2008-09-25
42
1
3
REPS
0
1
2008-09-25
The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 9 am and read prayers.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (EDUCATION REFUND) BILL 2008
1
Bills
R3074
First Reading
1
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Swan.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
1
1
09:01:00
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
0
Mr SWAN
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This government is committed to implementing an education revolution.
Education is the engine room of prosperity and helps create a fairer, more productive society.
It is the most effective way we know to build prosperity and spread opportunity.
A key part of the education revolution is helping parents meet the everyday costs of their children’s education.
Helping parents meet the costs of the books and the computers and the software our kids need to get the best start.
That is why the budget included $4.4 billion to create a new education tax refund.
The education tax refund is a refundable tax offset of 50 per cent of eligible education expenses for children undertaking primary and secondary school studies.
About 1.3 million families, with 2.7 million students, will be eligible for the refund.
This Bill will introduce the education tax refund.
Under the plan eligible families will be able to claim 50 per cent of eligible education expenses up to $750 for each child undertaking primary school, to provide a maximum tax offset of $375 per child, per year.
For children undertaking secondary school studies families will be able to claim 50 per cent of their eligible expenses up to $1,500 per child, to give a maximum tax offset of $750 per child, per year.
Eligible expenses for the purposes of the education tax refund are laptops, home computers, printers, paper, education software, school textbooks and associated materials and trade tools. This includes the purchase, lease, hire or hire-purchase costs of these items. In addition, the expenses of establishing and maintaining a home internet connection are also included.
Parents and others entitled to family tax benefit part A and who have children undertaking primary or secondary school studies will be eligible for the education tax refund.
In addition, those who would be eligible for family tax benefit part A in respect of a child but for the fact that they or the child are in receipt of other payments such as youth allowance, disability support pension or Abstudy living allowance are also eligible for the education tax refund.
Students who are living independently from their parents may also be eligible for the education tax refund for their own expenses.
This tax offset will apply to eligible expenses incurred from 1 July 2008. Those eligible for the education tax refund should start keeping their receipts—I cannot stress this enough—to allow them to claim the tax offset in their 2008-9 income tax return from 1 July 2009.
Those not required to lodge an income tax return will be able to access their entitlement to the offset through the Australian Taxation Office by lodging a separate form at the end of the 2008-9 financial year.
The education tax refund legislation will apply to the 2008-09 income tax year.
It will help families invest in their children’s education—at the same time that the government is investing in a better education system.
For Labor, better education is the cornerstone of a decent society.
Education increases productivity and participation, it builds prosperity and it also offers the hope of breaking the intergenerational cycle of poverty.
While our predecessors spoke of improving Australia’s education system, we are getting on with the job of real education reform.
Full details of amendments relating to the education tax refund are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate (on motion by Mr Wood) adjourned.
INTERSTATE ROAD TRANSPORT CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL (NO.2) 2008
1
Bills
R3081
First Reading
1
Bill, explanatory memorandum and regulatory impact statement presented by Mr Albanese.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
1
1
09:05:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No.2) 2008 is to help restore uniformity to heavy vehicle registration charges throughout Australia.
The bill enables nationally agreed new heavy vehicle registration charges to be applied to heavy vehicles registered under the Australian government’s voluntary Federal Interstate Registration Scheme, known as FIRS.
Operators may choose to register their heavy vehicles under FIRS as an alternative to state or territory registration. Current FIRS registrations represent around three per cent of total heavy vehicle registrations in Australia.
It is one of two bills to implement the 2007 Heavy Vehicle Charges Determination, which sets a new road user charge and new heavy vehicle registration charges for heavy vehicles throughout Australia. The determination was unanimously agreed by transport ministers at the Australian Transport Council meeting in February 2008, held here in Canberra.
That determination delivers cost recovery—it ensures the heavy vehicle fleet pays its way for its share of road infrastructure costs incurred by government.
Recovery of road expenditure associated with the heavy vehicle industry is achieved through a combination of a fixed registration charge, collected by the states and territories, and a road user charge collected by the Commonwealth through the Fuel Tax Act 2006.
This bill deals only with the registration charges for FIRS registered heavy vehicles.
The registration charges have been implemented by all states on 1 July 2008. This leaves only FIRS vehicles and heavy vehicles registered in the ACT and the Northern Territory currently operating on a different set of charges.
The Northern Territory is currently introducing the new national charges into their parliament with commencement expected before the end of 2008. The timing for implementation by the Australian Capital Territory government rests on the passage of the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008.
The bill will enable FIRS charges that are consistent with state and territory registration charges.
National consistency in heavy vehicle charges and regulation is essential for our national economy.
There are approximately 365,000 heavy vehicles operating in Australia and industry needs to be certain that it can operate nationally, without excessive red tape or confronting access issues at state borders.
This revised bill also addresses key concerns raised in March 2008, namely that the Australian government should not be required to implement registration charges only agreed by the Australian Transport Council (ATC).
