is the point of designated conservation parks if not to protect our biodiversity and our vulnerable or ecologically important species? We are here to serve the national interest, and this side of the House will continue to act to preserve those natural assets. 20:43 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt In rising to speak on this motion put forward by the member for Makin, I would like to put some level of balance and common sense into this argument. Clearly those that are contributing on the other side are city-centric and probably understand only what they read in the papers, the magazines and what have you in relation to national parks. Certainly, when I listen to some of the arguments put forward, it is more about ideology than practicality and reality. I am very much a strong proponent of national parks and protecting our biodiversity and our amazing fauna and flora. Make no questions about it: in Leichhardt we have some truly spectacular natural areas within the Daintree, Lakefield, Black Mountain and Jardine River national parks, and they attract many visitors to our region, and of course tourism is the backbone of our economy. However, in considering this motion today in particular in regards to Queensland, the member for Makin clearly has no understanding regarding some of the relevant information. The Queensland government's decision to allow graziers to agist drought-stricken cattle in five national parks and eight reserves was an emergency response to an emergency situation. We have tens of thousands of head of cattle that are slowly starving to death. It could take months but eventually they will die. This tragic situation has arisen from a perfect storm of events, the first and most significant being the Gillard government's knee-jerk decision to ban live exports to Indonesia in mid-2011. This decision has resulted in an oversupply of cattle in our properties. The irony is that for a long period after the ban the cattle would not be exported because they were above the weight limits permitted for live export. Now, however, graziers are struggling to find enough grass to feed these cattle thanks to bushfires and emerging drought. We also have the oncoming calf drop in October-November which will further exacerbate the problem. As for the assertion by the environment minister, Tony Burke, that the Queensland government just wants to trample national parks, can I say that, like the member for Makin, Mr Burke has no idea what he is talking about. As a grazier myself I can testify that we have to be practical about the fact that you are breeding and raising cattle for slaughter but this does not mean that any grazier wants to see their cattle suffering, slowly starving to death on land that can no longer support them. The decision to open up some of these conservation areas and national parks is purely a commonsense approach and certainly a very humane one in relation to treatment of these animals. It seems that many people, including green groups, have conveniently forgotten that the national parks in question have predominantly been former cattle stations. Given that they were considered suitable for inclusion in the national parks after more than 100 years of cattle grazing, where is the risk to their suitability after temporary usage by graziers in their time of need? There is absolutely no reason why these parks cannot be managed in an appropriate way viewed as a valid management process rather than as the environmental disaster that the green groups are promoting. Grazing will help manage invasive species like buffel grass and other weeds and counter pests including pigs and dingoes. In addition, I do not believe that the animal welfare groups comprehend the consequences of their actions. Given the key role they played in this situation, they need to come forward and offer their support. I would like to see Animals Australia and other highly vocal welfare groups and maybe the member for Makin take a trip to these areas in regional Queensland, walk through the paddocks and see these starving cattle. I would even go so far as to say that if they really wanted to help they should bring along a gun, bring the ammunition and save the farmer the anguish of having to shoot their own animals. This would certainly effectively drive home to them the true impact of rushed and poorly conceived policy. This whole situation came about because of an absolute stuff-up by the Gillard government, and there has been very little done to try and improve the situation. The nonsense about offering $60 million in low-interest loans does not feed the cattle and pushes farmers into further debt. It is time to strike a balance between conservation and development. Rural communities can thrive if they are given opportunities for economic development and are not burdened by unnecessary red tape. In the meantime I will continue to work with the Cairns Chamber of Commerce and the Papua New Guinean government on a proposal that will see Queensland cattle exported to Papua New Guinea to help with their national herd shortage. This is a project which has gained incredible momentum and I am proud to be part of this practical solution— (Time expired) 20:48 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh I rise today to support this motion and to oppose any moves that seek to remove protections that were put in place to protect biodiversity and the environment in Australia. In my home state of South Australia we are fortunate to have a state government that is committed to protecting South Australia's beautiful natural environment. For those of you who have had the pleasure of going to Kangaroo Island, the Flinders Ranges, Mount Lofty or anywhere in between, you will know why all South Australians have a special interest in protecting our biodiversity and especially our natural flora and fauna. In fact, the state government, in order to protect Wilpena Pound in the Flinders Ranges, recently blocked a mining project at Arkaroola because it saw the benefit in this wonderful environmentally beautiful place. Too often we have seen other state governments treat the environment as an afterthought and only care about exploiting our natural environment. Liberal-National state governments have introduced cattle grazing in conservation parks. They think that logging is acceptable in our endangered rainforests and believe there should be almost no restrictions on where a mine can be placed. Only three days ago I got an email from Mr Elliott, a constituent in my electorate of Hindmarsh, who said: I have never written to the local member of parliament before. Do press the issue of protecting our national parks in whatever way you can. It is not looking flash after developments in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland and this is decidedly worrying. You know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the community is right to be concerned that the precious places that we all enjoy and take for granted are under threat. At a federal government level there are two possible futures for Australia's national parks. The LNP plan to disregard our national parks and wreck them for future generations of Australians, just as their state colleagues are doing. The Labor plan is to continue to protect these places for the future. The CSIRO in a recent report titled Queensland's biodiversity under climate change: impacts and adoption made it absolutely clear that there are big threats to Queensland's biodiversity under the current state government directions and possibly the biggest threat to biodiversity and endangered species is that of climate change. That is why this government made the very tough and courageous decision to put a price on carbon, because we do not want to leave future generations of Australia with a barren wasteland That is what will happen if we do not take action on climate change. I want our children and our grandchildren to enjoy the natural beauty that I have been able to enjoy here in Australia and every corner that this great land—and it is a great land, a wonderful land—has to offer us. On a very positive note, only recently the World Heritage Committee recognised the Australian government's progress in protecting the Great Barrier Reef. They made particular mention of the $200 million injected into the next stage of the Reef Rescue Program. This is on top of the Australian government acting to protect our oceans by delivering the world's largest network of marine reserves. We need to protect our natural environment and make the tough decisions to keep our biodiversity strong. 20:52 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina On the eighth day God looked down on his planned paradise and said, 'I need a caretaker.' So God made a farmer. This motion, moved by the member for Makin, is about caretakers, conservation and ensuring our beautiful and productive landscape is preserved for future generations. There is no argument about that. In reflecting upon the intent of this motion, I was reminded of a speech given by the conservative American radio announcer Paul Harvey at the Future Farmers of America Convention in 1978 entitled 'So God made a farmer.' Members might remember this speech because, though decades old, it was the theme of a Dodge car commercial during this year's Superbowl in the United States. The theme of this speech is remarkable and that is why I am quoting it during the debate tonight. Paul Harvey is right: farmers are the original environmentalists; farming is an exercise in conservation. No-one understands more than a farmer how imperative it is to treat the land in a manner which ensures a harvest be sought the following year. Yet this motion fails to recognise the significant contribution farmers make to conservation efforts every year—a further sign that there is just not the level of understanding necessary of how much farmers value their land. It is their biggest asset. Ensuring it is cared for and tended to will help a farmer with the following year's harvest. Yet debate in this place paints farmers as land-destroying environmental vandals. You will hear those opposite put down farmers and make the continued assumption that farming is a non-environmentally-friendly exercise. Tonight during debate on this particular motion we heard from inner city suburban Labor members. I do not know where the regional Labor members are on this particular motion. It really is a typical stunt by the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities—he represents a southern Sydney suburban area—the same minister who has stripped money away from Landcare funding. Labor can argue all they like but, whilst he is taking money away from them in the forward estimates, the Landcare volunteers are out there, helping to protect the environment and our land. We just heard from the member for Hindmarsh talking about every corner of Australia. If Labor had their way, being pulled by the nose by the member for Melbourne, every corner of Australia would indeed be locked up so that parts of my region— Mr Wilkie interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 I hear 'Hear, hear' from the member for Denison. He also thinks that every corner should be locked up. Maybe I am doing him a disservice there, but certainly in parts of my area national parks have been locked up so that pests and weeds, and feral animals can just take over. That is what is happening and, unfortunately, for people who were working on cattle stations and farming properties, their areas have been locked up, supposedly, for future generations. Unfortunately, as I say, these areas are now no-go zones. We heard the member for La Trobe talking about prospecting. Fair dinkum! If it were up to that side, we would never have discovered any of the resources that have blessed our nation with wonderful wealth. We heard from the member for Leichhardt, talking about the live cattle export fiasco and how some of the national parks in Queensland were former cattle stations. Surely, it just makes common sense to allow those cattle, which are too heavy and too old to be now sent for export, to graze on those areas which were once cattle stations and which are now locked up. It just makes sense and it is the humane thing to do. I heard the member for Kennedy say 'Hear, hear' when the member for Leichhardt suggested that. He knows, as well as anybody on this side and as anybody with any common sense, that that would be a good policy so that we can help those cattle farmers and the cattle. We heard the previous speaker, the member for Hindmarsh, talking about logging. If it were up to that side of politics, they would probably stop all logging. Most of the logging is done very conservatively. I note that, in the Tumut shire, 70 per cent of that shire's income comes from logging. If it were up to that side of parliament, that would all stop. That valuable industry, which provides so much wealth and prosperity for a regional community such as Tumut, would indeed be stopped. This motion is ridiculous. All the speakers from inner city areas are too citycentric and are not focused at all on regional Australia. This is a ridiculous debate and should not even be happening. (Time expired) 20:57 Ms HALL 83N Shortland For the record of the House, this motion, moved by the member for Makin, came from the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts. It is based on the unanimous recommendations of the committee. To describe it as an antifarming motion, a motion that is denigrating farmers, is an absolute falsehood. Nowhere in this motion does it refer to farmers or does it seek to denigrate farmers. If members would like to have a look at this report, there is mention of best practice that many farmers undertake. This motion is about highlighting the importance of preserving our biodiversity. Farmers can do that just as well as any person in this House who is involved in farming. To say that this motion is about denigrating farmers is just ludicrous. During the inquiry the committee learnt just how important it is that our biodiversity and our environment be protected. One member of the committee is actually a farmer—and very proud of the fact that she is a farmer—and has a long farming history. For that matter, I grew up in the country and my husband was born on a farm. We have discussed this report, and he is very supportive of it. During the inquiry, we learnt about the grazing of cattle on the alps and we heard from Dr Graeme Worboys. He is the vice chair of the International Union for Conservation of nature's mountains and connective conservation and also an executive member of the World Commission on Protected Areas. He told us how important it was to have corridors and to protect our national parks. Grazing is very important, but not in national parks. There are places where certain activities take place and should take place, but there are other places that should be protected. That is what this motion seeks to do. In my state of New South Wales, I have been very disturbed by some of the things that have happened since there has been a change of government. On the Central Coast of New South Wales, prior to the election of Barry O'Farrell, all the members went out and stated that they opposed a coalmine in the Wyong Valley. The reason that there is a lot of debate about this mine is the suitability of that area for a mine. It is an area where there has been a history of water shortage. The aquifers will take 500 years to recover, 245 houses will be affected by subsidence each day and it will lead to a major reduction in water. People will be really affected by this, and it is inappropriate as far as the geology of the area is concerned. Before the election, Barry O'Farrell and his men and women promised that there would be no mine. After the election, they are sponsoring this activity. I am so supportive of mines. I think we need mines, but I do not support mines that are inappropriate. This one is inappropriate, and you have a state government that argues one thing before an election and another thing after the election. Similarly, we have shooting in national parks in New South Wales—totally unacceptable. Now there is talk about logging in national parks. That is not saying that to you should not log anywhere; it is saying that you do not log in national parks. You do not shoot in national parks, and you make sure that mining that takes place is appropriate. (Time expired) 21:03 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy It never ceases to amaze me in this place that the member for Hindmarsh is an expert in grazing in North Queensland along with the member for Makin and the member for the La Trobe. If my geography serves me correctly, they are all in inner-city suburbs, yet they are great experts in national parks in North Queensland! I will give you a little lesson because, obviously, you have not done any homework at all. They were all grazing cattle for nearly 150 years. Jardine and Ernest Henry took cattle up there in the 1860s and 1870s. There have been cattle and cattle stations up there for 150 years. If you are so naive as to believe that a three-strand barbed fence will stop cattle when they are hungry and have no grass, then you believe in the tooth fairy. So, that is a little lesson for you so you can understand things. Whilst that might be humorous, what is not humorous are the national parks in North Queensland. God bless the ABC for doing a series on six people looking after an area the size of Germany and half of France—six people looking after it! Of course, no-one is looking after it—that is the actual fact of the matter. Out in the national parks, in one area alone between Tully and Innisfail we were getting 800 pigs a year. We started off getting 1,000. Then we got 800, and for two years we just kept getting 800. In other words, the pig numbers were huge in that national park area. If there is ever a destructive animal for which something needs to be done, it is the pigs. But what they refer to as national parks in North Queensland are pig farms, fire starters and weed nurseries. That is exactly what they are. We had the giant fires because there are no control mechanisms. On a cattle station, you get miles of control mechanisms and you burn regularly. That has been the blackfella way, and then the whitefella got it off the blackfella, so we have been burning for all of our history. All that you see on the Australian landscape was put there by fire-stick farming. I strongly recommend that you read the history books of Geoffrey Blainey to get the dimensions of fire-stick farming in this country. I went into the Queensland Museum and was absolutely horrified to see the six most endangered species. The first was the Julia Creek dunnart, which is right in the heart of my homeland. They said it was endangered because of pugging, which is fine except that it lives in cracking clay country which is covered by cracks in the earth about three inches wide, yet they said that pugging is going to destroy the Julia Creek dunnart. Pigs and prickly acacia trees are destroying the Julia Creek dunnart, the most endangered species in Australia. In the Magna Carta, our forebears in 1215—Bishop Langston: what a great man. He said that the land does not belong to the Crown; the land belongs to the people and they have a right to sustenance from that land. That is a great principle. It is a principle for which our forebears died. The greenies have managed to tie up Shelburne Bay, which is a dune blowing into the ocean worth $4,000 million a year to the Australian economy and it will all be gone within 100 years—absolutely provable, verifiable. They put a national park straight over the top of the Laura coal basin, so we will not be able to use any of the coal in that basin. The First Australians are the people who lived there. They are the ones who would be getting the jobs. With the Constance Range iron ore, again, the people who would be getting the jobs in almost all of that area are First Australians. They are the people deprived of a living. Debate interrupted. BILLS 6757 BILLS Infrastructure (Priority Funding) Amendment Bill 2013 6757

Infrastructure (Priority Funding) Amendment Bill 2013

Second Reading 6757 21:07 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I move: That this bill be now read a second time. If you come into inner-city Melbourne on any given weekday morning you are almost certainly going to see a line of cars down the Eastern Freeway trying to get into the city. As you look at any picture taken from Hoddle Street out towards the east and down the Eastern Freeway you will see three or four lanes of cars side by side, chockers; you will see a bus lane that has a couple of buses moving in it; and you will see a great swathe of green down the middle of the freeway—land that was set aside more than 30 years ago for a rail line out to Doncaster. You will also find on any given morning people who are trying to come from the west into the city struggling on overcrowded trains and quite often being left at the platform. As a result, anyone with any sense of rationality looking at Melbourne's transport system has said over the last few decades that there are two critical projects we need to build. One is to finalise that rail line out to Doncaster that we have been promised for so long. The other is to build the Melbourne Metro rail, coming in from the west and then looping in towards the city stations. That will provide another river crossing and greater opportunities for people from the west to come in to work, but also to get into the city without having to use their cars. Despite the fact that those projects have been on the table for a while and despite the fact that the Melbourne Metro project is ranked by Infrastructure Australia in its highest category, as being ready to proceed, what we have in Victoria is a state government that is ignoring both those projects and is instead pushing for tunnel, a tollway, coming from the east through the middle of inner-city Melbourne into the city. This tunnel will not just wreck inner-city Melbourne and turn it into a rat's nest of on and off ramps; it will not only wreck some of the greatest suburbs that are drawcards for people to come and live, work and play in the city; but it is also completely unfeasible because the people coming in from the east in the morning do not want to get over to the west, as the tunnel proponents tell us, they want to get into the city or to the south. As a result, all that this proposed tunnel will do is extend the massive traffic jam that is the Eastern Freeway in the morning right through the city; it will do nothing to shift people. That is why it is not on Infrastructure Australia's priority list. Despite the fact that it is not rated highly on Infrastructure Australia's priority list, we have governments intent on progressing it. Currently it is the Victorian Liberal government and the federal opposition who want to progress it. Labor at the state level started the idea of the east-west tunnel, and when there was a debate in this place a little while ago several members of the Labor Party spoke in favour of it. To its credit, though, the Labor Party has announced a significant investment in the Melbourne Metro rail project. That is very good, but it will all amount to nothing if there is a change of government in September. So this bill provides us with an opportunity to Abbott-proof inner-city Melbourne. I urge the government to take up this bill, because it will ensure that that investment that is promised into the Melbourne Metro will be prioritised over the road projects that at the moment are not even on Infrastructure Australia's ready to proceed list. What this bill will do is introduce an element of rationality into transport planning in our cities—something that has been missing for a very long time. It will say that if there is a rail project listed high up on Infrastructure Australia's list, that should get priority over a lower down road project. Exempted from that, of course, are important safety projects and upgrades that are already underway, and there will be areas where there is no competing public transport project—in regional and rural areas, for example—so it is not intended to address those and it would not. But what it would say is that in our inner cities, where we have been crying out for safe, clean and efficient way of moving people, of getting them to and from work and to and from the city, if such a project is a goer it should be prioritised and we can Abbott-proof inner-city Melbourne before the election. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMP Is the motion seconded? Mr Wilkie C2T I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 21:12 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I grew up in Western Sydney. Before I got my drivers licence I always knew it would take at least an hour to get from the west to the east of Sydney, and that I would need to leave more time than that to get to the train station to get the train into town. Then I got my licence and the only thing that changed was that I saved half an hour. It would still take an hour of travelling and the only time you could get around the city was late at night in the off-peak time. These days, in the morning and the evening, despite all the investment that has occurred in the city, there will still be days where it would be quicker to get to Goulburn than it would to get into the city from Western Sydney. It is a fact of life that the most pressing priority for governments—federal, state and local—is to free up the movement of people in the biggest city in the country. I have worries from time to time that Sydney is becoming the Southern Hemisphere's version of LA, where we are a lot more reliant on cars to get around and that we will be stuck in gridlock. But then I actually visited LA and found that their traffic moves quite well—and there are a number of reasons for that that I want to reflect on later. But certainly that issue of congestion is, according to the Planning Institute of Australia, costing our economy this year $13 billion. So, when it comes to infrastructure, Western Sydney is all ears, all eyes, all mind on this issue because we know what it means for us. You can guess on infrastructure and you can either rely on some of the impressions that I talked about earlier to guide you or rely on public sentiment, and certainly that is an important factor. But what you want to do is make sure that when it comes to infrastructure, you have this degree of independence, that someone is reviewing the plans, that the people in the know are able to bring their expertise to these issues, particularly on something as vexed as infrastructure. That is what this government has sought to do. When we established the Infrastructure Australia Act and set up Infrastructure Australia, we put in place an independent body to advise the government on infrastructure matters—a good move. It developed the national priority project list and updates it annually. Funding decisions do remain with the government, but under federal Labor all 15 of the 15 projects identified on Infrastructure Australia's priority list as ready to proceed are ticked off and ready to go. They have all been funded. It is worth noting that they include major rail projects such as the regional rail link, Gold Coast light rail, the Seaford rail extension, Brisbane's Cross River Rail and Melbourne Metro. Under the Nation Building Program, I am proud that the government have already increased investment in rail tenfold—not a small investment; it is significant. In Sydney, we are investing $840 million in the northern Sydney freight corridor upgrade, which is currently underway. That will help reduce travel times and make Sydney's rail network more efficient. We are also investing nearly $1 billion in the southern Sydney freight line. That actually opened in January this year, clearing the largest single bottleneck on the interstate rail network and building a dedicated freight line. We committed $2 billion for the Parramatta to Epping light rail link, which will benefit Western Sydney, but the New South Wales government has failed to support the project. I do have concerns about the bill. Firstly, it proposes an amendment to the Infrastructure Australia Act to direct a federal minister in decision making. Infrastructure Australia determines priority projects by identifying the most appropriate solution to the nation's transport issues—that is, assessments are deliberately mode neutral. This amendment could result in a situation where some of the highest priority projects in the nation are not funded simply because they are road projects. Many places in Australia are not served by rail transport, including many rural communities, suburbs in our cities and some of our most important commercial and industrial places. So it is important to take this balanced approach to nation building with investment in both road and rail. No-one is denying the importance of rail investment and this is why we have made it. The biggest threat, frankly, to rail investment comes from the opposition: We have no history of funding urban rail and I think it's important we stick to our knitting and the Commonwealth's knitting when it comes to funding infrastructure is roads. That was the Leader of the Opposition on 4 April this year. (Time expired) 21:17 Mr TRUSS GT4 Wide Bay Even by Greens standards, the Infrastructure (Priority Funding) Amendment Bill 2013 is a crazy piece of legislation. It will effectively stop road construction around the nation until every rail project conceived and approved by Infrastructure Australia is funded first. Rail does play a very important role in delivering transport services and moving freight around our country, and it is appropriate that we should spend money on rail. But this legislation introduces a draconian new law that would prevent any road projects from proceeding unless they were underway or there were significant safety issues involved, otherwise all of the money that the Commonwealth allocates to road and rail has to be spent on rail. It is quite clear under this arrangement that there would be no money available for the important road projects. In Queensland, for instance, Cross River Rail is on the list of projects that have been considered by Infrastructure Australia as ready to proceed. The Melbourne Metro stage 1 project is also on that list. These two projects together, according to Infrastructure Australia's, estimates will cost about $6 billion. However, most observers believe the real cost to build those projects will be $10 billion to $15 million. That means that every single cent that this government has allocated under its Nation Building Program will have to be spent on these two city rail projects before a single dollar is available for a road either in the city or in the country. I have already had the Greens candidate in my electorate of Wide Bay write to the local newspaper calling for all funds to be taken from the Bruce Highway upgrade in Queensland and spent on passenger rail. The Bruce Highway is responsible for one in six of all fatalities on the National Highway. The Greens view is that no money at all can be spent on upgrading this road until the cross-river tunnel is completed in Brisbane and the metro rail is completed in Melbourne. Of course, there may well be other rail projects over a period of time that will get on this particular list. It is no comfort to the flood-stranded people in Rockhampton to know that the Greens believe they should stay cut off until the tunnel is built in Brisbane and in Melbourne because that is the priority that should be adopted. It is quite extraordinary that this Greens agenda should deliver a message to all people who live outside the areas that have the privilege of passenger rail services that they are not allowed to have any money spent on their roads. This is, quite frankly, a ridiculous piece of legislation. I am looking forward to telling the people of Australia, particularly those who live in regional communities, the sort of people the Greens like to pretend they actually support and represent from time to time, that as far as the Greens are concerned no money at all can be provided to roads in regional communities and in cities unless every single rail project is completed first. This is not the kind of legislation that I would hope the government would support. It is certainly not the sort of legislation that the coalition will support. We recognise that it is important to invest in rail and to make sure that our transport systems work effectively. There is a need to build major new railway lines and, given a chance in government, the coalition will certainly give those priority. But the intention of the Infrastructure Australia arrangements are that choices be mode neutral, that we pick the best projects. In some cases that would be rail; in other cases it would be road. We should not have legislation that restricts the government of the day or the minister of the day to giving absolute priority to passenger rail services over any other project there might be in the country, no matter how worthy those projects might be. (Time expired) 21:22 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I rise to speak in opposition to the member for Melbourne's private member's bill—the Infrastructure (Priority Funding) Amendment Bill 2013—but in doing so acknowledge on his part that there is a desire to see a significant interest from the federal government placed on rail infrastructure. Indeed, that interest exists. But I do oppose this private member's bill that he puts before the House, essentially for the reasons that you have just heard from the member for Wide Bay. It does make no sense that you would have in place a piece of legislation that would require that only spending occur in relation to rail, with some very small exceptions, without reference to the need to invest in road infrastructure. This government has had an unprecedented commitment to infrastructure in Australia. We have set up Infrastructure Australia, a body to examine the key pieces of infrastructure which need to be developed in this country. Then we have put our money where our mouth is and we have committed to that. In rail alone, we have seen a 10-fold increase in expenditure in relation to rail in this country under this Labor government. But there is a process in play here which the member for Wide Bay described. There is an independent process of assessing the key infrastructure needs of this country and that is an assessment which is done in a mode neutral way because there are some very important road projects which need to be funded as well. Particularly in regional areas, there are often circumstances where rail alone will not solve the infrastructure issue and where rural communities are necessarily required to use roads. For example, between Geelong and Colac we have seen the duplication of the Princes Highway, which is a very important piece of road infrastructure for what had been a very dangerous piece of road for my constituents. That said, we as a government have done more for rail than any federal government since Federation, particularly in developing our urban rail networks and our connections to those. The best example of this in my neck of the woods is the Regional Rail Link, which is a $3.2 billion project that will provide for better rail connections for Victoria's regional cities, such as Ballarat and Geelong, into Melbourne. It does this by having a dedicated line for those regional trains into Southern Cross station. When trains are currently entering the Melbourne metropolitan network, they experience what people in cars experience, which is in effect a traffic jam. So, by having a dedicated rail line into Southern Cross station, this will provide for a much faster commute—not because the trains are able to go faster but because they are free of traffic—and that in turn should see a better frequency of trains going into Southern Cross station and provide a much better rail link for people from Geelong into Melbourne. That is a critical piece of infrastructure for a city like Geelong. Increasingly, Geelong is becoming a lifestyle city where people who want to work in the Greater Melbourne area are choosing to live their life in Geelong. But that only works if there is a good commuter connection between Geelong and Melbourne, and the Regional Rail Link is going to provide that. It will provide that in a way which sees the commute time reduced and which sees a greater frequency of trains so that there is an ability for people to get on those trains, get a seat and to be able to travel in comfort. The one point I would make in relation to rail is that, whilst there is an intent on the part of the member for Melbourne in putting forward this private member's bill to promote rail, the biggest danger for the development of our rail infrastructure in this country would be the election of an Abbott government in September this year. The Leader of the Opposition could not have made it more plain that an Abbott government stands opposed to the Commonwealth playing any significant role in the development of urban rail. He says it is simply not the Commonwealth's knitting. Well, we are the rail government. (Time expired) 21:28 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I am pleased to rise to speak briefly on the Infrastructure (Priority Funding) Amendment Bill 2013, a private member's bill moved by the member for Melbourne, which, if it were passed, would fundamentally defeat the purpose and intention of Infrastructure Australia. The job of Infrastructure Australia is to set and implement national priorities for infrastructure. On this side of the House, we believe that that is a sensible thing to do. We have some questions about the effectiveness with which Infrastructure Australia has worked under the present government but the basic concept, we think, is a very sensible one. There are limited funds available for infrastructure—many other good things compete—and there is a need to prioritise among the many competing priorities. That is a very tough concept for the Greens to understand because they are in favour of a lot more spending on everything, even at the same time as they want to bring an end to the resources sector, which generates much of the wealth which goes into the government's tax coffers. The notion that there is a limited amount of money to be spent is a fundamental one and therefore we need to set national priorities, including priorities between different projects of the same kind of infrastructure and between projects of different kinds of infrastructure—the choice between roads or rail or ports or water. The approach proposed in the bill before the House this evening would mandate that rail would automatically get priority over road. It would take away the capacity of Infrastructure Australia to rank the projects based upon an assessment of their merits and would substitute for that a politically motivated preference for one kind of infrastructure project over another On this side of the House, we say that is not a sensible approach and for that reason we do not support the approach which is contained in the bill before the House this evening. We do see merit in Infrastructure Australia. We think it needs to work better but we do not think the fetters and the constraints that are proposed in the bill before the House this evening should be supported. We think they are driven by politics rather than facts. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 6762 ADJOURNMENT Macarthur Electorate: Sport Awards 6762 21:30 Mr MATHESON M2V Macarthur Wests Leagues Club recently celebrated 15 years of supporting local sport at the annual Wests Sports Council presentation night. The presentation acknowledged sporting achievements of junior, youth and senior athletes, teams and clubs across Macarthur. The junior sportsperson of the year was Liam Marshall from the Magpies Cricket Club. Liam was part of the under-12 division 1 winning premiership team this year. He scored 161 runs at 53.57 runs per innings and 19 wickets at 5.11 runs per wicket. His best bowling figures were four overs, one maiden, five for six, with a highest score of 51 not out. Liam also played in the under-12 Cawsey Representative Shield. He represented New South Wales PSSA in cricket and went on to win the title in South Australia. He has been selected in the under-13 New South Wales Cricket Academy for next season. The youth club sportsperson of the year was Cormac Clissold from the Southern Districts Tennis Association. This year Cormac represented the district at the state and national levels. At the 2013 annual championships, he won the under-16 boys singles, open mixed doubles and open men's singles. His current Australian National Ranking is 267. His current men's International Tennis Federation ranking is 1,487. The spirit of sport club person of the year was awarded to group 6 referee Kim-Maree Teale. She certainly has a story to tell. Kim has been a referee since 2003 and helps junior referees with their training, advising, videoing and paperwork. She is a mentor to four female referees and has been on the committee as secretary, assistant secretary, vice-president and president. Kim is the first female president of the referees association. To achieve recognition as president in a male-dominated sport shows the great respect, leadership and knowledge Kim brings to group 6 Football. Kim has introduced a charity for the young referees to participate in called Save our Sons, committed to finding a cure for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. She also received the Wollondilly Australia Day Award 2013 for Sportsperson of the Year. The club team of the year went to Gunners Soccer Club under-18 division 1. Team members include Joshua Allen, Jimjay Aloese, Ryan Capps, Nabil Daoud, Craig Jackson, Dylan Karan, Luke Matthews, Jordan Ormrod, Nick Pedreira, Liam Piggott, Jarrod Risby, Luke Shirley, Aiden Shortland, Cameron Wallace, Matthew Wallace, coach, John Rawes, and manager, Tony Piggott. This team is the only team in the Macarthur Association since 2005 to reach the grand final of the mid-season New South Wales State Cup knock-out competition. They won the 2012 Macarthur under-18 division 1 league, scoring a massive 77 goals for, with 20 against. They won the under-18 grand final at Campbelltown Stadium and the under-18 NSW Champion of Champions State Title for the second successive year. The senior sports club person of the year went to Nicole King from Raby Hockey Club. Nicole was part of the winning Raby Hockey Club 1st division premiership team. She was awarded representative player of the year in 2012 by the Campbelltown City Hockey Association. In 2012, the Australian Olympic Committee presented her with the Pierre de Coubertin Award for fair play and sportsmanship to celebrate the Olympic sport. She represented the Campbelltown City Hockey Association under-18 team and was the New South Wales under-18 indoor team vice-captain. The elite sports team of the year award went to the Macarthur Baseball League Macarthur Colts under-12 representative team. Team members include Hayden Blackborrow, Ryan Boyce, Harrison Bolton, Blake Cavill, Lachlan Dean, Madison Heath, Jayden King, Jack Lee, Jackson Mannix, Connor Marsh, Josh Pearl, Ray Redman, Michael Sherry, head coach, Matt Cavill, assistant coach, Nick Bolton, pitching coach, Scott Pearl, bench coach, Brian Marsh, executive officer, Rebecca Cavill, and scorer, Kay Cooper. The players were undefeated in 12 rounds and won the minor premiership. The team won the New South Wales Baseball under-12 competition for the first time in Macarthur's history. Seven of its players were selected in Macarthur's little league team as first year players. They finished second in the New South Wales division and attended the national championships on the Gold Coast. Elite sports person of the year went to Damien Mortimer from Campbelltown Camden District Cricket Club. Damien played first and second grade in the Sydney Grade Cricket Competition. He scored 650 runs this season. He was selected in the New South Wales under-19 team as a top-order batsman with his highest score of 122. He was selected to attend the Cricket Australia Centre of Excellence in Brisbane in a squad of elite under-18 players and the Australian under-19 side to tour New Zealand in March and April. Damien was also selected in the Australian under-19 side to tour Darwin and India and was the recipient of the prestigious Alan McGilvray Scholarship. He has now been identified as an elite cricketer in Australia and I will be very excited to follow his progress over the next few years as he continues to achieve great things. Finally, I would like to thank the Western Suburbs Leagues Club and the Wests Sports Council for supporting our local athletes and sporting clubs. I congratulate all of this year's award winners for their hard work and great achievements on the sports field. The Macarthur community is certainly very, very proud of you all. Cross River Rail Project 6764 21:35 Mr RUDD 83T Griffith I rise this evening to speak about one of the most important infrastructure projects for the future of Brisbane, Cross River Rail. Earlier this year the Queensland Liberal-National Party state government issued a request to the federal government. The request was simple, to provide $715 million to ensure the construction of a cross-river rail project in Brisbane. The 2008 Inner City Rail Capacity Study found the demand for train services during morning peak times will reach between 70,000 and 80,000 people by 2016. By 2026, modelling suggests that this will have increased to well over 100,000 people each and every day. Brisbane's urban rail network will come to a grinding halt as a result by 2016 unless changes are made. The Cross River Rail project will feature four new underground stations including one at Woolloongabba and one at Boggo Road, both in my electorate of Griffith on Brisbane's south side. It also includes an underground station, Albert Street, in the city close to the Queensland University of Technology, the Brisbane financial district on Eagle Street and the botanical gardens. Cross River Rail will ensure additional capacity of 17,000 people during peak periods. That is 17,000 people out of cars and onto trains. For anyone who spends their mornings and evenings sitting in traffic on Wynnum Road, on the Story Bridge or on the Captain Cook Bridge, you will know just how significant this project will be. It will also reduce parking problems around the Gabba on game day and game night, and become a magnet for investment in new residential development in that precinct. The Boggo Road station will also help serve the Boggo Road science and technology precinct and have great bus services straight across the Green Bridge to the University of Queensland, and will also be not far from the services provided by the PA, Princess Alexandra hospital. So given the great advantages to local communities, to local business and university precincts and to the overall state economy because of the positive employment impact of such a large-scale infrastructure project, we may well ask in this House this evening what is the hold-up? The feasibility study and the detailed planning? They are done, thanks to $20 million from the federal government back in 2009 when I was Prime Minister. The preferred route? It is done as well. The environmental impact study? Done as well—done, ticked off by the Queensland Coordinator-General. Funding? Done as well. We have allocated $715 million to put the first shovel in the ground, the precise amount requested in writing by the Queensland Liberal-National Party government. So what in fact is the hold-up? The hold-up is that the Leader of the Opposition forced Premier Campbell Newman to backflip on the Queensland government's backing for the project, because the Leader of the Opposition has refused funding to all urban rail projects nationwide. In other words, a Premier of Queensland was rolled by a federal opposition leader. Joh Bjelke-Petersen would roll in his grave at such an appalling capitulation. Joh could not believe that any Queensland Premier worth his salt would roll over to any federal leader, let alone a federal opposition leader. Campbell Newman's state Liberal-Nationals claim that $715 million for the cross-river rail is not enough funding, yet the federal opposition says the $715 million is too much funding. Let us be clear about this: the Queensland government know how important this project is. They know there is no alternative. Pulling seats out of carriages to jam more people in is just crazy—carriages are already too overcrowded. That is why the Queensland government put this project forward as a key priority in its Infrastructure Australia submission. That is why the Queensland Minister for Transport and Main Roads wrote to Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Anthony Albanese, in April this year outlining what the Queensland government needed for the project to proceed. The Queensland Liberal-National Party government stipulated five conditions: all five conditions were acceded to by the Australian government, including the Queensland government's request for $715 million which Queensland would then match. What was the federal minister's response to the submission from the Queensland government? 'No problem, you've got it. Let's get on with it. Let's build it.' Enter the Leader of the Opposition, the alternative Prime Minister of Australia. The Liberal-National Party have turned their back on Brisbane's rail network. They have turned their back on the residents and small businesses who live on Brisbane's southside. Where is the opposition leader's hand-picked Liberal-National Party candidate for Griffith on this critical issue for southside residents? Nowhere to be seen. Mr Glasson backs the opposition leader's cancellation of the cross-river rail project that benefits Brisbane southside. In fact, he backs anything that Mr Abbott or Mr Campbell Newman choose to do. Queensland southside deserves better. (Time expired.) Wright Electorate: Farmers 6765 21:40 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright I rise to speak on behalf of the Australian farmer who under extraordinary circumstances is doing it incredibly tough. The other reason I rise is to play my role in trying to educate the Australian public as to some of the hurdles that present themselves in current farming practices, particularly in my electorate of Wright. I have a predominantly agricultural seat when it comes to mainstream revenue, with farmers specialising in the horticultural sector. I have fertile valleys in my electorate, including the Lockyer Valley which did not escape recent unprecedented flooding within the electorate. The first thing I bring to the attention of the House is the cost of doing business in Australia compared to trying to provide a similar crop elsewhere on the planet. Take for example the cost of financing. Today I was made aware that our banks have maintained the most profitable status globally for the third year in a row—our banks are the most profitable. Why is it that my farmers, who are on struggle street and trying to cope with the increasing operational costs, on average are paying eight per cent for their farming loans? These are third-, fourth- and in some situations fifth-generation farmers. These are specialists in their fields paying eight per cent. Often, when banks are asked to finance new country, these farmers are asked to put up 40 per cent deposits. You tell me what commercial business or even a housing loan demands such a high deposit, even for first-home buyers who often have virtually no credit history. They can get money for a first-home loan at around 5½ per cent. Why is there a two per cent premium on some of the best farmers in the world? Some of our farmers are the best in the world and they are being penalised by two per cent, because the banks perceive them as a risk. Some of the other costs of operations that farmers in the electorate of Wright are dealing with make me scratch my head. Why is it that if I want to purchase a John Deere harvester or header I can buy the machine out of America for around $400,000, but the same machine here in Australia at parity is around $800,000? The cost of getting the machine to Australia would be no more than $20,000 assembled. Where is the difference? Why are we doing business so poorly in Australia that we are getting the basic things wrong? I cannot answer these questions but I will pursue them in my role as a parliamentarian. I struggle to comprehend this. Also in the electorate of Wright I have growers that deal with our two major retailers. It is unfathomable that the cost of compliance to produce a product and get it ready for the domestic market is overwhelmingly more expensive than it is to bundle up that exact same product and send it on a ship literally thousands of nautical miles from an Australian port with far less compliance to access export markets than it takes to access the local retail outlets not more than three kilometres from where most of my growers are operating. It is a somewhat perplexing task. However, I will continue to bring pressure to bear on our banks. I have asked questions of our Reserve Bank Governor as to the spread between the cash rate and the margin which banks offer. The report I read today clarified my resolve to continue to pursue the banks so that my families—my mums and dads in the electorate of Wright, my business people, my businesses—can access cheaper funds at more affordable rates. It will be my intention to continue to pursue markets that are compatible with export markets. If we are going to grow our farming sector, we need to start addressing policy situations in this House. Holt Electorate: Indian Community 6766 21:45 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt Tonight I rise to talk about a very important community living in my federal electorate of Holt, a community which adds immense richness and vibrancy to my electorate. One of the privileges of being a member of federal parliament is the ability to attend citizenship ceremonies, particularly the citizenship ceremonies conducted by the City of Casey. It is wonderful to be present at a ceremony where people from all corners of the globe and all walks of life take that final step to truly become Australian. To see the faces of these new citizens full of hope and optimism about the future of the country that they call home is wonderful. I have noticed particularly the new citizens that have come from India, in many cases young families who now call Australia home. Their stories from all parts of India, wherever they have come from, are now our stories. They have become part of the Australian fabric, part of the Australian story. One of my favourite stories is from the last citizenship ceremony, that of a young woman who came from Tamil Nadu who was studying, I think, civil engineering and science at Monash University. I asked her what she wanted to do and she wanted to work for a particular mining company. I asked what would happen if the mining boom finished off and, quick as a flash, she said that she would work for Boeing. I like the vitality and spirit of young people and particularly of that young woman who came from India. In Australia there is a rapidly growing Indian community. According to the 2011 census, approximately 295,000 people living in Australia were born in India and over 390,000 people have Indian ancestry. In 2011-12 those migrating from India were the largest source of permanent migration to Australia, forming 15.7 per cent of the total migration program in 2011-12, whilst according to the 2011 census there are 11,116 people of Indian ancestry residing in my federal electorate of Holt. Since the 1800s, Indian migrants have made a profound contribution to Australia in many ways. Through their culture they have enriched Australia. Through their festivals, through their temples and particularly through their achievements in the fields of science, medicine, law and even fashion design they are making their mark on this country in a very, very big way. As I have said, their stories are our stories, and I am going to run out of time talking about some of their stories. Stories are innumerable about people from India who have come to make this country their home, enriching our local community, opening up small businesses, establishing local community heritage centres or establishing sporting groups. The list is endless. For example, on 15 June 2013 I had the pleasure of joining Luke Dennellan, the Victorian state member for Narre Warren North and the Hon. Lee Tarlamis, the Victorian state member for South-East and Metropolitan Province, to attend the official opening of JosanMotors in Hallam, which is run by Mr Hajap Singh. Mr Singh is a local resident who has opened a small business of motor repairing. It is a small business that has all the modern machinery. He has done this. He has taken the leap of faith, after working for many years from another company, in establishing a small business in the suburb of Hallam. It is not easy to establish your own small business, but Mr Singh's initiative is to be commended particularly now as he is one of 18,900 small business proprietors in the City of Casey who are vital to our local economy. There are other notable small businesses run by members of the Indian community, such as Rox Industriesin Dandenongrun by Mr Prince Mashli. Since 1994 Rox Industries has been manufacturing high-quality mechanical components. There is a very vibrant Indian community making its mark in manufacturing in the south-east. At this particular function I also met a Mr Kamran Kanh, who represents the Landmark Zenath Group, who is working for a company that is planning to establish 20 restaurants all over Australia in the next five years including five restaurants in Melbourne. This is a significant investment. I also want to quickly mention Neeraj Nanda, who runs the local South Asia Times, and Ravi Ragupathy, who runs Moviebook,an online magazine about cinema, for their work in promoting and publishing local Indian news and Indian films throughout the local media. I could just keep going on and on and on, but I would like to say that these stories are success stories. These are stories about a community that has come a long way to make this country their home. You see the establishment in the community of the magnificent Shri Shiva Vishnu Temple. I do not know whether those opposite have seen it, but it is a landmark Indian temple in south-eastern Melbourne. This is a wonderful community, a vibrant and rich community. I am glad that they have made Australia their home. They have made our country stronger and richer as a consequence. Economy 6768 21:50 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I appreciate the opportunity to rise tonight to raise an ongoing concern in my electorate of Gippsland relating to employment opportunities for young people particularly in the retail sector. I have spoken in the House many times previously about the importance of sustainable long-term jobs in regional Australia. The issue I want to discuss is the collection of GST revenue from goods purchased online from overseas that are valued at less than $1,000. I know that it is a topic of some public discussion at the moment. It is something that I have raised over the last couple of years with the Treasurer and within the joint party room on the coalition side. Basically the situation is unfair. An unfair playing field has been created for Australian retailers who are already finding it hard to compete with their higher cost structures than their competitors overseas. In my electorate I have always championed the message of putting locals first by campaigning and encouraging people to shop locally and support local traders, because these are the people in my community who support their community growth. They support our sporting organisations, our local surf lifesaving club and other organisations by donating their time and helping our region to prosper. Mr Lyons interjecting— Mr CHESTER IPZ I will take the member for Bass' interjection. Our surf lifesaving club is a wonderful club and it is well supported by the local business community. The government also benefits, though, when retailers in our local community are doing well, because they share in the revenue and that helps pay for practical things in our community like schools and hospitals, doctors, nurses and roads. I accept that no-one likes paying taxes but everyone likes the public benefits they bring to our communities. The current approach to online purchases of imported goods is nothing short of tax avoidance on a grand scale through the ignorance of governments over many years. Setting the tax-free threshold at $1,000 means that the government misses out on revenue from millions of foreign purchases every year. These are goods that would attract the GST if they were purchased in Australia but they are shipped into our country with no benefits at all to the broader community. On top of that, there are repeated allegations of fraud and rorting of the current system and, not satisfied with the $1,000 tax-free threshold, the importers are prepared to provide invoices and break up an item such as a camera into three or four different pieces so that it actually stays below that point—in fact, while the entire camera may be worth $2½ thousand or $3,000. If you send it to Australia as a flash unit, as a zoom lens or as a camera body, you avoid paying the GST. Some people would say, 'What does it matter?' It matters when we have state and federal governments desperate for revenue to fund really important infrastructure programs right throughout Australia and major initiatives and reforms which have bipartisan support like the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I have read all the arguments for and against lowering the threshold and I note the claims by those who argue for the status quo, that the cost of recovering the tax is too high. I have read those arguments but I find them both false and misleading in their commentary. There was the Low Value Parcel Processing Task Force, which found there was an in-principle case to reduce the tax-free threshold. That low value task force recommended major changes—although I acknowledge it did not actually identify the new figure for the GST-free threshold. The National Party, at its recent national conference, passed a motion setting that figure at $20, and I think that has the support of the National Retail Association and others. In its submission to the 2013-14 budget process, the NRA stressed the major implications of the current system, the implications it has on our employment throughout Australia and the future prosperity of the retail industry in this nation. I acknowledge this tax-free threshold issue is not the panacea for all the problems facing the retail sector, but it is an issue of significant concern as making already difficult trading conditions for our retailers perilous for them and many others. According to the National Retail Association, which commissioned an Ernst & Young report on this issue, up to 34,000 local retail jobs will be lost if our local businesses continue to face the type of tax discrimination which exists today. It makes sense for the Commonwealth and, through them, the states to maximise the GST revenue, and I think they are finally recognising the missed opportunity that exists today. This is not a question of being for or against online trading—I acknowledge, as everyone in this place does, it is a fact of life in the 21st century—but it is a fundamental question of fairness. On the one side of this debate, we have our own retailers, Australian companies—whether they be major retailers or mum-and-dad small businesses in our own local communities—using their own money, being entrepreneurial, having the innovation, the determination to go out and start their own businesses and employ Australian workers. They are being exposed to global forces and global competition and they can deal with that. But, at the same time, they are at a distinct competitive disadvantage, because governments have failed to act on this area of discrimination. It is easy to point back to previous governments and say, 'The Howard government didn't do enough in this area,' but times have changed and this government has not responded, I do not believe, in an efficient enough manner to help protect the future viability of Australian small businesses. It is time to take action before more staff are laid off and it is time to take action to mend our GST laws. (Time expired) Australian Labor Party 6770 21:59 Mr LYONS M38 Bass The federal Labor government has had some remarkable achievements since 2007, many of which have gone unreported in the media or been needlessly criticised by those sitting opposite. The Australian Labor Party has achieved social, economic and environmental reforms and, with each decision made, the Labor government has strived to protect the vulnerable and create a better Australia. We have invested in the future by rolling out the NBN and delivering sensible budgets, despite challenging economic times, since the aftermath of the global financial crisis. We eradicated Work Choices, introduced by the out-of-touch Howard-Costello government, which was manifestly unfair to both employees and to small business owners and reviled across Australia. Many of those who sit opposite me today were part of that government, and we know that unfairness is in their DNA. They simply cannot be trusted when it comes to fairness in the workplace. We have also made changes to superannuation, increasing it from nine to 12 per cent. For most Australians, their super is the only money they have after their working life is over. We are living longer and we need to set aside more for our longer retirement. I also note the Labor Party has increased the aged pension to give dignity to those who have worked hard to make this nation the great place that it is. We also introduced Australia's Paid Parental Leave, including two weeks pay for dads so they can spend time with their newborns to give them the best possible start in life. We have also boosted higher education funding in Australia by 50 per cent and created 190,000 extra university places. University education should not be just available to those who can afford it. A better educated population makes better choices about our collective future. Australian innovation is world famous, and more places at uni mean less chance of you and your kids missing out. We established the national curriculum, which means that for the first time education standards have been equalised between the states, allowing for more transferable skills and a higher degree of social mobility for all students. As part of the national economic stimulus program, the government chose to invest heavily in new facilities for schools right across the country. This had the double effect of stimulating the economy while improving the lives of hundreds of thousands of children right across Australia. This spanned 7,920 schools in 10,475 projects, which I note were completed at less than three per cent dissatisfaction rate; yet those opposite have consistently peddled that the money was wasted. It certainly was not wasted in Bass. Those opposite do not value education. They never have and they never will. We introduced the National Disability Insurance Scheme, making sure Australians have a place in our society by ensuring against the onset of a disability in the health space. We also made the bold