This new bill provides the Australian government the flexibility to implement heavy vehicle charges for FIRS registered vehicles that are consistent with the government’s road transport reform agenda.
Under FIRS legislative arrangements all FIRS registration charges are returned to the states and territories. In 2007-08 more than $54m was returned from the FIRS charges to be spent on road maintenance. It is a legislative requirement that all jurisdictions supply the Commonwealth with audited reports confirming the FIRS revenue had been spent on road maintenance.
The principle of cost recovery from the heavy vehicle industry for road construction and maintenance costs, incurred through the collection of heavy vehicle charges, has been supported by successive governments at Commonwealth as well as state and territory levels.
In a speech delivered on 28 June 2007 entitled ‘The coalition government’s transport reform agenda’, the then federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services and Leader of the Nationals said:
The National Transport Commission will develop a new heavy vehicle charges determination to be implemented from 1 July 2008.
The new determination will aim to recover the heavy vehicles’ allocated infrastructure costs in total and will also aim to remove cross-subsidisation across heavy vehicle classes.
The current registration charges levied for FIRS vehicles do not meet this criteria. They were developed in 2001 and provide for significant subsidies to the heaviest trucks in the fleet.
This cross-subsidy was confirmed in the December 2006 Productivity Commission report into road and rail infrastructure pricing—a report endorsed by the previous government.
In April 2007 the Council of Australian Governments, chaired by the former Prime Minister and former member for Bennelong, directed that as part of an overall transport reform package Australian transport ministers should require the National Transport Commission to prepare a new heavy vehicle determination.
That determination was to deliver revised charges for introduction in 2008, which fully recovered the heavy vehicle industry’s share of aggregate government road expenditure, to index those arrangements so as to not lead to further underrecovery, and to remove cross-subsidisation across heavy vehicle classes.
During 2007, the National Transport Commission undertook a comprehensive consultation process which informed its final recommendations.
A full consultation process was undertaken on the draft regulatory impact statement. This process involved written submissions, provision of industry briefings and a series of focus group consultations with industry, trade unions, state and territory governments, peak industry associations and freight customers.
As a result of these consultations, the National Transport Commission made a number of changes to its recommendations, which were discussed with industry and jurisdictions.
This resulted in a key industry concern being addressed through the introduction of a new multicombinational vehicle charge for B-doubles, B-triples and road trains and differentiated trailer charges to maximise vehicle fleet flexibility.
The determination proposed by the National Transport Commission meets COAG’s request and recommended a new set of registration charges which rebalance the relative contribution of different heavy vehicle classes.
These new charges will result in larger trucks such as B-doubles and road trains paying more in registration charges. This is a clear decision, as required by first ministers, to remove the subsidies for these vehicle configurations. However, to assist the industry adjust, these increases will be phased in over three years.
The new charges will also result in a reduction in charges for smaller trucks.
These changes better align charges to the impacts of those vehicles on our roads.
The new heavy vehicle charges are one component of the Rudd Labor government’s broader heavy vehicle productivity and safety agenda.
The Rudd government maintains its commitment to supplement the determination with a $70 million, four-year heavy vehicle safety and productivity package that will fund:
-
the construction of more heavy vehicle rest stops along our highways and on the outskirts of our major cities to assist truck drivers rest;
-
trials of black box technologies that electronically monitor a truck driver’s work hours and vehicle speed; and
-
bridge strengthening projects and upgrades to linkages between existing Auslink freight routes.
The government has consulted with industry and state and territory governments to determine the best combination of projects for the use of the $70 million package.
That package can only be funded following the passage of this bill and the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008, which I will introduce today also.
Since taking carriage of an issue that we inherited from the previous government, the government has been carefully listening to the views of the industry.
Our decision to implement the $70 million safety and productivity package and to delay the implementation of the road user charge until 1 January 2009 was taken after extensive consultations with industry.
The heavy vehicle industry needs to pay its fair share of road construction and maintenance costs, and it recognises that.
It is also important that the very largest trucks pay their full share and that they are no longer subsidised by smaller trucks.
Equally important is that the amendment before the parliament will enable charges for FIRS-registered vehicles to be made consistent with charges that have applied to some 95 per cent of Australia’s heavy vehicle fleet since 1 July this year.
The new charges will be fairer to both those in the industry and to the wider community. Importantly, the new charges deliver the Council of Australian Governments’ requirement for full and ongoing cost recovery.
The new charges will encourage state and territory governments to facilitate access to the road network to higher productivity heavy vehicles.
This, in turn, would make better use of the nation’s infrastructure—a key element of the Rudd government’s plan to raise productivity, fight inflation and maintain economic growth.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Wood) adjourned.
ROAD CHARGES LEGISLATION REPEAL AND AMENDMENT BILL 2008
3
Bills
R3082
First Reading
3
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Albanese.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
3
3
09:17:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008 is to restore uniformity to heavy vehicle registration charges in Australia and to update the heavy vehicle road user charge to ensure the Australian heavy vehicle fleet pays its way for its share of road infrastructure costs incurred by governments.