move to introduce plain packaging on cigarettes. The government has increased healthcare spending by more than $20 billion or 50 per cent from the previous Australian Healthcare Agreement with direct benefits for all Australians. We also won a seat on the United Nations Security Council and ratified the Kyoto treaty. We put a price on carbon, demonstrating that Australians are not shying away from making decisions that are responsible and right and, in doing so, we restructured the tax base to ensure that most Australians are not financially disadvantaged. I know the Leader of the Opposition has said that the science is highly contentious and the argument is absolute crap when talking about climate change. I have got news for the opposition leader: The Australian is no scientific journal. Additionally, we made broad steps to protect our environment by establishing the national network of researchers and parks, creating the world's largest marine park network and introducing the reef rescue program. In my own electorate which I have been very proud to represent for the last 2½ years, we have funded irrigation schemes, rebuilt the DSTO and overseen the implementation of the BERs in every school and the NBN. There have been many grants to various businesses in my electorate, such as Joseph Chromy Wines, Leaning Church Vineyard, Velo Vineyard, Definium Technologies, the Migrant Research Centre, the Benevolent Society, and St Giles Society. There has been funding for upgrades to the Launceston General Hospital, and various medical practices and many others have been benefited from federal funding. Those opposite have spent the 43rd Parliament being negative, out of control and out of touch with our nation. This is the job that Australians expect us to do: caring for the vulnerable and managing Australia in the best interests of all. Parliament 6771 22:00 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong Earlier today I joined members from across the political divide as we celebrated our shared membership of an auspicious group—the class of 2010. Thirty-two members make up the class of 2010, and it gave me great pleasure to invite all my classmates, regardless of political affiliation or title, to break bread together in an effort to create greater understanding and respect of each other, to encourage us working together as community leaders in the best interests of our nation. Whilst many may prefer to focus on the animosity of question time or to paint the coalition as a negative force, the truth is that we do work together—evidenced by the fact that nearly 80 per cent of legislation presented by this government since the last election has not been opposed by the coalition. Both sides of politics have members who enjoy great respect across the aisle. This was exemplified when the member for Batman gave his valedictory speech and received applause from across the chamber and an emotion-filled response from the Leader of the Opposition. In this spirit, I invited the member for Batman to attend today's class of 2010 lunch as a special guest, to commence the Arthur Calwell-Robert Menzies Lunch Club, to be situated in the centre of the Member's Dining Room, at the Martin Ferguson Table. I must take this opportunity to thank Timothy Stephens and Mirjana Sladic of the Members and Guests Dining Room for setting up the Members' Club Room for this event. Timothy told me that in his 10 years of administration of this part of Parliament House he has never witnessed this kind of bipartisan event. The background to this event dates back to stories that my dad told of the weekly lunches had by the then opposition leader, Arthur Calwell, and the Prime Minister, Bob Menzies, at the end of many sitting weeks. As a result, Madam Speaker, tomorrow I will be writing to you to request your support for a formal name change of the Members' Club Room to the Calwell-Menzies Club Room to preserve this memory. However, any speech in this place cannot totally avoid the cut and thrust of politics, and it is somewhat fortuitous that this lunch took place on 24 June—a date that will long live in political infamy in this country. Whilst we may celebrate standards of civility across the chamber, for over the last three years we have observed a public fight between factional leaders and faceless men and a divided caucus over whom they believe is best suited to serve our country as Prime Minister. We deserve more from our nation's leaders, and we expect more from our federal government. Strong leadership is key to the development of real solutions to our local and national policy challenges. Strong leadership asks, 'What is best for our country?' not 'What is best for my career?' Strong leadership seeks to serve the majority best yet is considerate of all. The role of Prime Minister is the greatest responsibility that we can bestow on a leader. Only the people should have the right to bestow that responsibility. It was surprising when our Prime Minister recently stated that the people Australia will decide who will be their Prime Minister on 14 September. This concept was not extended to her predecessor, who legitimately was elected by the people. This is now a matter of history, yet the consequences remain as many voters continue to question their respect for this great democratic institution. In my electorate of Bennelong, strong leadership is expressed through our tri-level government meetings, where local, state and federal leaders regularly meet to discuss the issues important to our local community. By working together we achieve the best results for Bennelong. Forming the tri-level government committee was my first act as the member for Bennelong. I look forward to continuing to serve the Bennelong region and supporting real solutions and strong leadership. Our community deserves and expects nothing less. This is the final week of sitting for this parliament. Madam Speaker, as a member of the class of 2010, I wish to thank you and all members, senators, staff and departmental officers who have helped me and my fellow classmates as we work together to make this great country even greater. I would like to think that Arthur Calwell and Bob Menzies would be happy with the inspiration they have provided to us. Forestry 6772 22:04 Mr ADAMS BV5 Lyons Over the weekend, the federal environment minister announced another milestone in the delivering of the historical Tasmanian Forests Agreement—the retirement of the peeler billet supply from veneer maker Ta Ann. This restructure will help protect jobs and specific areas of native forests in Tasmania. With the signing of the intergovernmental agreement, Ta Ann will be able to restructure its business to adjust to the 108,000 cubic metres per annum reduction in peeler billet supply while helping to diversify its product base. Ta Ann were ready to exit Tasmania because of their uncertainty of the market but have stuck it out to the end of negotiations, which has given them a headache in the short term but, in the long term, they should be able to continue to invest in our state. Ta Ann operate two rotary peeler veneer mills in Tasmania. The mills' operations will still be supported by an average of 157,000 cubic metres of native forest veneer peeler billets a year from Forestry Tasmania. This company and their workers have been strong supporters of the forestry agreement since the beginning because they believed it was the only way to get a resolution to the forest wars. This is further demonstrated by the company's agreement to reduce supply and continue to stay in Tasmania. The forestry deal that passed the Tasmanian parliament earlier this year provides certainty, because it is supported by both industry and conservationists. For industry, it guarantees wood supply and undercuts any future market campaigns against Tasmanian timber by further developing a forest stewardship council certification of its wood supply. For conservation, it allows for the expansion of the state's forest reserves to protect their remarkable biodiversity for prosperity. The buyback has allowed some stability to diversify the economic growth of jobs in affected regions of Tasmania. We have had conflict for many years, which caused the market to go into free fall, partly because of the actions of a few conservationists who wished to stop the forest industry and partly because of the global financial crisis, the high Australian dollar and the fact that forestry was a trade-exposed industry. Something had to be done to stabilise and provide certainty in the market. This was the purpose of negotiations between the industry and non-government organisations, which came to an agreement to stop the clash. This was then put to the government because it required an endorsement from all levels. There have been many drafts, many changes and a lot of negotiation over the last three years. But now we have an agreement that will provide certainty for investment into the future. It has meant that the forests have been further locked up, but it has given the industry guidelines as to how it can develop without interference from ongoing opposition. We get to this position, and now the Liberals are seeking to sink the agreement and are conducting a wrecking-ball approach to it. But, without the certainty and the stability, there will be no investment and no industry. The market needs security, investors need stability and the conservationists need some reason to stop harassing the industry. This is the only way that we can have a win-win situation. But this does not mean the end of the forest industry. It means that we will now be valuing our forests and forest products more highly; that the economic return on timber, both raw and processed, is a great deal higher than it has been; and that innovation will be rewarded and appreciated. There will be new market opportunities with plantation based forestry. There are new paper based industries being undertaken now, and we are still using paper in various forms in our everyday lives. We need to ensure that we buy it locally to ensure that jobs remain in Australia. That way, the certified process can ensure that our products have world's best practice applied and that every piece of timber or timber products can be identified from source. There are new opportunities too. In a carbon-restrained world, wood fibre has natural strength and durability and could be the basis for many new products in our world. It is impressive that the value of this industry to Australia's low-carbon economy is recognised by governments and the broader community. A certified process that is underway can give us that, and we will go forward. Perhaps the Liberals can stop wrecking and start supporting a new, positive industry. (Time expired) Project NOW 6773 22:10 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan It was an honour for me to attend the recent official sod-turning by Premier Campbell Newman for Project NOW's Moonyah women's recovery centre in Brisbane. The first women's-only recovery centre has united charity groups from across the city under the banner of Project NOW—the Nurturing Our Women initiative. For many years, the Salvation Army's Moonyah recovery centre has helped men rebuild their lives through its residential alcohol and drug recovery program. The program has a high success rate. However, very little help has been available for women who may find themselves in hardship, and their need is just as great. The Rotary Club of Brisbane Planetarium, within my electorate of Ryan, responded to this call and need with a vision to build Moonyah Women's, a home away from home for women determined to beat their addictions and rebuild their lives. When they saw the glaring need to provide a facility for women wanting to recover from addiction and regain their lives with dignity, the club embraced the cause and started Project NOW. In 2010 they embarked on a major fundraising effort which, although successful, still fell short of their target. Then, in early 2012, the Salvation Army and the local Brisbane Zonta club joined forces with the Rotary Club of Brisbane Planetarium under the patronage of the Governor of Queensland, Her Excellency Penelope Wensley AC. The energy and momentum in combining forces has assisted in turning the project dream into reality. As a proud Zontan myself, I was glad to see so many local Zonta clubs jump on board and embrace Project NOW. Zonta's mission is to advance the status of women worldwide through service and advocacy. So, when the organisation heard of the crisis situation facing Queensland women suffering from drug, alcohol and gambling addictions, they knew they wanted to help. Project NOW has enabled many Zonta clubs across the south-east of Queensland to work collaboratively with both Rotary and the Salvation Army. Zonta members have worked tirelessly on fundraising efforts, including most recently a fashion showcase event in the newly restored Brisbane City Hall, featuring three of Brisbane's leading designers. It was a fantastic event, and I congratulate Zonta on their success in achieving their fundraising goals. The Salvation Army have also played a very significant role in the Project NOW story. As one of the most enduring and respected organisations in our country, they work with people in need whoever and wherever they are, transforming lives through spiritual renewal; working to reform society by alleviating poverty, deprivation and disadvantage; and challenging injustice and oppression. The Salvation Army is committed to bringing hope, healing and wholeness to all those adversely affected by addictions. The $2.1 million Moonyah recovery services building will have 20 beds for women recovering from addiction. The three-story building will provide long-term residential treatment to help participants overcome drug, alcohol and gambling addictions. The new building will become the property of the Salvation Army, which will include it as part of its ongoing responsibility for the whole complex. Major Neil Dickson from the Salvation Army says the organisation is excited that the planned facility will provide an environment that is conducive to women seeking hope, healing and wholeness through their addiction recovery. I was honoured to be invited to attend the official turning of the sod, along with Premier Campbell Newman, the state member for Ashgrove; Saxon Rice MP, the state member for Mount Coot-tha; the chairman of Project NOW, Michelle Davis; and Zonta, Rotary and Salvation Army members. It was a wonderful morning, and I was particularly moved listening to one local woman who spoke of her experiences in overcoming addiction and regaining control of her life due to the support of the Salvation Army. I sincerely commend the Project NOW partner organisations and their sponsors. Thank you to everyone who has supported this extremely worthy cause. You are truly making a difference to the lives of many Queensland women and their families. Corio Electorate: Bike Safe 6775 22:14 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio In the last two weeks, I have met with Mr Barton van Laar, the President of Bike Safe in Geelong. Barton has spoken to me of a very disturbing fact which exists in Geelong today. Of the 30 bicycle fatalities which have occurred in the state of Victoria since 2009, six have occurred in Geelong—a full 20 per cent of the fatalities within a population which is about five per cent of the state. In the last financial year alone hospital admissions around cycling accidents in Geelong have increased by 30 per cent. The reality from these statistics, stark as they are, is that Geelong is not a bicycle friendly city in the way that we would want it to be. That is a difficult admission for us to make in Geelong but it is an important admission so that we can do something in dealing with this. Bike Safe are promoting what they describe as the principal bike network. This is, if you like, a plan to develop cycling arteries from around Geelong into Geelong CBD, cycling arteries to the northern suburbs of Geelong, to the south from the city to the Barwon River and beyond and to the east of Geelong past Eastern Park. The basis upon which this principal bike network is being developed is to look at where there are existing paths and existing infrastructure so that these can be augmented rather than starting from scratch, so that a principal bike network can be built with the minimum of cost. This will provide a safe cycling arterial system for the City of Geelong in terms of trying to build a more cycling friendly city. The point that Bike Safe makes is that making cycling safer—this is hardly rocket science—is the most important thing you can do to encourage more people to get on their bikes and use that as the basis for their commuting to work. From there you see the real benefits which can flow from the principal bike network which Bike Safe is advocating. Whilst this is principally about addressing the concerns of cycling and cycling commuter safety, there are enormous benefits that come from more people deciding to ride to work. There are obviously health benefits associated with it. There are economic benefits in terms of those people riding to work which makes this a cost-effective way of going about their lives. But we have also in the last few years in Geelong had an enormous debate about revitalising Geelong's CBD, and one of the critical issues which has been raised in that debate is the question of parking, or indeed the lack of it, within Geelong CBD. This has been cited as one of the key reasons why people are not choosing to come and do their shopping and their business within the CBD in the way that that used to occur. If what we can do is have more and more people using their bikes to come to the CBD, that is the best thing that we can do in terms of solving the parking issue within the CBD. Tourism as well is an important benefit that can be associated with having more people getting on their bikes and riding around Geelong, because with the development of a principal bike network what we will develop in Geelong is a great tourist attraction to make Geelong a cycle-friendly city where there are enormous attractions around the bay, around the Barwon River, around Eastern Park, around the Bellarine Peninsula, around the Barrabool Hills down to the Surf Coast. All of this is great cycling terrain provided that people are able to cycle in that terrain in a safe way, and that is what the principal bike network will seek to do. I want to take this opportunity to commend Barton Van Laars for the work he is doing and Bike Safe for the work they are doing in promoting the principal bike network as a way in which we can as a city address the very difficult issue of bike safety which is confronting our city today, and in the process not only make ourselves a more bicycle friendly city but a better city in terms of tourism and a more vibrant CBD. (Time expired) Hasluck Electorate: Community Safety 6776 22:19 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck Community safety is one of the most important issues raised with me. Members of my community want to feel safe in their own house and in their own street, in their own neighbourhood and when they visit their own local corner store. They have every right to feel safe in our community, but more and more they are not feeling safe. There is a growing sense of concern about local crime and residents are worried that they are being held to ransom by the fear of break-ins, violence and antisocial behaviour. In some of our local suburbs children are young as toddlers and as old as 12 years of age are terrorising local residents by damaging property, playing chicken with traffic and yelling harassing language. This is a particular example from Midvale and it is far from an isolated example. Recently I invited the police minister, Lisa Harvey MLA, to meet with local shopping centre owners and managers from my community to discuss the challenges they are facing the keep patrons safe in their shopping centres. Shopping centre managers reported to me that some of the crime activity being perpetrated is very serious, including weapons being pulled on shoppers, child gangs harassing elderly shoppers and stealing. Unfortunately, some children are watching their parents walk out on liquor stores with a shopping trolley full of alcohol or, as one IGA reported to me, customers concealing food in their clothing. Young children are watching this behaviour and then emulating it. They think that they can get away with it, abusing small local business owners verbally and causing untold damage to their stores. One example that was shared with me was a group of children aged approximately six to eight years old who set fire to a teller machine at Mannington shopping centre in an attempt to extract money. It is important that the fabric of our society is mended. We need a stronger local community and we need to work hard to build up our community. What is clear is that there is no silver bullet to fix this problem. This will take the combined force of our entire community to achieve a positive change. This is why I have been meeting with residents, community groups and small businesses from across my electorate to identify where the problem spots are and what the causes are and what the practical solutions might be. What is abundantly clear is that we need to increase safety in my community with more resources, both police resources and monitoring resources. My community needs a strong law enforcement presence to act as a deterrent for all antisocial behaviour. We need to be able to monitor behaviour in local crime hot spots to allow police resources to be directed to where they are needed and when they are needed. We can increase community safety and cut down on local crime through local programs such as the great closed circuit television camera program that the city of Swan has adopted in Midland. The positive response that this program is having is why I am fighting for better access to CCTV resources, both mobile and fixed devices, across the Hasluck region through the coalition's Plan for Safer Streets program. A program such as this can be effectively administered by either local government or a local community organisation and will provide a tremendous deterrent to offenders. But a higher law enforcement presence is not a solution on its own. We also need better community support, to engage with young offenders and potential offenders to prevent school-aged people from turning to antisocial behaviour. We need stronger, more effective community programs to take these young people off the streets and provide mental and social support to help them cope with the difficulties they are experiencing at home and elsewhere. We need more programs such as the one that the Gosnells PCYC is implementing. The Gosnells PCYC does a fantastic job of working with young, local people to offer vital support in a non-threatening environment. Community crime cannot be blamed on unemployed young adults. To take this view would be simplistic and narrow-minded. Most of the offenders are either school-aged or much older. Unemployment is not the cause. While in some cases it may be a contributing factor, we need to look at local crime through the cultural lens of all factors leading to this behaviour—engagement with education, a breakdown of traditional family values and cost-of-living pressures. Everyone has the right to feel safe in their own community. We need to work together to build a safer local community for everyone to enjoy. Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome 6777 22:24 Mr MURPHY 83D Reid Some may know that the federal electorate of Reid, my electorate, has one of the highest proportions of people of Middle Eastern background and also one of the highest proportions of people of the Islamic faith of any electorate in our country. In any one year a significant number of Australian residents, including people in my electorate, travel between Australia and the Middle East for a variety of reasons including tourism, business, family matters or religious observances. Normally, these travellers make their journey without particular concern. However, anyone travelling to the Middle East this year should be aware that there is an unquantified risk of coming into contact with a dangerous respiratory infection that the World Health Organization has called Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome or MERS for short. This disease was first reported on 24 September last year in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and is similar to SARS, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, a viral respiratory disease that was first reported in China in 2002. Between November 2002 and July 2003, an outbreak of SARS in South China and then Hong Kong nearly became a pandemic—that is, a worldwide epidemic. That outbreak, of a disease similar to MERS, was responsible for 8,273 cases and 775 deaths worldwide, a fatality rate of 9.6 per cent and now the concern is that MERS infections could follow a similar path. The SARS virus is most likely still present in its original animal hosts and the analysis of the virus indicated a high probability that the virus, a member of the family of corona viruses, originated in bats and spread to humans either directly or through animals held in Chinese markets. MERS appears to be a previously unknown coronavirus and was first isolated from the lungs of a 60-year-old male patient with acute pneumonia and acute kidney failure. The MERS virus may, like SARS, have its origin in bats. An analysis of the DNA sequence of MERS, published in the March 2012 Emerging Infectious Diseases journal showed that bat coronaviruses carried by the genus Pipistrellus differed from MERS by as little as 1.8 per cent. It is possible that consumption of water that flows from caves where bats roost or the use of bat guano as a fertiliser may have led to the virus jumping the species barrier to humans. On 13 June 2013 New Scientist reported that the World Health Organization warned: … all countries in the world need to ensure that their healthcare workers are aware of the virus and the disease it can cause and that, when unexplained cases of pneumonia are identified, MERS-CoV should be considered. As of 14 June, the World Health Organization stated that the Ministry of Health in Saudi Arabia has announced an additional three laboratory-confirmed cases, including one death with Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. The first patient is a 63-year-old woman with underlying medical conditions. The second patient is a 75-year-old man with underlying medical conditions. The third patient is a 21-year-old man, who died. Additionally, a previously laboratory-confirmed case has died. Globally, from September 2012 to date, WHO has been informed of a total of 58 laboratory-confirmed cases of infection with MERS that included 33 deaths, with an average fatality rate of 56 per cent and higher amongst the elderly. Following the First World War, an outbreak of a severe form of influenza in 1918 infected over 500 million people across the world, including many in Australia. It killed 50 to 100 million people, had a fatality rate of three to five per cent and was one of the greatest natural disasters in human history. Given the advances in medical science over the last 95 years, the risk of a disastrous pandemic on the scale of the 1918 influenza epidemic may have been greatly reduced. That, however, is no reason to be complacent and I would strongly advise anyone who may have either travelled to the Middle East or been in contact with anyone who has been there and who then experiences symptoms including a fever, cough, expectoration, and a shortness of breath to see their doctor urgently. House adjourned at 22 :30 NOTICES 6778 NOTICES

Monday, 24 June 2013

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ) took the chair at 10:30.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 6779 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Longman Electorate: Volunteers 6779 10:30 WYATT ROY M2X Longman I rise today to inform the House of a great project I launched last week to benefit volunteerism in my local community. It is called Do Something Near You! We all know what a huge contribution volunteers make. They are the backbone of our community welfare organisations and sporting clubs, pouring boundless energy into caring, preparing and serving food, fundraising, logistics, coaching, educating and administrating. In Australia our volunteer rates compare favourably against other nations, with more than a third of the adult population involved. But, obviously, that still leaves a lot of room for improvement. While most people will tell you that they have thought about volunteering, busy lives mean they never quite get around to it—and that is the beauty of this simple and inspiring idea. With Do Something Near You! helpers are now only a click away from putting their skills and experience to good use. Put simply, Do Something Near You! is an online roll of community groups in 565 regions around Australia with an emphasis on links that invite participants or volunteers. Just typing in a postcode reveals the latest range of organisations, events and activities in that area. Volunteers can sign up for their local SES or Rural Fire Service, donate blood to the Red Cross, assist the RSPCA, join their local Rotary or Lions club or help out with a myriad of other programs and projects. The concept is the brainchild of not-for-profit social and environmental change group Do Something!, whose creators include Planet Ark founders Jon Dee and Pat Cash. As a pivotal way of showing my support and getting this breakthrough in online volunteering to speak directly to community groups and potential volunteers in my electorate of Longman, I have launched a Do Something Near You! portal on my website through which locals can gain even quicker and easier access to the listings they need. I am privileged to be the first Queensland MP to take up a personalised version of Do Something Near You! Research shows that volunteers enjoy an increased sense of community belonging and, often, a lift in their physical and mental health. The economic impact of Australia's volunteer workforce is not inconsiderable, being estimated at $18 billion a year. While many national organisations are already part of Do Something Near You!, the ultimate goal is to have every local community group, including those in the electorate of Longman, list themselves for free on the site. I am very excited to be involved in Do Something Near You! Blair Electorate: Infrastructure 6779 10:33 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I was pleased to see the front page of The Queensland Times today talk about the NBN rolling out jobs, with the nationwide NBN rollout boosting Ipswich jobs as well as internet access speeds. I congratulate Bremer TAFE for their participation in training to see jobs grow in the Ipswich region and trades and skills promoted. For nearly 12 years under the last coalition government Ipswich and Somerset were overlooked, ignored and neglected, which was evidenced by the state of our roads and community infrastructure. This federal Labor government invested $2.8 billion in the upgraded Ipswich Motorway between Dinmore and Darra—a proposal put forward by the Labor government and opposed by the coalition for three federal elections in a row. Now, as we roll out $279 million for the final stage of the Darra to Rocklea section of the Ipswich Motorway as part of our Nation Building Program, the coalition is silent on the issue. Indeed, Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, has said he will not do it. My LNP opponent has said nothing—she refuses to take phone calls from the local media, and the front page of The Queensland Times calls her out, as well as the LNP candidate for Oxley. We currently see under construction the $93.4 million Warrego to Brisbane Valley interchange upgrade, commonly known as the Blacksoil Interchange. Of that funding, $54 million is from this federal Labor government, but that was voted against by the coalition; you voted against that funding upgrade. Indeed, my opponent has been completely silent in relation to that particular proposition, but it is under construction now against the opposition of those opposite, who refuse to do it. This federal Labor government has invested $53.4 billion in financial assistance grants, $9.8 million in Roads to Recovery, and over $20 million in Regional and Local Community Infrastructure projects in my electorate, including recently—in the latest round—$349,000 provided for the Ipswich City Council and $219,000 to the Somerset Regional Council. I have already been in touch with those councils to see what we can do in relation to that particular funding for community infrastructure in our region. I was pleased in the previous round to see $1.25 million granted for the Kilcoy Futures Complex: an 80-seat theatrette, an interpretative display area, a catering room, office space, public toilets, a car park, an outdoor area and a display terrace. There are 30,000 visitors to Kilcoy each year and this will become a beacon for tourism. It is the gateway to the northern part of the Somerset region. But those opposite oppose this particular funding commitment, as well as the Toogoolawah condensery arts and cultural project, the Somerset civic centre at Esk, the Robelle Domain parklands at Springfield, and every other community infrastructure project in the electorate of Blair. They should hang their heads in shame. Vote Labor at the next federal election in Blair. Western Sydney Homeless Connect 6780 10:36 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I rise today to speak about an outstanding initiative happening in Western Sydney, with the announcement of the Western Sydney Homeless Connect operating as a fully fledged not-for-profit organisation. Data show that there are about 300 people just in Parramatta who do not have a warm home to go to at the end of the day. As we know, unemployment in the seat of Parramatta sits at 7.2 per cent, with youth unemployment in Western Sydney still at an unacceptably high 17 per cent. There are individuals and families right across Western Sydney struggling with higher costs of living, but there are individuals struggling to source the basics of day-to-day existence. Of course, government policy is not making this easier, with an economy that is not doing well in Western Sydney. Every time a government makes it harder for a small business or other employer to take on an additional employee we are adding to this problem, and we need a better government to take these sorts of policy concerns seriously. Western Sydney Homeless Connect, however, are working very hard to address this on a large scale. Their mission is to connect available services, including government agencies, with people looking for support and guidance. They do this through the connect day, which provides a venue for people to navigate through the various government and community services in a friendly 'one-stop shop' environment and find clear pathways to escape from and avoid homelessness: through medical pathways, to connect the sick and vulnerable with medical and personal care providers which they may otherwise have difficulty accessing; connecting donors with something to give to the homeless and those who are less well off to improve their health and wellbeing generally; and, of course, engagement—connecting homeless people, who often feel alienated from society, with volunteers and community members with whom they can engage in a relaxed and friendly manner and help rekindle a sense of community belonging. They also assist with collaboration, providing a relaxed and friendly forum for representatives of local business, the non-profit community, individual volunteers, private sector organisations and local governments to connect with each other to further develop these relationships. These are essential for successful collaborative efforts in reducing homelessness. They also work to create a better understanding and awareness of the homelessness issue in the wider community. Western Sydney Homeless Connect is working in partnership with Parramatta City Council to hold their annual Western Sydney connect day. This year's day will be held on 5 August at Parramatta town hall and relies entirely on unpaid volunteers and donations in the form of gifts and services from individuals and private sector organisations. I want to commend Lord Mayor John Chedid and all at Parramatta City Council for supporting this initiative to help those less fortunate in our community. I also want to thank Steve Butel, director of Western Sydney Homeless Connect, Barry Gobbe, the secretary and treasurer, and Dale King, the event co-ordinator, for the many hours of tireless work they have put in to ensure the success of this organisation. Furthermore, my thanks go to all the other community organisations, including the Rotary and Lions clubs, who are supporting the fine work of Western Sydney Homeless Connect in their coordination of the Western Sydney connect day. This important initiative will pay great dividends in our community in bringing people together. Food Labelling 6781 10:39 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh I rise today to recognise the steps taken by this government to ensure accurate country of origin labelling. Australia is a proud nation that produces many products and much produce, and we strive to uphold those values of fairness, and this is part of our national character. For the people of Hindmarsh and indeed all Australians, local industry and local jobs are always at the front of our minds. We want to make sure that Australia continues to be a prosperous nation for our children and grandchildren. That is why since my election in 2004 I have constantly striven to ensure that, through accurate country of origin labelling, all Australians are able to know exactly what they are purchasing, where it is from, and where it was made or assembled. This is especially true of our food produce. We have a very proud history of growing and farming some of the best quality produce in the world. It is being produced right here in our own backyards, in our farms and in our rural areas. But, when we are at the supermarket, there is often no way for some of us to find out where it was produced, where it was made or where it is from. We are able to choose good-quality Australian produce if there is good labelling but, if there is not good labelling, those of us that want to support local jobs and buy local produce are unable to do so. That is why I congratulate the government for ensuring that, from 18 July this year, all fresh meat sold in Australia will be required to have accurate labelling. This will allow consumers, the Australian people, to have the choice to buy the world's best local produce and not an imported product pretending to be the same. This is a very good win for our local community and indeed for Australia and producers as a whole. Many of you will remember back in 2010 when many of us in this place, including me, took great efforts to represent their communities who came to them and expressed their concerns about mad cow disease being imported; there was a proposal at the time to bring beef in from the US. Only a few months ago, many retailers in Northern Europe were found to be selling horsemeat as if it were beef, and I received an influx of complaints from people during that period who were worried that they might be consuming imported horsemeat. After the horsemeat scandal I immediately raised the issue with ministers and others in this place and advocated country of origin labelling. I cannot express how I support these changes and will continue to support the Buy Local campaign to ensure that Australia has a sustainable food sector for generations to come. I think consumers have every right to know where food is from, where it was produced, what it contains and what products were used in that particular item. Mayo Electorate: Mount Barker Christmas Pageant 6782 10:42 Mr BRIGGS IYU Mayo I rise today to raise a very matter in my electorate, particularly relating to Mount Barker. That is the Mount Barker Christmas Pageant. The Mount Barker Christmas Pageant is the second biggest in South Australia, only after the pageant which is run in the city. It is the biggest in regional South Australia. Yet, through circumstances relating to the ability to store the pageant vehicles and floats, the pageant is now in some question this year. Recently, when this information became public when the committee decided that they could not proceed with the pageant because of the lack of certainty around the storage arrangements, I convened a meeting in my office with the pageant committee, the local mayor and the hardworking state member for Kavel, Mr Mark Goldsworthy, to work through what options are available. The issue really relates to the state government buildings where the state government is putting a new Park and Ride service in Mount Barker, which has raised some contention. The storage facilities there are no longer suitable, and while there are alternatives out at Flaxley—the old agriculture department research centre out at Flaxley, which the council would like to use for various things including storage of the pageant vehicles and floats—there seems to be some interruption through the bureaucracy not giving certain answers. The three of us—me; the member for Kavel, Mark Goldsworthy; and the Mayor, Ann Ferguson—have written to the Premier, Jay Weatherill, asking him to intervene and to hurry the process along. His Minister for Transport and Infrastructure likes to talk a lot but does not usually get much done. This instance is another case of that. We have gone straight to the top, straight to the Premier. We are sure the Premier will be shocked when he finds out that the second-biggest pageant in South Australia—a fantastic event that local families and local people can get out and enjoy, usually the first weekend in December—may not proceed. I have participated in the pageant every year since I was elected. It is a great opportunity to get out and celebrate what is so great about the best part of Australia, the Adelaide Hills. It would be a real shame if this event cannot go on. The voluntary committee which runs the pageant do a terrific job. They are fantastic Australians who work tirelessly to put this pageant together. They have come to this conclusion not without serious consideration and it is time for the state government do the right thing by the people in Mount Barker and the Adelaide Hills and ensure that these facilities are made available so that the pageant can provide entertainment for many years to come. Fraser Electorate: Multiculturalism 6783 10:45 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser In my first speech in this place I spoke about my maternal grandparents—a boilermaker and a teacher—who lived by the credo that if there was a spare room in the house it should be used by someone who needed the space. As a child, I remember eating dinner at their house with migrants who lived with them and hearing the stories of their having come from Hong Kong, Papua New Guinea, Chile, Cambodia and Sri Lanka. That experience informed my lifelong passion for Australian multiculturalism. Australia's multicultural story is a proud one. We have welcomed over seven million people from more than 200 countries since 1945. It was my pleasure on Saturday to participate in Walk Together in the ACT. The theme of this year's walk was 'If we're all people, we're all equal'. The walk was organised by Bree Willsmore, who took over from Henry Sherrell as the ACT coordinator, and was part of 16 walks around Australia which took place over the weekend. I acknowledge Brad Chilcott, the National Organiser of Welcome to Australia for his work on this. In the ACT, we were privileged to hear from Ms Mariam 'Maz' Hakim, a radio announcer at 104.7 in Canberra, who arrived in Australia in 1983 after her father fled Kabul with his family during the invasion of the Soviet Union. We heard from Duncan Smith, a Wiradjuri man from central-western New South Wales, whose presence reminded us that except for indigenous Australians, every other Australian is a migrant or the child of a migrant. We heard from Mariam Veiszadeh, also of Afghan heritage, a lawyer who did the walk at five months pregnant and spoke passionately about multiculturalism in Australia. We heard from Sam Wong, the chair of the Canberra Multicultural Community Forum, as well as Simon Sheikh, the former head of GetUp and now ACT Greens Senate candidate. There were some terrific performances by a local ACT blues band Blue Yvie the ACT Chinese Australian Association and the Italian choir. I acknowledge the organisational efforts of Amnesty International and the LifeCity church as well. There were a variety of views reflected in Walk Together, but we were all united in a single view that refugees and migrants must always be treated with respect. In closing, let me also acknowledge the hard work of St John's Kippax, who organised an event on Friday for refugee week. I thank Bev Purnell for inviting me along, and acknowledge Gabriel Yak for telling his extraordinary story as one of the 'lost boys' of Sudan. It brought a tear to everyone's eyes. (Time expired) Pacific Partnership 2013 6783 10:48 Dr STONE EM6 Murray I recently had the privilege of joining the Pacific Partnership 2013 in its annual US-sponsored humanitarian and civic assistance mission, which is aimed at strengthening international relationships with partner and host nations in the Asia-Pacific. The Pacific Partnership series of exercises was conceived following the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. It is a way to test and improve the interoperability of the region's military forces, governments and humanitarian organisations. As you can imagine, we do not want to wait for another disaster to find out how to do it best together, but, rather, this is an effort which has been held before to look at how we can combine humanitarian, medical, dental and engineering assistance to nations of the pacific, and strengthen relationships and security ties between the nations. Participating in this year's exercise were the United States, New Zealand, Japan and Australia. The focus, when I had the privilege of joining them, was in taking HMAS Tobrukup the east coast of Australia, first to Wewak and then to another town—where the 100 military, medical and engineering personnel would get out onto the ground and provide medical, dental and health assistance with the local Papua New Guinea health service providers. The support then moved to Vanimo to contribute their engineering effort by helping to rebuild schools and fix up memorials, particularly from the Second World War. A great deal of heavy fighting took place in these regions, and we are so grateful to our allies, the Papua New Guinea local people, who supported Australia as we fought the invasion at that time. The engineering group came from the Australian Army's 6th Engineer Support Regiment and they are working with members of the United States Navy's Amphibious Construction Battalion from San Diego. Some 5,000 schoolchildren will benefit from their maintenance, repairs and refurbishment to schools. As well, there was a diving contingent. If there is any old unexploded ordnance, these Australian clearance divers will work to make the place safer; they are disposal specialists. All of the American medical participants were volunteer reservists, and a significant proportion of the medical support from Australia were also reserves. I want to commend this exercise. It was a stunning opportunity for me to also participate on HMAS Tobruk for a number of days. Commander Leif Maxfield, taking command of the ship for the first time, had to deal with some very heavy seas and also, of course, an older ship, but it performed brilliantly and I have to say I was proud to be an Australian amongst these great, younger Australians and the Pacific partners. (Time expired) Nurses 6784 10:52 Ms SAFFIN HVY Page I have been strongly supporting the New South Wales Nurses and Midwives' Association campaign for better nurse-patient ratios in rural New South Wales. Nurses in Casino, Grafton and Lismore, where we have great hospitals, have been campaigning on this as part of a state-wide campaign, supported by nurses right across our region, including my electorate of Page. One nurse, Nurse Christine Bulmer from Casino, was quoted as saying in The Richmond River Express Examiner that it is about safety and equality—that is, safety of patients and equality for patients and for the workers. As a long-time health advocate, I threw my support behind their campaign because I want to make sure that in rural areas we are not disadvantaged by a formula or by a ratio. We deserve to have the same ratio as has happened in the country. There was a winning of patient ratios in some areas in 2010. That was a great achievement, but more needs to be done so that rural and regional New South Wales is given that same ratio. As the Nurses and Midwives' Association rightly say, a person's postcode should not determine the quality or quantum of healthcare that they receive. People in our area should have the best level of care possible and our nurses should not be forced to overextend themselves because of poor nurse-patient ratios. Nurses in our rural areas, such as Casino, Lismore, Grafton and other local communities, are forced to deal with ratios as poor as one in eight when they should be more like one in four, and one in three in emergency departments. This means that nurses—particularly in some specialty units, like community and community mental health nursing, paediatric, emergency departments and other critical care units—are stymied in trying to give optimal levels of healthcare for their patients. These low ratios can potentially be life threatening in an emergency. So I stand with our local nurses in asking for the mandated nurse-patient ratios in both urban and rural New South Wales and in our health services so that our nurses are able to provide the best healthcare possible. They should not have to be concerning themselves with ratios; we want them to concern themselves with what they do best, which is patient care. Bennelong Electorate: Korean Community 6785 10:54 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong I rise to discuss racism and, in particular, to draw attention to experiences of the Korean community in my electorate of Bennelong. A few months ago, a Sydney man, Mr Kim, and his Korean aunt were racially taunted on a Sydney bus. They described it as a very traumatic experience and Mr Kim said it was not the first time he had been racially abused in Australia. Similar stories have made headlines both here and in Korea. After several racial attacks on foreign students in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane late last year, the Yonhap News Agency ran media reports in Korea labelling Australia a racist country. Australia has grown into a mature and enlightened country where it is not good enough to just tolerate differences in culture. Instead, we now celebrate and champion the different cultures which have become such a part of the enrichment of Australian life and which help to define our nation. It is because Australia has now established itself as a champion multicultural country that incidents of racism raise such alarm—and serve to remind us to maintain our vigilance and absolute intolerance of such behaviour. This was highlighted in emphatic terms recently by the courageous actions of Sydney Swans player Adam Goodes, who refused to accept the racist taunt shouted by a young spectator. Embracing diversity comes through education, most importantly for our young, and experience. The table tennis program I was able to introduce, thanks to the generosity of Hyundai Australia, into schools in Bennelong aims to bring together students of different cultures to play, engage and bridge cultural boundaries. This program has been a great success and led to some great scenes at ELS Hall in North Ryde last year, as students of different backgrounds, ages and sizes came together to laugh, learn, make new friends and have fun. The program also saw the Korean and Chinese national teams come to Australia and play in the Great Hall of parliament. Australia's friendship with both countries furthered their friendship with each other. As the federal member for Bennelong, I take seriously my role to lead our community down the path of conciliation and respect for all people. Victor Dominello often quotes the poignant Korean proverb: a great river never refuses small streams. All the streams bring new nutrients which make the river richer and stronger. The river provides safety and direction to the streams. Australia is that river that welcomes streams from all cultures. Makin Electorate: Live Theatre 6786 10:57 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin A couple of weeks ago, I watched a live theatre production by the Tea Tree Players at their theatre in Surrey Downs in the Makin electorate. The production was called I Bet Your Life. It was a comedy with a plot that kept you guessing. Even though it was a cold and wet Friday evening, the theatre had a near full house. The performance was repeated several times over a two-week period. The production of films has clearly had an impact on live theatre, but a good live production still has a special appeal and that was the case with the performance by the Tea Tree Players. The acting was first class and, as with all live performances, the ability of the actors to connect with the audience made for great entertainment. I take this opportunity to thank the Tea Tree Players not only for an excellent production of I Bet Your Life but for continuing to bring live theatre to the local community on a regular basis since their start-up in 1976. Since that time, they have presented 196 productions and 1,224 performances. As with any community group, they survive because of the hard work, commitment and dedication of a small band of people who perform, run the canteen, make costumes and stage sets, and maintain the theatre. I particularly acknowledge and commend the cast of I Bet Your Life—Lisa Mathews, Andrew Hawkins, Paul Zechner, Stacey Hendy, Sophie Gardner, Gabe Steinhauer, Karen Marks, Don Stuart and Gabby Brown—and the director, Mike Phillips. Watching live theatre is unlike watching films or listening to music. It is entirely different. You get a much better understanding of the ability of the performers. It is something I always enjoy doing. On a similar note, only last Friday I attended a live performance called It's Showtime!, put on by year 8-12 students at the Salisbury East High School. Under the arts coordinator, Chris Frahn, and her team the students put together an excellent evening of entertainment, which included artistic performances, music and art exhibitions—again, a credit to the young people of the school and a credit also to Jacqui van Ruiten, the principal, and Chris Frahn and her team for giving the kids the opportunity to express themselves through the performing arts. They did so with distinction and in a way that left everyone on the night commending them for their efforts. It is great to see these kinds of performances originating in our schools. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY In accordance with standing order 192, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 6786 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Sharps Injuries 6786 11:01 Dr WASHER 84F Moore I understand the Labor Party would like to amend paragraph (6) of the motion I have moved. I have discussed this with the staff of the Minister for Health and I will be happy to accept that amendment if it is put up. Needle-stick, scalpel cuts and other sharps injuries are among the most common causes of physical, pathological and psychological hazards for many healthcare workers. A sharps injury can be described as any percutaneous injury that results in piercing of the skin by a needle, scalpel or other sharp object or device, typically occurring during use of the device and before disposal. Importantly, up to 10 per cent of all sharps injuries occur to downstream healthcare workers. The most common occurrence of needle-stick, scalpel cut and other sharps injury is among doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers. At least one in nine nurses suffered one needle-stick injury in the past twelve months. Healthcare workers are at risk of occupational exposure to the three major blood-borne viruses—hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV. A further almost 20 pathogens, for example malaria, infectious mononucleosis, diphtheria, herpes, TB and syphilis, may be transmitted. Viruses such as HIV and HCV have transmission risks that decrease in a couple of hours. However transmission risk is high in HBV, as it can remain stable and infectious for more than one week. We have a vaccination against HBV but no vaccine against HIV or HCV. The healthcare worker needs to receive anti-viral post-exposure treatment after injury. Without this treatment the risk of HIV transmission can be up to 15 times higher. Unfortunately treatment is not always 100 per cent effective. The costs of needle-stick injuries include not only physical risk of serious disease but also substantial psychological trauma, laboratory testing, vaccinations, health visits, counselling, follow-up tests and possible long-term treatment. The first line of prevention of this type of injury is adherence to standard infection control and safe sharps policies and procedures. In 2005, healthcare workers in Australian hospitals sustained over 18,500 blood and body substance exposures. The true rate of sharps injury in Australia is likely to be higher due to the high rate of under-reporting of sharps injuries. Numerous studies have shown rates for not reporting sharps injuries to range between 30 and 80 per cent. Therefore, there are likely to be over 30,000 needle-stick, scalpel cuts and other sharps injuries occurring in Australia every year. Research shows that using safety-engineered medical devices reduces the incidence of sharps injuries and the related blood-borne virus infection risk. Post implementation of SEMDs can reduce rates of needle-stick injuries by over 80 per cent and, in conjunction with training and guidelines, can reduce injuries by over 90 per cent. In 2008, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital in Perth had the highest rate of total occupational exposure in WA tertiary hospitals at 0.15 per occupied bed days. The industry standard benchmark is 0.06 per occupied bed days. In 2009, a pilot program introduced into six clinical areas for a three month trial removed and substituted non-safety-engineered medical devices with safety-engineered medical devices. This resulted in an overall 46.4 per cent reduction in blood and body substance exposures across the participating pilot wards. The pilot was extended for a further nine months and showed a sustained reduction in blood and body substance exposures of 54 per cent. At the end of the 12-month pilot in 2010, results demonstrated that the total occupational exposure rate recorded had been reduced from 0.15 to 0.08 per occupied bed days—a remarkable reduction. A review of studies investigating the efficiencies of safety-engineered medical devices found that the reduction in sharps injury rates was between 22 and 100 per cent. Further research demonstrated that passive, or automatic, safety devices confer much greater protection than active, or manual, safety devices. Furthermore, the training and education the healthcare workers received on the use of the devices were also found to be important in reducing the incidence of sharps injuries. With the exception of Victoria and Western Australia, all states and territories have implemented new work health and safety laws, as per the intergovernmental agreement signed by the Council of Australian Governments in 2008. The Work Health and Safety Act and regulations require persons who have a duty to ensure health and safety to manage risks by eliminating health and safety risks, so long as it is reasonably practicable. However, if it is not reasonably practicable and the hazard cannot be eliminated, then substituting the hazard with something safe or reducing the risks through engineered controls is appropriate. In healthcare, the safety-engineered medical devices are considered as suitable engineering controls. Australia has yet to adopt a nationally consistent approach to the use of safety-engineered medical devices in healthcare settings, through either prescriptive legislation or policy, despite the high rates of needle-stick, scalpel cuts and other sharps injuries continuing to occur in all Australian facilities and the substantial costs associated with the management of occupation exposures to blood-borne pathogens. Extensive evidence has shown the effectiveness of safety-engineered medical devices in reducing rates of needle-stick injuries in healthcare facilities and has concluded that guidelines and non-legislative measures alone have not been effective in preventing or reducing needle-stick injuries. My concern here is that, when looking at a safety device, the best determinant of efficacy is whether the device is passive—that is, automatic—or active—that is, manual. The term 'safety-engineered' has been misinterpreted as suggesting that the safety feature being part of the device confers safety in its own right, and there is no proof of this. Evidence-based medicine has also shown repeatedly that changing a doctor or nurse's behaviour is best achieved by audit. Most important is that the development of a staff safety culture is a prerequisite for developing a strong patient safety culture. The most direct route to preventing percutaneous injuries is to make injurious devices safer to handle. 11:09 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I am happy to speak on the motion of Dr Mal Washer, the member for Moore, on the significant hazards to healthcare and other workers of needle-stick, scalpel and other sharps injuries. I thank the member for Moore, as he will not be here in the 44th Parliament, for his great service to the parliament as a GP and to me personally as a GP. I remember going to see him when I had another rugby union injury, which was a hand injury. I think he gave me some great medical treatment and also some great common sense advice, which was to give up playing rugby union—unfortunately I ignored that advice and got a black eye last weekend. I acknowledge the large number of incidents occurring in Australia encountered by people handling needles in a medical setting, or scalpels or other medical equipment. The member for Moore indicated in his motion that there are around 18,000 injuries per year, and that many of these injuries are endured by some of the lowest paid workers in Australia as well as some of the best paid workers—from doctors down to cleaners. It does not discriminate, obviously, and it is not a case, necessarily, where education will prevent these occurrences. I do look forward to finding out more about the SEMDs and some of the structures that can be put in place that will prevent people from doing something accidental—and that is, as anyone who knows workplace health and safety will tell you, the best response. Rather than just educating, it is also a matter of setting structures in place so that people cannot be injured. I particularly note that some of the lowest paid workers in Australia, particularly cleaners, who have to deal with medical waste, are often the people suffering the injuries. They do not receive a lot of money, but they are covered by unions like United Voice. I have spoken to them about this issue, and the fact that these workers are not paid much and many of them are women working casual hours becomes particularly worrisome when they also have to endure these needle-stick injuries. Sadly these injuries in the past have been neglected and I believe, and as suggested by the member for Moore, many of these injuries go unreported because it is a lapse in a system—people do not want to indicate that their system has broken down, that maybe they were rushed and did something that they should not have done. So prevention is highly necessary in an effort to reduce, and let us hope eliminate, these injuries. A healthcare facility is a workplace, just as much as it is a place for receiving and giving care. Healthcare facilities around the world employ over 59 million workers and throughout the world they are exposed to a complex variety of health and safety hazards every day, including biological hazards such as TB, hepatitis, HIV-AIDS, SARS and chemical hazards. If we cannot get it right in Australia, which is a fairly safe environment, there are obviously greater complications around the world. Our healthcare workers need protection from these workplace hazards, and with more than five per cent of Australia's working population experiencing work-related injuries within in a year—one in 20—it is important to protect our workers from injury. We want all of our workers to come home safe—that makes good moral sense and it also makes good economic sense. Because their job is to care for the sick and the injured, healthcare workers are often viewed as being immune to injury or illness. I cannot imagine how many parliamentarians have gone through the member for Moore's door over the last 20 years or so, bringing in their flus and the like, but somehow the member for Moore has to be immune to those flus when he treats parliamentarians and their staff. The patients of healthcare workers usually come first, and these workers are often expected to sacrifice their own wellbeing for the sake of their patients. This motion will potentially result in a reduction of sharps injuries and associated risk of infection to healthcare workers. I think the member for Shortland will be dealing with the amendment that has been flagged by the member for Moore. Protecting healthcare workers has an added benefit, in that it contributes to quality patient care and also makes our healthcare system much stronger. Some of the measures to protect patients from infection include making sure that we have an adequate number of staff and making sure that people are not rushing and are not forced to treat too many patients at a time or clean up after too many patients at a time. It is when people are rushed and fatigued that injuries occur. The major hazards to healthcare workers through needle-stick, scalpel and other sharps injuries present serious health and safety risks. More than 200 people die in Australia each year from a work related injury, with a further 170,000 people injured badly enough to need at least five days off work. Sadly, like the healthcare injuries flagged by the member for Moore, many of these injuries are preventable and we should be doing more about it, because 200 people dying in one year and 170,000 people needing time off work is simply not good enough. The Gillard Labor government is focused on keeping all workers safe, be they the lowest paid or the highest paid. Families should not have to suffer the loss of a loved one, or have them suffer an injury that could change their life completely, because of substandard work health and safety practices,. The amendments proposed by the government—which, as I have flagged, will be supported by the opposition—will make sure that state and territory representatives are actively involved in the process of reviewing the existing code of practice for needle-stick injuries so that we address all of the health and safety risks of biohazards broadly. Healthcare workers and their relevant unions, who often have a great role to play in terms of advocating on behalf of the individual—whether it be the doctors union, the nurses union, the cleaners union or the healthcare workers union; whoever they are—play a great role in terms of making sure workplace health and safety issues are brought to the fore. The healthcare workers and unions are very supportive of making sure that there are safety-engineered medical devices that reduce the risk of needle-stick injuries in Australia. We know that this is everywhere. One of the benefits of being a member of parliament is that you are able to access the Qantas Club—I think it is even a more specialised part of the Qantas Club—and I note that even in those toilets there is the capacity for there to be sharps. Even though people are flying business class around the world, there is still the reality that all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons might be bringing sharps into their workplaces or other people's workplaces. According to the World Health Organization, the causes of needle-stick injuries include: the overuse of injections and unnecessary sharps; a lack of supplies of disposable syringes, safer needle devices and sharps disposal containers; a lack of access to and failure to use sharps containers immediately after injection, perhaps when people are in emergency situations or when they are rushed; inadequate or short staffing; the recapping of needles after use, although one would hope that would not happen as much in Australia; the lack of engineering controls, such as safer needle devices; passing instruments from hand to hand in the operating suite; and just that general lack of awareness of the hazards associated with sharps. The primary global prevention of needle-stick injuries is achieved through the elimination of unnecessary needles. I say this on a day where we are asking all politicians particularly, and their staff, to donate blood—and earlier today I was with the representatives of the Parliamentary Friends of the Australian Red Cross, where we launched the campaign asking people to give blood—but that is a different process. It is a much bigger needle, but we do need people to give blood. Sadly, one in three Australians at some time in their life will need blood, and we do not have enough people giving blood at the moment, particularly coming into winter. We need education about the universal precautions: the elimination of needle recapping and also the use of sharps containers for safe disposal, whether it be in the health workplace or in the other workplaces. The most effective control measures include: the elimination of the hazard, so substituting for injections by administering medications through another route, or removing sharps and needles altogether if possible, so that we eliminate all unnecessary injections; engineering controls, touched on by the member for Moore, such as needles that retract, sheath or blunt immediately after use—they may cost more, but economies of scale mean that the more they are the norm or are legislated, the more the price will come down; and administrative controls, workplace controls and personal protective equipment. All of these combine to make everything safer. (Time expired) 11:19 Mrs MOYLAN 4V5 Pearce Can I thank the member for Moore for bringing this motion before the House. It is a particularly important issue and I am very grateful to have the opportunity to second the motion and to contribute to this debate. Whilst needles are synonymous with healthcare workers, it is a little-known fact that needles and other sharps are responsible for nearly 18,000 injuries to healthcare workers every year in Australia. Needle-stick injuries are no respecters of people, because they affect people from the cleaning staff in hospitals and other health providers right through to doctors, surgeons and dentists, in fact. The figure of 18,000 injuries is a minimum, as numerous studies have shown that under-reporting of sharps injuries is in the range of between 30 and 80 per cent. The Medical Technology Association of Australia estimates that the actual number is over 30,000 injuries per year. Worryingly, over 80 per cent of reported needle-stick injuries involve a contaminated needle. That means that, of the potential 30,000 injuries per year, 24,000 will involve a contaminated needle, presenting a serious health and safety risk and potentially exposing healthcare workers to dangerous blood-borne pathogens including hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus and human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV. The costs of such injuries are difficult to truly quantify, as injured workers suffer emotionally whilst waiting for the results of testing and must take time off work, which has flow-on effects to the efficiency of our healthcare system. But the costs we can quantify show that more must be done to prevent the number of sharps injuries in our healthcare system. Estimated lifetime treatment costs for a newly HIV-infected person in Australia are over $173,000 per annum. The annual treatment cost of HCV to the Australian government has been estimated at about $252 million per year and $1.5 billion in the next five years. These are huge amounts of money for something that could be prevented with proper protocols and the right equipment. Chronic hepatitis B infection and chronic hepatitis C infection are the underlying causes of liver disease, being respectively the causes of 4.8 per cent and 28.1 per cent of the need for liver transplants. Approximately 200 people receive liver transplants every year, with transplants costing on average up to $177,000 per procedure and long-term follow up costs ranging between $10,000 and $20,000 per year. It is all very well to talk about the cost of treating, but we do not often talk about the human cost to the people that are left to manage their lives with these terrible, debilitating diseases. In looking at ways to minimise the number of needle-stick injuries in Australia, a study by Whitby and McLaws concluded that the introduction of self-retracting style syringes and elimination of butterfly needles should reduce the current hollow-bore NSIs by more than 70 per cent and almost halve the total incidence of needle-stick injuries. Self-retracting and safety syringes are safety -engineered medical devices; we know them as SEMDs for short. They are defined as a non-needle-sharp or needle device used for withdrawing body fluids, accessing a vein or artery, or administering medications or other fluids, with a built-in safety feature or mechanism that effectively reduces the risk of an exposure incident. An SEMD can be used for the collection of bodily fluids or withdrawal of body fluids after initial venous or arterial access is established, for the administration of medicational fluids and for any procedures involving the potential for occupational exposure to blood-borne pathogens due to injuries from contaminated sharps. The usefulness of SEMDs is well established and healthcare organisations are already encouraged to consider using them, including by the New South Wales Health policy directive to prevent sharps injuries. With the exception of Victoria and Western Australia, all states and territories have implemented new work health and safety laws as per the intergovernmental agreement signed by the Council of Australian Governments in 2008, but the scope of those laws is unclear regarding the use of SEMDs, and current laws require that employers manage risk by eliminating health and safety risks so long as it is reasonably practicable. However, if it is not reasonably practicable to do so then these risks need to be minimised as far as possible. Needle-stick injuries will never be completely eliminated, but what constitutes a reasonably practical minimisation of risks is debateable. Unfortunately, that often leads to an examination of costs with arguments that training on how to handle needles is more effective than moving towards the use of SEMDs. The number of injuries across Australia, however, shows that training alone is simply not enough. A number of years ago BD commissioned a third party to develop a cost-benefit model for estimating the cost of needle-stick injuries in the acute care setting in Australia versus the acquisition cost of safety-engineered medical devices. The model estimated that the cost—based on an uncomplicated, low-risk needle-stick injury where the source patient is known, is low risk, is tested and is found to be negative for HIV, hepatitis C or hepatitis B—was approximately $520. The calculations were based on 100 needle-stick injuries per year, with 42 per cent injuries to nurses, 40 per cent to doctors and 18 per cent to others. Briefly, the breakdown of the estimated cost is made up of the following but does not include any cost for workers compensation, premiums, medications if required et cetera. Laboratory testing was $52, based on the Medicare fee for relevant blood tests for HPV, HCV, HIV and LFT. Labour was $289, based on an average of three hours at an hourly rate for staff health nurses, an infectious disease physician and other administrative staff. This took into account the time taken to contact the injured healthcare worker, arrange appointment times, do the paperwork required for initial and follow-up visits, the professional hours involved in consultation and counselling time if required, the time to log the injury on relevant hospital databases and the time to follow up pathology results. Source patient testing was $25, based on the Medicare fee for the relevant blood tests for the diseases I mentioned before. Injured healthcare worker down time was $155, based on two hours of downtime at standard hourly rates for nurses and doctors—for the time taken in reporting the injury, doing blood collection for baseline tests, initial counselling, follow-up counselling and any additional paperwork. It is generally accepted that 80 per cent to 90 per cent of all needle-stick and sharps injuries are uncomplicated, low-risk injuries. The remaining 10 per cent to 20 per cent, though, are complicated, high-risk injuries with considerably higher associated costs. The model estimated that the cost of each complicated high-risk injury ranged from $2,000 to $5,900—depending on the post-exposure management protocol employed for the injured healthcare worker. This cost includes prophylaxis or workers compensation payments. In the event that a healthcare worker acquires HIV from a needle-stick injury, the cost soars to $24,000 per year for life. This is an important motion. It calls on the House to recognise the significant hazard to healthcare workers. It notes that these injuries present exposure to very dangerous diseases and it acknowledges that preventative measures can be taken to reduce injury, including the use of safety-engineered medical devices which, in the long term, seems to be the most effective—and cost-effective—option to stop people having need-stick injuries. 11:29 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I move: That paragraph (6) be amended to read: (6) calls on the Government to request SafeWork Australia members, including State and Territory representatives, to consider a review of existing work, health and safety guidance material on preventing sharps injuries and the review should consider mandatory measures in place in the abovementioned countries. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Is the motion seconded? Dr Washer 84F I second the motion. Mr ZAPPIA HWB I thank the member for Moore for seconding that amendment, which I understand was discussed with him. The amendment relates to part (6) of the motion, which calls on the government to consider a review of the existing work health and safety guidelines and materials on the prevention of sharps and needle-stick injuries. I commend the member for Moore for this motion. This is a very serious matter and I appreciate the fact that the member for Moore has brought it to the attention of the House. It is a matter which, for too long, has gone undebated in and ignored by the wider community. Yet the consequences for the lives of individuals affected by needle-stick and sharps injuries can be profound—not to mention the economic cost to society, which other speakers have already spoken about. This is a matter I have some understanding of. I will come to that a little bit later. As other members have said, and as the member for Moore quite rightly points out in his motion, needle-stick and sharps injuries do more than just physical damage. More threateningly, they carry the risk of contamination with an infectious disease, such as hepatitis or HIV. Those diseases, as well all know, can be life changing—if not life threatening. It would be extremely traumatic to contract such a disease in the course of just going about your everyday work. I appreciate the member for Moore highlighting the statistics for these types of injuries. Some 18,000 healthcare workers are affected each year. That brings home the importance of this issue. These 18,000 healthcare workers not only face the immediate trauma but very likely have to undergo treatment and may end up having to live with the knowledge that they have become carriers of the disease they have been exposed to—a very real concern they would have to live with forever and a day. Also of concern is, as the member for Moore pointed out, that some 15 per cent of these injuries go unreported. That raises the possibility that people may have contracted a disease and are now carriers without even knowing it—since they have not reported it and have not been medically assessed. This is a very serious issue indeed. There are economic costs as well. These include the time off work and the cost of medical treatment. These costs need to be considered when we consider possible action to minimise these kinds of injuries. There are things which could be done. The member for Moore quite rightly refers to how other countries are dealing with this matter much better than Australia. I know, for example, that in my own community the issue of using retractable needles became a major issue of debate only two or three years ago. Whilst I am speaking on this motion, I want to talk about the efforts of Maurice Riddle, the 2010 South Australian Citizen of the Year. Maurice, who is from my local community, was made citizen of the year because for six days a week for many years he has, on his own initiative, gone out on his bicycle to all the playgrounds and community parks of the area to pick up disused needles. He does that because he recognises the dangers those needles represent to children and others who use the playgrounds and the public areas. As a result of his efforts over the years, he has taken thousands of needles out of circulation and made the community a much safer place. He was recognised for that by being nominated South Australian Citizen of the Year in 2010. (Time expired) 11:34 Mr CRAIG THOMSON HVZ Dobell This is a very important motion and I am glad to see such bipartisan support for it. In a previous life, as I think everyone in this House knows, I was the National Secretary of the Health Services Union. This is one of the issues for the people that we used to represent. I remember spending a lot of time in places like Parramatta Linen Service and Pacific Linen Service just out of Newcastle, and often the people who work in linen services are characterised by a number of things: (1) they are relatively lowly paid—probably some of the lowest-paid health workers in the system; (2), they are very often from non-English-speaking backgrounds; but (3) what is most important in relation to this particular motion is that they are often the people who end up with the sharps injuries or the needle-stick injuries. And those first two points are not unrelated in terms of the way in which the health system operates. What I found most often was that you would have people who did not speak English well, who had relatively low levels of educational standards and who were not well paid who were being injured at the work, causing enormous stress both mentally and, potentially, physically from what could actually happen. There was a real feeling of powerlessness too, because of the position that they held within the health industry. They saw themselves, and many others saw them, as being at the bottom of the pile. They were certainly at the end of the chain in terms of where sharps ended up. And they expressed to me, and to anyone who would listen, their frustration at a system that they felt powerless to actually have a voice about. Over the last 20 years, undoubtedly there has been great improvement in the way in which sharps are handled, and I do not think anyone in this debate is not conceding that is the case. But, when I was a union official visiting these places, quite often linen would come in where other health workers, in changing the beds, had also chucked sharps in the linen because it was easier to bundle the whole thing up and shoot it down the chute. It ends up at, for example, Parramatta Linen Service, with these poor workers being subject to multiple sharps injuries. So the issue then became, and still is now: how do you deal with this? Education has played a great role. I do not think you see the levels that you did in the past of nurses and other health professionals simply disposing of sharps within the linen. Nowadays, I suspect, where there are needle-sticks and scalpels that get caught up in there, it is by mistake or by accident rather than by deliberate design, which it used to be. But have we gone far enough? The simple answer, in relation to what happens overseas as the best form of comparison, is: no, we have not. Education is important—it takes us so far. But we do need to look at other measures to make sure that this particular category of health workers, who I think are the most vulnerable in terms of the chain in which this happens, have better protections. For that reason I was particularly pleased to see in this motion that there was the reference there to looking at safety-engineered medical devices and maximising their use. There are hospitals where they are used already. The argument—and many other speakers have already spoken about that in this debate—is always put about the cost. But what they are arguing in terms of the cost is always a very short-term cost, as opposed to the long-term cost over time: the cost to the worker and their family through these sorts of injuries. When one argues this just on the economic basis and looks in the longer term, these are devices that should be being used. We have made great advances in terms of education—the types of injuries that we see now are not nearly as frequent as they were—but it is not going to get us all the way there, and it is very important that governments look at these sorts of devices to further reduce needle-stick injuries. So I congratulate the member on bringing this important— (Time expired) 11:39 Ms HALL 83N Shortland Before I start the substance of my contribution to this debate, I would like to put on record my thanks to the member for Moore for bringing this motion before the House and for his almost 15-year contribution to debates on this and other issues in the parliament. He has provided support and assistance to many members in this parliament, he has used his medical skills to keep this House operating and he has tendered his healing hand to members on both sides of the parliament. I thank him for what he has done in that area. I also mention—and I think it relates a little bit to the motion we are debating today—his contributions to drug law reform, in particular his contribution to providing a health perspective on that issue. I strongly thank him for his contribution and I thank him for his friendship. This motion raises health issues relating to needle-stick and other types of sharps injuries. Needle-stick injuries can be experienced by any healthcare professional who uses needles or any other sharp object. That includes individuals from a wide range of occupations who work in hospitals, aged care, mental health or other healthcare services, such as social and community services. My daughter-in-law is a nurse and works in accident and emergency services. She has told me that many nurses worry about the impact that sharps injuries can have on health professionals. We read regularly about such incidents in the newspapers and we know, as legislators, that this is an important issue that needs to be addressed—and we know that we have been a little bit slow in running with it. Data from the EPINetTM system suggests that in United States' hospitals, on average, incur approximately 30 needle-stick injuries per 100 beds per year. In Australia, at least 18,000 healthcare professionals suffer from a needle-stick injury every year. The true rate is not known in Australia. The numbers are likely to be a lot higher than are reported under the NSI reporting scheme. Numerous studies have estimated the percentage of needle-stick injuries not reported with results ranging between 30 per cent and 80 per cent. Reporting of needle-stick injuries decreases as the number of injuries increases—which is really quite scary. The more injuries there are, the less they are reported. That shows a general attitude to needle-stick injuries within the workplace. The attitude should be one of great care and the culture should be one of reporting incidents immediately, seeking treatment and having tests. Rather than that, the issue is pushed aside. I find that extremely disturbing. For cases where the person is experiencing their first injury, 84 per cent of incidents are reported. But that number drops to 63 per cent where a person has had three to four injuries and to only 24 per cent where a person has had more than five injuries. So there is this very complacent attitude. Therefore, there are likely to be over 30,000 needle-stick injuries occurring in Australia every year. One in nine nurses in Australia has had at least one needle-stick injury in the past 12 months. Nurses incur the highest proportion of the total needle-stick injuries in comparison to other health professionals. Data reported from New South Wales public hospitals indicates that needle-stick injuries pose a significant risk to healthcare workers in New South Wales. Preliminary results indicate that 40 per cent of healthcare workers who have experienced a needle-stick injury in New South Wales are registered nurses, and I made the point a moment ago that the highest percentage of needle-stick injuries are incurred by nurses, followed by medical officers. Most of the needle-stick injuries involved hollow-bore needles, and figures are consistent with previous reports by the International Healthcare Worker Safety Centre of the University of Virginia. The greatest hazard associated with needle-stick injury is the transmission of blood-borne pathogens such as hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV—which is the virus that causes immune deficiency syndrome. A further 20 per cent of other pathogens—such as malaria, infectious mononucleosis, diphtheria, herpes, tuberculosis and syphilis—can also be transmitted in that way. Transmission of pathogens may occur not only with freshly contaminated needles and sharp objects but also with needles or sharp objects that have carried dry blood. Once again, there have been some very high profile cases that relate to dry blood. Transmission rates vary by type and severity of exposure. However, the transmission risk is high for viruses such as HBV as it can remain stable and infectious for more than a week. I think that the argument in relation to this motion —the words, the results and the effect of the argument—speaks for itself. There are so many reasons why governments need to act to deal with this. The cost of needle-stick injuries is substantial for the Australian healthcare system, due to the costs associated with the management of the exposure to blood and body fluids and the prevention and treatment of blood-borne pathogens. Additionally, needle-stick injuries can result in great stress for the injured health professionals and their families, and I do not think that we can underestimate the impact that that has. The simple fact that so many of these incidents are not reported shows that there can be a complacency, but it can also show that the worker may fear having it investigated. Making it an issue that needs to be dealt with and that health systems and governments require proper reporting of really will lead to an amelioration of a number of these problems. I think that the amendment that is being made is very sound. We do need to have this issue looked at, and Safe Work Australia is a very good body to undertake such a review. I believe that the state and territory governments definitely have a very important role to play in this. I finish by saying this is an issue that we need to address. This is an issue that I know the member for Moore is totally committed to seeing an improvement in, and I thank him for bringing it to the House and for all the fine work that he has performed within this parliament. Thank you, Member for Moore. 11:50 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I rise to speak on the member for Moore's motion regarding the impact of needle-stick, scalpel and other sharps injuries. As the motion highlights, needle-stick and sharps injuries, NSIs, posed a significant hazard to healthcare workers. In Australia at least 18,000 health professionals suffer from NSIs each year. Nurses make up approximately 75 per cent of those affected, with one in nine nurses reporting at least one NSI in the 12 months to April 2013. According to research published in journals such as Clinical Infectious Diseases and the Journal of Advanced Nursing, the actual rate of NSIs is likely to be significantly higher, as under-reporting of NSIs ranges between 30 to 80 per cent. There are therefore likely to be more than 30,000 NSIs each year in Australia. These injuries present a serious health and safety risk, exposing healthcare workers to dangerous blood-borne pathogens including the Hepatitis B virus, the Hepatitis C virus and the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, HIV. Globally, NSIs are the most common source of occupational exposures to blood and the primary cause of blood-borne infections in healthcare workers. Significant costs are associated with NSIs, including in post-exposure prophylaxis, in medical testing and in long-term treatment as well as in time loss due to anxiety and stress. Even when NSI does not involve a contaminated needle and where there is no chance of infection, we can all appreciate the significant psychological strain placed on someone who is waiting to hear whether they have been infected. If a healthcare worker does acquire a blood-borne infection, treatment can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars—such as in the treatment of HIV which, in a newly infected person in Australia, results in a lifetime treatment cost of $173,000. The best way to reduce these costs, therefore, is by implementing effective prevention techniques. Fortunately there are preventative measures that can be taken to reduce injury, including the use of safety-engineered medical devices, SEMDs. When combined with relevant education and training, the use of SEMDs reduces the incidence of sharps injuries. One of the most effective advances in reducing the incidence of NSIs is a self-retracting safety syringe, with an Australian study by Whitby and McLaws which concludes that their introduction would almost halve the total incidence of NSIs. Researchers at the University of Queensland are doing very important work in this area, with the development of a completely dissolvable nanopatch for vaccine delivery. Smaller than a postage stamp, the nanopatch means we may no longer require needles at all for vaccination programs, because in application to the skin its thousands of projections immediately become wet and dissolve within minutes. As Professor Kendall has said, the dissolvable nanopatch means: … zero needles, zero sharps, zero opportunity for contamination and zero chance of needle-stick injury. The nanopatch not only makes it easier and safer for a patient receiving a vaccine, but by its design it significantly cuts the risk of NSIs for healthcare workers. The potential of this kind of vaccine administration is also highlighted by the enormous cost of needle-stick and sharps injuries in developing countries. The World Health Organisation estimates that approximately 30 per cent of vaccinations in Africa are unsafe due to cross-contamination caused by needle-stick injury—a healthcare burden of about $25 per administration. Similarly, because a nanopatch is very stable across a wide range of temperatures, the costs associated with maintaining the vaccine virus in cold storage are significantly reduced. Particularly in the searing temperatures of Africa, this is another very welcome benefit. Although technological advances have occurred in this area, Australia currently lags behind other Western countries that have mandated measures to reduce sharps injuries. Other major jurisdictions, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and the European Union, have made significant steps in health and safety in preventing NSIs. I understand that Australia does not have a nationally consistent approach to reduce the number of NSIs through the use of safety-engineered medical devices. Given the evidence that does exist about the impact advances in technology, and in education and training, can have on mitigation, a national approach could do more to reduce the exposure of blood-borne pathogens. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the member for Moore for his contribution across so many areas but particularly for bringing further awareness about medical issues to the wider community and for his work during his time as a member of this House. I commend this motion. 11:55 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I too commend the motion moved by the member for Moore, Dr Mal Washer, regarding the prevalence and danger of needle-stick injuries to healthcare workers. In doing so, I would also like to commend Dr Washer on his sterling contribution to this place, since his election in 1998. He would recall that he came into this place with one Kay Hull, who is my predecessor as the member for Riverina. I spoke to Kay just a few moments ago, and she wanted me to pass on her very good wishes to you, Dr Washer, on your retirement and to your family. Dr Washer, as you would be aware, Kay served this place very well on this matter in a combined effort at the United Nations and International Parliamentary Union Committee on HIV/AIDS, and she was very pleased that I was speaking on this motion. This is a good motion. It seeks to bring the parliament's attention to the prevalence and danger of needle-stick injuries. Needle-stick and sharps injuries are some of the most common causes of physical, pathological and, indeed, psychological hazards for healthcare workers in Australia. We all know what a sterling job, what a marvellous job, the healthcare workers of Australia do for the betterment of our nation. There are some 18,000 people who suffer from a needle-stick injury every year. This is a very alarming and worrying statistic. Further, there are estimations that one in every nine nurses will suffer from a needle-stick injury during their career. Worryingly, 30 to 80 per cent of people—up to 80 per cent of people!—who are affected by needle-stick injuries are unlikely to report them, according to the data. This is a very important issue, particularly for nurses, for doctors and for other medical professionals in regional areas, where facilities to treat needle-stick injuries are unfortunately not up to the same standards that we see in metropolitan areas. Needle-stick injuries pose a significant risk to healthcare workers in this country, and this motion seeks to call upon the government to immediately improve healthcare worker safety by bringing Australia into line with the countries named in this motion. As I said, up to 18,000 healthcare professionals suffer from an NSI every year, and the true rate, in Australia, is likely to be higher due to the unfortunate underreporting of needle-stick injuries. Several studies have shown that it could be up to 80 per cent. Reporting of needle-stick injuries decreases as the number of injuries increases: 84 per cent for a single injury; 63 per cent for three to four injuries; and 24 per cent for more than five injuries. Therefore, there could be more than 30,000 needle-stick injuries occurring in Australia each year. One in nine nurses, according to the Office of Australian Safety and Compensation Council, have had at least one needle-stick injury in the past 12 months. Nurses incur the highest proportion of total needle-stick injuries compared with other healthcare professionals, with an incidence rate of up to 75 per cent of total injuries. Data reported from New South Wales public hospitals indicate that needle-stick injuries pose a significant risk to healthcare workers in that state. Preliminary results indicate that 40 per cent of healthcare workers who experience a needle-stick injury in New South Wales are registered nurses, followed by medical officers. Most of the needle-stick injuries involved hollow bore needles. These figures are consistent with those previously reported by the International Healthcare Worker Safety Center at the University of Virginia. We know that other countries are playing their part to ensure that their healthcare workers, those wonderful people of mercy, are very much aware of what their rights are, very much aware of the need to report these injuries and very much taken care of after an injury occurs and has been reported, and we need to do the same here in Australia. We need to follow this wonderful motion of Dr Washer's, the member for Moore, so that we are brought into line with the United Kingdom, where the Health and Safety Executive has introduced the Health and Safety (Sharp Instruments in Healthcare) Regulations 2013. We need to be brought in line with the United States of America, which signed into law more than a decade ago the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act 2000. We know that preventative measures can be taken to reduce injury, including the use of safety engineered medical devices, which, when combined with relevant education and training, reduces the incidence of sharps injuries. This is a very important motion. I am very pleased that, in his final few days in this parliament, Dr Washer has brought it to the attention of the House. I commend the motion to the House. I commend Dr Washer once again on his sterling advocacy for all things related to health. Thank you. 12:00 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I commend the member for Moore, who is showing yet again his longstanding concern for the health of Australians. I wish him every success and happiness in his retirement with his family and friends, with his duty to his constituents well fulfilled. I thank him very much for his personal care of me and other members on this side of the chamber over many years as well. It is one of those things that people do not often notice. I was really struck when I saw reports about how Australia was falling behind the United States and Europe, and certainly when Dr Karen Daly attended a nursing conference. She has a PhD and has been a campaigner for safety in the United States for a long time. The president of the American Nurses Association indicated that Australia needed to get on board with the United States and Europe in this regard. I have also had discussions in the past with people from the Queensland Nurses Union. I know Beth Mohle, the Secretary of the Queensland Nurses Union, has been a strong advocate in this area for a very long time back in my home state of Queensland. But I also noticed the comments of Lee Thomas, the federal secretary of the Australian Nursing Federation, saying the health sector should align its safety protocols with legislation that requires use of engineering controls to eliminate foreseeable workplace hazards. Lee was quoted as saying: Hospitals and the health sector need to take up the challenge to be proactive in protecting their staff. She called for safety-engineered devices to be made available sooner rather than later. It is not just nurses but also people who work in medical administration who may be exposed to this problem. I commend also the Alliance for Sharps Safety and Needlestick Prevention in Healthcare. It is an alliance of a lot of organisations, including the Australian Nursing Federation, the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases, the Australian Society for Microbiology, the Royal College of Nursing Australia, the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, and a number of other organisations who have been pushing this issue for quite a long time. There are some terrible stories which I have read in relation to this particular issue. I think there is a need to incorporate international occupational health and safety regulations and codes of practice and mandatory use of safety-engineered medical devices in our healthcare system. Its time has come. We do not want to minimise the impact that this could have in terms of the transfer of HIV and hep C and other blood-related challenges that we have. These do occur and they are devastating. Healthcare workers face the risk of needle-stick injury every single day. The workplace safety of our healthcare workers is the domain of hospitals and institutions. This needs to be a national approach. We on this side of the chamber remain strongly committed, with our brother and sister organisations in the labour movement, to safety and quality in healthcare services. We recognise the importance of making sure that workplaces, whether hospitals or medical practices, are safe, consumer centred and well equipped to make sure that healthcare is of a standard not just delivered to patients but also in the workplace. We are committed, and we have harmonised the workplace health and safety laws across Australia, improving consistency and certainty and reducing red tape. I think on balance you have to say that we have had a good record in reforming workplace health and safety. But it does not mean to say there is perfection. There is always more work to be done, and I think the member for Moore has highlighted particularly an area that our brothers and sisters in the nurses federations and unions around the country have been pricking our conscience in relation to. I am concerned with what we have seen, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, in our home state of Queensland with cutbacks, outsourcing, contestability and privatisation. These all the words that are being used back in my home state of Queensland in relation to delivery of healthcare services. I know there are members opposite who are concerned with what is happening in places like Victoria and Queensland. I am concerned that, if these things happen in Queensland, we may lose the focus on workplace health and safety. In my home area, in community healthcare, we have healthcare providers doing security at the Ipswich Community Health Centre in Bell Street. They should not be worried about that. There is an ATODS clinic there. Why should they be doing that? This is the challenge we have. We need to focus on issues like this, not go down the road of contestability, privatisation and outsourcing. This should be a bipartisan approach. I thank the member for Moore for bringing this issue to the attention of government. I hope everyone listens. I wish him well and thank him for his sterling contribution to the people of Australia. 12:05 Dr JENSEN DYN Tangney I would like to commend the member for Moore and this motion of his about the significant hazard to healthcare workers through sharps injuries. Australia's healthcare system is in turmoil thanks to Labor, with shortages in staff and beds. Healthcare workers are stretched to their limits due to staff shortages and are required to work long and extra shifts. Without these people in our society, we just could not function. Therefore we need to look after them and look out for them. One of the most common causes of physical, pathological and psychological injuries for many healthcare workers is needle-stick and sharps injuries. In 2012 the ECRI Institute reported needle-stick injuries as one of the top 10 hazards for doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers. Australia lags behind places such as the United States, Canada and the European Union, who have all mandated measures to reduce sharps injuries. We can do better. Our healthcare workers are at higher risk of blood borne viruses like hepatitis B and C and HIV. The first line of defence is rigorous infection control and safe sharps policies and procedures. Safety engineered medical devices, when combined with relevant education and training, have been found to significantly reduce sharps injuries. This has been highlighted by the introduction of safety engineered medical devices into six clinical areas at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital in Perth. Before the trial started in 2008, it was noted that WA tertiary hospital Sir Charles Gairdner had the highest rate of total occupational exposure, at 0.15 per occupied bed day. The industry standard is 0.06 per occupied bed day. Within nine months of implementing the safety engineered medical devices, there was an overall 54 per cent reduction in needle-stick injuries. At the end of 2012, Sir Charles Gairdner had reduced the total occupational exposure rate to 0.05 per occupied bed day, and it is now the leading hospital in WA in reducing body substance exposure to staff. An economic evaluation carried out by the Medical Technology Association of Australia to estimate the annual costs savings of implementing safety engineered medical devices in all Australian hospitals found an average cost saving of $18.6 million per year. This estimate did not include costs of post-exposure, prophylaxis or treatment costs for hepatitis C or HIV. Therefore, needle-stick and sharps injuries are a huge expense to our healthcare system and for this reason alone deserve action. Thanks to the Labor government we have no money, just debt. Our hospitals are crying out for funding, but there is no more to give. We need to focus our spending efficiently. Investment in the welfare of our healthcare workers is sound and prudent investment. In Canada alone, six out of 10 provinces have occupational health and safety regulations mandating the use of safety engineered medical devices. They can see the importance of these devices in protecting their workers. We need to do the same. I call on the government to immediately improve the safety of our healthcare workers and bring Australia up to the standards of other Western countries. We can do better. Benchmarking against international best practice is what is required. Nothing short of the best is good enough for our front-line heroes. The standards that other nations have put in place contain safeguards to protect workers against health hazards caused by blood borne pathogens. Sixty-two to 88 per cent of sharps injuries can potentially be prevented by the use of safer medical devices. While the exposure to blood borne pathogens is one of the most deadly hazards that nurses face on a daily basis, it is also one of the most preventable. With the rapid development of technology and engineering controls, prevention is becoming easier and easier. By using safer devices, institutions will not only protect workers but will also save money. Safer needle devices can cost from cents to dollars more than standard devices, but prices continue to decrease with increased market competition and technology. Prevention is cost-effective. We can do better. We owe it to our doctors and nurses—and simple steps make big differences. Finally, I would like to once again commend Dr Washer for this motion and for a host of other work that he has done in this place. 12:10 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield It is a great honour to speak on this motion by the member for Moore, Dr Mal Washer. Let me begin by saying that he is truly a great Australian, a great doctor and a great benefit to this House. He always reminded me, in his bedside manner, of my old doctor in my youth, Dr Hicks—a great old doctor; they don't make them like that anymore! Inherit in this motion is a care for healthcare workers and for them at work. I would certainly like to reiterate the wording of this motion and commend it. I think it is a particularly important issue. I have never worked in the healthcare sector, but from time to time I do go to the Lyell McEwin Hospital—where I was born—in the heart of my electorate and talk to workers and volunteers, doctors and nurses, cleaners of wards and the like, about their day-to-day work. I know they deal with a range of situations where, sadly, they might have to contemplate needle-stick injuries and the transmission of HIV, hepatitis and the like. The workers at that hospital deserve to be safe. I am very pleased to see in this motion that the unions are included, Safe Work Australia is included and the relevant state and territory OH&S bodies are included, because it is only through detailed policies, which are observed and enforced at the workplace level, that these sorts of injuries are prevented. Believe it or not, when I was in the retail union, I saw quite a bit of evidence that would commend this motion. You would not think that retail workers would have to deal with needle-stick injuries, but in actual fact retail workers often have to deal with a variety of situations and incidences where biohazards are encountered. I often came across shop assistants who had been placed in the most extreme environments—having to clean up vomit or urine and faeces in a store. I remember one worker, a cleaner who worked at a large furniture shop in Adelaide. This furniture shop had a large room of balls, where children would play. Of course, occasionally, children being children, they would mess themselves, and he had to clean faeces off those balls, so it was a pretty unpleasant job. In a great trade union way, I got him a bit of an allowance for dealing with that! But it is not uncommon for retail workers to have to deal with that—and, unfortunately, it is not uncommon for them to have to deal with the results of violence, where knives have been used, blood has been left on the floor et cetera. I have had situations where shop assistants have had to clean up after suicide attempts. We had one department store in Adelaide where, very sadly, a female worker was murdered by her estranged partner, which was very distressing for the staff. And, unfortunately, because people do not anticipate that this would happen in shops—you think that shops and pubs and clubs would be relatively clean environments—there was often no biohazard material to clean this stuff up and people were just simply sent out with mops and buckets. Obviously, in the case of the department store, it was a little bit more serious and it was a crime scene, but there are situations where workers, in all fields, particularly those open to the public, have to deal with needle-stick injuries, have to deal with biohazards and have to deal with very serious situations. The member for Moore, Dr Washer, has brought this, in his usual bipartisan, pragmatic and good sense style, to the parliament for our consideration. I think it is worthy of our bipartisan consideration and worthy of our bipartisan support. We will miss you, Mal, and your way of rising above the trivialities of this place and making sure we deal with the serious issues that workers not just in the healthcare sector but right across the board deal with every day. Thanks so much. 12:15 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I also welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion moved by the member for Moore dealing with needle-stick, scalpel and sharps injuries. Just like the member for Wakefield, and other speakers, I would like to commend the member for Moore—not simply for this thoughtful and well-considered motion but also for his outstanding service to this place and to the people of his electorate. For 15 years the member for Moore has made that gruelling commute as one of the original fly-in fly-out workers in our community. He has been a real champion for Western Australia. I know, as the House has heard today, how highly regarded he has been by members on both sides. I think it is a credit to the member for Moore that his inherent decency has won him many friends in this place, which is sometimes quite friendless. He is a person of great personal integrity and has the respect of members on both sides who have served with him. The member for Moore has been prepared to swim against the tide and stand up for his own, very strong values, when it would perhaps have been easier to go with the flow of the direction his party or the coalition was taking—but I think that bravery is something that he will be well remembered for. It has been a very memorable political career, and I wish him well in the next stage of his life. The motion before the house today is very much typical of the member for Moore. It does not surprise me that there is a great deal of compassion for others in the substance of the motion, because it highlights the very real risk to our healthcare employees through such injuries. There are estimates that up to $18,000 people per year are injured through needle-stick, scalpel or sharps injuries. The information provided to me by the member for Moore himself indicates that perhaps that figure underestimates the real impact in the healthcare workers sector—and that is despite the availability of preventative measures that can be taken to reduce injury, including the use of safety-engineered medical devices, which many people today have spoken about. When combined with relevant training and education, that has the proven capacity to reduce the incidence of sharps injuries. I fear that, as the motion indicates, Australia may have slipped behind similar nations in our efforts in this regard, and perhaps we can do better in the future. There is also, as other members have mentioned, a less common but equally alarming incidence of sharps injuries in our communities, when discarded equipment, which may have been associated with illicit drug use, results in a needle-stick injury. The media perhaps catches onto those issues with more energy than it does the risks facing healthcare workers, but I suppose that is because of the uncertainty, the emotional anguish, the potential health implications that are all considerations in such circumstances. But, when you think about it, the healthcare workers are faced with this risk every day of the week; not just in isolated cases, as may be the case when a member of the public is injured in a recreational area or a beach. The fact that our healthcare workers are facing that potential anguish on a daily basis is something that the motion reflects and that we should consider in the chamber today. Needle-stick and sharps injuries are one of the most common causes of physical, pathological or psychological hazards for many who work in the healthcare industry. It alarms me that it is the workers right at the frontline, particularly our nursing staff, who face the greatest risk of all. It is alarming that one in nine Australian nurses had at least one needle-stick or a sharp injury in the past 12 months—they do actually incur the highest proportion of those injuries in our community. Needle-stick and sharps injuries are associated with a substantial amount of cost beyond the emotional toll I have referred to. There is also the financial cost to the Australian healthcare system. They can also increase the morbidly and mortality risk for the injured healthcare worker due to exposure to blood-borne pathogens. The safety of workers is something that all members are concerned about. It is not just whether you have had a background working with the unions. I think all members in this place are concerned about the safety of workers, and it is critical that this issue gets the exposure it deserves here today. As the motion indicates, it is an area of genuine concern for the parliament and one where I believe we can do better, in particular in relation to the use of the safety-engineered medical devices, given the proof we have today of them being successful in preventing such injuries in other nations. I congratulate the member for Moore for bringing this motion to the House and I also congratulate members on both sides for speaking in favour of this important motion. 12:20 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest I am delighted to speak on this motion. I suggest to the member for Moore that this will be his last private member's motion in this place and I want to add my comments to those who have gone before me on the distinguished nature of his time here. Much has been said about you, member for Moore. We all certainly enjoyed your valedictory speech, but nothing exemplifies the qualities you have as a person, as a compassionate man who took his oath as a doctor particularly seriously and to heart, more than this motion before the House. I commend you for that. Even at this time, when you are considering your retirement from this place, it is indicative of you as a person that you are thinking of others before yourself. The Hippocratic oath you took is very much a part of the motion that you have before the House. Like other members I will miss you greatly in this place, not just for the nature of your compassion and your caring but also for your significant intellect, which this whole parliament and, I suggest, the Australian people, will miss greatly. I hope that when you see an issue in this place that needs addressing, like the issues in this motion, you will still seek to pass it on to members so that this caring can continue. I imagine I am repeating some things that have gone before, but this is a really important issue for healthcare workers. I know all of the statistics have been repeated already: 18,000 healthcare employees suffer injuries each year. But I want to go to the important issue, which I know the member for Moore would feel—the stress around what comes next for a healthcare worker who receives this type of injury. What do they go through? I know this would exercise the member for Moore's mind. I had a look at the process on a US website. They were encouraging their injured people firstly, No. 1, to seek immediate medical help to assess the risk of developing infection. Number 2 was to determine whether the patient on whom the needle was used has HIV, hepatitis B or hepatitis C infection. The third thing was to wait for the results of their blood tests and for information on the patient—wait and worry, I would suggest, member for Moore—then to determine whether they will need medication to prevent an infection. Following that exposure, follow-up may include drugs with significant side effects on the healthcare worker. The website says: Blood tests and further evaluation may be needed for six months to a year following the injury. It also says: As you wait for more information, the anxiety of the unknown can be a serious distraction for you and is stressful for your family. These are the very real personal impacts of this injury which healthcare workers and their families face. Knowing the member for Moore as I do, I know that these would very much be the reasons why the member for Moore feels we need to, and should, do better. At least one in nine nurses and their families go through this every year. When you look at the list of things they have to go through, we do need to do better. According to research on this US site regarding when injuries occur: For example, 40 percent of injuries occur during use, another 40 percent occur after use and before disposal … When you look at the process, the need for preventive measures is critical. The member for Moore has alluded to those as well. Measures to particularly prevent and reduce those injuries in both of those 40 per cent instances are very critical, using safety engineered medical devices. In completing my comments, I do not have enough words to actually record the value of the member for Moore's contribution in this place over an extended period and I can only say the parliament and the people of Australia will be worse off with him leaving this place. 12:25 The DEPUTY SPEAKER HW7 I too would like to add my very strong comments on the fantastic contribution that the member for Moore has made to this place. I have certainly enjoyed working with you, albeit from a different political party perspective. Thank you, Dr Washer. Debate adjourned. Natural Gas 6806 12:26 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby Gas is a major source of energy in Australia. It provides 20 per cent of our energy consumption. Australia has abundant reserves of gas. Our proven reserves of coal seam gas and conventional gas are enough to meet more than 70 years of know n gas demand. The government's 2012 energy white paper shows that exports of natural gas are booming. Australia has seven of the world's 12 major LNG projects currently under construction. Gas exports are projected to triple from 20 million tonnes to over 63 million tonnes by 2017. This export boom is accompanied by a huge investment in Australia by those countries looking to develop gas for export facilities. This investment is around $50 billion in Queensland and around $116 billion in Western Australia. However, out of this boom in gas production we are not seeing a competitive advantage for Australian manufacturing or for domestic customers. In fact, international demand for Australian gas will drive up domestic prices and make supply on the east coast scarce. This is because of the structure of the Australian gas market. Largely for geographic reasons, Australia has three gas markets that are separate and distinct from each other—the eastern, northern and western gas markets. For mostly historic reasons, there are no pipelines that link these markets. In the eastern gas market, the market that supplies the entire east coast of Australia in 2014, gas production will be available for export for the first time. Until now there has been no way for gas producers to sell eastern market gas into the export market. The entire production capacity of the eastern gas market has only been available for sale into the domestic gas market on the east coast of Australia. This has kept domestic gas prices low and supply plentiful. Australia's gas resources are controlled by the world's largest oil and gas companies. Not surprisingly, these companies favour LNG contracts worth billions of dollars with a handful of overseas customers rather than supplying gas to smaller Australian companies. Presumably they see this as their job in maximising return to their shareholders. The 2012 energy white paper highlights how the supply of gas to domestic and export markets will likely experience tightness from 2015 and possibly through until 2020. The limitation of supply is due to a number of factors, with gas suppliers focused on ensuring that export contracts are filled and that infrastructure, like LNG terminals, are applied primarily to the export market. These limits on the supply side are mostly projections at this stage. The government's energy white paper describes how some LNG producers are already stockpiling gas for supplies for future project development. The development of gas fields is being managed to provide export contracts. While it makes commercial sense, it is not necessarily driven by the Australian national interest. Some argue that Australia is trading away its competitive energy advantage. I agree. Australian domestic wholesale gas prices have been low by international standards until now. But now demand from export markets is high and the international prices on offer are high compared to Australia's domestic prices. In the international market, Japanese buyers are prepared to pay $15 a gigajoule for our gas. At the same time, Australian gas prices have been around $3 to $4 a gigajoule. Our domestic gas prices are therefore set to steeply rise. In fact, many believe that Australian gas prices are set to at least double by 2020. It is ironic that, in the midst of a booming gas export market and higher levels of production of gas, in Australia it will lead to higher prices for local consumers. For all the huff and puff from those opposite on electricity prices and cost-of-living pressures, we have not yet heard one word about this more serious issue. It has intense implications for the Australian market. These changes in the eastern gas market are occurring at the same time as many gas contracts are expiring. Many large domestic contracts are set to expire from 2014 onwards. New domestic supply contracts will be negotiated in competition with negotiations for export supply. According to the managing director of one of New South Wales's largest gas suppliers, AGL, Gladstone is going to be like a giant vacuum cleaner for the east coast market, hoovering up all the gas it can get its hands on. AGL, which supplies half the New South Wales market, will see its contracts expire at the end of 2016 and 2017, at the same time as international prices are high and rising and exports are booming. This also has significant implications for the manufacturing sector. Australian manufacturing already faces tough times due to the high Australian dollar. Even with the recent drop in the value of the dollar to, at any range, about 80c to the US dollar, our high currency makes it difficult for our manufacturing to compete. I have already spoken about this in this place and about the importance of Australian manufacturing to our national interest. The engineering know-how that accompanies a manufacturing industry creates a cultural and knowledge base within a town and within a society which I believe is critical to the future of this country. It is a fact that there are more jobs in the manufacturing and associated industries than there are in the gas export industry. Manufacturing is not only critical to our economy but critical to the sort of country that we want to live in. Natural gas makes up between 15 and 40 per cent of the cost base of industries—in particular, manufacturing industries like fertiliser, alumina, cement, float glass, brick and roof tile production and many others. Many of these industries are also trade exposed, facing tough competition from countries with better access to lower priced gas. Perversely, high gas prices and a lack of available or secure long-term supply of gas will drive some industries back to coal fired power, and others will have no alternative but to close their Australian operations and head to cheaper-energy countries. The development of Australia's gas industry plays a key role in reducing Australia's carbon emissions. A gas fired power station produces half the emissions of a black-coal power plant and a third of the emissions of brown-coal power plants. Currently, one-third of the gas consumed in Australia is used to generate electricity. It is indeed unfortunate that high gas prices are making the economics of switching from coal generated electricity to gas generated electricity potentially unviable. This situation makes it all the more difficult for industry to reach its lower carbon emission targets by 2020. In August 2011, the Western Australian government became the first to implement a domestic gas reservation policy. Under this policy, that state government retains its 15 per cent domestic gas reservation requirement for all gas projects. In the USA, a gas reservation policy is in place for shale gas production. It is interesting to note that just today it has been announced that Israel will be reserving 60 per cent of its natural gas reserves for domestic consumption. A gas reservation policy of even just five per cent of the eastern gas market would see 95 per cent of gas production available for export, barely affecting the returns to taxpayers or disrupting the gas market. The availability of even five per cent of gas reserved for domestic users and manufacturing could go a long way to save many Australian manufacturing jobs and put downward price pressure for domestic users. The federal government is responding to these issues primarily by dealing with market transparency. Funding has been provided for a domestic gas market study. I welcome this. We also need to have sensible policy options on the table. There are other policy options, like gas reservation, which should be considered. Other options, including forcing big export companies either to develop gas tenements or to give them over to other, smaller gas developers—the use it or lose it approach—should also be considered. I believe that these matters deserve the urgent attention of the Australia parliament. In doing so we would not be acting alone. I have already mentioned other states, but other countries are considering exactly the same issues as they juggle the need to exploit their bounties of natural gas but at the same time ensure that there is a plentiful and affordable supply for domestic users, including domestic manufacturing. I have spoken previously about how the US government has seen that it is able to use a domestic gas 'priority to domestic users' policy to reboot the American manufacturing industry, and over 500,000 jobs have already been created as a direct result of this policy. Our abundant natural gas resources should be a competitive advantage for domestic users, particularly for Australian manufacturing. In regard to our policy settings for the gas market, we have to ask ourselves whether the economic benefit of the gas export market is enough for us to overlook the potential crisis that is looming in the Australian manufacturing sector. 