It is one of two bills to implement the 2007 Heavy Vehicle Charges Determination, which sets a new road user charge and new heavy vehicle registration charges for heavy vehicles throughout Australia. The determination was unanimously agreed by transport ministers at the Australian Transport Council meeting in February 2008.
Recovery of road expenditure associated with the heavy vehicle industry is achieved through a combination of a fixed registration charge, collected by the states and territories, and a road user charge collected by the Commonwealth through the Fuel Tax Act 2006.
The bill repeals the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Act 1993 as well as making consequential amendments to the Road Transport Reform (Heavy Vehicle Registration) Act 1997 to remove links to the former act.
The bill also amends the Fuel Tax Act 2006 to set the road user charge rate at 21c per litre, in line with the 2007 Heavy Vehicle Charges Determination. Amendments to the Fuel Tax Act will also establish a mechanism to allow adjustment of the road user charge by regulation. These regulations would be subject to review by this parliament in the normal manner.
This bill does not deal with changes to registration charges under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme. These charges are dealt with in the accompanying Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No.2) 2008.
There are approximately 365,000 heavy vehicles operating in Australia.
Successive governments at Commonwealth, state and territory levels have supported the principle of ‘cost recovery’ from the heavy vehicle industry for its fair share of road construction and maintenance costs incurred by government through the collection of heavy vehicle charges.
In April 2007, the Council of Australian Governments required the Australian Transport Council to devise a new charges determination for implementation on 1 July 2008 that:
-
fully recovers infrastructure costs from the heavy vehicle industry;
-
ends cross-subsidisation between heavy vehicle classes; and
-
indexes charges to ensure costs continue to be recovered.
The House should note that, in a speech given on 28 June 2007 entitled ‘The coalition government’s transport reform agenda’, the then federal transport minister and Leader of the Nationals said:
The National Transport Commission will develop a new heavy vehicle charges determination to be implemented from 1 July 2008.
The new determination will aim to recover the heavy vehicles’ allocated infrastructure costs in total and will also aim to remove cross-subsidisation across heavy vehicle classes.”
In developing the 2007 Heavy Vehicle Charges Determination, the National Transport Commission proposed a revised road user charge and amended registration charges that remove cross-subsidies between the smallest heavy vehicles in the fleet and the larger trucking combinations. These changes would address a $100 million underrecovery of heavy vehicles’ share of road construction and maintenance expenditure.
After consulting with industry, the government decided to delay the increase in the road user charge until 1 January 2009.
The revised heavy vehicle charges bring a new level of fairness to the recovery of road construction and maintenance costs from heavy vehicles.
These revised charges remove the unfair registration charge cross-subsidies that see operators of small heavy vehicles subsidising the road construction and maintenance costs attributed to the largest heavy vehicles.
It is unreasonable to expect operators of small heavy vehicles to subsidise the road costs of the largest heavy vehicles. Those opposing measures to implement revised national heavy vehicle charges are condemning operators of small heavy vehicles to a continued and unfair burden.
Instead, by ensuring that heavy vehicles pay their fair share of road construction and maintenance costs, we are ensuring that the taxpayer is not left to foot the bill for the damage and wear and tear that heavy vehicles do to our roads. And neither is the Australian Capital Territory.
All states have now implemented the revised heavy vehicle registration rates, with the Northern Territory currently introducing the new national charges into their parliament.
The Commonwealth, however, has introduced legislation today to allow for new registration charges for Federal Interstate Registration Scheme vehicles. This is despite the fact that these vehicles represent just under three per cent of heavy vehicles and that registration revenue from these vehicles is returned to states and territories in full.
The Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill will also repeal legislation that is currently preventing the ACT government setting its own heavy vehicle registration charges.
A key element of the Inter-Governmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in Road, Rail and Intermodal Transport entered into between the Commonwealth of Australia and the states and territories requires that the Commonwealth ‘repeal any road transport legislation that has been enacted by the Commonwealth for the ACT as soon as practicable’.
Repealing the act will enable the ACT to implement the revised heavy vehicles charges determination within their legislative framework in the same manner as the other states and territories have already done. This will bring Australia closer to uniform national heavy vehicle registration charges.
The Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill also amends the Fuel Tax Act 2006 to increase the road user charge from 19.633c per litre of fuel to 21c per litre.
I would like to take this opportunity to clearly explain that this measure does not reintroduce indexation of the fuel excise tax.
Truck operators do not pay fuel excise in the way that the rest of Australian motorists do. Like all motorists they pay 38.14c per litre at the bowser for their fuel; however, they receive a fuel tax rebate of 18.51c per litre. The balance (19.63c per litre) represents the road user charge. This is not a tax—instead, it is a mechanism to recover costs from the industry for its share of road infrastructure costs.
Nor does this bill implement indexation of the road user charge.