12:36 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I too rise to speak on this very important private member's motion brought forward by the member for Throsby. It certainly reeks of a great degree of hypocrisy that it has been brought in on the last Monday of the last parliamentary sitting week of this 43rd Parliament. If it is that important—and he talked about the urgent need for this parliament to discuss it—why has it not been brought to this parliament in any one of the last five years? Why has it not been brought up before now? In the last parliamentary sitting week, in which we are dealing with more than 100 bills—some of which relate to last year's budget—he expects us to want to bring it forward and speak about its urgency. There were some things in his speech that I do concur with, and certainly that industry concurs with, but to bring it up at this juncture—at this five-minutes-to-midnight point in time—is a little bit rich. The eastern gas market, which covers New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, and Queensland, has previously been stand alone, unlike the Northern Territory and Western Australian markets, which are connected to export markets. This has kept gas prices in the eastern market low by international standards. From 2014 to 2017, three liquefied natural gas export plants will open at Gladstone in Queensland, and I know the member for Flynn is very much looking forward to the opening of one of the plants in the first quarter in 2015. There are 9,300 people working on its construction at the moment, more working on the pipelines and even more on the gas wells at places such as Dalby and Chinchilla in Queensland. These people are looking forward to finishing the construction and the member for Flynn is looking forward to it providing even more economic wealth for his electorate in Gladstone. Historically, gas in the eastern market has been supplied on long-term contracts, at prices ranging between $2 and $4 per gigajoule of gas compared with export prices of around $7 to $9 per gigajoule. The consensus among analysts is that the price of gas in the eastern market will rise to around $6 to $8 per gigajoule in the next two to three years. Last Monday, I heard from Paul O'Malley, the Chief Executive Officer of BlueScope. I recall his interview with the ABC on 20 August last year, where Ticky Fullerton talked about the Prime Minister's Taskforce on Manufacturing, which had been announced just four days previously. In answering the questions put to him, Paul O'Malley said: I think being a manufacturer in Australia you're faced with some very high cumulative costs. There's a lot we can do to lower energy costs in Australia. Flexible workforce. We've got that here, but it's pretty high at the moment. So, we compare our activity in the US where there is an increasing investment in manufacturing with our activity in Australia and you can see that there is a lot that can be done. Bottom line: we've got to lower the cumulative cost of doing business in Australia. That last sentence is very interesting, because what have this government done to lower the cumulative cost of doing business in Australia? The answer is nothing. They have made it go up and up and up by imposing a carbon tax and by imposing so many other restrictions on being able to do business in Australia. Mr Champion interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 I hear the member for Wakefield cry out. He should know just how much the carbon tax is hurting the manufacturing sector in his particular South Australian electorate. I know that certainly the shadow minister for innovation, industry and science, the member for Indi, on the very day that the manufacturing task force report came out, quite rightly said: This report is just more talk, with no prospect or guarantee of any immediate or decisive action from Labor … They started out on industry policy in 2007, by trying to improve "dialogue", with "discussions" and a "forum" supported by "councils", a "partnership", a "review" and roundtables. But it is all talk. It is all fluff and guff from this Labor government, which has done nothing to protect manufacturing. So it is a bit rich for the member for Throsby to come in here on the last Monday on the last parliamentary sitting week and talk about the urgent need to do something for manufacturing. Paul O'Malley said: … from a manufacturing base you've got to look at your raw materials as a source of competitive advantage. But also, by the same token, economists say, "Export everything you can and get the best price." I think we have to take a bit bigger view of the Australian market and look through cycles. What I have been focused on is the resources boom will end in Australia, and at that point we need to make sure that we've got a broad-based economy and we can't be economically rabid as we head down that path. He is right, and we do need to have this discussion about a reservation policy. But in the last parliamentary sitting week? There are other more pressing issues, such as some of the other 100 pieces of legislation, including some of which were in last year's budget, which still have not been ticked off. They still have not even gone through the Senate. So goodness knows when the government thinks that that might be going to happen. Goodness knows when the member for Throsby thinks that is going to happen. As the member for Indi indicated when talking about manufacturing, 'Same old talk, no action.' It could apply to all of the things that Labor has put in place—unless it was something that was actually going to constrict Australia from doing business, such as the carbon tax or Labor's poor water policy. But I digress. All this talk of a reservation policy has been to shore up the domestic gas supply, and there are some people in the industry who believe that it is necessary. Certainly Manufacturing Australia, of which BlueScope is a part, talk about how it is a myth that major advanced economies do not intervene in their gas markets. I did hear the member for Throsby speaking about that very point. Australia is the only country in the world which allows unrestricted exports of gas. That is true. Regulation and government intervention are a reality of gas markets internationally. All other comparable nations, including the United States of America and Canada, employ some form of intervention to ensure a functioning domestic market spreads the benefit of gas resources throughout the domestic economies. We do need to make sure that we put in place legislation which is going to make it easier for Australian businesses to do business, to make sure that Australian manufacturing is able to be the very best that it can be. That is why, hopefully, after 14 September the coalition will be returned to office so that we can make this nation the very best it can be. At the moment, farmers, manufacturing, business and particularly small to medium enterprises have been absolutely smashed by this Labor government and its policies, and the worst of those policies is the carbon tax. But certainly with manufacturing we have lost so many jobs out of manufacturing that one wonders whether, in fact, we can ever restore it to the heady days we had before this Labor government took hold. A reservation policy will not deter investment in LNG exports or otherwise cripple the industry. I will accept that, and certainly that is the industry's viewpoint. The impact of intervention on LNG exports may well be, according to the industry, negligible. But, first and foremost, we have to get our economy right. First of all, we have got to get the levers going so that we are actually enhancing business, enhancing manufacturing. To do that, we need to remove the ever-constricting carbon tax and we need to put in place the sorts of economy-boosting policies which are going to help price-sensitive industries for which gas is a material cost, such as steelmaking, brickmaking and chemical manufacture, all of which have struggled under good policy from this place and all of which will do better, I might argue, under a coalition government. Mr Champion interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 I hear the member for Wakefield saying something about imagining. It is not imaginary. We are going to have an election on 14 September. His side of politics has done a bad job since 2007, despite all the promises that it made prior to the 2007 election. Prior to that, everybody thought: 'We need a change. We'll give the member for Griffith a go.' Then of course the member for Lalor saw to that. This government has unfortunately let the people of Australia down. It has certainly let the manufacturing industry down and it has certainly let down those people who want to get on and do the right thing by this nation to improve economic development, to improve our international competitiveness, to improve our domestic markets and to improve the family businesses and small businesses which have made this country great. Labor has let them down. The coalition will not do that. We will restore hope, reward and opportunity, and we will certainly remove the carbon tax. 12:46 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield I would like to thank the member for Throsby for bringing this motion on natural gas before the parliament. I think it is a good thing that has been brought before the parliament. In general, we do not discuss these matters enough. The member for Riverina bored us all, partly by reciting slogans, partly by getting onto that whipping boy, the carbon tax. Then every so often he actually wanted to discuss the motion. He tied himself up in knots there for a while. We all know manufacturing is suffering under a high dollar. It is the currency that is the primary cause of difficulty for manufacturing in this country. I know from the car industry that six months ago a Japanese car that might have rolled off the boat for $20,000 now rolls off for $15,000. It gives you an idea of just how difficult many of those currency movements have been for the car industry. It is not just that we have got a high dollar but that our competitors are lowering their currencies through printing money, in the case of the Japanese and the Americans, and implementing austerity in the case of the Europeans, the Germans. It was not successful in the 1930s and it is not being successful now, resulting in very high unemployment and worsening deficits in the outlying countries. Energy costs are a factor in manufacturing. No-one can deny that. The carbon price has put on about $40 a car. If we use Holden's figures, they say it is about $3,000 per car more expensive to manufacture a car in Australia than import it. That is primarily because of the currency, not because of energy costs. But we know from the member for Throsby's speech—and a very able speech it was—that higher energy prices are coming down the pipe potentially if we do not look at the regulation of energy markets. I have got a sitting on the bookshelf, ready to be read, called TheRace for What's Left.Around the world, nations are in a mad rush to secure energy supplies. You only have to look at the investment picture around the world to know that that is true. What has been missing in this country is a debate not just about energy costs, carbon prices and the like—how we deal with climate change—but a debate about energy security and the appropriate way to use the bounty that Australia has been bequeathed by providence. We have to make sure that that works for the nation. At the end of the day, the best protection is to decarbonise the economy, to diversify the energy sources we have. That is probably a critical aim, but in the meantime we have got to make sure that the gas reserves that we have got are not just utilised to create huge profits for multinational companies or even Australian companies, and are not just used as for windfall royalties to state governments to keep budgets going, but they are also used to trigger and stimulate economic growth in this country. It would be a sad state of affairs indeed if, in creating this wonderful export market through Gladstone and exporting and getting very high prices for our gas, we caused market failure in our own domestic markets. Market failure is not just when you cannot get it; it is also when you pay very high prices or when those prices act against the national interest. We have representatives of Manufacturing Australia listening to our speeches, and they have made us aware of the very large risks to their sector that may be caused if some allowance is not made and some protection is not made in terms of our domestic markets. We need to consider gas reserves, and we need to consider differential royalties, and we need to consider, I think, 'use it or lose it' approaches to gas reserves. We have to make sure the supply of gas is bountiful in the domestic market, and we have to make sure the price is right as well—not just for manufacturers but also for domestic users. It is just not good enough to say, 'Well, we'll leave it to the market and the market will provide.' We know that all energy markets around the world have some form of intervention and regulation inherent in them, and Australia should not be naive but should be practical in our analysis and our policy solutions in this area. 12:51 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I would like to also thank the honourable member for Throsby for this motion, which talks in paragraph (6) about how Australian manufacturers are being heavily exposed to rising energy prices. It is good to hear the honourable member confirm that point, and I am also very pleased that the honourable member made the comment about how critical manufacturing is to our economy. The honourable member is absolutely right on those two facts. However, one must wonder, given the other policies that the honourable member has supported, if he, in fact, is living in a parallel universe. Perhaps it has escaped the honourable member's attention that, if my recollection is right, both the honourable member that moved this motion and the honourable member for Wakefield, who I will not forget, actually voted to impose upon Australian manufacturers the world's largest carbon tax—a tax which pushes energy prices up, including gas. So, with the greatest respect to the honourable member for Throsby, to describe this motion as even slightly hypocritical, I think, is an understatement. While the honourable member's motion expresses his concern about Australian manufacturers being heavily exposed to rising energy prices, the honourable member should not forget not only that he is part of a government that has imposed the burden of the world's highest carbon tax upon those very same manufacturers but also that in six days this toxic carbon tax actually increases a further five per cent. And let us not forget what we are going to see if this government is re-elected. The honourable member will be going around his electorate and boasting about the government's policies of increasing the carbon tax and extending it to diesel fuel. So, for all our manufacturers in the nation and everything that comes in and out of their factories, this government wants to put a tax on diesel fuel to increase the price of moving those goods in and out of these factories. That is every truck. Every truck in the nation is going to be exposed to this tax if this government is re-elected, and those are the policies that the party that the honourable member for Throsby is a member of is supporting. Paragraph (8) of this motion correctly notes how the manufacturing sector of the USA has been revitalised—500,000 new manufacturing jobs simply because the USA has been able to lower its energy costs, which has given it an international competitive advantage. With our abundant supplies of coal and natural gas in this country, it was our energy costs that used to be our national competitive advantage. That is what gave us an advantage over other countries. That is what gave us wages. It is what has enabled us to afford to pay high wages by international standards, and it is that international competitive advantage which has underwritten our national standard of living. That is what has financed our social welfare programs. I say to anyone who wants to surrender that national competitive advantage, anyone who wants to come in here and say that they want to give it away, that that should be defined as a crime—a crime against the people of Australia. This is exactly what the government have done with their carbon tax and other feel-good, entirely useless and counterproductive green policies. They have surrendered our national competitive advantage and forced up the cost of manufacturing in Australia. Deputy Speaker, just look at the effect this is having. Just last week we saw the ABS labour force data confirmed that our manufacturing sector has plunged to new record lows. We lost 3,900 manufacturing jobs in the last quarter alone—and that was when the dollar was falling. This is a rate of one manufacturing job disappearing every 19 minutes. In fact, under this government, total manufacturing job losses amount to 143,300. This is the decline that we have seen. These are the worst-ever figures in the manufacturing sector's history. They are at the lowest point since records have been kept. There is a clear contrast: the coalition will get rid of the carbon tax and reduce the cost of energy in this country; the government will do exactly the opposite—their carbon tax will increase it. They want it to go up year after year. They want increases to the cost of diesel fuel—attacking the manufacturing heart of our nation. For those in the manufacturing industry, the choice cannot be clearer. Debate adjourned. Australian Embassy in Hungary 6813 12:57 Mr SOMLYAY ZT4 Fairfax This motion on the Australian embassy in Hungary was moved by my colleague and neighbour Peter Slipper, the member for Fisher. It is something that we both feel very strongly about. We are in total agreement on this issue. There are issues on which we work together because we have neighbouring electorates. If it is good for our joint electorates, we cooperate—and we are doing that on this occasion. In the fine print of last month's budget was the decision by this government to close the Australian embassy in the Hungarian capital of Budapest. Please do not mistake my highlighting of this issue simply as some sort of sentimentality about my family origins. From both a political and a diplomatic position, this official announcement within the budget is regrettably short-sighted. Why the embassy in Hungary has been caught in this foreign affairs austerity net is baffling. The bilateral relationship between Australia and Hungary has traditionally been very strong; it has a compelling track record of cooperation and commonality. Hungary visibly backed our nation's bid for a non-permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, and Australia has reciprocated by supporting Hungary's candidature. These seemingly unpretentious but important diplomatic bonds, which build our shared international endeavours, should not be undervalued or misjudged. But our relationship on the global stage is much more extensive than most may realise. The paths of Australia and Hungary have also converged, as we have contributed to peace-building efforts in international communities, including Afghanistan. In the uncertainty and tumult of Syria, Hungary has provided consular assistance to our Australian citizens. The planned closure of the Australian embassy belies our enduring convivial association with Hungary. Geographically, Hungary is strategically located in the heart of Eastern Europe, and the Australian embassy in Budapest is both symbolically and diplomatically integral to the advancing of the economic and cultural relations between our countries for mutual benefit. For Australia, Hungary provides a gateway to central Europe. The embassy is an important part of a suite of diplomatic measures. It is also a conduit for business trade and investment. Similarly, Australia plays a part in presenting Hungary to Asian and Pacific neighbours. It is customary foreign affairs practice. Our ties with Hungary are tangible. Our bilateral relationship has been born from trust, integrity and belief in fellowship. Domestically, there have been a number of key developments—subtle and largely unnoticed as they may be—with social security agreements. There are currently negotiations underway on work and holiday visa arrangements. Of course the government's assertion is that the closure of our embassy in Budapest will not unduly affect our relationship with Hungary. The planned closure comes at a time when the Hungarian government is opening a consular office in Melbourne to further promote cultural, economic and diplomatic relations. Consequently, my own assertion is that this embassy decision does little to venerate the finesse, the nuances and the courtesy that international relations demand and deserve. There are hundreds of thousands of Australians of Hungarian origin and heritage. They contribute to the diversity, the richness and the prosperity of our way of life. Our embassy presence in Budapest embraced the great Australian concept of mateship. We have an excellent relationship with Hungary and the embassy is symbolic of that. I appreciate the cutbacks are symptomatic of these very tight economic times and there will and must be casualties. Closing the embassy may deliver on this bottom line, but the true cost of this retrograde decision, economically, culturally and diplomatically, is one which I believe we should not pay. The DEPUTY SPEAKER JK6 I thank the honourable member for Fairfax. The question is that the motion be agreed to, and I call the honourable member for Fisher. 13:01 Mr SLIPPER 0V5 Fisher Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker McClelland—or should I more appropriately refer to you as Your Honour in waiting? I certainty hope that you receive the position that you are entitled to. I would also like you to pass along to your father my personal thanks for his letter of congratulations to me on my appointment as Speaker of the House of Representatives. The honourable member for Fairfax and I have not always agreed on everything. However, we strongly agree that the decision made in the budget to close the Australian embassy in Hungary was one of the most stupid decisions that any government in this country has made. Embassies have been closed by parties on both sides of government, and none of us support the fact that we are reducing Australia's diplomatic footprint throughout the world. We have a situation where we struggled to be elected as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, and part of the reason for that was that we do not have representation in the countries which we expect to vote for us. The stupidest thing about this particular decision is that the embassy in Hungary costs Australia a relatively small amount of money and the government will not actually close the embassy until 14 days before the 14 September election. That obviously is going to have an amazing effect on the 250,000 people in Australia who have Hungarian origins. My colleague the member for Fairfax and his family fled from Hungary following the communist takeover in 1946, I think. But we have a situation where, as a nation, we do not have, for a country of our size, anywhere near enough overseas missions and embassies. Mr Frydenberg interjecting— Mr SLIPPER 0V5 It is a shame. But the honourable member for Kooyong would know that both parties are responsible for the fact that we have nowhere near enough representation throughout the world for a country of our size. Given the fact that I have five minutes to speak I obviously cannot go through all of the points of the motion. But I have to say: why was Hungary singled out? Hungary is a key country in central Europe. Hungary has supported us for our election to the UN Security Council as a non-permanent member. Hungary is opening a further mission in Melbourne to highlight the relationship between our two countries. I must say that I believe that foreign ministers on both sides of politics must be extraordinarily frustrated by the fact that the department of finance and the Treasury insist on constantly reducing Australia's representation throughout the world. I want to place on record my very high regard for Ms Anna Siko, the Hungarian ambassador here in Australia. She is doing a wonderful job representing her community and representing Hungary in Australia. I also want to thank His Excellency Mr John Burgess, the Australian Ambassador to Hungary. This is a really stupid, dumb decision. Why on earth would any government want to burn 250,000 Australian-Hungarians 14 days before the government faces one of the more challenging elections that it has faced? It is unbelievable, it is totally unacceptable and I believe that the Australian community simply believes that it is wrong that we should be closing the Australian Embassy in Hungary. We have, through Hungary, a conduit into Central Europe. Hungary, through Australia, has a conduit to the Asia-Pacific region. We are countries which now share democratic values. In fact, we have encouraged Hungary to be a democratic nation. As Speaker, last year, I lead a delegation to Hungary. I had access to the highest levels of the Hungarian government. I must say that I was particularly impressed with the way that Hungary regarded Australia and the way that Australian-Hungarians regarded the bilateral relationship between Hungary and Australia. I do make a last-minute plea to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, as I have made many pleas to many ministers in this government, to reverse this retrograde decision. It is dumb politically for the government on 14 September but, more importantly, it is a very unwise decision from the point of view of the bilateral relationship. 13:07 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I rise to support the motion put by my colleague, Mr Slipper, for bringing this government to account for a most regrettable decision to close Australia's Embassy in Hungary. Hungary is an important country—it is a country of 10 million people and we have two-way trade of about $500 million annually. After the 1956 uprising in Hungary against Soviet occupation, thousands of Hungarians made their way to Australia. In the most recent census, there were more than 70,000 Australians with Hungarian ancestry and perhaps a couple of hundred thousand— Mr Slipper 0V5 It is 250,000. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL or 250,000, as the member for Fisher says, with some form of Hungarian relationship. In fact, my mother was born in Hungary, and my father-in-law, Mr Nich Saunders, was also born in Hungary, so I have a close relationship with Hungary through them. Hungary has been an important bilateral partner for Australia. We have been able to use it as a conduit as we have tried to protect Australian citizens in Syria, as we do not have an up-and-running embassy there at present. Hungary supported us in our campaign for the UN Security Council. As an EU member, it is a particularly important country in the world. This is a most regrettable decision. The government says that it is doing this because of budgetary constraints. It says that it will need to invest $52.6 million on new residential accommodation in Kabul, as well as $50.6 million for new secure facilities in Kenya. How much is the government saving by closing the embassy in Hungary? According to Dr Emerson, the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness, savings from the closure will be $0.3 million in 2013-14 and around $1.7 million thereafter—virtually nothing in the scheme of things. In fact, the minister for trade has said, in relation to Hungary, 'This is a decision that, with a very large amount of money and no limits on money, we would not have made.' Rubbish! You are saving $1.7 million and you are spending more than $100 million on new facilities. It is absolute rubbish to say that you need to close this embassy! Because you cannot run your own budget, because you cannot run the finances of this country, you have to make a most regrettable decision like this. Australian companies like Cochlear, Macquarie and AMP Capital are all present in Hungary in one way or another, and we are closing an embassy and ending our representation there. DFAT have said in a Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiry: … closing a mission saves very little. The reason being, once you have got a mission up and running, your running costs are quite low. It might cost you $25 million over three or four years to open a post but, if 10 years later you were to close that post, you would probably only save about $2 million a year. So you cannot even close a post properly! This is absolutely ridiculous. The member for Fisher said that the government's presence overseas is low. This is what Greg Sheridan said when he was interviewing the Minister for Foreign Affairs on Sky on 2 June: But how is it that the overall budget for Australian diplomacy is so pathetically low? We run a foreign service about the size of Slovenia. We run the smallest per capita foreign service of any OECD country in the world. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is smaller today than either the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Department of Trade were when they were amalgamated in 1986. Yet their consular workload has increased by hundreds and hundreds of per cent. The embassy in Beijing has not had an increase in resources in 12 years. This Budget we closed another embassy, Budapest, we have a smaller public diplomacy budget in Indonesia than Germany, France and Britain do. We have a smaller Asian diplomatic representation than Germany, France or Britain do, and yet we claim this is our core business. This is a joke. If we get the chance to form government on 14 September we will run the budget and the finances of this country properly. We will be in a position to finance our posts around the world and expand the footprint of Australia's foreign policy. I have great confidence in Tony Abbott, and great confidence in Julie Bishop, as my colleagues who will ensure that Australia has a proper presence. And what is more, we will not close embassies like this government has done on Hungary with no consultation whatsoever to the detriment of the Australian economy and the Australian people. 13:12 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON 8T4 Werriwa In a perfect world I would have embassies in Tallinn, Riga, Vilnius and every European post, but we do not live in a perfect world—and, quite frankly, a lot of this emotion we just heard might be better targeted towards the cause of Ukrainians in this country: a nation of 50 million people, for which the Ukrainian diaspora has been campaigning for an embassy. Decisions have to be made. It is all right for those opposite to put on the histrionics here today, put on the screaming and shouting, and threaten that there is going to be some electoral impact of this. We heard a few figures from over there. The first point is that the census shows 67,000, not 70,000—and certainly not a quarter of a million—of people of Hungarian extraction in this country. As I say, I am a person who would support enhanced expenditure in the foreign affairs department. But we have an opposition which is slanderously conducting itself with regard to budgetary management in this country, which constantly calls for cutbacks, which says that the government must go into balance. This $1.7 million cannot be isolated from the general cutbacks in the foreign affairs department—each and every one of them can probably have champions to ask the government to go back to its earlier start. I am not for one moment denying the Hungarian contribution in this country, from Frank Lowy to, in the contemporary world, Les Murray, whose family is a good model of language retention in this country. I heard him on ABC radio years ago noting how his parents insisted that Hungarian only be spoken in the house, while the parents went off and learned English very effectively. It is worth noting that on 13 May the Hungarian government—the Fidesz Party, a very conservative regime—put on the public record their analysis of this closure. They noted that Hungary itself had had to close a number of foreign missions. They further noted that Hungary was convinced that bilateral relations would be maintained at their current excellent level. We have had to have other priorities, I am afraid. We cannot just ignore major requirements of this country, such as building a more secure purpose-built residential accommodation in Kabul. Would they condemn our diplomats to the threat of violence and murder instead of this closure? We have the situation of constructing a more secure High Commission in Kenya. Once again, Nairobi is a target of terrorist activity. Would they say that our diplomats' protection is less important than this embassy? We also, of course, sought to re-establish our international focus with the 2013 moves towards establishing new missions in Chengdu in China and Dakar in Senegal, West Africa. I actually think they are probably, on balance, more important priorities. As I say, I would be the last person to decry the need for embassies in more countries around the world, but in strange circumstances—and with a cutback in government taxation revenues—we have decisions to make. This kind of pathetic appeal to electoral constituencies is to be condemned. I want to in some ways distance myself from some aspects of the motion on another front. Yes, Hungary, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, has historically moved towards democratic measures. However, all is not rosy. The European Commission's president, Jose Manuel Barroso, has said recently that measures in Hungary 'raise concerns with respect to the principle of the rule of law, EU law and Council of Europe standards.' The Council of Europe itself has asked Hungary to postpone constitutional changes. The US State Department has said that changes in Hungary 'threaten to undermine democratic government.' In recent years, we have seen constitutional changes to lower the age of judges, to limit the powers of the Constitutional Court and to restrict election campaigning to only state media. When I was there, on a study tour, I saw how the Jobbik party, which is a fascist anti-Semitic and anti-Roma group, had grown. It was getting up to 14 per cent of the vote in national elections. One of the more worrying proposals by the government—I am not sure whether they brought this in in the end—was that they were going to appoint a government financial-economic committee for a 10-year duration. If there was to be an election defeat for the current government, that three-person commission could have forced a new election if they did not agree to the budgetary moves of the new government. There are concerns about the growth of anti-Semitism and the way in which Roma are being excluded in society. Hilary Clinton presented an award to a Roma female deputy for her campaigning for Roma rights in Hungary. Yes, in a perfect world I would like to see a post in Hungary. Hungary is a central nation in the Central and Eastern Europe bloc of nations and it has historical measures that are quite important to world culture. But decisions have to made and, on balance, I think this decision was correct. Debate adjourned. BILLS 6819 BILLS Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 6819

Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012

Second Reading 6819 13:18 Mr GARRETT HV4 Kingsford Smith I have had the opportunity to speak previously on the recognition of same-sex marriages. It is an issue that has been on the agenda in our country for many years. It is a part of what I think is a changing public appreciation that the commitment that those who wish to have a same-sex relationship make is a commitment that ought to be duly and formally recognised in marriage as well. In fact, I spoke on the Jones bill in the parliament. At that time I made my views very clear, and I would like to briefly repeat what I said—that I do not believe we should be discriminating against people on the basis of race or religion, and nor should we be enabling discrimination on the basis of choice. This parliament should not deny our brothers and sisters, our nieces and nephews, our children, those we work with and those we represent the right to be considered equally in the eyes of the law as fellow human beings who are entitled to have their commitment to a permanent relationship duly recognised by the state. Additionally, I wanted to make clear, as the minister for school education, how important this issue is for young Australians who may determine that their relationships are to be same-sex relationships and who may be giving indications of that even through high school years and as they start to mature and go on into adult life. The fact is that, regrettably, we still have high levels of bullying taking place not only in our schools but also through cyberbullying, which is of increasing prevalence in our community. In a number of cases it is both sexual orientation itself and the differences that people might express by their sexual orientation that can be the subject of bullying in the classroom, outside the classroom or online via the variety of hand-held devices and communication technologies that are available to young people today. The parliament has looked at this matter on a couple of occasions now. The last time that we came onto the floor of the parliament—Labor members in this parliament are able to take a conscience vote—I voted to support the recognition of same-sex relationships by the state. I note that, as of last reading, that same opportunity for a conscience vote was not permitted by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott. I think it is now time that Mr Abbott reconsidered his position on this matter. I say that not only because I believe that we as an Australian community have reached the point of being able to maturely recognise the level of commitment that same-sex couples bring to their relationship but also because, until we have taken that final step, we do not have in place either the symbolic or the real recognition of both the status and the intention that adheres to those relationships. In that absence, there is still fertile ground for people to believe that there ought to be a form of discrimination that might manifest itself by way of bullying, unkind behaviours and comments in school or online. As the Minister for School Education I wanted to again place my commitment on the record but also highlight how important I think it is for the parliament to take this necessary step. I do that recognising that, for any young person, the period of adolescence going into adulthood is an absolutely crucial transition period in their lives. The impact of bullying on a young person at that particular point can be far-reaching. It can have consequences that, regrettably, can in some instances be absolutely tragic. We in Australia, as a community and as a society, need to finally recognise that these sorts of instances would be much less likely to happen if we were to take the steps that I think we ought to as a nation and as a parliament to recognise same-sex commitments by the state in this place. Debate adjourned. Pr oceedings suspended from 13:24 to 1 6:00 BUSINESS 6820 BUSINESS Rearrangement 6820 16:00 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton by leave—I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 3, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 6820 BILLS Homelessness Bill 2013, Homelessness (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 6820

Homelessness Bill 2013

Homelessness (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013

Second Reading 6820 16:00 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I rise to speak on the Homelessness Bill 2013 and the Homelessness (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013. The bill's explanatory memorandum states that this bill is aimed at increasing recognition and awareness of people who are homeless or who are at risk of homelessness. The consequential amendments bill repeals the Supported Accommodation Assistance Act 1994 to make way for the new legislation and replaces the definition of 'homeless person' which applies in the provisions about including itinerant electors in the electoral rolls to ensure that people who are homelessness can still effectively participate in electoral activities. The bills make some definitional changes and remove references to the superseded Homelessness Funding Mechanism referred to in the Supported Accommodation Assistance Act 1994. The bills are otherwise little more than broad statements of principle and aspiration. This is something we are used to seeing from this Labor government—all politics, no policy. These bills do not impact on funding for service provision for homelessness. The coalition will not oppose the bills, but is concerned that, through this legislation, the Labor government has produced yet another statement of aspiration without any ongoing tangible commitment to reducing homelessness on the ground. Indeed, the bills are a missed opportunity and will not make any difference to the plight of homeless Australians. These bills stem from a recommendation in Labor's white paper on homelessness to enact new legislation to ensure that people who are homeless receive quality support services and adequate support. The introduced bills are the product of the white paper recommendation and inquiry into homelessness legislation in 2009 by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family, Community and Youth and a public consultation process in mid-2012. I will turn specifically to the Homelessness Bill which, as I mentioned, is an aspirational document only. It is not a funding instrument and, contrary to the objective of the white paper, has no impact on the services and support provided to homeless people. The Homelessness Bill draws attention to the experience of homelessness and voices the goal that all Australians have access to appropriate affordable, safe and sustainable housing. The bill sets out a range of service delivery principles to which the Commonwealth is committed and the strategies seen as necessary to reduce homelessness. In response to stakeholder feedback, the bill widens the definition of homelessness so that people staying in crisis accommodation cannot be ruled out of the definition through any concept of choice. The definition also now includes a reference to safety as a vital element in a person's living circumstances. Let me turn to the consequential amendments bill. The consequential amendments bill repeals the Supported Accommodation Assistance Act 1994. The Supported Accommodation Assistance Act was primarily a vehicle for providing funding to states and territories to administer the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program, which provided crisis and transitional support and accommodation services to the homeless. New funding arrangements—the National Partnership on Homelessness and the National Affordable Housing Specific Purpose Payment—were introduced in 2009 under the Federal Financial Relations Framework, superseding the funding mechanism in the Supported Accommodation Assistance Act. The new bills retain the statements of principle about homelessness contained in the Supported Accommodation Assistance Act. The consequential amendments bill also makes a change to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, replacing the definition of 'homeless person' which applies in the provisions about including itinerant electors on the electoral rolls and which currently partly relies on concepts drawn from the Supported Accommodation Assistance Act. The new definition of 'homeless person' will ensure that the itinerant elector provisions will continue to apply despite the repeal of the 1994 act so that people who are homeless can continue to participate in electoral activities in the Australian community. Aside from making some definitional changes and removing references to the superseded funding mechanism in the Supported Accommodation Assistance Act, the bill is little more than a broad statement of principle. The definitional changes are important, ensuring that people staying in crisis accommodation are not excluded from the definition of 'homeless' because they have chosen to leave their homes. Indeed, young people escaping violent home life or mothers and their children who have had to leave home for their own safety can hardly be said to have chosen the state of homelessness. But the bill is otherwise simply a statement of high-minded aspiration. For more than 105,000 homeless Australians, and the thousands of dedicated men and women who work tirelessly to support them, these bills will raise the hope and expectation that a Labor government might finally do something tangible to stem the tide of homelessness in Australia, but without actually doing anything. It is disappointing that these bills will make no difference to funding or service provision for homelessness. Homeless Australians do not need any more high-minded aspiration. They need support and they need funding. Labor is offering them neither through these bills. Like the coalition, homeless Australians and stakeholders in the sector will be deeply disappointed by the bills. The coalition will not oppose the bills, but we believe that they are a missed opportunity and will not make any difference to the plight of homeless Australians. Most disappointingly, the bills go no way to addressing Labor's multiple failures on homelessness. I turn then to this government's record of failure on homelessness. The Rudd-Gillard government has mismanaged homelessness policy right from the start and has made it difficult for the states and territories on the front line to do their job and deliver services to some of our most vulnerable citizens. In 2008, the then Prime Minister, the member for Griffith, 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 their rhetoric. In fact, under Labor's watch, homelessness has increased. Between 2006 and 2011, ABS census figures show a 17 per cent increase in the number of homeless people in Australia, or an increase of over 15,500 people, from 89,728 in 2006 to 105,237 in 2011. Under Labor, over 17 per cent of Australia's homeless are now under the age of 12, and homeless families represent almost one-third of those receiving support in 2011-12. In most cases, these are single adults with children. 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 audit report, the government is unlikely to achieve its own target of a seven per cent reduction in homelessness by 1 July 2013—weeks away. The government's likely failure to reach its seven per cent target has only been confirmed by a recent COAG Reform Council Report, Homelessness 2011-12: comparing performance across Australia, and by officials from the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs at Senate estimates hearings this month. The ANAO report uncovered multiple other problems with the program. Firstly, state and territory governments are not required to report financial information to the Commonwealth under the scheme or the program, meaning the Commonwealth has no way to know if jurisdictions are meeting their financial commitments under the agreement. Secondly, payments to the state and territories are not linked to outcomes, milestones or performance benchmarks. Thirdly, the absence of outcomes based reporting means the government is unable to make meaningful assessments of overall progress within each jurisdiction or nationally and receives very little information on whether the reforms are even working at all. Fourthly, problems with homelessness data used under the program mean the government cannot even measure changes in homelessness levels in Australia over the life of the agreement. Once you move passed the overblown rhetoric, Labor's commitment to reducing homelessness is not founded on the facts. In 2013-14 federal budget, Labor has not committed any funding beyond next year to homelessness. Instead, this government has allocated $159 million in 2013-14 for a one-year so-called Transitional National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness with the states and territories. The torturous process of renegotiating the program resulted in continued instability for homelessness service providers and Labor's last-minute, one-year deal to extend funding beyond 1 July 2013 is a bandaid solution that does not provide certainty for those services or the thousands of homeless people who rely upon them. In addition, Labor has negotiated funding arrangements for homelessness so badly that it has made it all but impossible to know if the reforms are working at all. Under Labor, the future of homelessness funding in Australia will remain uncertain beyond mid-2014. This government has allocated nothing in the forward estimates to fund vital homelessness services across the country. The coalition, as I said, will not oppose this bill, but we do not believe the wordy sentiments it expresses will make any difference to thousands of homeless Australians out in the streets in the towns, the cities and rural areas of Australia. The coalition is committed to supporting the homeless in more than words. We are 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. Unfortunately we cannot wave a magic wand and make homelessness go away. Setting arbitrary targets and making big promises to solve the plight of our under-privileged is not the best approach, because we simply cannot comprehend the complex nature of the issues which they face. These can include domestic violence, substance abuse, mental illness and economic circumstances such as the sudden loss of a job. A coalition government, if elected, would streamline homelessness services and cut red tape for providers, along with providing a $1.5 billion package for mental health problems. 16:13 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra It is a real privilege to talk on these homelessness bills this afternoon, and I know, Deputy Speaker Saffin, from the work that we have done on the Status of Women caucus committee on this issue that it is an area of great interest to you, as it is to me. It is an area I have become particularly concerned about since my election in 2010 and I am proud of the progress that Labor is making in this area. In January 2008 Labor committed to tackling homelessness in Australia as a matter of national priority. This has been re-affirmed with our commitment to halve homelessness by 2020. The problem of homelessness is being addressed within Labor's broader Housing Affordability and Social Inclusion agendas and with a particular focus on the prevention of homelessness, improved crisis services and the creation of exit points to secure long-term housing and stop the cycle of homelessness. This bill we are debating today outlines Labor's genuine commitment to tackling homelessness. One of the key initiatives Labor has taken over the past six years has been the development of a white paper on homelessness, The Road Home: A National Approach to Reducing Homelessness. This paper, which was released in December 2008, seeks to provide a national plan of action on homelessness for the years leading up to 2020. One of the commitments made by Labor in the white paper is to implement new legislation to ensure that people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness receive quality services and adequate support to meet their needs. This is the legislation that we are discussing this afternoon. Evidence from the 2008 white paper says that, to break the cycle of homelessness, we need to have stable housing options and the maintenance of support services. I have witnessed the transformative qualities that housing can provide and the positive change it makes in people without supported accommodation. The bill we are debating today is about social acceptance. It is about providing an opportunity for people without an acceptable living standard to be considered and acknowledge so that everyone in this nation has a fair go. Furthermore, this bill explores the definition of homelessness, which is particularly important because, as we know, there is no one characterisation of homelessness in Australia. Homelessness in Australia might mean sleeping rough, living in a shelter, sleeping in a car or couch surfing at a friend's place. Homelessness in Australia might be temporary or long term, the result of economic difficulties such as a job loss, the result of mental illness or a means of escaping domestic violence. All of these things are homelessness in one form or another. This bill acknowledges that diversity, and it will enable better and more targeted strategies to create effective outcomes for Australia's homeless. In Maslow's hierarchy of needs shelter and safety are the essential underpinnings of healthy and productive individuals and, through them, societies. The transformative qualities of a home were beautifully summarised by a constituent of mine whom I met last year when I was shopping at Fyshwick markets. She was behind the counter. She looked at me and said, 'Are you Gai Brodtmann?' I said, 'Yes, I am.' She said, 'I want to thank you.' I said, 'How did I assist?' She said, 'Your office was fantastic in helping me get a home and, as a result, I have been able to get a job and my whole life has turned around.' She was incredibly grateful not just for the fact that she had a home but also because, as a result of that home, she had got a job which she really loved. She had also got a new bloke in her life. I think she was a victim of domestic violence and some pretty unhappy circumstances at home. She had a happy child and her life had been transformed as a result of us helping her to get a social house. Since being elected, I have had many, many women come to me looking for housing. I remember the first phone call I took when I had just got the keys to my electorate office. I was the only person in the office. There I was, newly sworn in as an MP, with the keys to the office but no-one around, and there was a woman on the phone whose circumstances were particularly tragic. She had been the victim of domestic violence. She had two teenage kids, one of them a boy, and there were some women's refuge issues as a result of that. She was working, and had been sleeping in her car. Her kids, who were going to school, had also been sleeping in the car. To top all of that tragedy off, she was also undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer. That was the very first call I received in my electorate office as a new MP, and we did everything in our power to get that woman a home. She now has a home. We see her quite regularly because she works just around the corner. The cancer is in remission and the kids are going really well at school. So, as I said, this housing transforms people's lives. Since Labor has been in government, we have made a significant investment in homelessness and housing. We have invested almost $5 billion in new funding for support services and programs to assist people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. We have put in place a $1.5 billion National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness, and I understand that this agreement has delivered well over 180 new or expanded homelessness services across the country and supported around 240,000 people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Most importantly, we have invested $5.6 billion in social housing, the single largest investment in social housing in Australia's history. This massive investment is providing 31,000 affordable homes to vulnerable Australians, and hundreds are here in my electorate in Canberra. As a result of this significant investment that we have made in social housing in Canberra, we have managed to move older Canberrans out of large family homes—they are empty-nesters now and they no longer need a huge family home—and into brand spanking new townhouses which are really close to all the services and infrastructure that they need to support them to shop, to see their friends and to have access to public transport. For many of these Canberrans it is the first time they have moved into a new home. I have been with them at the opening these beautiful new housing developments and seen the joy on their faces at these beautiful new townhouses that are so close to facilities. They are just overwhelmed and overjoyed. This is probably one of my favourite investments of the most significant investments that we have made since we have been in government. Some states and territories have also used this funding to deliver housing projects specifically for women. Building social housing and, in particular, creating safe and reliable shelters and homes for women can only be done in partnerships with the states and territories. This is an area that I am particularly interested in. Now that we have managed to get these older Canberrans into these fabulous new townhouses as a result of the historic investment in social housing, I am keen for us to focus on looking after social housing for older women. The reason that I am is that I met with the Equality Rights Alliance last year and they showed me a report that they were putting together for their pre-budget submission. The report highlighted what they have dubbed a potential 'tsunami of homelessness' for older women in Australia. And here I want to quote from the ERA's submission: Housing affordability is an issue that affects ageing women in greater numbers than ageing men. According to the 2011 Census there are 600,828 women in Australia who are single, over 45 years old, have less than median income and do not own their home. By comparison there are 373,794 men in the same situation. The 2011 ABS Census also shows that among single people over 45 years old, women are much more likely to have less than median income: 62% of women compared to 38% of men. Even when older men are on a low income, they are more likely to be home owners: 38% of single men over 45 years old on less than median income do not own their home compared with 62% of women. After their mid-60s, few women have incomes that are substantially above the Age Pension rate. Most people over 65 years do not live in care-based accommodation. In fact, 95% live at home. For a growing number of ageing women, this leaves the private rental market as their only option. I have seen the faces of these women in my mobile offices, particularly when I do mobile offices during lunch breaks on weekdays. I have had women coming up to me and explaining to me that they are on an average income, they are still in the rental market, they are about 60 years of age, they only have a basic amount of super and they are absolutely petrified about what their future holds. In March this year I talked about this ERA submission—as well as my concerns and my own experiences of women coming to my electorate office and my mobile office and meeting them out in the community—in an International Women's Day speech. I raised this issue, and I had women coming up to me afterwards in tears, saying, 'You have just described my situation. I am frightened for my future. What can I do about it?' I have had a number of women coming, again, in tears to the electorate office since that International Women's Day speech, highlighting these ERA figures and absolutely devastated and fearful for their futures. According to Homelessness Australia, just over 40 per cent of the estimated homeless population are women. The census figures from 2006 reveal that women make up 40 per cent of the primary homeless people, or those people sleeping rough, and 48 per cent of the secondary homeless—that is, people staying with family or friends. These figures highlight the enormity of the problem and the challenge for us as policy makers to find solutions that enhance society and reduce the rate of homelessness within Australia and give people those fundamental building blocks to be able to succeed. Having lived abroad, I appreciate the gift of living in a nation where the freedom to seek quality of life and the freedom to vote is valued. I think a particularly notable element of this bill is on the importance of preserving the freedom to vote. I welcome that initiative in this bill. I am very passionately of the view that community is about helping underprivileged Australians stay off the streets. I was honoured to be the ambassador for Youth Homelessness Matters Day 2013.1am very concerned about the welfare and wellbeing of young people, women and anyone experiencing homelessness. This day was focused on young people, especially in my electorate. Forty-four thousand Australians under the age of 26 are homeless. The majority of them are just entering adulthood, a crucial time for anyone looking to build a career, gain stability and get on their own two feet. I was reading through the St Vincent de Paul Society report on housing stress in Canberra and Goulburn, which was released late last year. It is a very stark assessment of the problem. There are some very moving stories of people's experiences here in the national capital. The St Vincent De Paul's report reveals cases of families of six or more living in two-bedroom units. There are cases of whole families living in cars, like the woman I described earlier. The sad fact is that a planned city like Canberra still has homelessness but unfortunately it goes unnoticed. We know that demand for access to government housing exceeds supply and the waiting times for priority and high needs housing is lengthy. On average, Canberrans are among the healthiest, best educated and most prosperous in Australia—but not those who are experiencing homelessness or at risk of becoming homeless. What makes homelessness such a critical issue here in Canberra is our climate. Those who are not in stable housing or do not have access to affordable heating suffer seriously in winter. Being homeless anywhere in Australia is tough, but being homeless in a place that gets so cold in winter is particularly tough. Reconnect Services is helping some of Canberra's most vulnerable young people to not only get their lives back on track but avoid or move out of homelessness. The ACT government is continuing to fund Reconnect ACT. I applaud them for doing that. Their activities include counselling, group work, mediation and practical support for young people and their families, In closing, I would like to commend the work that has been done by COAG on this issue. In March this year, the multimillion dollar agreement with the states and territories ensured the continued provision of vital homelessness services. The National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness enables service providers to have the certainty they need to continue to offer critical support to some of the most vulnerable Australians. I would like to thank Corporal Coomara Munro from the Australian Air Force who wrote this speech while interning in my office under the Defence program. This bill gives voice to the homeless. It puts us on track to providing long-term certainty and hope for underprivileged Australians. I commend it to the House. 16:28 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne It is undeniable that homelessness is a growing problem in this country. On any given night, more than 105,000 Australians are homeless. That is one in every 200 people. According to the last census, 6,813 of these people were sleeping on the streets. Many thousands more were forced to couch surf, live in severely overcrowded housing or live in places like caravan parks or boarding houses that lack personal space and security. More than a quarter of our homeless population are children under the age of 18. On census night, almost 18,000 children under 12 were counted as homeless and 402 were sleeping rough. The statistics belie some very horrific personal stories. Recently I was at a forum put on by the North Melbourne housing and homelessness action group where I met Spike, who had been living and sleeping rough through very long period of time and who is now spending his time advocating on the causes of homelessness. He explained that the health effects, just to take one aspect of it, are very significant. If you find yourself without a regular address, you find yourself less likely to come into regular contact with health services. If you do that, you are more likely to have problems such as dental problems. Spike explained that that in turn becomes a self-fulfilling circle: if you do not have teeth or you have bad teeth, you are less likely to get a job; if you are less likely to get a job, you are more likely to remain homeless. There are other services in my electorate such as HomeGround. When I visited HomeGround, I came to understand the pressures that they were under. I met someone there who had been made redundant, who had been living on Newstart and who had then been homeless for a while. They found a home as a result of the work of HomeGround. That home, in the electorate of Melbourne, was one room in a rooming house in the suburb of Fitzroy and near to where this person had connections, and it set him back $180. When your Newstart payment is in the order of $240 and you are in a rooming house which you are sharing with others, you do not have the capacity to buy up in advance the right food and then cook it, because you are sharing fridges and sharing space with other people. So you end up eating bad food on the $60 a week that you have got left, or you skip it and eat nothing at all. The need for affordable and appropriate accommodation is incredibly clear—and it has been clear for many years. Back in 2008, we had a very worthy pledge to halve homelessness. We had a white paper on homelessness. We were promised, amongst other things, a legislative response, for which we have been waiting some years. In that time, the pressure, certainly on services for people who deal with homelessness, has been increasing massively. We are at the point now where, on an average day in this country, 59 per cent of the people who are seeking to be newly accommodated by these services are turned away; the figure for couples with children is 74 per cent. The overwhelming reason for this situation is the lack of appropriate accommodation. Let us think about that: on any given day, three quarters of the couples with children who find themselves homeless or who are at risk of homelessness and who front up to a service and ask for accommodation are turned away. In my office, we deal with a number of the consequences of that every day. In the electorate of Melbourne, there is more public housing than in any other electorate in the country, and the public housing waiting lists are huge. Even in public housing, there are people who are couch-surfing, who have been homeless for seven or eight years and who still have not been provided with appropriate accommodation. Not a day goes by when one of my staff members or I do not approach a housing service or a state government minister to seek appropriate accommodation for someone. In the face of all those statistics and compelling stories, we have 250,000 Australian households on social housing waiting lists around the country, which is around half a million people. We have only 4,500 homeless people given priority access to public housing. There was a great deal of hope that finally the legislation, which was an overdue response to the white paper, might take us forward. Instead, we have a bill that expresses what are worthy sentiments but that is essentially a press release with a parliament of Australia bill cover on the front of it. The worthy sentiments do not bring with them one extra dollar for homeless services. This bill does not bring with it one new house or flat for someone who is seeking support. It will not relieve the pressure one jot on those who are homeless, who are at risk of homelessness or who are looking after those people who are at risk of homelessness. As one reads through the bill, yes, you find yourself nodding your head and agreeing with the very important and worthy sentiments in it. You keep waiting for the punchline where the bill will say that it is going to do something, and you turn to the last page and find that the bill says that not only is it not going to do something but something even more than that. It says in section 14: (1) This Act does not, by its terms or operation, create or give rise to 4 any rights (whether substantive or procedural), or obligations, thatare legally enforceable in judicial or other proceedings. It is a bill that is not legally binding. Why? What is the point of that if it is not backed up with a comprehensive response to the massive and growing problem of homelessness and housing affordability in this country? If you wanted a definition of Clayton's legislation, it is this—it is the bill you have when you are not having a bill—because it confers absolutely no legal rights or protections for this country's most vulnerable people and the ones who are most at risk. Perhaps the reason we are seeing this bill brought on now at five minutes to midnight in this parliament is that last week was Homelessness Week and the Greens responded to that not with a bill that does nothing, but with a plan of action. The Greens have been concerned about homelessness and housing affordability for some time, and so last week we announced a homelessness action plan that would provide an emergency package to build 7,000 new homes by 2020—enough to house every person currently sleeping without adequate shelter. It is something that the government promised to do many years ago. We would include a 50 per cent target of fast-build, modular or pre-fabricated housing which will be significantly faster and more affordable to build. There are some great Australian factories that would be able to manufacture that modular and pre-fabricated housing. We would double the current funding for specialist homelessness services in Australia. In an environment where we know that, as I said before, 59 per cent of people are turned away on an average day when they turn up for help and three quarters of couples with children, we need that doubling in homelessness services. We have had it costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office and it is eminently affordable, especially if we were to have the courage to raise the money this country needs to fund the services Australians expect. That would involve having a proper mining tax, and we hear today that Australia's banks are the most profitable in the world—and under Labor they have become the most profitable in the world—and the return to the community is nowhere near what it is in other countries. In other countries in Europe and the United States, they are saying, 'Well, look, we as governments stand behind you big banks and allow you to make these massive profits, we want a fair return.' A similar levy here in Australia would bring in $11 billion over four years. If we had the courage to stand up to the big miners or to the big banks or if we had the courage to just raise revenue in this country to the same proportion of GDP as it was under former Prime Minister John Howard, we would have an extra $20 billion to spend. That would mean that instead of having legislation that creates no legal rights or obligations and does not have one dollar attached to it, we could instead afford to fund initiatives like the Greens' proposal to solve Australia's homelessness by 2020. It would actually put some meat on the bones and put some money into building some housing and providing support for homelessness services. If we are serious about addressing homelessness, I will tell you about two other things that would help. One is to raise NewStart above the poverty line. It has now been almost five years under this government where there has been a strong campaign from the sector and from people who say that we need to life NewStart above the poverty line, because it is far too low. We have had nothing but small increases that amount to only a couple of dollars a day. We need a minimum increase of $50 a week in NewStart—again it is something that is fully affordable if we had the courage to raise the revenue we need to fund the services Australians expect to create a more caring society. The second thing that I would do to address homelessness I would not kick single parents off their payments and put them on NewStart, because one of the most distressing things we have learnt is that since the start of this year is that housing services and welfare agencies are reporting a spike in the number of single parents with children who are seeking their services. We told the parliament at the time the bill was going through—and people did not listen but it has been borne out to be the fact—that the people who were hit hardest by the government's decision to save a bit of money to help get back to surplus, a goal which they have now abandoned, were the ones who were already working. Kicking single parents off their welfare payments and onto the dole was apparently meant to help get them back into work but we learnt that the ones who were hit hardest were the ones who were already working the most because under the single parent payment you could earn and keep more of your income than you can under Newstart. Not only was it a drop in the actual payment but it was a drop in how much you could remain in the workforce. This was in face of the fact that single parents were already the group that had the highest proportion of people in work. If you have met and spoken to single parents, you understand why. It is because they are predominantly women, many of whom have had experience of family violence and what they are trying to do is to provide the best life for their kids and for themselves as they possibly can. They are the group of people amongst all other welfare recipients who want to work and who are trying the hardest to juggle. They do not have spare cash to afford child care. They cannot necessarily have someone else at the end of a phone or in their house who can look after the kids and so they are juggling these things. Yet the decision that was made by the government has meant $140 a week in lost income for some of them. That is a lot of money when you are the only income earner in your family. As a result, more and more of them are presenting to services saying, 'We are now at risk of losing our house and we need the support of charity.' If you were serious about addressing that, you would not be putting more people into a situation where they are at risk of homelessness by attacking those who are already doing it hardest. Let us get single parents back on the benefits and allow them to earn more and keep more of it as they used to be able to. Let us lift Newstart and the poverty line and let us have a debate in this country about how much we are prepared to raise the money to then fund these kinds of services because it is not that expensive—$233 million per annum to build prefabricated homes to house every rough sleeper by 2020. That is $500 million for the specialist homelessness services and signing a new national partnership on homelessness is $275 million. These are all eminently affordable and all costed. Let us do more than pass legislation that is not even legally binding. Let us make a real difference to Australia's homeless. 16:43 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I rise to speak on the Homelessness Bill 2013 and Homelessness (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013. The bills are aimed at increasing recognition and awareness of people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. These bills are a missed opportunity because they are simply aspirational bills without any concurrent funding or reforms to improve homelessness in Australia. In their current form these bills will not make any difference to the plight of homeless Australians. As the member for Melbourne said, they are bills you have when you are not really having bills. The coalition will not oppose the bills, but I am concerned that through this legislation the Labor government has produced yet another statement of principles without any ongoing tangible commitment to preventing or reducing homelessness on the ground. These two bills make minor amendments which are primarily administrative in nature. As the explanatory memorandum states, the bill draws national attention to the experience of homelessness and voices the aspiration that all Australians have access to appropriate, affordable, safe and sustainable housing. It sets out a range of service delivery principles to which the Commonwealth is committed and the strategies seen as necessary to reduce homelessness. The Homelessness (Consequential Amendments) Bill repeals the Supported Accommodation Assistance Act 1994, makes some definitional changes and removes references to the superseded homelessness funding mechanism referred to in the Supported Accommodation Assistance Act 1994. This program was primarily a vehicle for providing funding to states and territories to administer the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program, which gave crisis and transitional support and accommodation services to the homeless. New funding arrangements were introduced in 2009, namely the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness and the national affordable housing specific purpose payment. It also replaces a definition of 'homeless person', which applies in the provisions regarding the inclusion of itinerant electors on the electoral roll, to ensure that people who are homeless can still effectively participate in electoral activities. The bills stem from a recommendation in Labor's white paper on homelessness to enact new legislation to ensure that people who are homeless receive quality services and adequate support. Their introduction follows a very lengthy journey through this parliament, including the white paper; an inquiry into homelessness legislation in 2009 by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family Community, Housing and Youth; and a public consultation process in mid-2012. These bills respond to some of the concerns raised throughout the committee and public consultation process. The definition of 'homelessness' has been widened so that people staying in crisis accommodation cannot be ruled out of the definition through any concept of choice. The definition also now includes a reference to safety as a vital element in a person's living circumstances. Stakeholders believe that these definitional changes are important, ensuring as they do that people staying in crisis accommodation are not excluded from the definition of 'homeless' because they have chosen to leave their homes. Young people escaping a violent home life and mothers and their children who have had to leave home for their own safety can hardly be said to have chosen a life of homelessness. Otherwise, the bills are simply a statement of high-level aspiration for the more than 105,000 homeless Australians and the thousands of dedicated men and women who work tirelessly to support them. These bills will raise the hope and expectation that this Labor government might finally do something tangible to stem the tide of homelessness in Australia. As we approach the final days of the 43rd Parliament, it is clear that this government wants to pass these bills to seem to be doing something without making any difference to funding or service provision for homelessness. Homeless Australians do not need more esoteric aspiration. They need support and they need funding. Labor is offering neither through these bills. If we look at the track record of the Rudd-Gillard governments, it is clear that they have mismanaged their homelessness policy. In 2008, Kevin Rudd said that homelessness was a 'national obscenity' and promised to halve the rate of homelessness in Australia by 2020. 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 an increase of over 15,500 people, from 89,728 in 2006 to 105,237 in 2011. Under Labor, more than 17 per cent of Australia's homeless are now under the age of 12, and homeless families represent almost one-third of those receiving support in 2011-12. In most cases, these are single adults with children. On 2 May 2013, the Australian National Audit Office, the ANAO, released a report which revealed major failings in the government's key homelessness funding deal with the states and territories, the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness, or NPAH. According to the report, the government is unlikely to achieve its own target of a seven per cent reduction in homelessness by 1 July 2013. The government's likely failure to reach its seven per cent target has also been confirmed by a recent COAG Reform Council report, Homelessness 2011–2012: comparing performance across Australia, and by officials from the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs at Senate estimates hearings this month. The Labor government has simply increased reporting compliance without knowing whether federal funding has resulted in a commensurate increase in the ability of states and territories to deliver front-line services to some of our most vulnerable citizens. This was revealed by the ANAO, which detailed multiple problems with the NPAH. Firstly, state and territory governments are not required to report financial information to the Commonwealth under the NPAH, meaning the Commonwealth has no way to know if jurisdictions are meeting their financial commitments under the agreement. Secondly, payments to the states and territories are not linked to outcomes, milestones or performance benchmarks. Thirdly, the absence of outcomes based reporting means the government is unable to make meaningful assessments of overall progress within each jurisdiction, or nationally, and receives very little information on whether the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness reforms are even working at all. Lastly, problems with homelessness data used under the NPAH mean the government cannot even measure changes in homelessness levels in Australia over the life of the agreement. Once you move past the overblown rhetoric, Labor's lack of commitment to reducing homelessness in real terms is revealed by the facts. In the 2013-14 federal budget, Labor has not committed any funding beyond next year to homelessness. Instead, this government has allocated $159 million in 2013-14 for a one-year so-called Transitional National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness with the states and territories. The process of re-negotiating the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness resulted in continued instability for homelessness service providers and Labor's last-minute one-year deal to extend funding beyond 1 July 2013 is a short-term band-aid solution that does not provide certainty for these services and the thousands of homeless people who rely on them. Under Labor, the future of homelessness funding in Australia will remain uncertain. Beyond 2014, this government has allocated nothing in the forward estimates to fund vital homelessness services across the country. Even if this Labor government had provided meaningful funds for homelessness, the way they negotiated the funding arrangements for homelessness means it is all but impossible to know whether the NPAH reforms are working at all. The coalition will not oppose this legislation but we do not believe the worthy sentiments it expresses will make any difference to homeless Australians on the ground. The coalition is committed to supporting the homeless with more than fine words. We are committed to combating the many and complex causes of homelessness, supporting homeless Australians with real practical assistance and preventing even more Australians from falling into homelessness. Unfortunately, we cannot wave a magic wand and house all the homeless. Setting arbitrary targets and making promises to solve the plight of our underprivileged is not the best approach, because we simply cannot comprehend the complex nature of the issues they face. These can include domestic violence, substance abuse, mental illness and adverse economic circumstances such as sudden job loss. A coalition government, if elected, would streamline homelessness services and cut red tape for providers, along with a $1.5 billion package for mental health. Providing real support for mental health services will be an important preventive step to support at-risk Australians. The coalition will not oppose the bills. However, setting out aspirational goals in the last days of this parliament is simply too little, too late for a government which has not been serious about making any difference to the plight of homeless Australians. 16:52 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide This package of bills is aimed at increasing recognition and awareness of people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. This government has made homelessness a national priority. Our white paper The road home outlines how we intend to reduce homelessness through a program that will require sustained effort by governments, business and the broader community. We have set clear targets to halve the rate of homelessness by 2020 and to provide supported accommodation for all rough sleepers who need it. We are progressing these targets through a significant boost in spending, new agreements with the states and territories and an overhaul of the existing legislative framework. Already we have seen progress, including through early intervention to prevent homelessness. The homelessness legislative framework was the subject of a comprehensive inquiry during 2009 by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family, Community, Housing and Youth. The committee's report Housing the homelesshas been vital in shaping this legislation being debated today. With the exception of the legislative right to housing, which is outside current government policy—and, in practice, would be significantly dependent on the actions of states and territory governments, which are responsible for housing—the committee's recommendations have been incorporated into the Homelessness Bill 2013 to the best extent possible. The bill complements a broader reform process to reduce homelessness, incorporating substantial co-investment with states and territories to expand and implement a range of practical measures to support and improve outcomes for Australians facing homelessness. The bill underpins the need to sustain this effort into the future. The Homelessness Bill 2013 draws national attention to the experience of homelessness and voices the aspiration that all Australians have access to appropriate, affordable, safe and sustainable housing. This ensures consistency with the objective of the National Affordable Housing Agreement between the Commonwealth, the states and territories and local government. This ensures consistency with the objective of the National Affordable Housing Agreement between the Commonwealth, states and territories and local government. The bill acknowledges the direct relationship between addressing homelessness and social inclusion. It sets out a range of service delivery principles to which the Commonwealth is committed and the strategies we see as necessary to reduce homelessness. The bill also confirms the Commonwealth's commitment to cooperation and consultation in reducing homelessness and promotes the human rights of people facing homelessness. This legislation has been strengthened through a two-month public exposure period in mid-2012. We express our gratitude to those many people who lodged written submissions on the exposure draft of the bill. The new legislation will replace the Supported Accommodation Assistance Act of 1994 which set out important principles and guided the Commonwealth's response to homelessness in Australia for many years. The 1994 act was primarily a vehicle for providing funding to states and territories to implement the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program. However, new arrangements were introduced in 2009 under the Federal Financial Relations Framework, superseding the funding mechanism under the 1994 act. This current funding framework for Commonwealth, state and territory efforts to reduce homelessness with funding provided through Commonwealth-state mechanisms such as the National Partnership on Homelessness and the National Affordable Housing specific purpose payment will continue. The Homelessness Bill 2013 is therefore complementary to the comprehensive funding arrangements already in place and is not a funding instrument in itself. Accordingly, the Homelessness (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 repeals the Supported Accommodation Assistance Act 1994 to make way for the new legislation. It also makes a consequential amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Act of 1918 to make sure existing provisions that encourage civic participation and voting by people experiencing homelessness will continue to apply. The Homelessness Bill 2013 is just one part of a bigger policy program of support to people who are homeless or at risk of it. The issue of service quality is also being pursued by working with states and territories to develop a non-legislative Homelessness National Quality Framework. The framework will be the primary strategy for the white paper's goal of ensuring quality services. The welfare and safety of our fellow Australians matter a great deal. There can be no more worthy cause than doing all that we can to help reduce homelessness. This new legislation is a clear statement of our commitment and our values in this vital policy agenda and underlines and complements the substantial practical measures already in place. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. BILLS 6834 BILLS Homelessness (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 6834

Homelessness (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013

Second Reading 6834 CONDOLENCES 6834 CONDOLENCES Hodgman, Hon. William Michael, AM, QC 6834 16:59 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan If there were ever an Australian politician larger than life it was Michael Hodgman. A great Australian, colourful in every sense of the word, Michael was a dear friend for over 40 years. He was the exemplar of a grand entrance. I can still conjure up the image of Michael, arms held above his head, making a grand and triumphal entrance to a Young Liberal national convention in the 1970s. Michael was passionate about life—passionate about his beliefs and passionate about his support for the monarchy. Ever optimistic, Michael never took a backward step. He battled through adversity and, if knocked down, was immediately back on his feet. It is impossible to comprehend that Michael has left us. He was so full of life. It was great to see Paddy, Michael's brother, together with Louise and Elizabeth, in the gallery on Friday. What a family. Michael was the third of four generations of Hodgmans in politics, the fourth being his son Will who is doing an outstanding job in Tasmania. Michael was so proud of Will and probably his main regret would be not being alive to see Will become Premier of Tasmania. As I thought about how best to capture the magic of Michael Hodgman, I came across a Hobart Mercury of last Thursday. What shone through from their coverage was the respect that Michael was accorded from political allies and opponents alike. The comments in recent days by Justice Kirby and those political friends and opponents alike highlight this remarkable, fiercely independent but universally respected and liked Australian. To achieve that position in politics is as genuine an honour as can be bestowed. I like Duncan Kerr's comment quoted in the Mercury: Michael Hodgman, QC, will be remembered with a fondness rarely felt for a political warrior. Suffice it to say, Michael was a politician of principle. He strongly opposed the flooding of Lake Pedder, supported East Timor independence but was passionate about retaining the monarchy. Michael would implore the politicians of today to bring back that quality in politics that allows one to disagree on philosophy, policy and actions but not to hate each other. The message, I am sure, that Michael would have for us all today is that it is time to get back to a public discourse without bitterness, to understand that as politicians we often lose sight of the fact that humour, goodwill, enjoying life and mutual respect are not anathema to public life. With a touch of Jim Killen about him, Michael stands tall in political history as a great achiever, a passionate man and a good friend. I say to the House today that if we as members can find ourselves regarded with a genuine warmth and respect that has been accorded to Michael, we too will have left this world a better place. William Michael Hodgman AM, QC, Her Majesty's Attorney-General, bon vivant, larrikin, man of honour and principle and good friend, rest in peace. 17:02 Mr RUDDOCK 0J4 Berowra I had the great privilege of serving in this parliament from 1975 until 1987 with Michael Hodgman. In that context, I knew him. I have known his family. I have served not only with him in this parliament but with his brother Peter while he was in the Tasmanian parliament and his son Will whom I have known as a member of the parliament of Tasmania and also Leader of the Opposition. Michael served as the shadow immigration minister between 1983 and 1985. We worked closely together because of my interest in that area of public policy. When I was Attorney-General, I had the opportunity of again working with Michael. That was between 2003 and 2007. He was for a time shadow Attorney-General in Tasmania. I could regale, as others have, of his colour, his unique personality and his interest in a wide range of issues which people have talked about but I want to talk about the one area of public policy about which I have not heard any observations. That is his interest in human rights. Michael was a member of the parliamentary Amnesty group. I still wear its badge even though some people at one stage asked me to take it off. I am a financial member and I have refused. But it was the time that the parliamentary Amnesty group was first formed when something like two-thirds of the parliament wanted to be associated with Amnesty International. There were some members who were more anxious than most and one of them was Michael Hodgman. What I remember particularly was the group of people, which included the late Roger Shipton, myself and Michael amongst others, who turned up at the gate of the Soviet embassy to present petitions on behalf of Soviet Jewry— An opposition member interjecting— Mr RUDDOCK 0J4 I thought that might interest one of my colleagues. It was 'colourful'. We did not get a warm reception—in fact, we did not even get an invitation inside the gate—but we made the point. Michael was interested in human rights. He was quite critical of Amnesty in one respect. Those who do not know Amnesty well are perhaps not aware of its unique role in adopting prisoners of conscience. It will only adopt as prisoners of conscience people who have eschewed the use of violence. It is perhaps fitting to note that a person that I have come to know and greatly admire, Nelson Mandela—at a time when he is possibly terminally ill—would not be adopted as a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty essentially because the ANC had not eschewed the use of violence in overturning the regime in South Africa. Michael Hodgman was passionate that we should adopt Nelson Mandela and pressed that issue—without success, but he certainly pressed it upon his colleagues who would have supported him. If you read through much of the material that has been written about him, he was a passionate opponent of capital punishment, another one of Amnesty's fundamental principles—the third being torture. As you can probably gather, I could regale for hours on Michael Hodgman and recount many of the matters that have been raised by others. I simply lament that he was early widowed. I saw him frequently and I regarded him as a personal friend. I very much lament the circumstances of his passing because I saw the impact the emphysema had upon him—it was telling numbers of years ago. It was pleasing to read that his life was perhaps much longer than it might have otherwise been because of the management of it. It is appropriate that his family should know that he is fondly remembered in this place, particularly by me because of his interest in issues relating to human rights. 17:08 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I listened to the member for Berowra's very generous and warm remarks in this condolence motion on the death of Michael Hodgman. I will not delay the House for as long as Michael Hodgman perhaps would normally warrant because so many others who knew him very well have spoken so warmly about him. I got to know Michael Hodgman in two capacities initially: firstly, as the brother of a friend and constituent, John Hodgman, his elder brother who predeceased him—an equally colourful gentleman in the Hodgman mould; and, secondly, during the debate about the republic as Michael was an enthusiastic and ebullient champion of the monarchy. We disagreed thoroughly and debated each other frequently, but I have to record that, unlike many participants in public debate, including the republic debate, Michael was always good-humoured: most of the time he had his tongue in his cheek, he certainly never took himself seriously and he regarded the debate as something to be enjoyed. I think this is what has caused so many people from across the political spectrum to love him over the years—or perhaps be frustrated by him and enraged by him too—and also recognise that he was essentially a man of enormous warmth, humanity and good humour. He had none of that sullen dourness, that tedious intensity, that you see so often in public debate. He never had any of that thin-lipped meanness or that gimlet glare that you get from people who become obsessed with causes to the point of starting to hate the people who are making the contrary case. In some respects Michael Hodgman had this approach not simply because he was in many respects an 18th century personality, who enjoyed drinking— Mr Frydenberg FKL Not even 19th? Mr TURNBULL 885 No, he was definitely 18th century. I correct the member for Kooyong—definitely 18th century; perhaps very early 19th century. The early 19th century was of course Tasmania's heyday, so that would have been appropriate. That was when Tasmania was the wealthiest part of the English-speaking world—in the early 1800s. I return to the 21st century, the late 20th century and Michael Hodgman. Hodgman enjoyed life to the full. He knew that he smoked too much, drank too much, ate too much and went to the races too much. He knew all of that, but he lived life to the full recognising the risks that he ran. Michael simply loved the thrill of an argument. He brought to the political sphere the good humour of the professional advocate in the sense that he recognised that every case—be it in the courts, in the public domain, in the parliament or out in the media—had to be argued. While he would describe his opponents sometimes in the most extravagant terms, he never did so, in my experience at least, with any malice and certainly without any tinge of personal animosity. He was, in that sense, a thoroughly good-humoured opponent. Another gentleman who was a great stalwart of the monarchist cause in that time and very similar to Michael Hodgman in this respect was Lloyd Waddy, who was the chairman of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy. Lloyd Waddy, like Michael, was always good company. We disagreed often. Waddy, who was a natural friend of Hodgman's, and I were once attending a dinner debate about the monarchy and, after surveying the audience, we concluded that they had all had an excess of refreshments and were not in a position to appreciate an argument about the fine niceties of constitutional law. So, I said to Lloyd, 'You give the speech for the republic and I'll give the one for the monarchy,' which we duly did. The good thing for both of our reputations is that nobody can remember precisely what was said, but they all seemed to enjoy it. Hodgman was that sort of advocate and public figure. We all miss Michael dearly. We remember him as a big, larger-than-life colourful figure and somebody that is, in some respects, an example to us in that he was not filled with personal animosity—that meanness of which I spoke a little while ago. There is too much of that in public life; there is not enough good humour. He has, of course, a large family who mourn his passing—in particular his son Will, who was his great pride and joy. He even forgave Will his republicanism, which may have been the reason why Michael and I became such frequent correspondents whether in writing or on the telephone in subsequent years. He saw in Will, in a sense, somebody that could fulfil the ambition of being a head of government—a Premier in Will's case of course. Who knows what greatness awaits Will Hodgman in the years ahead—he is a young man of course. But he saw in Will the prospect for great achievement. He was inordinately proud of his son. They sometimes argued. Of course, they were in the parliament together. At one point, Will had to drop him from the frontbench—which must have made for an interesting discussion! But Will will miss him perhaps more than anyone. The essentially civilised Hodgman gene, the good humour gene, is there in Michael's son Will. When Will becomes the Premier of Tasmania, as he deserves to be—and that state certainly needs a change of government—there will be a more measured version of Michael. Will is not quite as colourful as Michael. Nonetheless, he has that same big heart, that same enormous love for the state of Tasmania, and a good humour that should be the mark of all of our discourse in public life. 17:16 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The Hon. William Michael Hodgman AM, QC was the voice of Tasmania—indeed, 'the mouth from the south'. Over four decades, in three separate houses of parliament, Michael Hodgman showed his passion for and dedication to the Apple Isle, which runs right through the Hodgman family—and we have just heard the member for Wentworth speak fondly of his son Will. Michael Hodgman was elected to the Tasmanian Legislative Council on 14 May 1966. He was just 27 and the youngest member ever elected in the history of the Tasmanian parliament until the election of Alison Ritchie in 2001. From 1966 onwards, the voice of Tasmania made a name for himself, building on the family legacy of public service. A real gentleman, Mr Hodgman's advocacy for the retention of the constitutional monarchy became a hallmark of his career in the Apple Isle, as well as in this place. Michael Hodgman was part of the Hodgman dynasty, which is still very active in Tasmania today. He was the son of Bill Hodgman, who served in both houses of the Tasmanian parliament between 1955 and 1983, including as President of the Tasmanian Legislative Council between 1981 and 1983. Politics, it seems, is in the blood of the Hodgman family. The Prime Minister eloquently noted in her condolence speech on 20 June that Michael Hodgman was the father and son of Tasmanian parliamentarians. His love of the Liberal Party and his determination to serve his community earned him the nickname 'the mouth from the south'. There is, as the member for Denison highlighted, a sort of fondness with which he is remembered by his constituents, even now after his passing. Andrew Wilkie put it aptly when he said it seems as if Michael Hodgman knew each of his constituents by name. He knew who all the kids were and even what football team they supported. He was a style of politician who blended the local of children's names and football teams with ministerial offices in this place, as well as his vehement objection to the invasion of East Timor. But Michael Hodgman was also a family man. Indeed, William Michael Hodgman is the father of Will Hodgman, the Leader of the Liberal Party in Tasmania, a man who my coalition colleagues and I hope will one day be the Premier of his father's beloved island state. We are all privileged to represent our communities in this place. It is a rare privilege bestowed on only 1,093 people here since Federation. Imagine the honour Michael Hodgman had in serving alongside his son. Indeed, imagine the privilege of Michael Hodgman sitting in a party room and a parliament in which his son was his leader. It is this intergenerational call to service which made his long political career so distinguished. I spoke with John Sullivan, who was the Country Party member for Riverina between 1974 and 1977, about Mr Hodgman. He remembered a man who was a very engaging MP. Nothing was too much trouble for him, Mr Sullivan said. He could not speak highly enough of him. He said he was a principled man and a man of passion. He has very fond memories of his association with Mr Hodgman and he wishes to pass on his condolences not just to Mr Hodgman's family but to the entire Liberal Party family. He said Bruce Goodluck, the former Franklin Liberal MP from 1975 to 1993, and Mr Hodgman formed a formidable pair. John Sullivan recalled fondly his association with both of those men. He said the man we are honouring today was a fine parliamentarian, a fine gentleman and somebody who contributed greatly to this nation. 17:19 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I rise to join my colleagues in this place in paying my respects following the passing of the Hon. William Michael Hodgman AM, QC. A former member of parliament, both state and federal, Mr Hodgman had a distinguished career spanning a remarkable 43 years in parliament—including 12 years in the federal parliament, three of which were spent as a minister. He came from a family that is synonymous with politics in his state of Tasmania. His great-uncle, his father, his brother and his son have all served in state or national parliaments. His son, Will, is the current Liberal Party leader in Tasmania and, we hope, soon to be premier of that state. His great-great-uncle, Thomas Christopher Hodgman, was elected to the House of Assembly in 1900, the last year that Tasmania was a colony before Federation. Michael, who rose to be the Minister for the Capital Territory and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the Fraser government, was, beyond politics, a man of varied and significant talents. As the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, told the House, at different times he was a sailor, a jockey, a boxer and a barrister. But it was his passion for the Liberal Party, for a constitutional monarchy and for the state of Tasmania for which he was a most loyal servant. It was those passions that drove him to his great achievements. In the words of former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, who knew Mr Hodgman well: He had courage, but more than anything he had conviction. In the words of former Liberal Premier Robin Gray: Every day he— Mr Hodgman— was fighting for Tasmania, he'd be knocking on the Prime Minister's door, asking for this and asking for that Current Federal Court judge and former Labor minister Duncan Kerr, also a member from Tasmania, said of Michael Hodgman: Michael Hodgman QC will be remembered with a fondness rarely felt for a political warrior. Michael was blunt, outspoken, fair, funny, and, despite our two fiercely fought campaigns, my friend. …   …   … We rarely see his kind and I will miss him. He will be deeply mourned by Tasmanians of every political persuasion. Those quotes, from both Liberal and Labor, from both state and federal, speak about the achievements, the contribution and the character of a significant figure in Australian politics. Unfortunately, I never knew Michael Hodgman, but his cousin, his relative Susie Clennett is a good friend of mine and a very good friend of my sister. To her, and to the extended Hodgman family, I say that he leaves this earth knowing that he made a significant contribution to his state and to his country, and that he leaves with many, many admirers who will forever uphold and be proud of his legacy. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HW8 I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HW8 I thank the Federation Chamber. 17:24 Mr CHEESEMAN HW7 Corangamite I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. Baird, Corporal Cameron Stewart, MG 6840 17:24 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I rise to pay my respects following the passing of Corporal Cameron Stewart Baird MG following his tragic death in Afghanistan. Corporal Baird is Australia's 40th death following our decision to send combat troops to Afghanistan. Corporal Baird was born in Burnie, Tasmania, and was only 32 years of age. He was a brave soldier, admired for his gallantry on the field and for his professionalism off it. He was a member of the Special Operations Task Group 2nd Commando Regiment, and he received a number of distinguished citations for his contribution. He had served previously in Timor-Leste and in Iraq, and was on his fifth tour of Afghanistan. The many awards and honours he received included the Medal for Gallantry, the Australian Active Service Medal with Clasp East Timor, Clasp Iraq 2003, Clasp International Coalition Against Terrorism, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the Iraq Campaign medal, the Australian Service Medal with Clasp Counterterrorism Special Recovery, the Australian Defence Medal, the United Nations Medal with ribbon, the United Nations Transitional Authority in East Timor, the NATO Non-Article 5 Medal with Clasp ISAF and multiple tour indicator, the Infantry Combat Badge and the Returned from Active Service Badge. The citation for his award for gallantry said: … Lance Corporal Baird’s Platoon came under heavy fire and during the ensuing close-range fire-fight, a member of his team was mortally wounded. Displaying complete disregard for his own safety, Lance Corporal Baird led other members of his team forward under heavy fire from machine guns and assault rifles to recover the wounded team member back to a position of cover. Corporal Baird did not die in vain. We say to all his loved ones and his closest family that, as a nation, we are most grateful for his service. Australia has participated in the war against terrorism at the front line in Afghanistan, because we have lost so many Australians and the world has lost so many good people at the hands of terrorists. Afghanistan was the world headquarters for those terrorists, and we have made a real difference in that country. I have had the privilege of travelling to Uruzgan province and also to Kandahar to meet with the Australian service men and women there on the front line. They do their country proud, they do their unit proud, they do their mates proud. Corporal Baird has served his country with absolute distinction in so many fields of battle in so many ways. We mourn his passing and we say to his family that we thank him, and you, for the contribution he made to make our lives that much safer and secure. May he rest in peace. 17:28 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari It is with a deep sense of regret and sadness that I stand here today to offer my condolences for the death of Corporal Cameron Baird of the 2nd Commando Regiment, who was killed on Saturday night while serving with the Special Operations Task Group in Afghanistan. Corporal Baird, as we have heard, was a very professional and very dedicated soldier. He was experienced, having served in the army for over 11 years. He was involved in overseas deployments on many occasions: five times to Afghanistan, previously to Iraq in Operation Bastille, and also in Operation Tanager to Timor-Leste. He was a man of great experience. He had and demonstrated exceptional skills and the leadership required to command soldiers in one of our most elite fighting units. Corporal Baird had clearly proven himself in combat on many occasions. In November in 2007, on one of his five deployments to Afghanistan, we know that he was awarded the Medal for Gallantry. Whilst we have heard what the commendation for his medal said, it is worth noting that he won this medal during the close-quarter battle with insurgents that resulted in the tragic death of Private Luke Worsley. All of our service men and women in Afghanistan demonstrate courage that is very hard for most of us here to imagine or understand. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that, except for those people who have served in Afghanistan, it is totally beyond our comprehension. Many may have visited, like me, but to really understand the battle space, to understand the sacrifice and to understand the hardship, I think you would have to have worn that uniform the way in which so many proud Australian have worn it and continue to do so. How hard it is to comprehend the bravery one must demonstrate in these circumstances to be awarded the Medal for Gallantry. In a country where fierce and countless actions have occurred, only a very few of our bravest soldiers have demonstrated the extreme courage and professionalism needed to be awarded this prestigious medal. Corporal Baird was one of these very few. Australia has lost a hero. His comrades will feel that loss. To his unit, regiment and every member of the ADF, I want to extend my deepest sympathies today. To his family and friends, I would say that, while nothing can lessen the horrible grief you must feel, Cameron was a remarkable Australian and a remarkable soldier. We will always remember his sacrifice. Last Thursday and Friday, I had the immense honour to visit our forces in Dubai and Afghanistan. I visited the Special Operations Task Group last Friday and saw first-hand the incredible work being undertaken by this unit. I had a long briefing with Lieutenant Colonel 'J', who is a commanding officer of the Special Operations Task Group. I met soldiers from 2nd Commando, the same unit that Corporal Baird was from. Being able to talk to these soldiers and officers, to see what they were doing and to gauge the success of their mission, was indeed a privilege. The most obvious thing that struck me was the confidence, enthusiasm and professionalism that every member of the task group demonstrated. There was confidence in their skills and confidence in their leadership in the Special Operations Task Group and, indeed, across the ADF. They had a confidence in their professionalism and in their ability to do the job. These soldiers have been constantly working in terribly harsh conditions with an intensity that few can appreciate. During last week, the temperatures were in the 40s. While out on operations, with these extreme temperatures and the hardships that go with that, they carry incredible loads and do incredible things. They do it cheerfully and they do it with a spirit that is so incredible it is nothing short of heroic. It made me then, has made me since and will make me in the future a very proud Australian to have met these wonderful men and women and to observe what they do for us in Afghanistan. We need to remember the very important role that the ADF is performing, an important role in Afghanistan that is making a real difference to the lives of the Afghan people. They have helped train and mentor the Afghan security forces, both police and the army. These Afghan forces are now responsible for the security in Uruzgan province. This is really no mean feat and it has taken years of hard dedicated struggle and work to achieve it. On Friday I was told on several occasions just how successful the training has been and how the Afghan security forces are now able to consistently defeat insurgents on their own. They have this great capacity which has been learnt and mentored by Australian Defence Force personnel. Our special operations task group continues to work closely with the provincial response company and with great success. Together they continue to disrupt the insurgency and narcotics networks. This very dangerous work is helping Afghanistan to be a safer and more stable country, no longer a safe haven for terrorists. It is trite for us to stand here and make observations because it is really difficult to actually communicate the message to the Australian community and the world community about what magnificent work these men and women are doing and have done. Despite the enduring nature of the struggle, they are prevailing. When we finally depart Uruzgan province, we will be able to do so with great confidence that we have done our job well but we can never forget—and will never forget—that now, as of today, this mission has come at a terrible cost and 40 Australian soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice. Many more have been wounded or have suffered life changing injuries. But they willingly sacrificed their lives for us, for Australia, and we as a nation can never forget it and must never forget it. I just wanted to make mention of those people who on the battlefield are the first responders to those who might be wounded or otherwise injured, the combat first aiders and the combat medics, people whose actions have clearly saved the lives of many. They are well trained, they are very capable, they are very professional, they are very dedicated and they are very calm under extreme pressure. I have heard this now on more than one occasion. The people in the role 2 medical facility at Tarin Kot—surgeons, doctors and nurses, the other medics, the allied health professionals—are all people whose actions have gone to save lives. The role 3 hospital at Kandahar and ultimately Landstuhl in Germany are for those injuries and wounds have been so traumatic that they have had to be evacuated out of theatre. We should not underestimate and cannot overstate the contribution these wonderful people make to Australia's serving men and women and to the serving men and women of other nations. It is not just the role they play in maintaining our serving men and women in theatre but, most importantly, the way they intervene to save the lives of those out in the field on operations. Their very early stage interventions—make no mistake—keep people alive Our thoughts and deep sympathies go out to Cameron's parents, his brother and his partner. Our thoughts also go to his mates at the 2nd Commando Regiment, particularly to those he served with in Afghanistan. For the remainder of the year, until Australian forces complete their mission in Uruzgan province, our troops will continue to confront danger. It is a dangerous place. It is still a war zone. Whilst we might be leaving, it is not a place for the faint-hearted; it is a place for dedicated soldiers, sailors and air men and women—those who make up our team in Uruzgan and elsewhere in Afghanistan. We wish them, first and foremost, a safe return home and to continue their efforts in the finest traditions of the ADF. I have said this in the past, and indeed I made reference to it earlier in this contribution: I stand in awe of these men and women. When you eyeball these young people in theatre, you see how keen they are to do the job they are being required to do. You see their inventiveness, their larrikinism, their camaraderie, their humour and their ability, of which we can have no doubt. They have shown great leadership on the battlefield—from very brave soldiers such as this wonderful man, Corporal Baird, through to the most senior personnel. We can have great faith in the work they do for us. We need to appreciate, on a daily basis, that they are out there potentially sacrificing their lives for us at our command. We do ourselves and the nation a disservice if we do not continually remind ourselves of that fact. Corporal Cameron Stewart Baird, killed in action, 22 June 2013. Lest we forget. 17:42 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I rise today to speak on the condolence motion for Corporal Cameron Stewart Baird MG of the 2nd Commando Regiment. Born in Burnie, Tasmania, Corporal Baird joined the Army in January 2000 and was posted to the commandos, after his initial employment training, in February 2000. He received the Medal for Gallantry in November 2007 for his actions during a clearance of a Taliban stronghold. According to his award citation, he had 'displayed conspicuous gallantry, composure and superior leadership under fire'. At the time of his death, he was in the process of completing his fifth tour of Afghanistan and had previously served in East Timor and Iraq. He had been described by his comrades as 'one of the most iconic figures' in the regiment. However, on Saturday, Corporal Baird was killed by small-arms fire from insurgent forces during an operation in southern Afghanistan. At the time of the attack, Australian special forces were engaged in a partnered operation with Afghan forces. Together they were working to disrupt an insurgent network which was influencing insurgent activity in Uruzgan province. He is survived by his partner, his parents and his brother. During the engagement, two other Australian soldiers were wounded and I wish them a very speedy recovery and offer my thoughts to their families and friends. Corporal Baird is now the 40th Australian to lose his life serving his country in Afghanistan. The danger that our troops face in Afghanistan and in other hot spots around the globe is still real and ever present. Australian troops continue to face the danger of loss, the danger of injury and the danger of death, yet they do so while showing the world the best of Australia and the best of the Australian people. With each life lost, the pain felt by the families and friends does not subside, nor does it ever truly leave. Yet each of the loved ones of all those brave men who have fallen should know that a grateful nation mourns with them and remembers their sacrifice. Corporal Baird follows in the footsteps of the fine tradition that our Defence Force has maintained to this day: courage, mateship, sacrifice and endurance. It is at moments like this that we stop to remember the sacrifice of all those Australians who have served our country, what their sacrifice has been for and how grateful we are that there are brave men like Corporal Baird ready to serve. I offer my condolences to Corporal Baird's family, friends and comrades at this time. Lest we forget. 17:46 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser Tonight this parliament pays tribute to Corporal Cameron Stewart Baird MG, a member of the Special Operations Task Group from the 2nd Commando Regiment based in Holsworthy Barracks. Corporal Baird was killed in action by small arms fire during a firefight with Afghan insurgents on Saturday in the Khod Valley. He was noted for his leadership, his spirit and his unwavering respect for his colleagues. Corporal Baird was an experienced and decorated special forces soldier. This was his fifth tour of Afghanistan, and this relatively young man had also served in Iraq and East Timor. He died aged just 32. Among the many honours that Corporal Baird received was the Medal for Gallantry for actions during close-quarters combat in Afghanistan on Operation Slipper. When his platoon came under heavy fire during a close-range firefight in the initial clearance phase of the operation, then Lance Corporal Baird took his team to recover their wounded members and took them to a position of cover. Following this, he was able to lead his team to re-engage with the enemy and successfully complete the clearance. ADF chief General David Hurley described Corporal Baird as an iconic figure within the ADF. He said: In combat and as a team commander, he was the man to watch and was never happier than when the situation demanded decisive action and courage. In the past Australia has been very clear about our commitment to Afghanistan. Our efforts, as other speakers have noted, have come with a heavy price. We have lost 40 ADF members, and 254 personnel have been wounded. Australia's operations in Afghanistan have been a long and often gruelling commitment. We have invested a great amount of resources, equipment and, most significantly, personnel in these efforts. That work included the special task force deployment—around 150 personnel in the wake of 9-11 and then, in September 2005, the Special Operations Task Group of 190. To this task we also committed two Army CH47 Chinook helicopters and 110 personnel. The next year, a 240-strong reconstruction task force, with an extra 150 personnel to follow. 2007 saw the redeployment of around 300 Australian special forces personnel to Uruzgan. The ADF peak deployment was expected to be 1,000 personnel in mid-2008—a combination of the reconstruction task force, their protection company group, the Special Operations Task Group and RAAF air surveillance. Our strategy placed a great emphasis on training and mentoring the Afghan National Army in Uruzgan province in early 2008, in recognition of the need for the government of Afghanistan to build its own security forces and take charge of its citizens' ongoing security. Australia therefore deployed a 50-person operational mentoring and liaison team, and that brought our total personnel supporting Australian operations in Afghanistan to around 1,100. This was again increased in 2009, bringing the personnel to 1,550, which included extra support for projects run by the Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force and by the election support force. We have been working closely with the US, Singapore and Slovakia, as well as the civilian director of the Uruzgan Provincial Reconstruction Team. It was my pleasure last week to have lunch as part of a group meeting with the finance minister of Afghanistan, Dr Omar Zakhilwal, and he noted the willingness with which Australian forces worked in Uruzgan province, one of the least developed provinces in Afghanistan. Last October we assumed management of the transitional process from the United States, making it now our duty to assist these responsibilities to move to Afghan security control. It is a huge responsibility and, as we have been recently and tragically reminded, one that carries inherent risk for our personnel. In November the Australian government announced that all four infantry Kandaks of the ANA 4th Brigade in Uruzgan province were operating independently without the need for Australian advisers. With this development, the ADF was able to transfer control of joint forward operating bases and patrol bases to the 4th Brigade. In March this year the Prime Minister and defence minister welcomed the decision by the International Security Assistance Force to close multinational base Tarin Kot in Uruzgan province, Afghanistan by the end of 2014. That decision to draw down and close the base indicates that we are now transitioning to full Afghan-led security forces. We have to continue the transition but we need to also be aware of the challenges that remain. The Taliban continue to target the ANSF and the Afghan authorities. Propaganda motivated attacks, particularly suicide bomb attacks, are still widespread, as we have seen in Kabul. These attacks are part of operating in a counterinsurgency environment. This morning Minister Warren Snowdon, shadow minister Senator Michael Ronaldson, the member for Canberra and I spoke at a ceremony to mark the Boer War Memorial. It was remarked by a number of speakers at that event that, like Afghanistan, the Boer War was a conflict that saw Australians operating in a counterinsurgency environment, an environment that is extremely risky, an environment that leads to loss of life, as with the 40 brave Australians that we mourn today. I pay tribute to Corporal Cameron Stewart Baird. I offer my condolences to his parents, his brother and his partner. I again echo the words of General Hurley, 'We share their loss and we feel their pain, and we will support them through the difficult days ahead.' His sacrifice will not be forgotten. 17:52 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Another, sadly, another: another brave Australian digger has fallen in Afghanistan with the death of Corporal Cameron Stewart Baird, a deserved recipient of the Medal for Gallantry; another life has been taken far too soon—Corporal Baird being just 32 years young; another solemn ramp ceremony; another heart-wrenching funeral service to follow; another flag to fly at half-mast; another Anzac Day on which his local community and others too will pause and reflect on the fact that he laid down his life for his friends and greater love hath no man than this; another hero and proud Australian; another name to be added to the Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra where, as its founder Charles Bean so poignantly noted in part, 'Here is their spirit in the heart of the land they love'; another red poppy to be placed alongside that gallant name signifying his link to the Anzac spirit to pay the ultimate price in the service of this nation, his nation, in the pursuit of freedom; another tree to be planted in the Avenue of Honour memorial at Lake Tinaroo, at Yungaburra, north of Cairns, which was coincidentally unveiled on Saturday by the Prime Minister and opposition leader barely an hour before Corporal Baird's tragic death; another soldier, the 20th of the Special Operations Task Group, to die in combat in Operation Slipper; another reminder of the ever present dangers those who place their lives on the line each and every day face as part of their call to duty; another wonderful family and group of friends left to grieve forever more; another time when those at the Army Recruit Training Centre at Kapooka near Wagga Wagga in the Riverina will be left to mourn such a terrible loss; another reason why Corporal Baird's sacrifice and that of the 39 other courageous Australians who have gone before him must never be forgotten; another cause to say with heartfelt emotion, lest we forget. 17:54 Mr SIDEBOTTOM 849 Braddon Tonight we grieve for a very brave young man who lost his life in the service of his country and for the freedom of another country, namely Afghanistan, and its people. I would like to offer the sincerest condolences of this government and parliament on behalf of the Australian nation and also as the member for Braddon, where Corporal Cameron Stewart Baird was born in Burnie in 1981. Corporal Baird, as others have testified here today, was a member of the Special Operations Task Group and was from the 2nd Commando Regiment, based at Holsworthy Barracks, in Sydney, New South Wales. Corporal Baird is survived by his parents, his brother and his partner, who grieve with us today and we with them. He joined the Army in January 2000 and upon completion of his initial employment training was posted to the then 4th Battalion (Commando), Royal Australian Regiment, now the 2nd Commando Regiment, in February 2000. Corporal Baird was an outstanding special forces soldier. He exemplified what it meant to be a commando, living by the attributes of uncompromising spirit and honour, which in turn earned him the unconditional respect of his fellow commandos. His leadership in action was exemplary, constantly inspiring those around him to achieve greater things. He was extraordinarily brave. Corporal Baird was an extremely dedicated and disciplined soldier, always striving for excellence, we are told by his peers and his commanding officers, in everything he did. Corporal Baird died how he lived, and that was at the front, giving his all without any indecision. He will be forever remembered by his mates and the soldiers he served with in the 2nd Commando Regiment. Corporal Baird was awarded many honours and awards—indeed, nine awards related to his service in a variety of spheres, five times with service in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in Timor-Leste. He was also honoured with the Medal for Gallantry for an extraordinarily brave act over a good deal of time in November 2007, not only showing absolutely conspicuous bravery in saving the life of one of his fellow soldiers but also leading his fellows in what could only be described as lethal combat, preserving the life of many more. His actions were of the highest order and in the finest traditions of the Australian Army and the Australian Defence Force. Outside of his family, his partner and his friends, Corporal Baird devoted his life and gave his life in the service of his nation. Sadly, he died in that service and in the love of his partner, family and friends. I offer them our deepest sympathies and condolences. Also in relation to that incident, we wish a speedy recovery to the two other Australians also injured in Afghanistan. We thank them for their service. We thank them for their dedication. We hope that what they did will never be in vain. Lest we forget. 17:59 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Herbert I rise to speak on the condolence motion for Corporal Cameron Stewart Baird MG. We have heard today a number of speakers talk about this man's bravery. I want to put on a record that he received: the Medal for Gallantry; an Australian Active Service Medal with clasp from East Timor, with clasp from Iraq 2003 and with clasp from the international coalition against terrorism; an Afghanistan campaign medal; an Iraq campaign medal; an Australian Service Medal with clasp, counterterrorism and special recovery; an Australian Defence Medal; the United Nations medal with ribbon from the United Nations transitional authority in East Timor; a NATO non-article 5 medal with clasp, ISAF and multiple tour indicator (3); an Infantry Combat Badge; and a Returned From Active Service Badge. We are talking about a serious soldier here. He was a tremendous bloke. The people who come back from Afghanistan, as we have seen with 2RAR and 3RAR in Townsville, are quite ordinary people when you talk to them. But you know where they are going is no ordinary place. You know what they do is no ordinary thing. To say that he was a brave man is an understatement. To have won a Medal for Gallantry, it means he put himself in the line of fire to save another person. When we speak on condolence motions is when I struggle the most in this place. When you speak to soldiers in Townsville and they talk about Afghanistan they say that they would go there 100 times before they would come into parliament and put up with what we do. To say that they are brave is one thing; to say that they are capable is completely another. These guys are highly trained. These guys are very, very effective machines. They have trained muscle memory. But Cameron Baird was 32 years old. That his death was glorious and brave is cold comfort to his partner and his family. I was thinking on the way over here that when I was 32 years old I was getting ready for the birth of my first child. She has now just landed in London on her first overseas trip. I was two years into my new career as an auctioneer after 12 years in banking. This guy will not have those things. Cameron Baird will not have those opportunities. He will not have the opportunity to come home to peace time and find something else that he can do. He will not have the opportunity to find out just how good he could be at something else. He was an exemplary soldier. It was a tremendous effort. He was a credit to himself, his family and his unit, the 2nd Commandos. But that is cold comfort for his family now that he is gone. I do wish for a speedy recovery for the two others who were wounded in this engagement. Every time I speak on these things I say that it is the people who come home who are wounded that we worry about the most because they are the ones who carry the scars. Some who come home to Townsville and other places around Australia do not have visible scars. They do not have scars on their bodies. Post traumatic stress disorder is a major issue for Australia and for Australia's defence forces, and it will be for the next 20 or 30 years. This is going to be part of our community and something with which we must be prepared to deal. It is something which we must be prepared to confront and man up on. The problem is that we have these soldiers, airmen and sailors who are not the sort of people who will put their hand up and ask for help. So as a community in places like Townsville, who see a lot of it, we must be aware of what is going on. Books like John Cantwell's talk about the stress of these guys are put under. If one in five of us in normal life goes through an episode of mental health issues then put yourself in a situation where you are in a battle zone—stress levels are going to be very, very high. It is not a sign of weakness to experience these things. Cameron Baird could say that he helped soldiers both here and overseas. God rest his soul. Lest we forget. 