The 2007 heavy vehicle charges determination included recommendations for a mechanism to allow automatic adjustments to the road user charge to minimise the impact of possible future price shocks that have accompanied heavy vehicle determinations to date.
The bill allows the government to implement a mechanism to automatically adjust the road user charge by regulations. These regulations are not protected from disallowance. Should the government of the day decide to declare regulations to adjust the road user charge, the parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise these regulations at the time.
The increase in the road user charge proposed by this bill ensures that heavy vehicles over 4.5 tonnes pay their fair share of road construction and maintenance costs. No more and no less.
If heavy vehicles do not pay their fair share of road construction and maintenance costs, these costs must be met by the rest of the community.
In addition, ongoing underrecovery of heavy vehicle charges provides a strong disincentive for states and territories to allow wider access to their road networks for high-productivity vehicles.
This puts at significant risk any further expansion of high mass limits networks and the ability of the heavy vehicle industry to innovate and develop new, safer and more productive vehicles to take advantage of these networks.
The Rudd government maintains its commitment to supplement the determination with a $70 million, four-year heavy vehicle safety and productivity package that will fund:
-
the construction of more heavy vehicle rest stops along our highways and on the outskirts of our major cities to assist truck drivers rest;
-
trials of black-box technologies that electronically monitor a truck driver’s work hours and vehicle speed; and
-
bridge-strengthening projects and upgrades to linkages between existing AusLink freight routes.
The government has consulted with industry and state and territory governments to determine the best combination of projects for the use of the $70 million package.
That package can only be funded from the passage of this bill and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No 2) 2008.
In closing, I would urge those opposed to these measures to take a moment to seriously consider the impact on the 25 per cent of those heavy vehicle operators who stand to benefit from reduced registration charges as a result of the introduction of revised heavy vehicle charges.
These operators will no longer have to subsidise the road construction and maintenance costs of the biggest heavy vehicles.
And we must also remember that operators of the biggest heavy vehicles stand to gain from revised charges too. By ensuring that they pay their fair share of road construction and maintenance costs, states and territories are far more likely to open up their networks to these higher mass vehicles because they will be assured that they will recover the costs of the damage that these vehicles will do to these new networks.
The new charges will encourage state and territory governments to facilitate access to the road network to higher productivity heavy vehicles.
This, in turn, would make better use of the nation’s infrastructure which is a key element of the Rudd Labor government’s economic reform plan to raise productivity, fight inflation and maintain economic growth.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Wood) adjourned.
TRANSPORT SECURITY AMENDMENT (2008 MEASURES NO. 1) BILL 2008
5
Bills
R3079
First Reading
5
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Albanese.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
5
5
09:29:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Background
Australia’s economy relies heavily on the safe and secure movement of billions of dollars in imports and exports. This bill amends the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 and the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. As the international shipping industry continues to grow, so does its importance to the Australian economy. Similarly, the offshore oil and gas industry also contributes strongly to Australia’s prosperity.
In our skies, the aviation industry plays a key role in connecting Australia with the world and Australians with each other. Whether moving tourists, families, freight or business people, the aviation industry is essential to the efficient operation of the Australian economy.
More than ever, these industries underpin Australia’s economic growth and serve as the nation’s gateways to the global economy. Given this significance, security is an important consideration.
The Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 implements a preventive security regime to enhance security at ports, port facilities, ships and offshore facilities.
It gives effect to Australia’s international obligations under the International Maritime Organisation’s International Ship and Port Facility Security Code and under chapter 11-2 of the Safety of Life at Sea Convention 1974. The act establishes a scheme which safeguards against unlawful interference with maritime transport and offshore facilities.
Likewise, security systems are an essential component of the aviation sector. The primary function of the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 is to ensure Australia’s aviation industry is safeguarded and able to respond quickly against threats of unlawful interference with aviation.
The regulatory frameworks for both the maritime and aviation security acts are centred on the development of preventive security plans for industry participants.
These plans set out security measures and procedures to safeguard against unlawful interference against the transport sector. The plans ensure industry participants have a planned and risk based approach to the management of transport security.
Objective of the bill
The bill amends the maritime security act to implement proposals arising from a review of the maritime security regime. The bill also amends both the maritime and aviation acts to ensure flexibility for industry participants in the way they document their security arrangements as required by each act.
The bill enhances current measures in both acts to deliver effective security outcomes now and into the future.
The measures of this bill are an example of the continued and successful cooperation between the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and Australia’s maritime, offshore and aviation industry stakeholders. It is a relationship based on consultation and cooperation.
Measures in the bill
Schedule 1 amends both the maritime and aviation security acts to confirm that industry participants may hold multiple security plans, or programs, for different locations and operations.
Schedule 1 of the bill also amends the maritime security act to:
-
clarify its application to foreign regulated ships visiting an external Australian territory;
-
allow for maritime and offshore security plans to have a life span of five years or less (but no less than 12 months);
-
provide for regulations to develop nationally consistent mapping standards; and
-
correct anomalies.