18:03 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter I rise to join with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister for Defence, the opposition spokesperson for defence and all those who have made a contribution to this very, very sad condolence debate. I pay my tribute to Corporal Cameron Stewart Baird, holder of the Medal for Gallantry, and extend my sympathy to his family—his parents, his brother, his partner and all those who served alongside him. I recommend that those taking an interest in this debate read the citation that lies behind the awarding of the Medal for Gallantry to this very, very brave Australian soldier. Typically, the citation describes a situation in combat leading to great acts of courage and bravery that leave us mere mortals somewhat gob-smacked—actions, as in the case of Corporal Baird, undertaken to protect those who serve alongside you. I did not know Corporal Baird—at least, I do not know that I did; I had the great privilege, of course, of serving as the country's defence minister and during that time I made a number of visits to what was then 4RAR, now 2nd Commando Regiment. During my regular visits to Afghanistan, I was always protected by a group of special forces soldiers, sometimes from the Special Air Service Regiment, sometimes from what was then 4RAR Commando. Every individual was different, of course, but they all had the same attributes. They were not necessarily always big, but they were usually pretty big guys, very strong and tough people both mentally and physically, and they all had that courage that is difficult for us to comprehend. I am sure that Corporal Baird had within him all those very special attributes. I know this about Corporal Baird, even though I am not sure we ever had a discussion: he would have believed very much in what he was doing in Afghanistan, he would have wanted to be in Afghanistan—and that is fairly obvious, given the number of rotations he had there—and, very importantly, he would have believed in the success of the mission. I also suspect—I will not say 'I know', but I speak with some confidence when I say this—that his family and his partner would have supported his decision to be there and given him, even if somewhat reluctantly, every encouragement, knowing that he had a deep-seated commitment to the Army and to the mission there. As we know, Corporal Baird is the 40th Australian soldier to have given his life in Afghanistan. Many, many more have been wounded in action, and our thoughts are with all of them as we continue this condolence motion this evening. From my perspective, our key role now is to ensure that those lives were not given in vain and that all those injuries were suffered for no reason. We owe it to them to finish this task. It is a difficult task in Afghanistan, and it is now best described as a protracted task. But we went there for a good reason, we remain there for a good reason and we should continue the mission for the same very good reason. Happily, we are now in a position to be winding down our commitment in Afghanistan, but I suspect that the work of our special forces soldiers will be ongoing for some time to come. To do otherwise runs the risk of unravelling all we have done there and making it seem these lives were lost in vain. I am very pleased that we are now talking in Afghanistan about negotiation—first, between the United States of America and the Taliban, and then, hopefully, in the not-too-distant future, between the government of Afghanistan and the Taliban. When we first spoke about the need to hold negotiations, not with extremists but with those who are serious about ending the conflict in Afghanistan, it was very controversial. These days, it is not, and I think that in itself is a measure of our success in Afghanistan. Our disruption has been substantial and we have undermined the capacity of the Taliban in many ways. We have always argued that the best place from which to negotiate is a position of strength. No, we are not in a position to declare victory or 'mission accomplished' in Afghanistan tomorrow, but the fact that we are now sitting around the negotiating table is a reflection, I think, of our success, that the Taliban felt it was necessary to start talking. Afghanistan has a long and turbulent history. We are reminded on a daily basis that there are no easy fixes there. The tension there is from myriad sources, including ethnic and sectarian conflict. The people live with borders that have been imposed upon them by what might be described as the Western world, which causes great difficulties. There are no easy fixes. In the end, peace will only be found when sensible people get together and discuss sensible outcomes. Of course, we need to go on with building an economy and a society. The aid flow to Afghanistan will need to be very significant for a long time to come. I appeal to future governments of any persuasion to maintain and sustain that task. It will be critical. You cannot have peace and stability and security in a country that does not have an economy, and Afghanistan has a long way to go before we can claim it has an economy that is sustainable. I pay tribute to Corporal Baird. I extend my sympathy to his family and I thank him for what he has done for his country. He was obviously a very special, courageous and brave man. He was a person with a deep-seated commitment to his country and a real belief in what he was doing there in Afghanistan. Lest we forget. 18:11 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook 'Thank you for your service'—they are very simple words and they are the only words I believe our Defence Force personnel ever expect to hear in response to the incredible courage that they show and the risks that they take. So we gather here today as we did earlier in the other chamber and simply say, 'Thank you for your service, Corporal Baird.' The 2nd Commando Regiment, as the former minister was just saying, is an extraordinary group of men. They have a deep connection to my community of the Sutherland Shire. The former minister may remember Paul Cale. I suspect Paul may have actually guarded him on one or two occasions when he was in Afghanistan. I know he has done that for many other ministers. He has since moved on from the Defence Force. But he, like so many others, demonstrated the courage, strength and commitment of this incredible regiment of fine Australian soldiers. With one of their number having fallen yet again, we come together and we simply bow our heads and say: lest we forget and thank you. We do that out of a sense of grief but also out of a great sense of pride not just in their achievements but in their fine character, dedication and commitment. Corporal Baird was shot and killed in action in a fire fight with insurgents in southern Afghanistan on Saturday while serving with his mates of the 2nd Commando Regiment under the distinguished Special Operations Task Group. He was the 40th Australian soldier killed in Afghanistan. Before Corporal Baird's death, 19 of his colleagues in that group had fallen in combat. They were men who had walked different paths but were brought together to live, fight and die together for the love of their country and their desire to defend its values. The Australian Defence Force Chief, General Hurley, described Corporal Baird as one of the most iconic figures in the regiment. That is no small tribute to a man in a regiment made up of so many incredibly iconic figures. Cameron Baird was a soldier on his fifth tour of Afghanistan, having also served his country in East Timor and Iraq. It is not uncommon for those from the 2nd Commando Regiment to serve that many tours. On average, they do about three, they tell me. But many do far more than that, as Corporal Baird had done. He won the Medal for Gallantry for his Iraq actions in 2007 of leading his men forward under heavy fire to recover a mortally wounded member of the team, with complete disregard for his own safety. That is the commando's mark of bravery. The 2nd Commando Regiment is 800 strong—sons, brothers, fathers and uncles who face danger every day, yet go about their work with quiet determination and professionalism. Over the weekend they lost their 11th son in Afghanistan. The 2nd Commando Regiment now represent more than one in four of Australia's 40 war dead since 2001. The regiment specialise in intensive offensive action and uphold the proud legacy of their forefathers who served in independent companies in the Second World War. Recently I had the opportunity, with my friend the member for Blaxland, to walk the Wau to Salamaua track, the Black Cat Track, in Papua New Guinea. Joining us on that trek was Lance Corporal Andrew Ellis of the 2nd Commando Regiment. At the 2nd Commando Regiment's headquarters at Holsworthy—as the member for Hughes will know—there is a picture of Major George Warfe, who was part of the 2nd/3rd Independent Company. Each day as they go about their business, training and various things out there, this figure looms large—Major George Warfe. He led a highly skilled unit. He was flown into Wau from where they set about driving the Japanese back towards Mubo around the Black Cat Track. The 2nd/3rd Independent Company were credited with a series of key successes in New Guinea and were known for their dogged perseverance against the odds. These men went deep into enemy territory to gather intelligence and set ambushes in the most rugged mountains and impenetrable jungle at the mercy of a very hostile enemy. Their victories came at a great price, just like those of the 2nd Commando Regiment. Of the hundreds of men who initially flew into Wau, there were just 34 left by the end of the campaign. The 2nd/3rd Independent Company were credited with killing almost 1,000 enemy soldiers and they lost 65 of their own in battle. Another 119 were wounded and 226 were evacuated on medical grounds. I tell this story because that is the tradition of the 2nd/3rd Independent Company and the commandos who have inherited the legacy. Their legend is today carried on by men like Corporal Baird and his mates and those who serve in the 2nd Commando Regiment, formerly known as 4RAR Commando. Corporal Baird was born in 1981; that makes him about the same age as Major Warfe was when he first commanded that independent company back in 1942 and throughout 1943. Many years later, Major Warfe was brought back time and time again to set up their jungle warfare school and advise during the Vietnam war. These were men who were very highly skilled and dedicated in this form of fighting, whether it be in the jungles of New Guinea or, now, the deserts of Afghanistan. The 2nd Commando Regiment is based in Holsworthy. Many of their members, their families and their friends live in my electorate of Cook in the Sutherland Shire—and they will be feeling this deeply. They will be thinking of their friends, brothers and husbands who will be going on the next tour. They will be thinking of those who are already there. It is a time for the community to put their arms around them and embrace them. In this place, it is a time for us to honour them, to say thank you and to let them know we are with them, because each day—I can only imagine—must be absolute torture for the wives, partners, girlfriends and children. I remember several years ago that we stood in this place and remembered Sergeant Brett Till of Oyster Bay, who was the 10th soldier to fall. I went to the baptism of Sergeant Till's young son, Ziggy, whom he never got to meet and who is now growing up with his mother. There must be constant stress for the families of those who are over there serving. When this terrible news came, it was not just Corporal Baird's family who had to confront it—that is terrible enough, indeed too terrible—but all the families out there who are thinking about their loved ones. The sense of shock, the sense of fear and the sense of isolation is something we must empathise with and identify with today as we remember, rightly, the bravery and sacrifice of Corporal Baird. That they have inherited the legend is now being borne out in the battlefields of Afghanistan, because these soldiers from 2nd Commando Regiment are now the most decorated, have suffered the highest casualties and have served in the greatest numbers. That is a record of service which should just humble us all—and I know it does, to a person—within our parliament. The 2nd Commando Regiment changed its badge recently when it formed its new name to reflect the history and traditions. That is why I have spoken about this history and these traditions: because they are very important to those men who serve. They reflect on them constantly. When I was with Corporal Ellis with Jason Clare in New Guinea, he would talk about this often—about their tradition, the brand of brotherhood amongst them and how committed to each other they are, in a way that is very hard for anyone outside of that to understand. A new badge was chosen, and, in the tradition of the Australian independent companies, it includes the distinctive double diamond unit colour patch, along with the traditional commando knife. I am proud to wear that badge, which was given to me by Corporal Ellis, today in this place, particularly on this day as we remember his fallen comrade, Corporal Baird. We extend our heartfelt prayers and deepest sympathies to Corporal Baird's family. We mourn his loss and we honour his sacrifice. We think especially of his partner, his parents and his brother. So too do we remember and honour the corporal's many colleagues, his mates who doggedly continue on his work in his memory, brave Australian sons of the 2nd Commando Regiment, who continue to serve today in our name, under our flag, to defend our values. Lest we forget. 18:21 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Like every Australian on the weekend, I was deeply saddened and deeply humbled by the news of the death of Corporal Cameron Baird. We have heard that Corporal Baird was a Medal for Gallantry winner who was born in Tasmania. He was based in the 2nd Commando Regiment in Sydney, and he was killed by small-arms fire during an engagement with insurgents on Saturday. In a statement made by Defence, Corporal Baird is described as someone who had the unconditional respect of his fellow commandos, who died how he lived—at the front, giving it his all without any indecision—and who will be forever remembered by his mates and the soldiers he served with in the 2nd Commando Regiment. That is high praise indeed, exceptional praise for an exceptional man who was in brotherhood with exceptional men. Anyone who has met commandos, particularly in situ in operations, is overwhelmed by their sense of dedication, commitment, professionalism and honour and their very strong will to advance Australian values in fields of war. This was a man of that calibre, as are his comrades in the regiment. Corporal Baird was an outstanding special forces soldier. He exemplified what it meant to be a commando, living by the attributes of uncompromising spirit and honour, which in turn earned him the unconditional respect of his fellow commandos. His leadership in action was exemplary, constantly inspiring those around him to achieve greater things. He was an extremely dedicated and disciplined soldier, and that is saying something for this group of people. These commandos are extremely dedicated and disciplined, so for those qualities to be highlighted it sounds like he was an exceptional man always striving for excellence in everything he did. He was highly awarded, as so many of these commandos are. He won the Medal for Gallantry for his acts during a mission to clear and search a Taliban stronghold in November 2007. During the initial phase of the clearance, his platoon came under heavy fire, and during the ensuing close-range firefight, a member of his team was mortally wounded. Displaying complete disregard for his own safety, Lance Corporal Baird—as he was at that stage—led other members of his team forward under heavy fire from machine guns and assault rifles to recover the wounded team member to a position of cover. He then re-entered the compound, with extraordinary bravery, and continued to engage the enemy. Even though he was under constant fire, Lance Corporal Baird continually moved amongst his team members, coordinating their fire, and throwing grenades to neutralise the enemy machine gun positions. Once the close-quarter battle had been won, Lance Corporal Baird again led his team forward and began room-to-room clearance, where he was again engaged by several enemies. Lance Corporal Baird continued to lead the fight, killing several enemies and successfully completing the clearance. Throughout the action, he displayed conspicuous gallantry, composure and superior leadership under fire. He was personally responsible for killing several enemy combatants during the clearance, ensuring that the momentum of the assault was maintained and undoubtedly preventing further members of his section from becoming casualties. His performance and his actions were of the highest order and in the finest traditions, as we can hear, of the Australian Army and the Australian Defence Force. Lance Corporal Baird also was awarded the Australian Active Service Medal with clasp East Timor, clasp Iraq 2003 and clasp International Coalition Against Terrorism; the Afghanistan Campaign Medal; the Iraq Campaign Medal; the Australian Service Medal with clasp—Counter Terrorism/Special Recovery; the Australian Defence Medal; the United Nations Medal with ribbon United Nations Transitional Authority in East Timor; the NATO non article 5 Medal with clasp ISAF and Multiple Tour Indicator; the Infantry Combat Badge; and the Returned from Active Service Badge. Since the beginning, I have been a strong supporter of our efforts in Afghanistan. I am strong supporter for the people of Afghanistan and, most importantly, for the women and children of Afghanistan. I do believe that we are making a difference. I have been to Afghanistan and I have seen the difference we are making on the ground in terms of building mosques, roads and trade training centres; in allowing the community to take their food to market, which was impossible in the past; in allowing them to slowly, day by day, build up economic strength through roads; and in putting systems to place to ensure that they can have the economic strength to succeed in the future. We are making a difference in Afghanistan. I want the parents, brother and partner of Lance Corporal Baird to know that he made a difference and that his sacrifice will improve the lives of people in Afghanistan. I share and send my deepest condolences and sympathies on behalf of the people of Canberra. I would want his parents, brother and partner to know that they are in our thoughts and prayers. I am also deeply heartened by knowing that, on joining the 2nd Commando Regiment, a soldier and his family become commandos for life. They become a band of brothers. His family—his parents, his brother and his partner—will be provided with very, very strong support from the regiment. From meeting these exceptional young men, these exceptional soldiers and exceptional Australians, I know that the commandos are a brotherhood. When one of their brothers dies in action, they wear little mementoes, tokens, in memory of that brother. They wear braids, beads or bracelets on their wrists. It is a brotherhood. Lance Corporal Baird's parents, brother and partner will receive incredibly strong support. I know what the regiment have done for their past fallen comrades and I know they will provide that support in the future, and that gives me great heart. Australia has lost an exceptional young man. I send my deepest sympathies, on behalf of the Canberra people, to his parents, brother and partner. Lest we forget. Debate interrupted. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 6853 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Cybersafety 6853 18:29 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I rise to commend the motion of the member for Forrest on cybersafety and to speak in support of it. As the motion states, cyberbullying and inadequate cybersafety pose a significant threat to the welfare and security of all Australians—especially young people. This threat will increase with new technology and greater connectivity. Before I get into the body of the speech, I would just like to recognise and acknowledge the work of the member for Forrest and her continual forums that she holds in schools educating and telling our children, the children of Australia, about the threats of cyberbullying and the ways to protect themselves from that. She has brought this motion to the House and I would like to acknowledge the fine work she does in her electorate to prevent cyberbullying. The best way to combat this threat and ensure that generations of young Australians can benefit safely from new technology and increased connectivity online is for the government to enhance cybersafety education in all Australian schools. The risks children may face on the internet are currently one of the most significant welfare concerns facing Australians and it is essential that this parliament acts decisively to ensure our young people are equipped with the knowledge to use online tools safely. I addressed the House in 2011 on the Cybercrime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. I then spoke briefly about a visit I made to the Carlisle Primary School in my electorate of Swan to talk to the students about cybersecurity and the importance of protecting their online image. At the time I commended Carlisle Primary School's anti-cyberbullying stance and encouraged other schools to do the same. While I believe most schools have a non-tolerance policy for cyberbullying, it is essential that we assist our local schools to teach our students about online cybersafety and security. For example, there were students I spoke to who thought that the photos or personal information they shared on sites such as Facebook were secure and private. Clearly that is not the case, as with many other social media platforms children and adults use. Many also did not realise that what they posted would be recorded online forever even if they deleted it. What they post online today may affect their future when it comes to applying for a job or acceptance into university. This is why it is so essential that we continue to educate our young people on internet usage, acceptable online etiquette and behaviour. I also spoke to the Sevenoaks Senior College at one stage, talking to them about online images. I asked them to imagine what it would be like for them now to see a picture of their mother or father online from 20 years ago. I said to them, 'If you now post these pictures of yourself in awkward positions, this is what your children will see in the future.' I think they go it then when they imagined trying to see their own parents. The internet and the world we live in are constantly changing. New social platforms and ways to interact online are constantly emerging. People are becoming more knowledgeable about the online world and more people from are countries are using worldwide web services. With these advances come many great opportunities but the risks will always increase as well. This is why a one-off education and an occasional research paper on cybersafety are not enough to continue to protect and educate our young people. It has been suggested that cybersafety should be a part of the national curriculum, taught alongside information technology and computing classes. This is a possibility that could be explored to ensure that future generations will be equipped with the knowledge necessary to stay safe online. Unfortunately, Australia is lagging in the cyber education front. Whilst many schools run programs such as cyber friendly schools project introduced by Edith Cowan University in my home state of Western Australia, these programs are often voluntary and are not consistently utilised in all schools. I must also acknowledge the Youth Advisory Group on Cybersafety, or YAG, which was first launched in 2009 with the purpose to provide feedback and advice in youth cyber issues to the Australian government. The program is a forum which allows representatives from schools across Australia to come together and discuss their experiences with online issues such as cybersecurity and cyberbullying. This is a good first step. However, to successfully reduce the incidence of cyber related issues—be they related to online bullies, scammers or predators—the Australian government must be prepared to support a focused nationwide cybersafety education program that is common to all schools across Australia. The United Kingdom has already adopted cybersafety education in their national curriculum which has been widely welcomed by education and cybersafety experts in the UK. Children need the advice and skillsets to recognise and avoid online dangers. Young people are particularly active on the internet, which makes them one of the groups most vulnerable to lapses in cybersecurity. This young generation are more tech-savvy than their parents—I know my son is—and they rely on technology on a day-to-day basis, be it for social interaction, learning or productivity. With many young people having close to unlimited access to the world wide web through a variety of devices such at internet-enabled smartphones, tablet computers, laptops and various family PCs, it is essential that they are equipped with the knowledge to protect themselves. According to a Telstra report released earlier this year, Australian children aged between 10 and 17 are online for an average of two hours per day, amongst the highest internet usage rates in the world. The internet can be a confronting place for many parents. While their children are learning more and more skills online, such as reading and mathematics, they are also navigating a plethora of social networking sites, blogs and chat rooms, on which they can unwittingly divulge personal information, act anonymously with no accountability or even take on a whole completely new persona. Furthermore, online predators can potentially communicate with them 24/7 on any screen or internet-connected device inside the family home. Although law enforcement agencies in Australia and around the world are getting better at apprehending and preventing cyberpredators, scammers and bullies, they will not disappear from the internet; instead, their ploys and schemes will become even more sophisticated and seemingly genuine. This, however, is no reason to abandon the benefits and opportunities the internet can provide. Rigorous education for both children and parents is the best means to ensure that our children are forewarned and equipped to recognise and protect themselves against the online bullies, scammers and predators. I would like to take the opportunity to describe some of the issues our young people may face when interacting online, to illustrate why education for both children and parents is necessary in this cyber age. The first is known as cyberbullying. The Australian parliament report of the Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety defined cyberbullying as being over time and including, but not limited to, mean, nasty or threatening text messages, instant messengers, pictures, video clips and emails that are sent direct to a person or others via a mobile phone or the internet. Cyberbullying is different to traditional face-to-face schoolyard bullying, as the perpetrators are able to remain anonymous and the bullying can continue 24/7—out of the schoolyard and into the victims' homes. Due to the ultra-invasive nature of cyberbullying, experts believe it can be even more damaging and hard to escape than face-to-face bullying. Cyberbullying can be incredibly hard for children to cope with, but studies have shown that when children are equipped with the appropriate coping mechanisms and knowledge, they are often able to prevent or block the bullying from occurring. Reports indicate that as many as one in 10 children will become victims of cyberbullying and up to one in four have experienced cyberbullying in some way, either as a victim, a witness or a perpetrator. It is also incredibly easy for users of social networking sites to remain anonymous or even pretend to be someone they are not. Online predators are able to pose as friends or other young children in order to gain private information. Children may want to meet up with friends they have only ever communicated with online, potentially placing themselves in harm's way. Many social networking sites also allow for geo-tagging as a default setting, allowing followers or the public to see the young person's location or whereabouts. This can be a frightening world, where any person with access to the internet can pretend to be someone they are not in order to gain the trust of vulnerable young people. A rigorous national cybersafety education program would ensure that children understand how to set privacy settings on social network sites, communicate with adults about their online activities and are able to recognise when situations may be dangerous or not quite right. Again, I congratulate the member for Forrest. It is essential that this government recognises that the detrimental effect of cyberbullying would be best combatted by a co-ordinated national response. Thank you. 18:39 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Throughout my time as the member for Canberra, the issues of cybersafety, cybersecurity and cyberbullying have all been raised with me by members of my electorate again and again. I know that I have spoken in this chamber and in the House many times about the online scams that my own family members have been victims of—including my mother and my father-in-law. My father-in-law, immediately after my mother-in-law died, was racked with grief and was the victim of an online banking scam. So I am well and truly aware, both from my family's experience and the experience of people in my electorate, of cybersecurity issues and cyberbullying. I have been approached by parents who are concerned about their kids' actions; by young adults who are concerned about their own online presence; by older Canberrans who want to engage with the internet but are scared about the threats they might face; and by everyday men and women, boys and girls, young and old, who have been the victim of some form of attempted scam or phishing exercise. Cybersafety concerns us all and we can all very easily become victims. That is why over the past few months I have been running a series of cybersafety forums in my electorate. These free community forums are designed to engage and inform the community about how they can be smarter and safer online. I held two pilot forums about a month ago, and they were a great success. I am holding three more in July, one targeting older Canberrans, one targeting parents—through school, through the P&C—and another targeting small business. They are all different audiences but quite often they have things in common in terms of their concerns about the cyberenvironment. But they also have their own specific interests and concerns. That is why I was very keen to hold these forums for these three target areas. Contrary to what we have just heard—and I have the greatest respect for the former speaker for raising this issue of cybersecurity; I think it is really important that we talk about it often out in our communities—there has been a lot of work done in the school space, the space for young people. But I felt that there was a gap in the market for small business, for older Canberrans and for parents, which is why I am holding these forums. The presenter at these forums is Alastair MacGibbon, from the Centre for Internet Safety at the University of Canberra. Alastair is an internationally respected authority on cybercrime, including internet fraud, consumer victimisation and a range of internet safety issues. He has worked in Washington for the AFP and other security agencies. He has worked in the region. He is an incredibly well-respected authority. I am very lucky to have him help the people in my electorate to navigate the maze of online security. I thank him for his time in helping the people of Canberra to deal with these issues. In the forums I have held to date, Alastair has given some pretty frightening examples of ordinary Australians who have been the victim of online scams. I was really saddened to hear that the most common type of scam is a romance scam. We have all heard the story: you meet someone online; you email for a couple of months and everything seems perfect, but unfortunately your new loved one lives overseas, so you send them some money for a plane ticket; however, on the day of their flight something goes wrong—a family member of theirs is in an accident and for some reason their insurance will not cover it—so you send them more money for medical costs. Then you never hear from them again. Alastair provided many examples of these romance scams that exist. There was an extraordinary one in The Australian a few weeks ago. A physics professor at a US university is in jail in South America for some extraordinary romance that he has been involved in. Things became very unstuck for him. You hear about these sorts of scams—of that proportion but also of a more general nature, where people are ripped off for money. It really does highlight how predators play on the vulnerabilities of people who are looking for love. It is just tragic. It is exceptionally cruel. Alastair also told the incredibly sad story of a beautiful young Australian girl, Nona Belomesoff. Nona was an 18-year-old animal lover who thought she had been offered her dream job working with the New South Wales Wildlife Information and Rescue and Education Service via Facebook, but instead she was lured to her death. Nona's heart-wrenching story is the very worst kind of story, but we can all learn something from her cruel and unnecessary death, and that is that we need to be smarter online and we need to teach our kids to be smarter online. Having run my own small business, I know that cybersafety for small business owners is a particular concern. Often, when you are running a small or micro business, you are the jack-of-all-trades. You are managing every aspect of your operation. Quite often, the IT security reminders are put to the bottom of the in-tray or the bottom of the jobs-to-do list because you are so busy marketing yourself or out meeting new clients or delivering jobs. However, if you are not equipped with the appropriate skills and knowledge to manage cyberthreats, it is a difficult task to face and that is why I have designed my forums for these small-business groups. The internet has the capacity to transform this country. Through the internet, the vastness of our land will no longer be a barrier to education, to health, to community and to culture. That is why this government is investing in the National Broadband Network. However, with expanded opportunity comes expanded risk. Cybersafety is likely to be an issue that we must face well into the future. I am really pleased with what the government is doing on this front. We are taking this issue seriously. We are delivering a $125.8 million cybersafety plan to combat online risk to children and to help parents and educators protect children from inappropriate material and content while online. This list is incredibly long in terms of what we are doing on that front as part of this plan, but I would just like to take the time to go through some of the measures. These include: funding for cybersafety support, education and awareness-raising initiatives and law enforcement. We have provided funding for the expansion of the AFP's Child Protection Operations team to detect and investigate online child sex exploitation. This includes funding for 91 additional AFP officers. This has resulted in a total of 316 offenders being arrested and summonsed for 840 child sex offence charges since mid-2009. Funding has also been provided to increase the capacity of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to ensure that prosecutions are handled quickly, and it has also been provided for education and awareness-raising resources through the ThinkUKnow program. I was involved in the launch of this program with Canberra Grammar a few years ago. This program assists parents and children to deal with the risks posed by online predators. Funding has been provided to develop and maintain online tools, like the Cybersafety Help Button and the Easy Guide to Socialising Online websites, and we have provided funding for the Australian Communications and Media Authority's Cybersmart program. There is a whole website called www.cybersmart.gov.au. It is a national cybersafety and cybersecurity education program. In addition, we have provided $3 million to The Alannah and Madeline Foundation for a national plan for its e-smart cybersafety initiative, and following the success of this pilot e-program—which has been delivered to 1,600 schools—the Victorian government has announced funding for its own program, and the Queensland government has too. The Alannah and Madeline Foundation are discussing similar rollouts of this program with other state education departments. To support the take-up of the National Safe Schools Framework, we have also committed about $4 million towards the development of new resources for school communities. Part of this plan is also the funding of the National Cyber Security Awareness Week, which this year ran from 20 to 24 May. The awareness week is a partnership with industry, community organisations and all levels of government. For this year's awareness week, around 1,400 organisations, including 700 schools, partnered with the government to deliver cybersecurity and cybersafety messages around Australia. I know that there are a number of programs rolling out in my electorate. There are pilot programs at Wanniassa School, programs at Canberra Grammar and programs right throughout the electorate specifically designed for students. I am focusing on small business, parents and older Canberrans. Cybersecurity is a collective responsibility and it is shared by all of us who use the internet. It is important that we all take measures to protect ourselves online. 18:49 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I rise to speak on the motion from the member for Forrest, Nola Marino, regarding the ongoing concern about cyberbullying and cybersafety. Cyberbullying poses a particular threat to the welfare and security of young Australians. Children across Australia, no matter their age or what school they attend, continue to struggle with bullying in all its forms. We continue to hear reports in the media of students who suffer from bullying which goes unnoticed for years—or, worse, of students who feel so vulnerable after years of unrelenting harassment that they take their own lives. When we hear of such events, all parents take stock and ask themselves, 'What if that were my child and I did not even know that it was happening?' Unfortunately, today, with technology being increasingly woven into the lives of students and children, bullying occurs not only in the schoolyard; it can occur online at home in the child's bedroom—completely out of a parent's sight. I therefore thank not just the member for Forrest but all those involved with school communities across my electorate who are trying to raise awareness and to increase education about the prevalence of cyberbullying and the serious consequences it can have. Every parent knows that severe or chronic bullying can lead to serious emotional consequences, leaving victims at greater risk of suffering from anxiety, depression and other stress related disorders. Cyberbullying can be extremely upsetting, especially as the scale and speed of the 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week digital world means it can take place anywhere and at any time. Earlier this year, researchers presented their findings on the prevalence of cyberbullying in Australia. Some 3,000 students from grades six to 12 across three Australian states completed a questionnaire and shared their thoughts about bullying and cyberbullying. The research showed that 14 per cent of students reported being victims of cyberbullying in the last year, while seven per cent of students reported experiencing both cyberbullying and face-to-face bullying. Females were more likely to report being a victim of cyberbullying. One of the most significant findings is that 83 per cent of victims knew the person who was bullying them in real life. For most victims, those who engaged in cyberbullying went to the same school, were the same gender and in fact described themselves as a friend, not an acquaintance. At the same time, 25 per cent of young people who engaged in cyberbullying targeted people they did not know. Often young people can feel that they and the information they post on the internet is anonymous, even to the point where what would otherwise be considered harassment on the playground is less evident online. Many children and teenagers who are cyberbullied are reluctant to tell a teacher or parent, often because they feel ashamed of the social stigma or because they fear their computer privileges at home will be taken away. The issue of cybersafety also highlights the fundamental importance of education about the consequences of our online activity, particularly for privacy—as well as for other potential legal risks and liabilities. As the member for Forrest has highlighted, some of the most significant issues relate to photo sharing, how to deal with cyberstalking, online grooming and exposure to illegal or inappropriate material, privacy, identity theft and online security. For young people who engage in sexting—the transmission of sexually explicit photos—such activity can quickly become a serious criminal matter. Other serious issues include possible defamation, privacy disclosure, confidentiality, anonymity, intellectual property rights, copyright infringement and criminal laws associated with harassment or posting offensive material. Australians are also faced with identity theft and other risks involved with posting personal identifying material, including names, addresses and birthdays. Parents, their children and the school system are struggling to keep up. One of the primary reasons for that is that cyberbullying is an emerging and constantly evolving phenomenon—the rules are constantly changing. There are always new virtual interactions and other social media becoming available. Given that children now grow up with computers and the internet, they are much more adept at responding to these constant changes, meaning that children can often finds ways around potential barrier solutions such as parental control or monitoring software. We do not want a situation where parents simply feel helpless to even comprehend the challenges, leading to them placing online safety in the too-hard basket. It is the difficulty of understanding what is going on or where to start that makes them feel helpless. It is easier to just take away their children's mobile phone or to ban the use of computers, even though the parents acknowledge that these are essential resources for today's children. For example, there are potential privacy dangers associated with geotagging—where a user's location is also posted online when an update is made on social media. On Facebook or Twitter, geotagging can be the default setting, meaning that the user's location is posted even without their active knowledge. If such information is posted online for anyone to see, it quickly opens up the opportunity for real-life stalking. Therefore, from a technical point of view, given the unimaginable scale of the internet, it would be impossible to devise a top-down approach that could be applicable to the varying circumstances that families encounter. This highlights why education is the key to overcoming the risks of cyberbullying and meeting the challenges of cybersafety. Fortunately, there are resources available for parents, students and schools to devise appropriate techniques to manage cyberbullying and cybersafety. These include traditional resources such as Lifeline, which in 2013 is celebrating 50 years of providing crisis and mental health support services. I want to highlight the work of Mr Brett Lee, an internet safety expert at INESS, Internet Education and Safety Services. Mr Lee, who worked for more than 20 years as a detective for the Queensland police in the field of child exploitation, now gives internet safety and cyberbullying presentations to schools, the community and other organisations. He continues to provide support to our families and to offer advice to church groups, schools and my electorate generally about how to develop tools for online safety. Fortunately, through the resources of organisations like INESS, parents have been helped to unravel the online world and what it means for their children, including at Fig Tree Pocket State School, Pullenvale State School, Nudgee Junior College and St Peter's Lutheran College. As an expert in the field, Mr Lee has remarked that the most important approach we can take is an individual and community based approach, and that education for parents and students is the key. It is at the home and school levels that the community can come together to devise appropriate solutions. Mr Lee encourages parents and their children to have an open dialogue about not only their interaction with other students but also what they see on the internet. Earlier this year, staff at Holy Family School in my electorate attended a professional development day presented by Dr Michael Carr-Greg, who I know is very active in presenting such seminars in communities across Brisbane and indeed Australia. As a psychologist Dr Carr-Greg's message is that parents and teachers must be involved and take control, because students' brains are still developing and they are often impulsive and lack the good judgement required in some situations that occur online. Education can therefore lead to empowering students to take responsibility for their online activity and protect themselves. It is with this approach that the federal government and indeed the education departments in each state have an opportunity to ensure that adequate resources are provided. To this end, I support the member for Forrest, who wants to see online safety education integrated into the curriculum of every school. The threat of cyberbullying and the threats to the cybersafety of our children will not subside; they will only become a more significant issue as we rely more and more on online technology. Appropriate education is the answer to cybersafety and managing the risks of cyberbullying, and the school classroom is the best place for us to provide that education to our children. In this regard, governments across the state and federal levels can provide assistance and a framework through which education programs can occur. However, what is required on this issue is a truly consultative approach between parents, schools, the community, the social media industry and government. The threats to cybersafety are real and constant. Cyberbullying can occur 24 hours a day, seven days a week. From the classroom to the bedroom, education is absolutely vital to help our students, parents and schools navigate the digital world. I know that the member for Forrest has conducted over 100 seminars on this in her electorate, and I commend her for her ongoing campaign to highlight this evil blight on our society. 18:59 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I rise to speak on the motion moved by the member for Forrest on cybersafety and cyberbullying. All of us in the chamber are very much aware of how our lives have been impacted by an increasingly digital world. It brings so many positive opportunities to aspects of modern life, but of course it also brings concerns that we have to address—concerns that relate to the safety of children and young people online. So much now depends on the usage of cyberspace. Everything from small business and banking to shopping and government departments can now be operated and accessed online, which are all fantastic and great advances. Already, our employment, healthcare and education depend strongly on very well functioning infrastructure and online access. Labor understand that these areas are vital to a smart and prosperous nation. That is why we are delivering the National Broadband Network. We understand that the vital interconnectivity between the nation's education, health service and economy needs a solid and reliable digital infrastructure network. We all benefit from the expansion of the internet. We have also seen some of the downsides of this medium and the sometimes negative impact it can have on the lives of our children. Mobile phones, the internet and in particular social networking have become the new playground of the cyberbully, which is a concern. We know that cyberbullying primarily affects young people because they are in fact the biggest users of digital media. According to a government bullying and cyberbullying website: … young people aged 14-17 have the highest rate of internet usage as at June 2010, with 91 per cent going online weekly. Also not a surprise to anyone that is a parent, chatting to friends is the main reason 89% of 16-17 year olds use the internet. The exploding use of online chat, social networking sites like Facebook and SMS technology for young people has really opened up a whole new avenue of concern. Of course, it is not just limited to young people, but that is what we are focusing on tonight. We need to remember too the great advances and assistance it provides to young people, but tonight we are talking about some of the concerns we need to be aware of. The statistics on cyberbullying are most disturbing. It is believed that up to 14 per cent of young people have experienced some form of cyberbullying in Australia. This shocking statistic was gained from a group of researchers who handed down the report entitled The prevalence of cyberbullying in Australia. The rate of bullying of girls is at a staggering 64 per cent, much higher than for their male counterparts. The overwhelming use of social media and other digital technology has also added another really concerning element to bullying—that is, that it does not stop. Through social media, chat and texts a bully can have direct access to their victims 24 hours a day, which is a concern. So it is not just happening at school; it can happen at the shops, the movies and at home as well. As children become more connected to each other through digital media, their ability to bully others has also been magnified. That is what we have to be very wary of and express our concerns about. Research has also shown that children are far more unlikely to report a case of cyberbullying than of face-to-face bullying. This new and unrelenting nature of bullying has led to many kids lives being turned into a real pain and real misery, with sometimes very devastating consequences. It is up to us as individuals, parents, communities and governments to be addressing all of these concerns and be taking action in relation to it. It is important we do it in a bipartisan way in working with industry as well. The government has introduced a number of measures to address cyberbullying and cybersafety. In 2008 the government committed $125.8 million towards a range of cybersafety programs to inform and educate young people as part of our cybersafety plan. We continue to invest in those cybersafety activities. The cybersafety plan was developed and funded to combat online risks involved in digital media and to help parents and educators protect children from inappropriate online material. This also included expanding the Australian Federal Police Child Protection Operations team. As a result, 91 additional officers were assigned to the AFP. These improved measures have resulted in the prosecution of 316 offenders since mid-2009. The government also increased funding to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to manage increased activity from the AFP to ensure speedier and more efficient prosecutions as a result of these investigations. So improving cybersafety for our kids has been a priority for this government. That is why we also developed the Stay Smart Online website and provided for the Australian Communications and Media Authority's Cybersmart program, which is a national cybersafety and cybersecurity education program. Education and awareness raising have been the cornerstones of the government's cybersafety reforms. As part of these reforms, resources were provided to families and children through the ThinkUKnow program to assist parents and children to deal with the risks posed by online predators. Funding was also allocated to help develop and maintain online tools like the Cybersafety Help Button and the Easy Guide to Socialising Online websites. The Cybersafety Help Button helps young people have 24/7 access to cybersafety resources and advice. Through the button they can also report inappropriate behaviour directly to the AFP, which massively increases their ability to report it. The Cybersafety Help Button is free to download onto a personal computer, mobile or school network to get information where and when it is needed most. In addition to these great programs, the government has also provided $3 million to the Alannah and Madeline Foundation for a national pilot of its eSmart cybersafety initiative. Following the great success of this pilot program, eSmart has now been delivered to 1,600 schools nationally. The Alannah and Madeline Foundation are discussing similar rollouts of the eSmart program with state education departments. When it comes to combating cyberbullying directly the government has also set up the cooperative arrangements for complaints handling on social networking sites. This is primarily referred to as 'the protocol' and demonstrates that social networking sites understand that they need to work cooperatively with government to meet the expectations of the Australian community when it comes to combating inappropriate online conduct like cyberbullying. Primarily the protocol ensures that social networking sites have clear and easy to follow processes so that complaints are handled promptly and in accordance with their user policies. At the present time, four of the major social media platforms have signed up to the protocol. These include Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo!7. I certainly commend them for signing up and working with governments and the community. I also believe that Australian people are with us on these really important forms when it comes to cybersafety. In fact, the 2010 parents survey commissioned by the government found that almost one in two Australian parents felt they were well-informed about cybersafety issues. That is really important. I know parents are always looking for as much information as they can to assist their children as they are navigating the online world. This survey also found the majority of parents had spoken to their children about the risks of being online. I certainly know not only from being a parent but also from my time as a police officer many years ago that it is really important to be constantly informing children about the risks and the dangers they face in a variety of situations. When we are talking about the online environment, it is important to be very clear with them about some of the risks that are out there. While of course we want to be discussing the benefits and the gains that can be achieved from navigating the online world—there are so many for all of us, and particularly for our kids—it is important we keep having those discussions with children about being aware of the dangers and also the help that is available. We know that by making the kids aware of what help is available and what action they can take, that can greatly reduce the harm or the risk that they may find themselves in, or the fact that they may need help depending on whatever the situation might be. I want to point out again that it is a Labor government that continues to build the digital infrastructure that will carry this country and its children forward in the future. We are very proud of our investment and we are very proud of rolling out the National Broadband Network. But it is also essential for the government to move with the evolving nature of digital technology, and to respond in a meaningful and purposeful way to protect as best we can children from any online bullying or predatory behaviour or online violence. I think we all share a responsibility for that as individuals, parents, communities and governments and recognise that it is important that we are taking action now and into the future as we see a great expansion of our online world. We see a greater amount of children at younger ages who are accessing online environments as well, and we have to be very much aware of that and very much aware of our actions to protect them as much as we can. From the government's perspective, while we have been delivering on the NBN, we have at the same time continued to work on protecting our kids through that whole range of measures that I mentioned, through programs like Cybersmart, the additional resources to the Australian Federal Police in fighting predators and also the protocols to ensure that websites and social media maintain a very high standard of protection that is expected of them by the Australian community. I am sure that we will keep working with them and with the community in general in ensuring programs are updated in the future to deal with other concerns that may be raised, whether it is in relation to cybersafety or cyberbullying. I think these are grave concerns for all of us across the country, and I think we have all had instances in our electorates of speaking with parents and children about the concerns that have been raised by them and the instances they found themselves in. It is important we keep talking about that, and that we keep saying to our kids that, at the end of the day, they need to be accessing help online and talking to people if they have any concerns. It is important we keep discussing it and making sure that, in working together, we are combating any increases in instances of either bullying or ensuring we are putting as much help in place as we can to ensure the cybersafety of our kids in particular as we see this great growth in the internet throughout the country. 19:08 Ms GAMBARO 9K6 Brisbane I rise in support of this motion moved by my colleague the member for Forrest, who has just arrived in this chamber. It is testament to her hard work in this area of significant concern for the safety and welfare of Australian children. As the internet expands its reach into every facet of our everyday lives, it crashes through the traditional physical and virtual barriers that previously provided some sort of protection. And regrettably, what we have seen with the advent of the internet is a new social cost associated with blind allegiance to this new technology. And as with any form of the technology, there are dangers that invariably flow from its misuse. A lack of available education for both children and parents as to the internet's proper use has seen the instances of cyberbullying skyrocket around the country, with newspapers in my electorate in Brisbane, like so many others, all too frequently reporting on circumstances of schoolchildren being sledged, belittled, vilified, stalked and bullied in the most horrendous fashions. As the member for Forrest has so correctly identified, education is the key to addressing this problem. Too many young people see the internet, or cyberspace, as a lawless domain where they can do anything they want and say anything they want to anyone at any time anywhere. Gone are the days when bullying was a localised problem, limited to the classroom or the schoolyard, with a limited time of exposure confined just to school hours. Now there is no reprieve—and this is one of the greatest dangers of the internet's misuse. Cyberbullying of children can be 24 hours a day, seven days a week and an activity that transcends geographical boundaries and locations. Regrettably, children in the electorate of any member of this place can be the victim of cyberbullying, which can be a global campaign with the click of a mouse. The member for Forrest was quite right when she said on 11 February in this place: There is probably no greater threat to the safety of our citizens—especially our young people—than the misuse of this great resource. The internet can be our greatest asset but also our greatest risk factor. That is why cybersafety is such an important issue. Never were truer words spoken in the name of protecting our children. That is why last year, in building on the member for Forrest's great work in this area, the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, established the coalition Online Safety Working Group to consult around the country in developing policies to assist parents, carers and teachers to better protect children and young people from the risks associated with the internet and social media. In the coalition's discussion paper, which was also released last year, we recommended some key measures which we believed could go a very long way towards addressing these issues. They include establishing a children's e-safety commissioner to take a national leadership role in this area; implementing rapid removal protocols for large social media outlets through a cooperative regulatory scheme for material that has been targeted at, and is likely to cause harm to, an Australian child; assisting parents and carers to make better informed decisions about devices such as smart phones and tablets by establishing recognised branding indicating their suitability for younger children and teenagers; providing greater support for schools through a stronger online safety component within the National Safe Schools Framework and assisting with online safety resources for schools; and undertaking a national public education campaign to highlight online safety issues. A key proposal in the coalition's discussion paper is to provide greater support for schools in their work to assist children in their care to be safe online. This would involve providing greater support for schools through a stronger online safety component within the existing National Safe Schools Framework. After several years of no action from the government with regard to protecting children online, it was really good to see an announcement from the current government in January this year. The coalition welcomed the fact that the announcement followed the lead the coalition had established in key areas, announcing an education module for schoolchildren and voluntary protocols involving some social media outlets. While these arrangements are welcome, it is clear that this announcement by the government does not go far enough. The coalition have made it clear that we expect major social media outlets to step up and to show a greater degree of social responsibility than they have shown to date in working with the government and regulatory agencies to address the problem of providing rapid responses to cyberbullying experienced by children. Cyberbullying is not a problem that anyone in society can wash their hands of. Children are our most precious resources, and this should not be a subject that is derailed by mindless political parochialism. This is a subject that could well be one of the defining actions of our time, as the new technology that is the internet, and its use, changes the way we live. If there was ever a subject that every member in this House should come together and speak with one voice on, it is this. The cybersafety of our children should be non-negotiable and something for which we should all act in unison. So I know from speaking with parents, not just in my electorate in Brisbane but all around the country, that they need every bit of help to be able to tackle this problem. I recently spoke on behalf of the shadow minister for education at an independent school forum in Brisbane, where I was very pleased to see—and I am sure the member for Forrest, sitting beside me here, would have been very pleased to see—that one of the presentations was by an expert in cyberbullying. She gave a presentation to all the school principals who were assembled at that particular school conference. So it is great to see that there are people out there like the member for Forrest and other educators who go out to schools to help to alleviate this terrible problem. Too many parents sometimes feel that this problem is way too complex, is beyond them and they need help. I know from my own experience. Although he is not a 'young' son anymore, I worry about my son's constant time on the internet at the age of 24. It is a very addictive medium in many ways and there needs to be balance in all of these things. We are fighting a battle here where children are digital natives—and many of them are, at best, digital nomads, who are quickly out of their depth and are unable to put in place adequate safeguards. It is very important that we protect our children from cyberbullying. The coalition expects that our discussion paper, 'Enhancing online safety for children', will stimulate discussion. Indeed, we have received an extensive range of submissions which we are working through. Based upon our discussion paper, those submissions will be bringing forward a policy at the next election. We expect that, in response to that, social media outlets and other internet companies will be better placed to demonstrate their commitment to corporate social responsibility in protecting children from harm. It is vitally important that the corporate sector comes on board here and that they do realise they have a social responsibility. We want to see enhanced cybersafety through providing greater support for schools through a stronger online safety component within a national safe school framework. I must admit that, when I was at that school conference recently, I could see that schools are crying out for this type of education. They do not know where to turn. They do not know how to implement such a program. And there is a great need to provide that guidance, that leadership and that direction. Many schools are in a position where they want to provide assistance and safety for their students in this new medium. We also want to see a national public education campaign to highlight online safety issues. I wholeheartedly support this motion of my colleague, the member for Forrest. I want to pay tribute to the hard work that she has done. I know that she has transcended many electorates and spoken to many members and that she has conducted forums for many members in this House as well, and I thank her for the incredible work that she has done. But this parliament should acknowledge that cyberbullying and inadequate cybersafety pose a significant threat to the welfare and security of all Australians, especially young people. This threat will increase with new technology and greater connectivity, and the government should move to take decisive action to enhance cybersafety education in all Australian schools for the benefit of all Australian students. 