The maritime industry is a significant contributor to the Australian economy. Ensuring that a robust security regime is in place and maintained is important to the protection of the sector.
At present a foreign regulated ship visiting an external Australian territory such as Norfolk Island may not be required to comply with requirements such as the provision of prearrival reporting information. The bill will clarify this matter and require compliance with the relevant provisions.
The amendment providing for maritime security plans and offshore security plans to have a life span of five years or less (but no less than 12 months) will significantly benefit maritime industry participants. It will also provide my department with greater flexibility to effectively respond to changes in Australia’s security environment and the operational requirements of industry.
Clear and accurate mapping of security regulated port boundaries and maritime security zones is a key element in an effective maritime security regime. At present there is much variation between approaches to the format, quality and accuracy of maps that must be submitted when considering a security plan for approval.
The bill will provide greater certainty for industry when preparing such maps by providing for regulations to be made to establish nationally consistent mapping standards.
The bill contains several minor, miscellaneous amendments to rectify drafting errors and anomalies in the maritime security act. These amendments provide greater clarity and certainty for industry participants who play an integral role in implementing and maintaining the maritime security regime.
The regulatory security frameworks for both the aviation and maritime sectors centre on the development of preventive security plans or programs. The plans and programs set out security measures and procedures to be implemented to safeguard against acts of unlawful interference with aviation and maritime transport.
It is common for industry participants to conduct multiple operations or operate at different geographical locations. Presently, it is not clear whether the maritime or aviation security acts allow for industry participants to hold more than one security plan or program.
To remove all doubt, the bill will clarify in the relevant maritime and aviation legislation that industry participants may hold different security plans or programs for each location or operation, with the approval of the secretary of my department.
Conclusion
The Transport Security Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008 will add greater certainty and clarity to the operation of the maritime and aviation security regimes, for the benefit of our maritime, offshore and aviation industries.
I am confident the measures introduced in this bill will enable industry participants to more confidently interpret, implement and administer the legislation as it relates to their daily business practices. This will, in turn, strengthen Australia’s transport security regime. I commend the bill to the House
Debate (on motion by Mr Wood) adjourned.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (2008 MEASURES NO. 5) BILL 2008
7
Bills
R3080
First Reading
7
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bowen.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
7
7
09:37:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Treasurer
1
0
Mr BOWEN
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends various taxation laws to implement a range of improvements to Australia’s tax laws.
The amendments to schedule 1 of this bill maintain the integrity of the GST tax base. The amendments overcome deficiencies with the provisions dealing with real property, which prevent GST applying to the value added to land once it enters the GST system.
The deficiencies arise from the interaction between the margin scheme, which applies to sales of real property, and provisions that allow the GST-free sale of a ‘going concern’ (that is, an ongoing business); the GST-free sales of farmland; and provisions dealing with non-taxable supplies between associated entities.
These amendments provide that, where the margin scheme is used after certain GST-free or non-taxable supplies, the value added by the registered entity which made that supply is included in determining the GST subsequently payable under the margin scheme.
The amendments also confirm that the GST general anti-avoidance provisions apply to contrived arrangements entered into with the sole or dominant purpose of creating a circumstance or state of affairs that enable a choice, election, application or agreement to be made that gives rise to a GST benefit.
Schedule 2 modifies the thin capitalisation regime contained in division 820 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 in relation to the use of accounting standards for identifying and valuing an entity’s assets, liabilities and equity capital.
The amendments aim to adjust for certain impacts of the 2005 adoption of the Australian equivalents to the International Financial Reporting Standards on entities’ thin capitalisation positions. The amendments achieve this by providing for the accounting standard treatment of specified assets and liabilities to be disregarded in certain circumstances.
These amendments require certain entities to exclude deferred tax assets and liabilities, as well as assets and liabilities arising from defined benefit schemes, in undertaking their thin capitalisation calculations. They also enable certain entities, in specified circumstances, to choose to recognise and/or revalue intangible assets—contrary to the relevant accounting standards—for thin capitalisation purposes.
The thin capitalisation regime is a key tax integrity measure, which needs to be able to perform the role it is set. However, given the impact this regime may have on a firm’s financing and investment decisions, it is important that the regime operates from a sound base.
These amendments seek to ensure that an appropriate economic value can be recognised for certain assets, and to remove undesirable volatility from year-to-year thin capitalisation calculations, which may introduce uncertainty into future investment planning activity.
Schedule 3 extends the eligibility for exemption from interest withholding tax to bonds issued in Australia by state and territory central borrowing authorities. These amendments form part of a suite of initiatives announced by the Treasurer on 20 May 2008 to bolster Australia’s financial markets.
This measure is intended to improve depth and liquidity in the state government bond markets, and allow them to make a greater contribution to financial market stability.
Schedule 4 removes an anomaly with the term ‘otherwise deductible’ in the fringe benefits tax law as it applies to benefits provided in relation to investment properties held jointly by an employee and their associates.