19:18 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser Bullying has long posed a challenge for schools, parents, workplaces and, most significantly, its victims. It also poses a challenge for us legislators, and it is a challenge the Gillard government has sought to address through initiatives such as the National Day of Action Against Bullying and Violence, through directing more than $20 million to the Fair Work Commission to provide victims of workplace bullying with a quick and effective way to resolve bullying at work and prevent it ever happening again. But, as online communications become increasingly prevalent in our offices, our schools and our social lives, it is clear that combating bullying needs to adjust to take this new dimension into account. It is especially important we recognise the safety and security needs of young people, who are growing up in a world with greater digital use than any previous generation. As a parent, I recognise that the use of the internet my three little boys engage in is vastly different from my own. They have never known a world without ubiquitous internet. To them, being able to touch the screen of a device is just what you do. The ease with which my four-year-old comfortably navigates the internet sometimes sends a shiver down my spine. That is going to present my three little boys with opportunities I cannot pretend to foresee, but it will also bring new threats. Between Facebook, Vine, Twitter, YouTube and Snapchat, there is a rapidly developing world of online communication. We have to embrace those technological developments while at the same time doing what we can to safeguard the security of users now and into the future. Bullying may be an old problem, but cyberbullying is different in a number of important ways. Firstly, it provides a degree of anonymity to the perpetrators, meaning they can behave with more aggression and malice than they may dare to in person. A famous study by researchers at the University of Texas, Austin paired up young university students and just asked them to engage in conversations over email. By the end, the researchers were stunned at the extent to which these otherwise placid young university students had begun to engage in conversations that were either lewd or rude. We know that cyberbullying can occur 24/7. We also know that it is nearly impossible to escape. We know it can reach a far more public arena and that online activity can quickly be shared with a larger audience than was possible with bullying in the past. The Labor government takes the issue of cyberbullying very seriously. In 2008, this government committed $126 million towards a range of cybersafety programs targeted at informing and educating young people as part of our broader cybersafety plan. The government's cybersafety plan is combatting online risks to children. It is helping parents and educators protect children from inappropriate material and inappropriate contacts while online. The funding supports measures for cybersafety support, education, awareness-raising initiatives and law enforcement, such as funding for the expansion of the Australian Federal Police Child Protection Operations team to detect and investigate online child sex exploitation, funding to increase the capacity of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to ensure prosecutions are handled efficiently and funding for education and awareness-raising through the ThinkUKnow program, which aims to assist parents and children to deal with the risks posed by online predators. I particularly acknowledge the youth advisory group, some of whom met last year with Minister Stephen Conroy and me at Amaroo School to discuss their inputs into making sure that these cybersafety advances by the government are appropriate and useful to young people. That youth advisory group helped to develop online tools, such as the Cybersafety Help Button and the Easy Guide to Socialising Online website. The government has also provided funding for the Australian Communications and Media Authority's Cybersmart program, which is a national cybersafety and cybersecurity education program. All this investment is based on some pretty concerning research. Studies undertaken by the ACMA and partly released on 19 March 2013 have found that 14- to 15-year-olds are the most vulnerable to cyberbullying. Thankfully, they are also the most likely to stand up and speak out about it. The research indicates that more than one in five 14- to 15-year-olds have experienced cyberbullying. It shows that levels of cyberbullying among Australian children remain generally steady, despite increases in online participation. That is a good thing. That indicates that the cybersafety messages underpinning programs such ACMA's Cybersmart program are getting through to the people they are intended to help. The ACMA's research also indicates that eight to 11-year-olds use more than two devices to access the internet.    While computers are still the main point of access, a quarter have gone online using a mobile phone and half have accessed the internet using another kind of mobile device, such as a tablet or gaming device. Thirty five per cent of eight- to 11-year-olds have their own mobile phone, rising to 94 per cent of 16- to 17-year-olds. Recent research by Pew has indicated that young Americans are essentially now plugged in for every moment that they are not sleeping or in school. Industry and organisations are coming together to address issues of cyberbullying and cybersafety. Organisations like McAfee are engaging in research, education and awareness raising. McAfee's research which Minister Conroy launched on 21 May 2013 was released as part of the 2013 National Cybersecurity Awareness Week which was 20 to 24 May. The research tells us that education needs to start early. On average young people are using many more internet enabled devices. The McAfee research tells us that one in five tweens have chatted to a stranger online and six per cent of teens have met up with a stranger. That is a statistic that would cause great fear for many Australian parents. Professor Donna Cross of Edith Cowan University has completed a landmark study on cyberbullying commissioned by the government. She reports that children who had been bullied are much more likely to suffer depression and anxiety. Professor Cross said: We know that probably the most significant effects on children who've been bullied are effects in their mental health. They're much more likely to feel depressed, anxious, their self-esteem is affected. There are some students that report suicide ideation. It has very serious immediate effects and long-term effects. Twenty thousand Australian school children were surveyed using a combination of anonymous questionnaires and interviews. According to that survey work, about 10 per cent of young people reported they were being cyberbullied. This government has done the research, we have recognised the problem, and we are acting on it. It is terrific to see the coalition now adopting similar policies in the fields of cybersafety and cyberbullying. To quote Dr Judith Slocombe, the chief executive of the Alannah and Madeline Foundation: 'There is no difference between someone who bullies online and one who bullies face-to-face. They are just using different methods. They both can cause enormous harm.' It is important we talk about those issues because online communications are developing rapidly. Rollout of Labor's National Broadband Network—fibre to the home for 93 per cent of Australians and ubiquitous broadband for the whole population—is happening fast. Last Friday I was in Gungahlin with Minister Conroy to see nearly 11,000 new Gungahlin homes switched on to the National Broadband Network. People in Amaroo, Ngunnawal, Palmerston and Mitchell now join the nearly 15,000 Canberrans in and around Gungahlin that are enjoying superfast broadband. By mid-2016, construction in the ACT will have commenced or be complete to 180,300 homes and businesses. Gungahlin is also leading the country with the sheer number of premises that are signing up to the National Broadband Network. In an area switched on only six months ago more than half the population has signed up for an NBN service. In another area that has only been switched on for three months take-up of the National Broadband Network is already 40 per cent. The myth that the opposition peddles that no-one wants the National Broadband Network is being disproved every single day in the ACT and all across Australia. Australians come up to me in my mobile office, my community forums and when I am doorknocking and they never ask me, 'Why are we getting fibre to the home?' The question they ask me is, 'When do I get fibre to the home?' Australians recognise the importance of fibre to the home and we recognise the importance of a cybersafety plan to make sure Australians are safe online. 19:28 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I rise to speak this evening on the important private member's motion brought by the member for Forrest relating to cybersafety. Over the past seven years we have seen the emergence of the phenomenon of social networking. It is a progression in both technology and society that our culture is still grappling with. Technology has progressed too quickly for our laws and social customs to accommodate and much social interaction that occurs via these platforms continues to evolve in conjunction with social media. This technology has provided us with fantastic opportunities, both in terms of connecting with others socially and professionally as well as providing us with information. But as with any new technology, there will always be some challenges and drawback that need to be contended with. The challenge facing us is to do with safety online, particularly the safety of young people. Last year the coalition established the Online Safety Working Group to investigate the extent of this challenge. The group spent many months meeting with parents, young people, internet service providers, social networking sites and other stakeholders to gain an accurate understanding of what the challenges for cybersafety are and how they may be overcome. Through these meetings, the coalition identified that a staggering 90 per cent of young people are utilising social networking sites, mostly without parental supervision and without an understanding of the risks involved. It was clear that public awareness of the nature of social media itself was low and the inherent dangers of social media were not being inoculated against for the protection of young people. It also became clear from the Online Safety Working Group's work that a coordinated community response would be the key to fuelling a better public awareness of the dangers involved for young people in the online environment. Sadly, instances of 'grooming' and other dangerous behaviours by online predators are becoming more and more frequent. Despite this frequency, young people remain generally oblivious to recognising threats and reporting them to either parents and carers or to teachers. To make this matter more serious, many parents have a hands-off approach to supervision of their children on social media, which is brought about by a lack of information. Many parents report even being unaware of how many devices their children are actually connected to social media through. These days internet access is not confined to the PC. Mobile phones, iPods, iPads and gaming devices, to name but a few, are all devices that are used to connect to the internet and engage with social media. The number of social networking sites is proliferating exponentially. It is almost impossible for parents, carers and teachers to keep up with that. But, if parents are not aware of their children's engagement, they cannot educate them and protect them from threats online. This is why late last year the coalition released a discussion paper about how we can protect our young people while they are online. The coalition recommended first that there be better coordination between all authorities, particularly with companies providing products and services to young people. Aiding in this, the coalition has also proposed that a single point of contact exist to direct inquiries and complaints to relating to online safety. This single point of contact would effectively act as a children's e-safety commissioner. Second, the coalition has proposed that methods and arrangements be developed and administered by an independent regulatory body to enable the more rapid removal of dangerous or nefarious content on social media. While we currently operate under a co-regulated scheme that is subject to take-down notices by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, it is suggested that this process be expanded to include social networking companies. This would address problems in a very timely way, particularly to do with cyberbullying behaviour, which can be paralysing for those young people who bear the brunt of this behaviour. Third, the coalition is proposing to create national safety standard certification for online safety materials and to make certified materials readily available to parents and carers for education and support. Similar to recognisable certifications in other industries, this certification would be a highly recognisable icon that would be provided only to materials that meet guidelines. It is important that parliamentarians and people who establish directions to ensure the safety of young people debate these measures, look for the solutions and work in concert with parents to ensure that 'grooming' and cyberbullying in subtle and, in some instances, cowardly ways do not affect those who innocently become engaged in a social media construct which brings much enjoyment but at the same time brings inherent risks. I thank the member for Forrest for bringing this motion forward. 19:33 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin While five minutes will not allow me to do the topic justice, I will make some brief comments on this motion on the very important issue of cybersafety. It is an issue that I have some understanding of, serving on the Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety and having been involved with inquiries and reports over the last three years. The beauty of the inquiries was that they enabled me and the other members of the committee to hear from a wide cross-section of the community with respect to cybersafety and the risks associated with it. As the member for Hasluck quite properly pointed out, there are many benefits relating to the use of cybernetworks in today's modern age, and there is no question at all that they have changed our lives in many ways for the better. But, having said that, there is also no question that the technology has become an aid for those who want to misuse the cybertechnology that is available to them. Over the years, and in particular in more recent years, we have seen a whole range of wrongdoers, from criminals who have now got to the point where they run sophisticated transnational operations across the world in order to carry out their criminal activities, to terrorist groups, to scammers and those who take the identity of someone, and then on to bullies and predators and the like. Bullies are an area which, if time permits, I want to come back to and talk about a little bit more in more detail. I am aware also that there have been literally billions of dollars lost by people throughout the world, and perhaps even here in Australia, as a result of scammers and people who commit what is referred to as identity theft of people by being able to access their identity, their bank accounts and the like. In fact, from the evidence presented to the committee, it is clear that much of the money lost is never reported because those who lose the money feel too embarrassed to report it to the authorities. Not only am I aware from having spoken to and listened to experts giving evidence but also I am aware from my own personal discussions with the South Australian police department, and in particular the branch that handles the scamming that goes on, that this is indeed a serious problem which even our law enforcement agencies are grappling to come to terms with because much of it occurs from offshore, where they do not have the authority to act. Secondly, it comes from offshore from organisations which they find very, very difficult to track down in the first place. I want to speak briefly to the issue of bullying, which I know is at the heart of this motion. Again, I have heard firsthand accounts from many, many young people not only in my own electorate but also across Australia who gave evidence to the committee in its previous inquiry which was related to the use of cybertechnology amongst young people. There is no doubt in my mind at all that it has become a major community social problem, because young people are being bullied, literally on a daily basis, through the use of the internet and those kinds of forums. Many of those young people do not ever talk about it to anybody, do not report it to their teachers or their parents and just live with it—sadly, to the point where we know of documented cases where it has driven those young people to commit suicide. That is the worst possible outcome that can occur. I might say in respect of all of this that it has also been my experience that our schools, our police departments and many other authorities are doing some very good work to try and educate people, in particular young people, into reporting any cyberbullying that takes place. The one issue that I want to touch very briefly on is the issue of predators who use the internet not only to stalk people but also to develop potential friendships. There is the famous case in South Australia of Carly Ryan, who in 2007 was murdered. Carly's mum gave evidence to the committee, and I can well recall what she had to say about that. I congratulate Carly's mum for setting up the Carly Ryan Foundation in order to try and get the story out that there are risks associated with use of the internet. People need to take precautions. In particular, parents need to try and ensure that their kids well understand those risks so that they too do not end up being a victim of cyberbullying or crime. 19:38 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon Could I just say how much I agree with the previous speaker, the member for Makin, on how serious an issue this issue is. Five minutes does not really give you enough time to address it. It is a very important debate, and I congratulate the member for Forrest for having the initiative, the energy and the get up to put this on the Notice Paper and put it before us today, because it is a very important discussion. As we have heard from previous speakers, including my good friend and colleague the member for Hasluck, it is an issue that is well worth us debating because, especially when it comes to people who use very devious means through the cybernetwork to groom, it is a very dangerous thing. With more and more children today spending more and more time on their computers looking at social media sites, it is important that we do what we can to ensure that our children are as safe as possible. I think that goes to the heart of what the member for Forrest is trying to do in bringing this private member's bill forward. At any stage where our children are vulnerable to people who have extremely dangerous motives we need to be doing what we can to make sure that they are protected. That is what the member for Forrest is looking to do here. Whether we like it or not as a community social networking is here to stay. It is very much becoming part of our children's lives. One only has to look at our political life—we are seeing much more Facebook, Twitter, webpages. They are all being used to get across political messages and being used as campaigning tools. If we are doing it, then of course younger generations are going to do exactly the same thing and they are going to use these networks more and more. We have to be aware of that and we have to understand that this is new technology which presents new dangers. We are seeing instances where bullying is going on and where severe peer group pressure is being put on people, especially young children. Young students are feeling very isolated, very sensitive and are feeling they are being bullied in a similar way to the way bullying occurred in the school yard. All of us who went through school have seen bullying occur in one form or another. It is not nice; it is not pleasant. At least when it is being done physically there is the opportunity for people to see, be aware and step in and influence, whereas one of the real dangers of cyberbullying is that it can remain hidden and it is extremely difficult for people to see or understand what is going on and to be able to intervene. One of the really insidious things about cyberbullying is that it can occur over a long period of time and it is very hard to detect. The member for Forrest has done us all a favour by putting this bill on private member's business. I commend previous speakers, including the member for Hasluck, who did such an excellent job with his five-minute speech. This is an issue that will continue to be discussed and to be dealt with in a careful way. 19:44 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I thank the member for Wannon for showing support for his colleague the member for Forrest. The issues of cybersafety and cybercrime are very important issues. When we come to this issue there is a very broad range of behaviours that we are talking about online. The internet has opened up worlds that we never dreamt of. It helps business with the convenience of banking online and to do massive transactions and connect with the rest of the world. For households and for young people, as the member for Wannon illustrated, it is about keeping in touch. A lot of young people do not have the conventional mobile phone. Instead, they contact people through Twitter, Facebook and a whole lot of other apps that I am not even aware of. When it comes to households and families, there is education that is done online and there are health services that are now directly provided online. There are a whole range of important services and activities for people online. However, with this opening up of a world online, there are dangers, and those dangers are presented to businesses, families and children. I was very pleased that in the 42nd Parliament I had the privilege to serve on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications when the committee did the 'Hackers, fraudsters and botnets' inquiry. That, for me, was a huge eye-opener in terms of some of the crime that can be conducted on the internet. I know we all laugh sometimes about the emails, usually originating from Nigeria and a range of other places, that try and convince you to donate money, saying that you have either won or inherited money. For a lot of people that are familiar with the internet, these are able to be laughed off and deleted. But these are getting more sophisticated and people are falling for them, especially people that are not familiar with the internet. I have heard numerous stories in which people have been caught out by these scams and have put over large amounts of money, so it is important that we continue to work to educate the community on these scams. I am very pleased that information and advice through a free alert service that the government has provided can alert people, if they sign up to it through the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's SCAMwatch, to some of those scams. I want to send an important message out to people. I know people feel a bit embarrassed if they get caught in these scams, but please do report it, because this provides the Australian Federal Police with important information to detect and hunt down some of these people, which can be quite difficult. Of course, cybersafety also affects governments and countries, and we always have to be vigilant to ensure that our country and our government are up with the latest technology from other countries around the world. That is really important and we have to take that security very seriously. We also have to take the security of our individual computers very seriously. We need to recognise that it is a collective responsibility to keep our computers and ourselves safe. It is a responsibility of everyone that uses the internet, so I would encourage families and individuals to make sure that they keep up to date with their virus protection—that is very important. I am also pleased that many of the ISPs have come on board and are working with the government and the community to identify cyberthreats and to have a look at some of these important safety issues. That, I guess, is the more criminal aspect. There is also the other very serious aspect that affects our young people, which is cyberbullying. This is a really difficult thing, because young people who are bullied at a cyber level can never escape it. It is with you in your phone when you go to bed; it is on your computer; it is at school—you can never escape it. So cyberbullying is a really important issue. I am so glad that last month 700 schools participated in National Cyber Security Awareness Week. It is important to make sure that we are getting this into discussion. I commend this motion to the House. 19:49 Mr GRIFFIN VU5 Bruce This is a very important issue. The question of cybersafety and cyberbullying is something which confronts young people and older people in our society today in a way that it never has before. I do not pretend to be particularly literate when it comes to the issue of computers or the nature of the new technologies that are being rolled out. What I can say, though, is that over the last few years this has produced for parents a whole range of issues with respect to ensuring that our children—and I have three daughters—are protected. It is a difficult issue because often you do not know what they are looking at on the internet. You can talk to them about what they should look at, and you can talk to them about how they should react and interact with their friends and others while using this technology but, frankly, you often just do not know. I am sure that I join with other members in saying that, when we hear stories about what has happened to particularly young people who have been involved in incidents of cyberbullying, the sorts of things that they have been confronted with are often from a school point of view but, in their view, they have been exposed to all the world, and this is a particularly daunting and intimidating experience for them. This is why governments of all persuasions need to consider this issue very seriously. This is why we as a parliament need to be vigilant in ensuring that these issues are at the very forefront of how we approach legislation and regulation with respect to new technologies into the future. I am proud to say that, in 2008, this government committed some $125.8 million towards a range of cybersafety programs to inform and educate young people as part of our Cybersafety plan and that, since then, we have continued to invest in cybersafety activities. It is something that needs to be rolled out on a continuing basis, and it is something that we need to make sure that we are aware of into the future. As the Chief Executive Officer of the Alannah and Madeline Foundation, Dr Judith Slocombe, has a repeatedly said: There is no difference between someone who bullies online and one who bullies face-to-face. They are just using different methods. They both can cause enormous harm. I would go even further and say that, when you bully someone via the internet, you ensure that the person being bullied believes that you are exposing the bullying, the intimidation, to many more people than them. In this process, for the young person who is being bullied, their fear of what they are being exposed to, or what their reputation is being exposed to, can be made all the greater. I am also pleased that Dr Michael Carr-Gregg, one of Australia's highest profile psychologists, has supported our government's initiatives to tackle cyberbullying and promote cybersafety. As I mentioned, some $125.8 million was committed through the Cybersafety plan. It is a comprehensive plan to combat online risk to children and to help parents protect children from inappropriate material and contacts while they are online. The range of measures that are part of this plan deal with the many different problems relating to online activity. They include things such as the government's Cybersafety plan and the provision of funding for the expansion of the Australian Federal Police Child Protection Operations team to detect and investigate online child sex exploitation, including funding for 91 additional AFP officers. This measure has resulted in a total of 316 offenders being arrested and summonsed for 840 child sex offence charges since mid-2009. Funding has been provided to increase the capacity of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to ensure that prosecutions are handled quickly. In addition, funding has also been provided for education and awareness raising resources through the ThinkUKnow program to assist parents and children in dealing with the risk posed by online predators. This, if you like, is the most serious end of what can occur in cyberspace. Obviously, it has particularly serious ramifications for the families and children involved. The point I would make in a broader context concerns the way in which particularly children relate to each other and react to each other on the internet. This can have far-reaching implications for the individuals involved, for their family and for their friends. I would urge all who think they might react in a poor manner, in a brutal manner or in an aggressive manner on the internet to think again. The fact is that the implications for actions such as these are serious and ongoing and for families they can be terrible. Debate adjourned. Rare Diseases 6874 19:54 Ms HALL 83N Shortland Rare diseases are life-threatening or chronically debilitating diseases with an estimated prevalence of one in 2,000. In Australia, 10 per cent of our population is directly affected by one or more of 800 diseases. Of those people, 400,000 are children. Collectively, that is about 1.2 million Australians with a rare disease, which is the same number of people as those affected by diabetes. But there is a difference. Diabetes is one disease. There is one disease that you need to research. There is a critical mass of people with that one disease who can then influence the decisions of government, whereas, when you have a number of small diseases with very few people who are affected by each disease, their voice is small. Pompe's disease is one that comes to mind. There are many motor neurone diseases, and there are types of cystic fibrosis that have very small numbers of people who are affected by them. And, because there is no critical mass, the research into those diseases, the treatments and the drugs that are needed do not eventuate. Because these diseases are so rare, and because collectively they are so uncommon, it does impact on people. There is an inadequate rate of diagnosis. A person will go to a doctor with a set of symptoms and, because the disease is so rare, it often takes a very long time before a diagnosis can be made. The diagnosis and management—an early diagnosis, in many cases—is really important so that the disease can be managed. For most people with a rare disease, to actually have a diagnosis is a major achievement. In developed countries, 60 per cent of individuals with intellectual impairment do not have a diagnosis. Establishing a diagnosis for patients with rare diseases provides an answer for families, guides management and enables accurate genetic counselling for family members. Identifying a genetic basis is the first step towards understanding biological pathways and developing targeted treatments. Only a minute proportion of people have a therapeutic option. Individuals with rare diseases often require complex management and multidisciplinary services. Access to evidence based information, education, expert opinion and continuity of care is very limited in Australia. Only 3.5 per cent of rare diseases are coded by the current ICD—that is, the International Classification of Diseases. Poor codification and surveillance mean that this group of Australians is invisible to government. Inadequate epidemiological data leads to an inability to study burden of illness at a personal, community and economic level, and this inadequate data also reduces the patients' recruitment into research studies. The full extent of research in Australia is unknown, although some patient registers, biobanks and sequencing projects are in operation in research silos. There have been a number of responses by governments around the world. In the US, there is the Orphan Drug Act, and Singapore and the EU also have orphan drug acts, but the bottom line is that there is a lack of knowledge. The bottom line is that we need to know more about the people who are living with a rare disease. The bottom line is that I believe that there needs to be a register. A national register of rare disease should be investigated, and I strongly support its establishment. I would also like to congratulate all those who have been involved with the research and those people from Rare Voices Australia who attended the first International Rare Disease Research Consortium this year. This is an important issue and should be supported by the House. 20:00 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I rise to add my support to the member for Shortland's motion to raise awareness about the challenges facing those people in Australia suffering from rare diseases. What many Australians may not realise is that approximately 1.5 million Australians, or 10 per cent of our population, suffer from one of 8,000 rare diseases. In Australia every single rare disease is represented within our population, and for these 1.5 million Australians the future is looking extremely bleak. Unlike those Australians who suffer from more common diseases, rare diseases are not only not commonly known by the general public but they are also not well understood by the medical fraternity. Rare diseases are difficult to diagnose and the average time to— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 20 : 0 1 to 20 : 14 Mr WYATT M3A Rare diseases are difficult to diagnose, and the average time to diagnose a condition is 10 years. This is compounded by the lack of medical specialist consultants. Many general practitioners are left to attempt to navigate the murky waters of rare diseases, making guesses as to the cause of the symptoms and their association with the rare disease. There are so few of these cases that there is little opportunity for medical advancement towards recognising the causes, developing cures or understanding the implications for the individual. For those suffering from a rare disease that is understood, there remains little or no support from governments and communities to help them cover the exorbitant costs of medications. Australia is some 30 years behind the rest of the world in a healthy policy in this area. We are the only country without a national plan or register for individuals suffering from rare diseases. It is little wonder, then, that these individuals feel isolated or let down by their own government. Some countries have legislated to recognise rare diseases and provide treatment for citizens. For example, the United States has enshrined into law the Orphan Drugs Act, which grants special status to a product to treat a rare disease. As we know, the treatments for rare diseases are often complex, and many rare diseases do not have a medically accepted adequate treatment. It is time that Australia catches up with the rest of the world and begins to take appropriate care for the 1.5 million Australians who live with a rare disease. It is time that we have a national register and a national plan for rare diseases. It is time that we plan to ensure that individuals living with rare diseases have access to the very best medical care as well as the best emerging treatments, such as the opportunity to be involved in national and international clinical trials. It is for these reasons that I would like to commend Rare Voices Australia. Rare Voices Australia is the first national organisation that has been advocating for individuals living with a rare disease. Rare Voices Australia works not only with government but also the research community, medical physicians and the broader public to raise awareness about rare diseases and to fight for better outcomes for those suffering from them. Rare Voices Australia provide a support network for families, friends and carers of those with a rare disease and work hard to improve the quality of life for sufferers and those around them. It is due to the work of Rare Voices Australia that the key policy makers in parliament are beginning to understand the plight of individuals living with a rare disease and searching for better ways for our health system to accommodate them. Part of the challenges that we as policy makers face is identifying ways to encourage the development of life-saving drugs to treat rare diseases. Unfortunately, many of these vital medications do not have the investment of time or research, simply because they do not have the critical mass of support, due to the limited number of individuals with the disease throughout the world. These medications, commonly called 'orphan drugs', are not cost-viable to pharmaceutical companies and require additional support to ensure they continue through development and testing. The difference, however, that these medications can make in the lives of those with rare diseases is incredible. In order to support the development of these medications, and encourage the availability to individuals with rare diseases, the Orphan Drug Program was established in 1998. It is a long, arduous process for medications to be made available under this program. I hope that Australia is proactive in looking at some of the solutions and optional treatments for those living with rare diseases so that they may enjoy the same quality of life that we take for granted on a daily basis. Often, it is not until we know someone with a rare disease that we have an understanding of the challenges they face, their families face and often siblings—brothers or sisters—with a rare disease face. I commend the motion of the member for Shortland. 20:18 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I would also like to thank the member for Shortland for giving us the opportunity to discuss the challenges faced by individuals and families living with rare diseases. Each rare disease, by nature, affects a small number of individuals; but combined, they impact on a large number of people in our community—in fact, there are more than 8,000 rare diseases currently known. In Australia alone 1.2 million people are affected, including 400,000 children. If we consider the carers and the families of all those individuals we come to the conclusion that the majority of Australians, in some form or another, are affected by these rare diseases—yet there are many instances where, due to the rarity of certain illnesses, people fall through the cracks when it comes to government support. One such case concerns a three-year-old girl, Olivia Toole, one of only 30 sufferers of what is known as Phelan McDermid syndrome. Phelan McDermid syndrome is a rare genetic disorder caused by a micro-deletion on chromosome-22 in the human genome, which plays an important role in the brain development of infants. The diagnosis of the syndrome was not made possible until 1999. Until then, many cases were thought to be sufferers of autism or similar, showing similar symptoms. Three-year-old Olivia's symptoms are in a lot of ways very similar to those of children with autism. She has not acquired speech, she suffers from seizures and pneumonic episodes and has been hospitalised so many times in her short life. Olivia's mother, Megan, is known to me because she went to school at St Thomas More with my youngest son, Jonathan. I know that Megan and her husband Andrew have invested much in terms of Olivia's health, and I have been impressed by what they have done to promote the issue of Phelan-McDermid Syndrome for other families living with sufferers of that disease. Early intervention is a very important part of dealing with this syndrome. To get early intervention support, sufferers must have a disease that falls within the regulative framework, and unfortunately Phelan-McDermid Syndrome does not fall within that framework. The families go through the same struggles as anybody else with the high cost of treatment therapies, medications and other expenses. In young Olivia's case, this emphasises what can happen when a child falls through the cracks. I would like to congratulate the work and praise the efforts of Rare Voices Australia, a national organisation assisting families, friends and carers impacted by rare diseases. They are a very strong advocate for the many individuals whose voices deserve to be heard. A little time back, I used the opportunity to raise awareness of another lesser-known illness affecting many Australian families called spinal muscular atrophy. SMA is a leading genetic killer of infants under two in Australia. It is a rare genetic motor neurone disease causing progressive deterioration of motor neurones in the spinal cord. One in 35 Australians carry the recessive gene and 55 Australian infants die from this disability each month. I am always amazed at how people who go through the toughest times find the strength to assist others in similar situations. I spoke about Megan O'Toole and what she is doing in relation to her daughter's disease. I would also pay tribute to Julie Cini, the CEO and founder of the Spinal Muscular Atrophy Association of Australia, who lost two daughters to SMA and who is using her experience to assist others—as is my cousin, Tamara, who sadly lost her daughter Summer in 2010. What this shows is that there are many people who fall through the cracks, but fortunately there are good people who will do everything they can to ensure that they can protect fellow members of the community. (Time expired) 20:23 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong A rare disease is a highly uncommon condition which individually affects fewer than one in 2,000 Australians. However, collectively these diseases affect between six and eight per cent of the Australian population and damage the livelihoods of patients, their families and the community at large. I thank the member for Shortland for bringing forward this motion; however, discussion on this issue must recognise that the federal government has failed to provide relief for the thousands of Australians suffering from chronic and debilitating rare diseases. Changes to the Life Saving Drugs Program have made it increasingly difficult for potentially life-saving drugs to satisfy the listing criteria for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. These changes have put crucial treatments, which can cost up to half a million dollars per year, further out of reach for most Australians. The strictness of this new program has been heavily criticised by health professionals. Despite this, the changes continue to deprive patients of access. National plans for addressing rare diseases are already in place in many countries around the world. Australia can draw on significant overseas experience, particularly in Europe, where national rare disease plans exist in 11 countries and are in development in all other EU member states. Indeed, Australia is currently trailing well behind these nations in our support of rare disease patients and their families. The member for Shortland has flagged the need to promote medical research progress in the field of rare diseases. Investing in the benefits of a national rare disease registry in Australia would provide an important step forward in the way the government deals with rare diseases. A national registry could provide vital support networks for patients and specialists of rare diseases. It would help connect specialists in Australia with those around the world and facilitate the exchange of knowledge and expertise. It would encourage the development of guidelines and referral networks designed to help patients receive timely diagnosis and the right care for their condition. Australia's current approach to rare disease management has failed to encourage early diagnosis of many chronic conditions. Diagnoses of rare diseases can take up to 10 years in some cases, meaning by the time of accurate diagnosis, the patient's disease is well advanced and often more difficult to manage. To address this critical issue the government should broaden the scope of its investigation and begin measuring the benefits of strategies such as compulsory population screening for newborns. This would encourage early diagnosis of rare diseases and ensure that patients have access to effective and timely treatment. Currently, undiagnosed rare diseases result in the chronic debilitation of patients and significantly burden public health in Australia. Early detection and treatment can often stall the onset of debilitating symptoms. Population screening may well deliver significant cost savings to the community by avoiding this public health burden. Other initiatives in this area could help address the lack of access to care and support for patients by tackling low awareness of rare diseases and the fragmented provision of services in this field. New strategies could help to ensure that more rare disease patients receive the right care, and that government resources are being used effectively. Indeed, in September last year, my colleague the member for Goldstein criticised the current government's ineffective response to rare diseases and continuing deferral of access to medical treatment for patients. He blamed the government's financial mismanagement for putting life-saving treatments further out of reach for Australians suffering from rare conditions. Yet despite this government's failure, advocates and businesses around the country and the community at large continue to do great things for patients suffering from rare diseases. I praise the efforts of several companies in my own electorate of Bennelong for the incredible work they do in this field. Companies such as Genzyme, who have pioneered the development and delivery of transformative therapies for patients affected by rare and debilitating diseases for over 30 years, continue to advocate for the recognition of rare diseases and the implementation of policies to facilitate better treatment and support. I acknowledge the efforts of these groups and encourage this government to broaden the scope of its investigation into avenues for addressing rare disease management in Australia. Only by investigating all the available options can we begin to truly begin to alleviate the suffering of thousands of Australians and their families and provide the support they deserve. 20:27 Mr LYONS M38 Bass I rise a today to speak on the motion proposed by the member for Shortland regarding rare diseases. Rare diseases are often chronic and complex, requiring many different specialised health services and community support. They are defined as a condition, syndrome or disorder that affects one in 10 000 people or less. There are more than 8,000 known rare diseases. Eighty per cent of rare diseases affect children and most begin in childhood and continue throughout life. Although each disease is rare collectively, they affect up to 10 per cent of the population. Neurological and intellectual disabilities occur in about half of all cases, regardless of disease type, and lead to loss of independence and opportunities. Obtaining a diagnosis is often difficult and delayed, and many have no cures. Trying to find an underlying diagnosis for many conditions can be a very long and frustrating experience. With particularly rare conditions, a diagnosis can often take many years. Rare diseases are characterised by a large number of broad and diverse disorders and symptoms that vary not only from disease to disease, but also within the same disease. According to the Steve Waugh Institute, 80 per cent of rare diseases have identified genetic origins while other rare diseases are caused by infections, allergies, chemicals or radiation or a combination of environmental and genetic factors. Statistics show that rare diseases often begin in childhood, continue throughout life, are disabling and life threatening. Families and carers of children with rare diseases experience significant psychological stress due to stigmatisation, social isolation, unemployment, diagnostic delays, lack of information and difficulty accessing appropriate healthcare. The impacts of rare diseases go beyond affected individuals. There are wide-reaching impacts on families, carers, health professionals, health resources and the wider community. For all rare diseases, research can provide some answers. Many rare diseases can now be diagnosed through a biological sample test. Researchers are increasingly working through networks in order to share the results of their research and to advance more efficiently. In Australia there is a general lack of awareness of the impacts of rare diseases and in the past there was a lack of strong and coordinated advocacy. However, Australia is in an excellent position to learn from extensive international initiatives. The Australian Paediatric Surveillance Unit convened the National Rare Diseases Task Force to develop, seek wide endorsement and advocate for the implementation of a national plan to support research, education and service development and to promote awareness of rare diseases. They also provide advocacy for affected individuals and their carers. I wish them well in their endeavours. Organisations representing sufferers and their families, health professionals and researchers are excellent advocates for rare diseases. In rural and regional areas, however, these organisations are less accessible. We know that early and accurate diagnosis and appropriate management will reduce the costs and morbidity associated with rare diseases and will enable prevention. As I have said in this place many times before, the only way to get good results for an efficient price in health is to do it right and to do it early. Rare diseases pose a challenge to people working in primary, secondary and tertiary health settings. For many rare diseases standardised diagnostic criteria do not exist, which leads to delay of treatment. Investigations and diagnostic delays of a year or more are common. The National Rare Diseases Working Group convened by the Australian Paediatric Surveillance Unit have stated that families affected by rare diseases need accurate, accessible and locally relevant information about rare diseases including descriptions of signs, symptoms and prognosis, and opportunities to access educational courses and other educational resources. These are available but they need proper access. I thank the member for Shortland for putting this on the agenda. It is important. I would also like to thank the people who assisted one of my constituents with a rare disease in obtaining life-saving drugs at a reasonable price. 20:33 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I rise to speak on the member for Shortland's motion regarding rare diseases. As the motion notes, approximately 10 per cent of the Australian population is directly affected by one or more of 8,000 rare diseases, of whom 400,000 are children. In total there are as many as 1.2 million Australians with a rare disease, the same number of Australians affected by diabetes. With a large number of diseases which individually only affect a small number of people, advances in medical treatments have been slow for three reasons: firstly, pharmaceutical companies have no market on which to base investment in treatments; secondly, health authorities do not deem them a public health issue when compared to other more prevalent diseases; and, lastly, the rarity of a disease means rarity of data, which can preclude the medical community from conducting research. These diseases often mean a life cut short, all the while relying on expensive therapeutic treatment, if a treatment does in fact exist. One of those affected is Doug Wheller in my electorate. In 2009 he was diagnosed with Pompe disease, a disease so rare it affects only 25 people in Australia. After suffering a near fatal heart attack Doug has relied on a drug called Myozyme, which has been provided to him under a compassionate access scheme operated by the pharmaceutical company which manufactures the drug. Unfortunately, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee has continued to reject providing support for people like Doug to access life-saving treatment and the compassionate access scheme is closing to new patients, which could have a disastrous impact on these patients and their families. Pompe disease is just one of the 8,000 rare diseases from which Australians can suffer, but Doug's story draws attention to the incredible difficulty that they have in gaining appropriate recognition and support from the government. However, the research community is finally making inroads into learning more about rare diseases, of which approximately 80 per cent are genetic in origin. These diseases are further complicated by the fact that genetic mutations vary by location and can occur across the entire human genome, making their origin very difficult to detect. Very important research in this area is being undertaken at the University of Queensland, particularly at the Institute for Molecular Bioscience. In October last year, Dr Ryan Taft was awarded a University of Queensland Foundation Research Excellence Award after analysing the genome of Massimo Damiani, a toddler suffering from leukodystrophy. With that grant, Dr Taft and his global team of researchers were able to conduct genomic sequencing of Massimo and his parents, and in turn, successfully identify the gene behind this genetic disease. This is a crucial step forward in being able to identify where and why genetic mutations have occurred, and is potentially a stepping stone in devising therapeutic interventions. As Massimo's father said, 'Although there is currently no cure for leukodystrophy, achieving a diagnosis gives us hope. It is the vital first step to one day developing a treatment for Massimo.' Dr Taft's goal is to dramatically reduce the number of unresolved cases of rare genetic disease in children. As Dr Taft said, 'This is the future of medicine—doctors, including clinical specialists like MRI experts and genomics researchers, working together to diagnose and develop treatments for people with unknown diseases.' I recently had the opportunity to hear from Professor John Mattick, Director of the Garvan Institute of Medical Research, and Geoff Dixon, Chair of the Garvan Research Foundation. As the medical community continues to improve in genomic mapping techniques, so does the ability to predict how one's genes are expressed and whether someone may one day suffer from a rare disease. The medical community may only be scratching the surface, but advances in genomic mapping help us understand diseases where a genetic element is likely to be involved, such as schizophrenia. If we know this information, it does raise very serious legal questions, in particular whether insurance companies can discriminate against pre-existing conditions based on data from genetic testing. Future parliaments will no doubt be required to consider their role in this area—although such considerations may come sooner than we think. Lastly, I want to congratulate Rare Voices Australia and all those Australians who participated in the world's first International Rare Diseases Research Consortium, held this year in April. This consortium has highlighted the amazing results that are possible with truly global cooperative research. I am heartened that these advances in medical research promise a much brighter future for rare disease patients. I commend the motion of the member for Shortland. Debate adjourned. International Cleaners Day 6882 20:38 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh It gives me great pleasure to have moved this motion recognising International Cleaners Day, which is celebrated all around the world on 15 June, which was a week or so ago. This day recognises cleaners all over the world for their work, for their efforts. This motion recognises the importance and significance of the work done by cleaners and the important contribution of cleaners across the Australian community and supports a call for a fair go for cleaners. It recognises that cleaners are some of the lowest paid workers in Australia. I would like to congratulate all cleaners for their achievements and for the wonderful work that they do. They have worked very hard in advocating for the rights of fellow cleaners throughout the Clean Start campaign, which has been going for a number of years. I also congratulate them for doing such a wonderful job when we are tucked away in our beds here in Canberra and they are in our offices cleaning. I pay tribute to Maria, who has been here for 25 years, since the opening of this parliament. I believe Maria was at the 25-year celebrations today for this wonderful building. Of course, we see the results when we come in in the morning. Everything is clean, our bins are emptied, our bathrooms are washed, and this is all done through the hard work of, as I said, some of our lowest paid workers in Australia. All across Australia, including in my electorate, cleaners have joined the United Voice Clean Start campaign in an effort to provide better working conditions and better wages for workers employed in the cleaning industry. The success of this campaign led to the Clean Start agreement, which has delivered improving standards for thousands of cleaners and, most importantly, improved safety and conditions across workplaces all around Australia. The original agreement is near its expiry date, and even under the current agreement many employers simply ignore the rights of their employees. We have seen sham contracting and cash-in-hand payments by some employers within the industry, and that threatens the standards set up by the Clean Start agreement. Undercutting wages, unreasonable workloads and unsafe work environments present serious problems for many workers in the cleaning industry. Add to all of this the fact that it has been almost a whole year since cleaners have had a wage increase and that we know that, if the coalition are elected to government, 3.5 million workers, including thousands of cleaners, will have taxes on their superannuation contributions increased. I cannot begin to imagine the stress faced by these cleaners right across Australia when they do not know where their wages might be and whether they will have a safe workplace or even a job going forward. The industry is also renowned for often having poor job security, and this is evidenced by the collapse of one of Australia's largest cleaning companies only recently. I am very proud to speak on this motion, because my mother was a cleaner and I saw firsthand the hours that she worked. We would have dinner at night at home, and she was always absent from the dinner table. She worked extremely hard and, as I said, I am very proud of her. Through cleaning, she brought me and my sister up in a very good way, I think. Many in this place and around Australia will remember that only recently Swan Services collapsed, leaving thousands of workers without a job. Some Swan workers will be able to claim some entitlements through the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme administered by the federal government but, in a rather tragic circumstance, the scheme applies only to Australian citizens or permanent residents. Many of the people that are owed money are overseas international students who still have not been paid. I would also like to acknowledge the important contribution of Wolfgang, the cleaner in my own electorate office in Glenelg in Hindmarsh—who comes in day and night, day after day, to clean the electorate office—and, of course, all the cleaners here in Parliament House, who ensure that our offices are kept spotless and operational at all times. We have so many who work so hard, but there are some good news stories. National Cleaning Services Australia, City Group, Mirrors Cleaning, Rose Cleaning Service and Phillips Cleaning Service, all based right here in Canberra, have decided to lead the way towards maintenance and improvement of standards of cleaning, and they ought to be congratulated as well for the stand that they are taking. Other companies, local and national, should be urged to take the lead. 20:42 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders It is a great pleasure to support this motion in the House in relation to International Cleaners Day. This is a part of Australia and of our community that is often unrecognised, yet these are people who in many cases do this as they enter Australia, whether on a temporary basis, as permanent residents or as new citizens—let's be honest about this. It is a job which is not only vital but unrecognised. So I want to acknowledge the corps of cleaners around Australia today. I know from all of the different phases of my own life how important it is, and I know from the various friends who have worked in this space that it can be a long and arduous job and should never, ever be taken for granted. Against that background, let me point out a particular risk and threat. I will do so through the rubric of my own office. We have a magnificent cleaner, Jenny. She does a great job with a very cheerful approach and produces brilliant outcomes. In January we discovered some of the facts about the way in which she was being exploited. The Commonwealth was paying a certain rate and there was a contract of $738.50 per month, of which the cleaner received about $240 per month for doing the work. So two-thirds of the funds paid by the Commonwealth for the job were actually skimmed off by the contractor. I thought that was completely inappropriate: firstly, our cleaner was being underpaid; secondly, our cleaner was being exploited; and, thirdly, the Commonwealth was wasting money. So on all three fronts it was wrong and inappropriate. On that day I wrote to Gary Gray, who was the then Special Minister of State. Events have come to pass and he has subsequently been elevated to the cabinet, but, to his credit, he did respond in time, expressing his concern. He passed the issue on to the member for Isaacs, Mark Dreyfus, when he, Mr Dreyfus, became the Special Minister of State. Between the two of them, they took the complaint very seriously and there was rectification for our cleaner. But this is an example of the vulnerable status of many of these cleaners. They are people who may not be in a position to exercise their own rights, who may not have adequate workplace protections. And this happened under the watch of the Commonwealth. It was only by chance that we discovered—not on the basis of any complaint, but simply due to our own inquiries—that we discovered this one particular cleaner was being clearly and categorically exploited while in the effective employ of the Commonwealth. To be fair, both Minister Gray and Minister Dreyfus took the issue very seriously and we were able to resolve it. However, this was a situation where you had an aware immediate employer with resort to the highest authority in the land in terms of action, but there must be numerous other cases where the contractors are taking the cleaners for a ride. We have a duty of care and protection on the basis of what we have seen. In my view, we can and should do more. We need to acknowledge the work that is done, to respect and appreciate the work and to note that there is a particularly high proportion of migrant communities represented in this sector. We should also note that many of them have also been members of the HSU, which has seen another form of exploitation. So exploitation on two fronts: firstly, in some cases of direct employment, although let me say I am sure most employers are exceptionally good; and, secondly, exploitation by the union. The fact that the union is meant to represent them was subject to one of the most significant rorts is, I think, a deep source of disappointment. But I say thank you— (Time expired) 20:47 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield I was almost getting excited then. I thought the member for Flinders was going to have a conversion right here in front of us. He sounded like a union official almost. He talked about talking to a worker, finding a legitimate issue of exploitation and rectifying it. I think there is hope for the member for Flinders yet! And it is good. I always remember, in my days in the union movement, that some of my best union delegates were conservative voters because they had an inherent sense—a very Australian sense—of fairness, and that is what Australian conservatism at its best is representative of. It is great to speak on this motion moved by the member for Hindmarsh. He is a very strong advocate for migrant communities in South Australia, particularly those in his electorate, and as the member for Flinders said cleaners are quite often—it is quite often the first job that a migrant gets. On International Cleaners Day it is good to acknowledge how hard they work. I have some knowledge of this as I was a cleaner in a past life. I cleaned offices and supermarket floors. I have vivid memories of Coles in Findon. I have vivid memories of being in the same aisle every morning and the same Billy Joel song being played. It was like groundhog day. I was doing my penance, cleaning supermarket floors and then working split shifts at the other end of the day cleaning offices when I was in university. As the member for Flinders said, in an industry that is rife with subcontracting, exploitation and rip-offs, I consider myself lucky because I just did not get paid my penalty rates—it was not any worse than that. I vividly remember being told by a supervisor, 'If you join a union, you'll get the sack,' and unfortunately that is something that goes on in the industry where people are casual, where they work in contracting and where they are vulnerable to the exploitation and the rip-offs. Of course, the people paying the contracts think they are doing the right thing because they are paying a reasonable, and sometimes exorbitant, fee to the head contractor. But by the time that trickles to the worker, there is barely anything at all, and we see the same thing in trolley collection as well. I would like to pay tribute to one of my great supporters in the electorate. Stephen Hollingworth is a union delegate for the United Voice union. He is active in the Clean Start campaign in my electorate and a great defender of the rights of cleaners in shopping centres. He has worked very hard organising in his own workplace and representing workers in wage negotiations and the like. He is a great champion of the labour movement and of working people—he has been his entire life. He spent many years at Holden as the head delegate there. He deliberately entered the cleaning industry because he knew how bad conditions were and he thought that, after his time at Holden, he could do a bit of work there. As I was going to work in my office, I would often see him driving around one of those rubbish collecting buggies cleaning up the car park at Munno Para shops. He is a great champion of the labour movement so I would like to honour him here. It is good that conservatives are speaking on this motion. It is right and proper that we should honour cleaners, because they are great workers. They do the toughest work—and we had a motion by the member for Moore talking about some of that work in the healthcare sector earlier on in the day—but they need action, not just words. They do not want people's sympathy. What they want is a strong industrial relations system, as represented by the Fair Work Act, where there are deliberate mechanisms for those workers to collectively bargain to advance their position and for them to get a fair go at work—a fair go that has been denied to them for so long. They deserve good wages, they deserve respect and they deserve our thanks. 20:52 Dr JENSEN DYN Tangney Today we rightly recognise the hard work that cleaners in Australia do daily. Cleaners are the silent workers coming into your homes and offices when you are at work and coming into your workplace once you have returned home. You may never have even met the cleaner who may enter your work and home on a regular basis and keeps hotel rooms, sports stadiums, shopping centres and schools to the standard that we so often take for granted. Cleaning is a tough job—hard work day-in, day-out—and there is little recognition for this. That hard work is sometimes unnoticed but is an integral part of our daily lives. We see cleaners here at Parliament House, who no doubt have been working for hours before we arrive and will be working hours after we leave, keeping government buildings to the impeccable standard that is expected by our society. We all know a cleaner or come across a cleaner on a daily basis, and it is not uncommon that, despite the hard work that they have been enduring that day, you will still be met with a smile and a simple hello to form part of your day. Cleaning is an occupation that many mothers returning to the workplace commence after having children. It is the occupation that many single parents, new immigrants and parents wanting extra money at the end of the week may enter into as it is outside school hours. While some may view that anyone can be a cleaner, it requires a certain type of personality to persevere during dirty and tough days and long hours for minimal pay. Clean Start was founded as it was clear that cleaning contractors were cutting corners in an effort to win cleaning contracts. This resulted in cleaners working longer hours, suffering from excessive and dangerous workloads and struggling to survive on poverty wages. This also had a knock-on effect on building owners as it posed public hygiene and occupational health and safety reputational risks that threatened to undermine their relationships with tenants. The solution to this was working together and establishing a Clean Start agreement. Clean Start ensures the provision of quality cleaning services while ensuring quality lives. Because of Clean Start, families with it are now being given a better life than most other cleaners who still struggle with day-to-day expenses. There is a need to make sure that there continues to be a balance between people being able to pay for their daily living expenses and not living in poverty whilst having clean and safe offices and buildings. Clean Start is about respectful cleaners and fairer rights and these are the foundations that all workers in Australia deserve and that we should all endeavour to work towards. People in our community should not work long, hard hours and still not be able to pay basic rent and living expenses. People who want to work hard should still be able to pay the bills at the end of the week. The Clean Start campaign has made a difference to people's lives. Cleaning companies have an obligation to not only provide a job but to ensure that the work is a decent job, that it provides a living wage and gives people some control over their working conditions. The campaign of Clean Start requires the support of the community. It is a voice for cleaners who sometimes go unnoticed. It is to enable the voices of cleaners to be heard so that they do not fall into poverty. The campaign is centred around pay and that cleaners deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Almost every cleaner is a mother, sister, father, brother. They want what we all want and hurt in the same way. I want the good bloke that cleans our electorate office to know that he is appreciated and valued. You find mugs that have grown legs of their own. You bring a calm organisation to the chaos. In the final analysis, with the movement of this motion today, dignity and respect is being shown to all the hardworking cleaners of Australia. Debate adjourned. BILLS 6887 BILLS Competition and Consumer Amendment (Strengthening Rules About Misuse of Market Power) Bill 2013 6887