This anomaly has given rise to salary sacrificing opportunities in relation to jointly held investment properties.
This measure, which is one of the budget measures to improve the fairness and integrity in the FBT system, ensures that the associate’s share of the fringe benefit provided in relation to the investment property will be subject to fringe benefits tax.
This measure will provide consistency with arrangements where a benefit is provided solely to an associate and will re-establish the principle that income and deductions arising from jointly held assets should be allocated between joint owners according to their interests.
Employees who have already entered into salary sacrifice arrangements with their employer will be able to utilise existing arrangements until 31 March 2009 (that is, the end of the current FBT year). This will provide time for employers and employees to renegotiate salary packages to avoid incurring a FBT liability.
Schedule 5 amends the eligible investment business rules for managed investment trusts, which are contained in division 6C of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.
These amendments were foreshadowed by the government prior to the 2007 election and were announced in the 2008-09 budget. They form part of the government’s strategy to make Australia a funds management hub in the Asia-Pacific region.
The amendments clarify the scope and meaning of investing in land for the purpose of deriving rent; introduce a 25 per cent safe harbour allowance for non-rental, non-trading income from investments in land; expand the range of financial instruments that a managed fund may invest in or trade in; and provide a two per cent safe harbour allowance at the whole-of-trust level for non-trading income.
These safe harbours will make it easier for managed funds to know if they are complying with the law and reduce the scope for a trust to inadvertently breach division 6C. They will lower compliance costs for industry, the Australian Taxation Office and taxpayers.
The scope of these changes is limited to be consistent with the current policy framework, so as not to pre-empt the outcome of the Board of Taxation review of the tax arrangements applying to managed investment trusts.
Significant consultation has occurred on this schedule and I thank the stakeholders involved.
Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate (on motion by Mr Wood) adjourned.
TEMPORARY RESIDENTS’ SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2008
8
Bills
R3072
First Reading
8
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bowen.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
8
8
09:44:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Treasurer
1
0
Mr BOWEN
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Temporary Residents’ Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 implements the government’s measure to help reduce the number of lost accounts and unclaimed money in the superannuation system which can arise when temporary residents depart Australia without taking their superannuation with them.
The government is concerned by the growing amount of superannuation which has been identified as lost over the past decade. The Australian Taxation Office’s 2006-07 annual report shows that the number of superannuation accounts reported on the Lost Members’ Register grew from 5.7 million to 6.1 million in that income year. These inactive accounts total approximately $12 billion in assets.
While temporary residents who depart Australia are able to take their superannuation with them as a departing Australia superannuation payment, many do not do so. This contributes to the total amount of lost moneys in the system.
The amendments contained in this bill seek to address the lost account problem by requiring superannuation funds to pay the unclaimed superannuation of departed temporary residents to the Taxation Office.
The government has consulted on the measure by releasing a discussion paper in May of this year and engaging in consultation with key stakeholders on the draft legislation. The government’s final policy reflects many of the suggestions made during the consultation process.
The amendments provide that the superannuation of a temporary resident will effectively become unclaimed and payable to the Taxation Office after the individual has ceased to be the holder of a temporary visa—that is, their temporary visa has been cancelled or has expired—and they have departed Australia and at least six months has passed and they have not claimed their superannuation.
Departed temporary residents will retain the ability to claim their superannuation benefits through the existing departing Australia superannuation payment process, before it becomes unclaimed.
Departed temporary residents who have not claimed their superannuation and have unclaimed superannuation paid to the Taxation Office, can claim back their money at any time. The individual—or, if they have died, their legal personal representative or beneficiary—can apply to the Taxation Office for the amount to be paid to them or to be transferred to a super fund in certain circumstances.
This provides consistent or better treatment to temporary residents compared to that in many other countries where temporary residents may be unable or limited in accessing compulsory social security contributions.
Generally, the amount that is claimed back from the Taxation Office will be subject to the departing Australia superannuation payment withholding tax. This is consistent with existing arrangements as the withholding tax already applies when a temporary resident claims their superannuation after departing Australia.
This measure will be administered by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and the Taxation Office. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship will provide the Taxation Office with information to assist the Taxation Office in identifying departed temporary residents who have left unclaimed superannuation behind.
The Taxation Office will then issue notices to super funds identifying departed temporary residents. Funds which receive such notices will be required to report and pay any unclaimed superannuation they hold for a departed temporary resident to the Taxation Office by a certain day. The first notices are proposed to be issued in March 2009 requesting payments from funds by April 2009. In future, it is proposed that the Taxation Office will issue notices at least twice a year.
The Taxation Office will also have the ability to revoke a notice it has sent to a fund where it is appropriate in the circumstances to do so—for instance, if the individual returned to Australia on a new temporary visa prior to the six months lapsing.