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

Second Reading 6887 20:57 Mr OAKESHOTT IYS Lyne I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I am conscious that I have all of 90 seconds so I will do my best to repeat what was said last week. I thank the seconder for supporting debate on this motion to progress and, hopefully, the two major parties can support the substance of these changes. Fundamentally, they are to provide the powers to the ACCC that the consumers, in my view, already think they have to look at the total effect of decisions of major retailers on supply chains and other markets. Under current legislation, the ACCC can only look at negotiations between large supermarkets and large processors and there is equity in the bargaining power between those two. Sure, the consumer wins in the long term but without knowing the full supply chain there is a question mark around the long-term impacts of the public benefit on consumers. The other changes are about transparency, firstly, to provide power to the ACCC to seek documents from their source, not from the end parties. The small farmers who rightly or wrongly tell stories of fear do not want to produce documents in case they are frozen out of the 80 per cent of the market and the very fact that section 46—abuse of market power—is not used by the courts as much as it should be is evidence that there is concern about abuse of market power by the very act of silence within the market. The second point is to try and have a positive influence on behaviour at the outset by creation of the supply chain impact statement. If retailers know they may be compelled to make public statements about what they thought their decision would do to a supply chain, they may place more weight on this as a factor in decision making and give more direction and education in the community if there are no problems over those supply chains. Debate adjourned. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 6887 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Flynn Electorate: Telecommunications 6887 21:00 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn The unstable and dysfunctional nature of the current Labor government has driven many people to despair over the state of the Australian parliament. Many people in my electorate of Flynn have simply switched off and are disgusted with what has transpired since 2007. I stand before the chamber today to send a clear message to the communities of Central Queensland. We do not have to tolerate the divisions and failure of Labor. There is a better way. I am determined to bring about the restoration of trust and integrity of government, hope for a better and more secure future and reward for hard work and the risk that many of us take from our day-to-day business to provide for our families and loved ones. I would like to talk about mobile communication in my vast electorate of Flynn, which is over 130,000 square kilometres. Two devastating floods in three years have shown us that our communication network in Flynn is simply not good enough. Prior to 2007, there was a policy which saw a partnership between industry, community and government working together to provide better mobile communications in our regional communities. Since then we have seen the program halted. Mobile communications are vital to small towns and regional communities, but often the size of the population is not sufficient to warrant investment from private enterprise alone. It is something like $850,000 to build one mobile tower. I therefore want to see these partnerships restored and will work to that end to see this important issue resolved. The coalition, like the government, has an NBN plan. I believe the coalition's NBN policy is the key to seeing regional communities receive the affordable, faster, reliable internet connection they deserve. At the moment many of my towns are not even on the radar for getting NBN, whereas our policy states quite clearly that everyone in Australia will have our brand of NBN in place by 2016. It will consist of a combination of fibre to the premises, fibre to the node, wireless and satellite. They will have to be judged on their merits at the time of installation, whether the town has a thousand or a hundred connections. It will be done by 2016. We will ensure that businesses and households of Flynn get access to fast broadband at the speed of 25 megabits per second, which is five or six times faster than what we have at the moment. Regional areas with substandard internet services must be given priority in the rollout. Building the coalition's broadband network will cost about two-thirds of Labor's network. That means a less expensive NBN for regional consumers, who will save about $300 a year. We will ensure prices are kept affordable by requiring NBN Co. to set a wholesale price cap for NBN services across Australia. Mineral resources is a very lively topic at the moment, as we see coal companies in my area under enormous pressure partly due to the world commodity prices, especially those of China, but also Japan, Korea and to a lesser extent India. The carbon tax represents a huge impost on all Australians and it has hit our alumina and aluminium industries in Gladstone in a big way. It also has impacted on the cement industry. We will scrap the carbon tax and the MRRT and hopefully we can save these industries from extinction. The MRRT has generated next to no income for this government. It was badly designed and has only served as a disincentive for new investment in Australia. At the moment, we are seeing about $100 billion worth of projects put on hold or actually abandoned altogether. Our resources sector is vital to our local, regional and national economy. Investment has stalled in Australia, and in Flynn we are feeling the effects firsthand. I support the streamlining of the EIS process to allow for more a efficient approval process while still ensuring that the protection of our environmental assets like the Great Barrier Reef is at the forefront. I state again that I do not believe that industrial development and the preservation of environmental assets in our region should be mutually exclusive goals. I do not believe we need to resign the towns of Emerald and Gladstone to the boom-and-bust cycle of the past. As a federal member, I am working hard to see sustainable growth for these communities. We have to grow our agricultural sector to meet the needs of a world population expected to hit nine billion by the year 2030. Australia supplies food and fibre to over 60 million people, and that number is growing every year. Australia's agricultural future must be clearly planned if we are to double production in the next 10 years. So far the current government has presided over poor awareness. There is a lack of investment in R&D, poor incentives for private investment and ad hoc policy decisions on live cattle exports et cetera. We must maintain Australia's biosecurity, reduce red tape, bring together state and federal regulations, ensure fair competition and trade agreements and develop better livestock management practices and science based animal welfare standards. We must improve labour solutions. We have uncompetitive wages in agriculture and we must upskill our workforce. We must encourage more people to join the agricultural workforce and there must be flexible working arrangements for those workers. Land and water agreements need to be put in place quickly. Better environmental, drought and flood management strategies need to be put in place, not the debacle we have seen in the Murray-Darling up to this stage, where no-one seems to be very happy. There has been a lot of red tape created. Since 2007, Labor has introduced over 22,000 new rules and regulations for businesses and has repealed fewer than 200. This represents a broken election promise. Labor promised there would be a 'one in, one out' policy, but this has never happened. There are 22,000 extra regulations on small business. It is a very onerous task indeed for small business to have the time to decipher what the new policy is and to put it into action. Since February 2012, the coalition's deregulation task force has been travelling Australia, meeting with small businesses and taking submissions on how to reduce the impost of red tape and excessive regulation. To address this issue, we will cut $1 billion worth of red tape from small businesses year on year to allow them to grow and expand without excessive government regulation. In conclusion, I highlight the fact that Flynn is one of the most diverse and influential electorates in Australia. Nowhere else do you have such a mix of industry and environmental treasures that are the envy of the nation. For nearly six years we have suffered the effects of a bad government. Enough is enough. I have a plan and a vision for Flynn, as does the coalition, and, if we are lucky enough to be given the opportunity to govern in September, I will relish the chance to restore hope, reward and opportunity in Central Queensland. Australian Chinese Community 6889 21:09 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I rise this evening to grieve for the Chinese community in Greenway and the wider Chinese community in Australia, who have been harshly and unfairly treated at various stages throughout our history, something that I believe we have failed to acknowledge properly as a national parliament over a very long time. We have seen this treatment take a variety of forms over a long period, from racist language to specific discriminatory legislation and of course the shameful Immigration Restriction Act 1901. The Chinese have been in Australia for over 150 years, with the earliest known significant presence during the gold rush period in the 1800s. Since then, we have seen the Chinese population treated unjustly through racist actions to racist policies. We had the Lambing Flat riots in 1861, when European gold-diggers drove the Chinese from the goldfields. In 1855, Victoria was the first colonial government to enact specific anti-Chinese legislation; South Australia followed in 1857; and then New South Wales in 1861. We saw similar laws in the United States with the passing of Chinese exclusion laws in 1870 which explicitly discriminated against persons of Chinese descent. Anti-Chinese sentiment back home in the goldfields was rife. As reported in 1857 in the Ovens and Murray Advertiser, a northern Victorian newspaper, it was proposed by a Mr S Fraser and seconded by Mr H Purley: That the Buckland miners form themselves into an association, to be called the Buckland Miners' Anti-Chinese League, for freeing this colony from the daily increasing evils under which it is now labouring, in consequence of the increased numbers of Chinese congregating upon the goldfields of Victoria. As we moved into the 20th century and celebrated Federation, one of the first acts of the new federal government was the infamous Immigration Restriction Act 1901, commonly known as the White Australia policy between 1901 and 1973, which targeted all people of 'colour'. These laws were unjust and the complete antithesis of today's multicultural Australia. They affected the lives of Australians 'of colour' for several generations and represented a shameful chapter in our nation's history. As remarked by the Taipei Times in 2011: Ships docking in British colonies were only allowed to carry a certain quota of Chinese, and Australia was the first country to use a head tax to try and limit their numbers, a move soon adopted by Canada and New Zealand. Punishing immigration laws known as the White Australia policy followed, with impossible literacy tests used to ban foreigners, and requirements that saw Chinese men welcomed as cheap labour but their families excluded. Some children were split from their fathers for decades, and those Chinese who made it to Australia, lured by the promise of the 1850s gold rush, endured vilification, abuse and violent race riots. Despite these early difficulties, Chinese Australians and others affected by the White Australia policy have made an enormous contribution to all facets of Australian life. But these were the invisible Australians. To quote Dr Kate Bagnall and Dr Tim Sherratt of the project Invisible Australians: Living Under the White Australia Policy: They celebrated Federation. They fought at Gallipoli. They struggled through the Depression. And they battled for freedom in the Pacific … Australia defined itself as the white man's country, yet the reality was something different. These are the Invisible Australians—men, women and children who, because of the colour of their skin and the homelands of their forbears, found themselves at odds with the nation's claim to be white. They faced discriminatory laws and policies designed to deny them their place as Australians. Over the 20th century we have seen great change in the situation for Chinese people in Australia but also flickers of past discrimination and injustice, from the post-1950s Australian education of Asian students to the 1970s recognition of the People's Republic of China and the abolition of the White Australia policy in law and in practice. We saw Bob Hawke's granting of permanent residency status to 42,000 Chinese students in the 1990s, and the disgraceful chapter that was Hansonism. It is true that great change has occurred, but one thing remains for people of Chinese descent, as eloquently summed up by Mr Arthur Chang in The Sydney Morning Herald in 2011: 'An apology would bring a lot of relief to people my age who for so long had to tell our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren [that] it was not the good old days, it was the bad old days.' In my electorate of Greenway I am privileged to represent an extremely diverse part of Australia, and the Chinese community comprises a significant portion of this. A big part of this falls in Blacktown City, a city that shares sister city status with Liaocheng in China and boasts the beautiful Chang Lai Yuan Chinese Gardens, located in Nurragingy Reserve. According to the 2011 census, there are 6,811 people in Greenway with Chinese ancestry. It is a community that is both very young and very old. It is a community with a distinct sense of history and a community that would desperately like to see the wrongs of the past made right. As occurred in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States enacted and used anti-Chinese legislation throughout their respective histories. Those of Chinese descent in New Zealand, Canada and the US whose families had been affected by such legislation sought recognition and redress from their governments. The New Zealand, Canadian and USA governments have all apologised or issued statements of regret. The Australian government, to date, has not. A statement by the Australian government of acknowledgement, recognition and regret for past discrimination and injustice would, I believe, not only be appreciated and bring some closure to the affected families but would also announce to the world that such policies are no longer part of today's multicultural Australia. As remarked by the president of the Chinese Heritage Association of Australia, Daphne Lowe Kelley, in 2011: The time has come for a number of Chinese-Australians to get rid of the last vestiges of white superiority. We want to be recognised for all our contributions. It is my belief that the 44th Parliament must recognise the injustices of the past and acknowledge the discriminatory treatment of Chinese people in Australia throughout our history. This is something I am determined to pursue. This government has made China a major focus, both socially and economically. This is evident in the new strategic partnership with Beijing and the Asian century white paper. The strategic partnership, which involves annual face-to-face meetings between Australia's and China's leaders, regular economic talks and deeper defence ties, highlights this government's commitment to the Asian region and will make sure we are in the best position possible to capitalise on the ongoing huge growth in China. Rory Medcalf, director of the Lowy Institute's International Security Program, has commented: We're not shifting our loyalties somehow to China but we are overcoming some of the coolness in the relationship. As we now look to the future and attempt to grasp the opportunities of the Asian century, I believe—and I know many people share my belief—that we must first acknowledge the mistakes of the past. Competition Laws 6891 21:17 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I was hoping tonight to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Strengthening Rules About Misuse of Market Power) Bill 2013. However, it appears that there will be no serious attempt to debate this bill, which has been brought in at one minute to midnight in the dying days of this parliament, or to even bring it to a vote in the House. In the short time I am allowed tonight, therefore, I will raise a few problems with our competition laws, especially our provisions on the misuse of market power. Our competition laws, and their interpretation by the courts, have simply encouraged duopoly and oligopoly. They have encouraged increased market concentration in just about every sector of the Australian economy. The first question to ask, therefore, is whether this increasing market concentration, spurred on by the legislative settings of our Trade Practices Act, now known as our Competition and Consumer Act, is in the best interests of the nation. To answer that question, I start with what Justice McHugh of our High Court said in the infamous Boral case: While the conduct must be examined by its effect on the competitive process, it is the flow on result that is the key—the effect on consumers. Let us therefore have a look at the effect on consumers of having laws which reward bigness for bigness's sake and which have led to this drift towards increased market concentration. I will start with our food retailing sector. Over the last 30 years we have seen a massive increase in market concentration in our supermarket sector. But, rather than benefiting the consumer, during this period the Australian consumer has been slugged with the highest rates of food inflation in the developed world—not just for a short period of time but for almost any period that you pick over that 30 years, consumer prices for food in Australia have increased faster than almost anywhere else in the developed world. And today, any like-for-like comparison of food prices in supermarkets in Australia that you could make, with almost anywhere in the world, shows that Australian consumers are paying some of the highest prices for their groceries and their supermarket staples. We have seen the illusion of this phoney price war between the supermarket duopoly, which is only undertaken on a handful of lines. We look at the other 5,000 lines in the supermarket and we see that they have been going up and up and up, faster than almost anywhere else in the world. So where did we go wrong in our competition laws? It has been a complete delusion that you only need two or a few companies in a market for there to be adequate competition. Our laws and our history tell us that, if you reduce the number of competitors in a market, you reduce competition and the consumer is worse off. So this idea we have had of bigness for bigness sake is not an ideology of the free market; this is the same failed ideology that we see in central-planning economies—where a small group of all-knowing central-planners simply know what is best. I believe it is simply the case that, the more concentrated the market becomes, the higher prices consumers pay—and that is exactly what we have been shown by the empirical evidence in our supermarket retail sector. I would like to give an example, from my experience before I came to this parliament, of how that happens. It was in New Zealand, when one of Australia's largest retailers was opening up many stores throughout New Zealand. They went to their New Zealand suppliers and told them that they would have to pay the rebates—around 10 per cent, which is money paid back to the retailer by the supplier—if they were to supply that Australian retailer. Of course, these New Zealand manufacturers and wholesalers said, 'We cannot afford to pay that 10 per cent rebate, because that is greater than our profit margin.' The response of the big Australian retailer was simply: 'Increase your wholesale price; we don't care.' And that is what happened: to pay those rebates, the wholesalers simply increased their wholesale price, which increased the retail price. So the more dominant we see our retailers, the more they are able to extract rebates out of their suppliers, and the higher the price the consumer will pay. I will give just one example. Let us look at the price of that basic commodity Coca-Cola—which, in today's global society, is almost an international commodity. We have seen, under this Labor government, over five years, the 'everyday low price', as our supermarkets like to call it, for a two-litre bottle of Coke increase from $2.97 to $3.95. That is an increase of 33 per cent, almost double the rate of inflation, giving us the highest supermarket prices in the world for Coke. I was on a delegation late last year to Taiwan. In a small 7/11, in a store two hours out of the main city of Taipei, a two-litre bottle of Coke was retailing for the equivalent of one Australian dollar. And yet in Australian supermarkets we are paying four times that price. Sadly, this Labor government have simply said there is no problem with our competition laws. The coalition believe otherwise, and we are giving a clear choice at this next election on competition policy. While the Labor Party say everything is fine, and they will do nothing, the coalition acknowledge there are many issues and we have committed, as part of our policy platform, to a full root-and-branch review of our competition laws. In my remaining time I would like to suggest some of the things we should look at when we have that root-and-branch review, if the coalition is successful at the election. I would like to start with some of the history of our competition laws, or anti-trust laws as they are known in the US. Perhaps the best place to start is with a speech given by US President Teddy Roosevelt back in 1912. He spoke about the importance of American anti-trust laws. He said: … we shall be most vigilant never to allow them to crystallize into a condition which shall make private initiative difficult. It is of the utmost importance that in the future we shall keep the broad path of opportunity just as open and easy for our children as it was for our fathers during the period which has been the glory of America’s industrial history—that it shall be not only possible but easy for an ambitious man, whose character has so impressed itself upon his neighbors that they are willing to give him capital and credit, to start in business for himself, and, if his superior efficiency deserves it, to triumph over the biggest organization that may happen to exist in his particular field. Whatever practices upon the part of large combinations may threaten to discourage such a man, or deny to him that which in the judgment of the community is a square deal, should be specifically defined by the statutes as crimes. …   …   … In a word, then, our fundamental purpose must be to secure genuine equality of opportunity. …   …   … We stand for the rights of property, but we stand even more for the rights of man. That is what our competition laws must be about: the enlargement of individual liberty. We must encourage an environment with our competition laws to ensure that the individual Australian, someone who wants to be an entrepreneur rather than a unionised employee, must not have his opportunities restricted by trade practices designed to eliminate him from the market. For, if we do this, it will also benefit consumers with lower consumer prices. The first practice that we need to look at is anticompetitive price discrimination. 'Among unfair business practices, anticompetitive price discrimination most directly denies small business an equal opportunity to live and grow on the basis of efficiency. Such opportunity is the very essence of the competitive economic system which our antitrust laws seek to preserve, maintain and restore.' They are not my words. They are the words of a report submitted by the US Federal Trade Commission. Yet, 20 years ago, rather than strengthening our weak and ineffectual laws against price discrimination, this parliament abolished them. They were abolished under the theory that such conduct would be caught by section 46, the misuse of market power. Since then, a series of court cases has proved that as a complete furphy. I am hopeful that the coalition will win the next election, for we need that root and branch review of our competition laws to restore equality of opportunity to the Australian entrepreneur. Australian Public Service 6894 21:27 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta I rise to point out the lack of vision on the part of the coalition, particularly in relation to its rhetoric regarding our public service, our civil society and the demonisation of regulation—a civil society and a regulation which have served Australia very well and keep us safe from things that we would no longer accept: toys that come apart in a child's mouth, lead paint that poisons us, deaths in our workplaces, restaurants that give us food poisoning. Keeping us safe from these many things makes life good in Australia and puts us at No. 1 in the wellbeing index and at No. 2 in the liveability index. In particular, I am concerned about the extent of the cuts. Back in 1996, the coalition promised that they would cut about 2,500 public servants, and that grew to 30,000 in a very short period of time. They have promised now between 12,000 and 20,000 cuts, so you can imagine how large the cut will be, given their history. In particular, it shows a lack of vision not just because of the loss of services and the insecurity and loss felt by people themselves—and I have many, many public servants in Parramatta—but because, in the region in which we live, civil society is going to be an enormous growth area in the next decade or two in the countries to our north. We are incredibly well placed to ride that wave through our small businesses and the skills that we have. For that, I say it is folly not to fully appreciate the value that we have in our public service. We have been a lucky country. A friend of mine, Donald Horne, wrote a book called The Lucky Country. We have had what we needed when we needed and we were in the right place at the right time. We had food to export. We had commodities when the world needed them. We have been riding a wave on the back of commodities through the construction booms in China and we will ride that wave through the construction boom in India. We have skills when the world needs them as the countries to our north that are growing so fast move beyond the construction booms and they start to require the professional services of architects and engineers and lawyers. We have those services. We have large export industries into China in services. We have architects working. We have lawyers working on the back of legal firms in India. We are able to provide those services. When those countries wanted education we were able to provide it and provide it in the early stages. As they move now in vocational education, we are moving there as well. We have what we need and we are in the right place. We are not always good at exploiting it to the extent that we should. We sometimes undervalue who we are and what we have. I would say to the coalition that they are well and truly doing that when it comes to our Public Service. We are on the edge of the fastest growing region in Australia and when I go into my community I sit in a function and I look out and I see the world in the room. There is not a capital city that we do not know. There is not a language we do not speak. There is not a culture we do not know. There is not a place in the world that we do not know intimately through our population. There is not a connection we cannot make because of the strength of our people. We are unbelievably well placed to benefit from the growth in our region to the north and following that through Africa and the Middle East, also massive economies that are growing at incredibly rapid rates, dwarfed somewhat by China and India and Indonesia but in the next 10 to 15 years we will see that as well. We have in us, in our population now, everything we need to do well in those emerging economies. But we need to understand that following the construction boom and the building of things, following the education of their populations, they will reach the same conclusions that we come to. Following that comes compassion. There come disability services, safety nets, aged care, preschools, early childhood education and wheelchairs and Cochlear implants. Standards will also come—safety, transparency, anti-corruption. All the things that countries have gone through before, the countries to the north and in Asia and Africa will follow. We are the leader in our region in those areas. We lead absolutely in all those areas. To assume that the middle class in China and India—and they are much bigger than we are as a population—will not want those things and standards would be folly. To not understand the capacity of this country to benefit from that change in civil society and the growth of civil society also is folly. It shows a lack of vision. Perhaps it shows a rear vision rather than vision but it certainly needs to be addressed. This should be a time when we are encouraging our businesses of many kinds to develop their joint ventures in those regions to develop the relationships as these new economies emerge. We are absolutely well placed to benefit from them. Quite a few years ago now, shortly after I was elected, I was having a dinner with some of my colleagues and Wayne Swan. We talked then about food, how Australia gave up on food too early, that we watched our manufacturers close down. We are now watching farmers plough their crops into the soil and, while the opposition talks about a new food bowl, we are having difficulties selling the stuff that we have. Growing it is not the problem. It is developing a market for it. I remember saying, and I have been saying it for a number of years, that we walk away sometimes from things too early just before they are about to boom. That is an absolute example that mirrors the decision that the coalition would make when it comes to the Public Service. We walked away from food. There is no doubt that in the next decade we will see the middle classes of emerging economies looking for standards in their food, clean food. They will not want baby formula that could possibly be toxic. They will want to know what is in their foods and we are only now starting to realise with the National Food Plan how much we have given away and how much work we have to do to put ourselves back in what should be our game. We are the leaders. We are ahead in the Asian economy and that is one example of something we gave away far too early. We have not fully exploited our vocational education skills. When you see balconies collapse in some of the emerging economies, when you see factories collapse, when you see the quality of buildings in some of these economies, you realise that in most of those economies vocational training does not exist yet and they are just beginning to want it. We should have seen that coming 10 years ago. We should have been there, not only with our universities but also with our TAFEs. Our TAFE system is arguably one of the best vocational training systems in the world. We saw the last coalition government cut the guts out of it, and one suspects they will do it again. Our TAFE system is a phenomenal thing and it is exportable. It is exportable, it is tradeable and it is a way for us to create a whole stack of new businesses that can go out there and lift the quality of trade training throughout our region. Again, a way of thinking that we really must embrace if we are going to fully exploit the extraordinary growth that we are seeing to the north. It is said that China is where the US was in 1910. It is probably 1915 now because it is moving so fast although, since someone told me that about six months ago, it might be 1920 by now. But China have 100 years of growth to catch up on at the US pace, but they will do that in 20 years. However, they will never be able to train the number of public servants, the number of disability experts that they will need for that rapid growth, just as they could not provide the coal and they cannot provide all of the construction facilities either. They will need skills like those we have and, again, we are crazy not to recognise just how good our civil society is here, how good we are at regulation. How good we are at making it work. Yes, sometimes there is too much red tape around it, but essentially we are very good at it. Our public servants are incredibly good. Our public service is essentially fearless and frank in its advice. Incredibly skilled people work in those sections right throughout this country, and we are crazy if we do not recognise the opportunity to exploit that skill in rapidly growing economies that will want the quality of the public service that we have. I encourage the entire parliament to look at our public servants, not as a competitive disadvantage, as the coalition does, but as an advantage for this country and a way to make us more competitive into the future. Australian Labor Party 6896 21:37 Dr JENSEN DYN Tangney The litany of failure that haunts this Labor government will not be buried with another dethronement. The Labor Party believe it right that the cup of power be the preserve of their grubby faceless men—how dark a day. The undying speculation regarding Labor leadership distracts from the real issues that we should be debating in this place, real issues like: why is it that Labor have had six years—three years of Rudd, three years of Gillard—and they could not deliver even one surplus? Six years and Labor have left us paying nearly $8 billion a year in interest on our national debt to overseas creditors. To put it in perspective, that is $350 of interest payment for every man, woman and child in Australia without even touching the principal. Contrast this to earning interest from overseas debtors when the Howard government were in control of the purse. But it is not just fanciful economic projections and flagrantly false and fatally flawed premises, as per the carbon tax and the ETS. No, it is a cascade of mistruths, half truths and no truths that have left our country worse off and more than a little peeved. The list is long, but let me make a start: carbon tax, pink batts, school halls, old laptops for schools. But the more sickening of Labor's lyrics are the unfunded pledges on dental and on education reform. Why won't Labor put the money in and fund the programs they talk about? The 14-month gap in dental, or the 10-year gap in funding the reforms to education funding proposed by David Gonski? Ten years: that is 2022; three elections! What arrogance: Rudd and Labor; Labor and Gillard. Think of what the last six years has been like and think of what the last three years have been like. A question the average Aussie mum, dad and kitchen table economist have to ask is: do you feel better off now than when John Howard ran the country? It is a very simple question and a reality that Labor cannot run away from. No matter whether Mr Rudd leads the lemmings or Ms Gillard leads them, they are going off the cliff of consequences of their own making. I think everyone in this place knows that Labor loves the quick-fix, no-fix solution, completely at odds with the real solutions on offer from the coalition. But quick-hit, bandaid budgeting has seen Labor raid bank accounts through the unclaimed moneys bill, attack superannuation through multitudes of superannuation legislation amendments and cripple private health provision through the scrapping of the private healthcare rebate. There can be no doubt that, whether the ship is captained by a man with a blue tie or a woman with a red face, the fact remains: Labor makes it difficult. Labor has got it wrong on the debt, deficit and direction of this great and hopeful nation. Labor under Rudd set the course. The direction was wrong then and is still wrong today. Any time a country sees its competitiveness decrease rather than increase, the direction is wrong. Yet Labor celebrated and continue celebrating the deceiving of the Australian public on the science of the carbon tax and the wrapping of a suffocating straitjacket around Australian business. This is not a propaganda piece; I will leave that to Labor. Consider this: the latest metrics on consumer and business confidence as well as business investment are all moving downwards—this at a time when most significant international leading indicators have registered a significant uptick. Labor have the country moving backwards. The coalition and the people want to move forward. Labor is tired and troubled. It makes no difference whether the poison is called Rudd or Gillard, it is still Labor and it is still rotten. The real alternative to get Australia moving is to put responsibility and maturity back to work for the Australian people. My colleagues and I, under the disciplined leadership of Tony Abbott, pledge ourselves to the service of all the people of Australia. The coalition will reduce the red tape that started under Rudd and continued under Gillard. The coalition will commit to conscientious conservation and to common sense. We will return maturity and decency to the highest office in the land. The coalition will benchmark policy and practice against international best practice and utilise cost-benefit analysis as a point of first principle. We will never throw good money after bad. Remember what it was really like under Rudd—Ruddvana it was not. If this is the final chapter in the saga of the leaderless—dare I say rudderless—Labor Party, then it will be more of an epic and more unbelievable than those happenings in that galaxy far, far away. Think about the mendacity of a Prime Minister who promises there will be no carbon tax under the government she leads. Once a prime minister begins on such a mendacious path, there is no turning back—and the entire Labor Party and government become completely imbued with mendacity. Let me briefly remind the House of the Labor stages of hell. We had the mining tax that raises no tax and ignores the constitutional reality that the resources belong to the states; the NBN, failed; school halls, failed; the bank guarantee, failed—and those smaller financial institutions are still feeling the effects—green loans, failed; green cars, failed; plasma TV giveaways—roll up, roll up, there is so much more to throw away! Then we had FuelWatch, failed; Grocery Watch, failed; set-top boxes; solar homes; pink batts; and, most spectacularly, border protection. Never has this country been so vulnerable to attack from outside and inside these shores, yet the primary responsibility of the government—the first obligation of the social contract—is to defend the nation. As Labor have so blatantly abrogated responsibility for our security, they should give that job to those that can do it and give back to the people their ill-gotten power. Remember, it was Mr Rudd who led the charge to dismantle the successful suite of Howard era policies that had effectively stopped the boats. It was Mr Rudd who was so keen to scrap the Pacific solution—for bloviating bluster and swapping arrangements back and forth, starting and stopping. These dangerous times require a strong and serious government. That is what my colleagues and I are offering to the people of Australia on 14 September, because that is what they deserve. The fiasco of boat people slipping through the net and radicalising whole communities must and will end. I will not stand by to witness any more rivers of blood. Criminals, murderers and terrorists are not welcome in Australia—not now, not ever. The $6 billion border protection fiasco has failed to fix it. This is a stain on Labor that will never be removed. The wilful disregard for safe and secure policy is akin to treason—the lives of those lost, both here in Australia and at sea. The people of Tangney have told me that there is no way, no ruddy way, that they want to go backwards. The people in the Perth suburbs burdened by the cost pressures of Labor profligacy cannot bear another term of Labor. I implore the members opposite to ask the small business owners of Applecross, Ardross, Willetton or Winthrop how they are going. The answer is simply: they are not. When I talk to Sinclairs jewellers in Ardross, they tell me that the margins are razor thin. Does it make a difference if the crippling constraint of the heavy socialist hand wears a pink or a red glove? Let business get back to business. Australian business will be free to get on with it again under the coalition. The coalition knows that words matters and that actions matter even more. In the final analysis, whether it is more of the Labor loony left or the union left, it is all left and it should be left on the scrap heap of history. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have. Let us get back to hope, reward and opportunity. 43rd Parliament 6898 21:47 Mr OAKESHOTT IYS Lyne I rise tonight to provide clarity for those who might have questions about the 43rd Parliament—questions about agreements reached at the start, questions about its work, questions about ongoing confidence and questions from anyone who might feel the need to make decisions or assumptions on my view about the future. At the start of this 43rd Parliament, a comprehensive agreement was reached with the now commissioned Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. It sought a commitment from her to do what she could to ensure this parliament would run its full term and to deliver $10 billion of project funding for regional Australia, an emissions trading scheme, the NBN and greater equity in education, particularly for regional students, low socioeconomic status and Aboriginal students. No will win a gold medal for this, but we have made it to a full term in this 43rd Parliament. I make this point out of respect for our parliament as an important institution. Every single Australian who walked into the ballot in 2010 expected a three-year term would follow the poll. This has been delivered, despite the tight result at that time—50.12 per cent for Labor and 49.88 per cent for the coalition, two-party preferred nationwide. The ballot box has been respected. This is more than a debating point. Everything we do in politics either follows or establishes precedent. No act occurs in isolation or can be expunged from future records. This period from 2010 to 2013 could have seen a revolving door of leadership change in our parliament. It could have seen all sorts of constitutional uncharted waters. I, along with colleague Tony Windsor, consciously chose to focus on this issue at the start of this parliament, and I am pleased, for the sake of precedent, that we have made it through to a full term in this 43rd Parliament, despite both major parties doing what they could to make this a greater challenge than it needed to be. I also share with the House the fact that the vast majority of what was agreed in program funding for regional Australia as well as the key national policy items of an emissions trading scheme, the NBN and education have been delivered or are in the process of being delivered. I and many others in this place campaigned on an emissions trading scheme at two elections. The framework for an ETS is now in place and Australia will move to an open trading market in just two years. And as a firm believer in the principle of equity for all Australians, I am pleased that the deepest fibre infrastructure possible combined with education funding formula changes at secondary and tertiary levels, known as Gonski and Bradley, are finally tackling the intolerable disadvantage that had previously been accepted in public policy and is now accepted no more. Australia will be much stronger as a consequence of these two policies being delivered in full. We have made it through a full term of the 43rd Parliament and the programs and reforms have been delivered from the platform of a full parliamentary term. And from this—yes—stable parliamentary platform, the statistics of the past three years are now compelling evidence for those interested in the facts. We have passed a near record amount of legislation: more than 500 pieces of legislation, many that were unable to be passed in majority parliaments in the past. Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that this means the parliament has given the green light to anything and everything— Honourable members interjecting— Mr OAKESHOTT IYS Please listen—as happens with majority governments, we also have had a high number of bills that were withdrawn by the government and did not progress. We also have had government legislation amended on the floor of parliament and government ideas that, frankly, did not even make it to the floor of the House once conversations had occurred. All of these are important indications of a parliament that is alive and doing its job. It is also instructive that 87 per cent of all government legislation has been bipartisan, with both the Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties in agreement. Importantly, this includes all three budgets from 2010 to 2013. Committee work is now at record highs, and adoption of recommendations from committee work is also at record highs. This is because of agreed reforms at the start of this parliament, and these reforms at a committee level have proven to be successful when not abused. I hope MPs value these changes for the better, even though it has meant more work. Hard work on the detail and being busy for the nation is, after all, what voters and taxpayers expect of us. Private members' business has also reached record levels. More than 300 private members' bills and motions have made their way to the House, more than 100 motions have been successful, seven private members' bill have become law and one private member's bill, the Bali bill, was voted down in another place despite passing the House. I am honoured to have sponsored two of those eight bills. All of this backbench activity has at times been difficult for the Leader of the House and executive government, but I for one say, 'So what!' The parliament should be a house that welcomes all ideas and does not fear debate or a vote on the most contentious of ideas. It is a dead and dull den of executive command and control if we give up the important voice of the backbencher, and it will further separate government from the people if this important avenue of the people is lost. The voice of the House of Representatives does matter and does often challenge the rhetoric and spin of the day. Look at the full passage of all three budgets from 2010 to 2013. Outside the parliament we hear of and read about a budget crisis, yet we see on the Hansard record, for the years to come, a House of Representatives which voted for all three budgets in this tight parliament, including budget 2013. We hear of and read about a politicised Treasury and Finance, yet only last week the full confidence of the House was expressed in Treasury and Finance. Full confidence was expressed in the apolitical job of Treasury forecasting and confidence was shown in the words of the Secretary of the Treasury that PEFO on budget day would have been no different in substance. The House itself has blown the rhetoric of some and blown the opinion commentary of others. Likewise, only a fortnight ago the House of Representatives expressed full confidence in the science of man-made climate change and that it is not a con or a conspiracy but a real and known threat to Australia that deserves a detailed and serious response. This is an important historical marker, to make sure the 44th Parliament and beyond continue to focus on best policy for the nation when dealing with this very real, acknowledged science advice. To those in the community who think the 14 September ballot is somehow going to elect people who do not believe in climate change, or do not have a policy on climate change that costs taxpayers money, all I can say is that you have been successfully fooled or are indeed a fool. No-one in the centre of the public square denies the science and everyone in the centre of the public square has an economics policy in response to the science. This 43rd Parliament has made it and has delivered more than ever before. To those who choose not to see, those who view their politics through the emotion of a personality or a leadership contest of some sort, and those who are so wedded to their party of choice that they opt to hate their parliament if their party does not control it, then frankly I question their loyalty to their nation. Since when has disrespecting a parliament rather than respecting a parliament been an act of loyalty? I would say never, so why now? Since when has disrespecting the office of a Prime Minister rather than respecting it been an act of loyalty? I would say never, so why now? And since when is reinventing an elector's vote, that they somehow got it wrong in 2010, anything other than a disrespectful, patronising disregard for our democracy. I would say it has never been so, so why now? Of course, none of these are acts of loyalty or respect at any level. They are the acts and views, in my view, of radicals. I therefore, in conclusion, make a point about the future. There is talk again of rumours, formally or informally, of the stalking of Julia Gillard as commissioned Prime Minister. I am not going to buy into a personality contest and I am not going to buy into party politics. I will make decisions, as I have for the last three years, on policy. I have a full list of those policies for anyone who wants to see them but they are pretty well all on the table now. That will be decisions made by me. I have felt it a great honour to work with the commissioned Prime Minister on all of them. I would encourage the parliament to do the same. We have made it—I am pleased we have. Hopefully, after the ballot, in 2014 the 44th Parliament can do the same. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 21:58   QUESTIONS IN WRITING 6902 QUESTIONS IN WRITING National Broadband Network (Question No. 826) 6902 826 Mr Fletcher L6B asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 7 February 2012: What is the estimated (a) number of mobile communication towers that will need to be built as part of the rollout of NBN Co. Limited's wireless network, and (b) the likely building schedule of the towers in part (a)? Mr Albanese R36 The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) NBN Co's website indicates it will require approximately 2300 sites to roll out the NBN fixed wireless network. NBN Co will aim to use existing towers where feasible. The number of new towers required for the rollout will be dependent on the number of existing towers NBN Co is able to utilise feasibly. (b) It should be noted that the failed OPEL contract introduced by the Howard Government involved the construction of 1361 wireless broadband towers across Australia. (c) NBN Co has indicated publicly that it plans to complete the rollout of the fixed wireless network by 2015. The timetable for the construction of new towers is dependent on the identification and acquisition of appropriate sites, and the receipt of any required planning approval from state, territory or local government authorities. Consequently, a detailed building program cannot be provided at this time. Twitter (Question No. 1508) 6902 1508 Mr Oakeshott IYS asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 14 May 2013: (1) Has the Minister or any of his staff held meetings with Twitter; if so when. (2) Has the Minister entered into negotiations or reached any agreements with Twitter on filtering, blocking, or censoring any users on Twitter. (3) Does the Government have any control or influence over Twitter. Mr Albanese R36 The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. On 26 February 2013, Telecommunications Adviser Warren Tegg and I met with Twitter Head of Global Public Policy, Colin Crowell, at dinner. We also had a 30 minute meeting with Mr Crowell at Parliament House on 27 February 2013. (2) No. (3) No. Chinese Military Exercises (Question No. 1509) 6902 1509 Mr Oakeshott IYS asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 14 May 2013: What is the Government doing in response to growing community concerns about real or perceived Chinese military exercises and hostilities towards its regional neighbours. Dr Emerson 83V On behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government's National Security Statement released in January 2013 observed that the rapidity of China's military growth had given rise to a degree of uncertainty or sensitivity, and that this had been exacerbated by a series of maritime territorial disputes between China and some of its neighbours. The government has called on all parties to resolve these disputes peacefully and in accordance with international law. Through bilateral and regional diplomacy, the government has sought to encourage China to use its growing capabilities and influence to contribute actively and positively to maintaining regional peace and stability, and to embrace openness and transparency to help build understanding and trust across the region. The government has also encouraged China to play a constructive role in multilateral forums, commensurate with its status as a global power. Tibet (Question No. 1510) 6903 1510 Mr Oakeshott IYS asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 14 May 2013: What is the Government doing to further assist Tibetan people in seeking independence. Dr Emerson 83V On behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australian government does not promote Tibetan independence. The Australian government recognises that Tibet is a part of China. This was implicit when Australia recognised the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1972. It is not a judgment on the historical rights and wrongs of the issue, but is an acknowledgement that the territory of the PRC includes the region of Tibet and that Chinese authorities exercise the functions of government in this area. Australia's stance on this issue conforms to that of the wider international community. It is the practice for countries which have diplomatic relations with the PRC to recognise its sovereignty over Tibet. This has not prevented the Australian government from raising concerns with the Chinese Government about its human-rights record and its protection of religious heritage in Tibetan areas. The Australian government also supports continued direct talks between Chinese authorities and representatives of the Dalai Lama on autonomy. The Australian government was disappointed that the last round of such talks in January 2010 did not make any progress, and continues to urge China to resume substantive negotiations. Foreign Affairs: Tobacco Plain Packaging Taskforce; and the Tobacco Dispute Section (Question No. 1514) 6903 1514 Ms Julie Bishop 83P asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 14 May 2013: (1) In respect of the (a) Tobacco Plain Packaging Taskforce, and (b) World Trade Organization (WTO) Tobacco Dispute Section within his department,    (i) when was each established,    (ii) what is the main purpose of each,    (iii) did he direct his department to establish each,    (iv) how many staff are dedicated to each, and at what levels, and    (v) what has been the cost to his department of each. Dr Emerson 83V On behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The World Trade Organization Dispute Section forms part of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Taskforce. The Tobacco Plain Packaging Taskforce was established in April 2012 to prepare Australia's response to international legal challenges in the WTO and under the Australian-Hong Kong bilateral investment treaty, related to Australia's tobacco plain packaging legislation, as part of an interagency team. The Tobacco Plain Packaging Taskforce replaced a smaller taskforce which had been established in August 2011 in response to the claim under the Hong Kong treaty. DFAT is the lead agency in relation to the WTO dispute proceedings. Resources are allocated to the Tobacco Plain Packaging Taskforce according to the requirements of the disputes. The Taskforce currently comprises officers at the SES, Executive and APS levels. The Government does not intend to disclose costs associated with defending these legal actions so that complainant countries are not able to use that information to their tactical advantage. Disclosure of such information could prejudice Australia's position in on-going litigation. Foreign Affairs: Tobacco Plain Packaging Laws (Question No. 1515) 6904 1515 Ms Julie Bishop 83P asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 14 May 2013: (1) Has he or his department been informed of any current or impending challenge(s) to its Tobacco Plain Packaging laws at the World Trade Organization (WTO). (2) Does he know the historical costs incurred by the Government of cases where Australia has defended itself at the WTO; if so, can he provide them. Dr Emerson 83V On behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. On 28 September 2012 at Ukraine's request a dispute settlement panel was established by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body in relation to Australia's tobacco plain packaging measure. The panel members are yet to be appointed in that dispute. Honduras and the Dominican Republic have also each requested the establishment of a WTO dispute settlement panel in relation to Australia's measure. Australia rejected Honduras' first request at the 19 November 2012 meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body. Australia rejected the Dominican Republic's first request at the 17 December 2012 meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body. Australia cannot reject a second request to establish a WTO dispute settlement panel. Australia received a request for WTO dispute settlement consultations from Cuba on 6 May 2013. Consultations are the first step in WTO dispute settlement proceedings. (2) The Government does not intend to disclose costs associated with defending these legal actions so that complainants are not able to use that information to their tactical advantage. Disclosure of such information could prejudice Australia's position in on-going litigation. Further, the WTO disputes related to tobacco plain packaging are unique for Australia. Australia has not previously been involved in a dispute involving the number of complainants, third parties, or complexity of issues which arise in the tobacco plain packaging disputes. Australia Post (Question No. 1516) 6905 1516 Mr Oakeshott IYS asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 14 May 2013: (1) Are mail deliveries being held up (in some cases for several days) or delayed in the NSW mid north coast region; if so, why. (2) Why are customers experiencing sharp increases in delivery costs for "flat pack" items through Australia Post, when these items have reduced handling costs. (3) Has Australia Post considered fixed price packaging regardless of weight; if so, can the Minister indicate the status of such considerations. Mr Albanese R36 The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Mail deliveries are not being "held up or delayed" in the NSW mid north coast region. Australia Post's letter delivery performance, which is measured against the prescribed performance standard of 94% on time delivery*, is independently monitored and audited annually by the Australian National Audit Office. Australia Post achieved 96.1% on time delivery in the NSW mid north coast region for the March 2013 quarter. [* Regulations made under section 28C of the Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989 prescribe the particular performance standards Australia Post is required to meet in order to fulfill its Community Service Obligations.] (2) Australia Post does not offer a specific "flat pack" product or service. On 8 April 2013, Australia Post introduced a new parcel range, with enhanced tracking as a standard feature, and increased the price of selected products, most by less than 7 per cent. Like all businesses, Australia Post is operating in a challenging business environment with increasing external costs, particularly related to delivery and transport. It delivers to more than 11 million addresses and must expand its capacity to deliver to around 200,000 new addresses each year. This requires it to continually reduce its operating costs, improve the efficiency of its network and adjust prices. The parcel delivery market is highly competitive and Australia Post must compete on the same basis as other carriers. Australia Post is confident that its parcel products represent good value for money. (3) Weight is an important factor of freight costs and therefore a key determinant of parcel prices. More importantly, for Occupational Health and Safety reasons, it is not appropriate to offer packaging regardless of weight. To protect Australia Post staff, the maximum acceptable weight of parcels lodged at an Australia Post outlet is 22kg. Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (Question No. 1517) 6905 1517 Mr Fletcher L6B asked the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness, in writing, on 27 May 2013: Is the Government sending a representative(s) to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement negotiations occurring in Lima, Peru, from 15 to 24 May 2013; if so, who. Dr Emerson 83V The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government was represented at the 17th round of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement negotiations in Lima, Peru by a delegation led by the First Assistant Secretary of the Office of Trade Negotiations, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The delegation included relevant experts from other agencies, including the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, IP Australia, Department of Health and Ageing, Attorney- General's Department, the Department of Finance and Deregulation, and the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.