The superannuation of Australian and New Zealand citizens, current holders of permanent or temporary visas, and those applying for permanent residency, will not be paid to the Taxation Office. Instead, their superannuation will remain in a super fund. Certain types of temporary visas can also be prescribed in the regulations to be excluded from the measure if it is appropriate in the circumstances to do so and to cater appropriately to any specific visa classes. For instance, retirement visa holders—subclasses 405 and 410—will be excluded from the measure so that their superannuation will remain in the fund and not be paid to the Taxation Office.
At this stage, state and territory public sector funds will not be captured by the measure although the Commonwealth will enter into discussions with state and territory governments to examine the scope to include such schemes in the future.
The Taxation Office will have the ability to refund overpayments that have been wrongly made by super funds. Individuals will also have review rights.
This measure will commence from a date to be fixed by proclamation. This will occur in sufficient time for the Taxation Office to send the first notices out to funds in March 2009 and to receive payments of unclaimed superannuation from funds in April 2009.
Full details of this measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Wood) adjourned.
SUPERANNUATION (DEPARTING AUSTRALIA SUPERANNUATION PAYMENTS TAX) AMENDMENT BILL 2008
9
Bills
R3073
First Reading
9
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bowen.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
9
9
09:50:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Treasurer
1
0
Mr BOWEN
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill 2008 forms part of the government’s temporary residents’ superannuation measure.
Under the measure, departed temporary residents will retain the ability to claim their superannuation benefits through the existing departing Australia superannuation payment process, before it becomes unclaimed.
This provides consistent or better treatment to temporary residents compared to that in many other countries where temporary residents may be unable or limited in accessing compulsory social security contributions.
The departing Australia superannuation withholding tax currently applies to amounts claimed by departed temporary residents. The tax aims to ensure that taxation concessions provided to superannuation are appropriately targeted to those who retire in Australia. The amendments contained in this bill make a small increase to the departing Australia superannuation payment withholding tax rates by five percentage points to further recoup the taxation concessions provided to departed temporary residents.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Wood) adjourned.
TRADE PRACTICES AMENDMENT (CLARITY IN PRICING) BILL 2008
10
Bills
R3090
First Reading
10
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bowen.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
10
10
09:52:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Treasurer
1
0
Mr BOWEN
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Trade Practices Amendment (Clarity in Pricing) Bill 2006 enacts an important measure which will ensure that consumers throughout Australia can be certain of the total price they have to pay for goods and services, before they enter into a transaction.
Component pricing is the practice of displaying the price for a product as the sum of multiple parts. This practice has the potential to draw consumers in to purchases based on prices that do not fully reflect what they will ultimately have to pay.
This bill would clarify the existing approach to the regulation of component price representations.
Component pricing is currently regulated primarily by section 53C of the Trade Practices Act 1974. Section 53C provides that where a corporation makes a representation about part of the price of a product, it must also state the cash price. The term ‘cash price’ is not defined.
In 2002, the Federal Court held that section 53C does not require disclosure of a total price, provided that consumers do not have to make a complex calculation to determine the total price. The meaning of ‘complicated calculation’ is not clearly defined and what is complex will vary between consumers.
In April 2005, the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs discussed the potential detriment caused by the use of component pricing where a total price is not clearly identifiable and resolved to support reforms to the Trade Practices Act. This bill delivers on that commitment—a commitment that was not fulfilled by the previous government.
It is fundamental that every consumer knows how much they are going to pay when they make a purchasing decision. This bill will ensure that when a business states the partial price of a product they will also be required to state the total price as a single figure, to the extent that it is known and quantifiable at the time the representation is made.
This bill does not prohibit component pricing; businesses can continue to list components of a price. What this bill will do is ensure that, wherever it is quantifiable, a total single price must also be provided; and in general, it must be displayed at least as prominently as the most prominent of any component of price.
Currently the law may allow a business to state, for example, a price of $200. Then in the associated fine print it states that there are also taxes, fees and charges of $99. This could even be the case when the taxes, fees and charges are compulsory.
So the real cost of those goods is $200 plus $99, or $299—this is the minimum amount that a consumer could pay for that product.
This government believes that the total the consumer will pay must be prominently stated, not just lost somewhere in a footnote, but in most cases, as prominently as the headline price that is advertised. This means that if a consumer is drawn to the $200 price, the actual price of $299 is also abundantly clear.
When this is the case the consumer will know the true cost of the goods right from the start giving effect to the original intention of section 53C.
Consumer detriment
This is an important issue, which has a real impact on Australian consumers.
We are all familiar with the consternation that is caused when compulsory elements of a price are not included in representations to consumers. Advertising of cheap airfares is probably the most widely recognised form of component price advertising. It is not appropriate that additional compulsory fees and charges are disclosed in fine print disclaimers, particularly when those additional compulsory charges may be significantly larger than the component price that is highlighted.
There is evidence that consumers are frequently concerned by the misapprehensions that component pricing can create. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, have informed me that during 2007-08, they have received around 430 complaints relating to component pricing. In addition, during the current year to date, I understand that Consumer Affairs Victoria has also received around 250 complaints about component pricing. I am sure that the seven other offices of fair trading have received similar complaints. No doubt there are many other consumers who have been confused by the absence of a clear total price and who did not complain to a regulator at all.
This government wants to make sure that these consumers’ concerns are addressed by enacting a new provision which ensures that the total price is prominently stated wherever possible and not buried in the fine print.
Provisions of the Bill
This bill will replace the existing section 53C—and its associated criminal offence provision, section 75AZF—of the Trade Practices Act.
The new provision will apply to all representations about price made by a business to consumers. Where a representation is directed towards consumers and businesses, it will be within the scope of the provision. However, the provision will not apply to representations made exclusively between businesses.
The bill requires disclosure of a single figure minimum total price, to the extent that it is quantifiable at the time of the representation concerned. In practice, the total price that a consumer will pay may depend on optional extras or bundled products that the consumer chooses to purchase—clearly, these decisions cannot be known by a business in advance. Where there are a range of compulsory but varying charges which the consumer can choose from a disclosure of the type ‘from $500’ will remain an acceptable representation of price.
The total minimum quantifiable price must be stated as prominently as the most prominent of any other price amounts relating to the purchase. This prominence requirement does not only apply to written price representations. The total price must be as prominent in relation to television or radio advertisements where the price might be spoken as well as, or instead of, a written figure.
There is one exception to this prominence requirement in the bill, in the case of contracts for services which provide for periodic payment. In this case the total cost of the services over the life of the contract must be stated, prominently, but does not have to be as prominent as the periodic component price—for example, a company offering a one-year contract for services with monthly payments of $29.
This bill will require the business to state in a prominent way that the total payable is $348 for a year; however, the monthly figure of $29 may be more prominent in this case. This allows consumers to see how much that service is really costing them. It allows them to ask themselves if it is really what they want to spend their money on. In this regard the bill can help foster competition between substitutable goods and services by making the true cost more clearly known.
Business considerations
While the objective of these amendments is to prevent consumer detriment, there are a number of practical considerations that have been incorporated to assist business in complying with the new provisions.
First, businesses are only required to state the minimum quantifiable consideration for supply. This means that if a business genuinely cannot determine what the taxes—or some other component of the price—on a purchase will be when they make a price representation they would not be required to state them in the total price. Of course, businesses still have to comply with other sections of the Trade Practices Act. They would still have to make it clear what type of additional charges would be incurred.
Second, the bill provides an exemption for charges relating to sending the goods from the supplier to the customer. Such charges, which include genuine postage and handling charges, need not be included in the single figure total price, although they may be included if the business wishes to do so. However, where the only way the goods can be purchased is by delivery, and the costs are known, those costs must either be included in the total or disclosed in the representation as a separate amount.
Third, financial services will not be covered by this bill. Currently, section 12DD of the Australian Securities and Investments Act 2001 mirrors section 53C of the Trade Practices Act. The government does not propose to amend the ASIC Act. This will allow the current disclosure regime for the financial services sector to continue. Given the extensive disclosure regimes that apply specifically in relation to financial services, the government believes that amendments to section 12DD of the ASIC Act would create uncertainty for business about their disclosure requirements, without providing any significant benefit for consumers.
Fourth, this new provision will not apply to representations which are exclusively between bodies corporate. Generally, business customers are less likely to rely on headline prices than general consumers. Any benefits associated with clearer pricing strategies would be likely to be outweighed by reduced flexibility in businesses’ ability to determine the most appropriate format for representing prices.
So this is a balanced measure from a government which understands the regulatory burden and seeks to minimise its impact on business wherever possible while delivering the best outcome for consumers.
This bill will ensure that consumers will know how much they are really going to be asked to pay when they see an advertisement in the newspaper, on television, or are given a quotation.
This measure increases transparency in pricing and further empowers consumers to make the best purchasing choices possible.
Minor and technical amendments
The bill also makes minor and technical amendments to correct previous drafting errors in the Trade Practices Act. These can be categorised into three types.
First, the bill amends the extended application provisions at section 6 of the Trade Practices Act to cross-reference the pyramid-selling section provisions at division 1AAA of part V, rather than the repealed section 61.
Second, the bill clarifies that breaches of product safety and information standards made under section 65E may be a criminal offence.
Third, the bill amends section 75 of the Trade Practices Act to provide that state and territory fair-trading laws equivalent to part VC operate concurrently with the TPA.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Randall) adjourned.
BUSINESS
12
Business
Rearrangement
12
Mr DEBUS
(Macquarie
—Minister for Home Affairs)
10:04:00
—I move:
That notice No. 4, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
PARLIAMENTARY ZONE
1
Parliamentary Zone
Approval of Proposal
1
12
10:05:00
Debus, Bob, MP
8IS
Macquarie
ALP
Minister for Home Affairs
1
0
Mr DEBUS
—I move:
That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for work in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 22 September 2008, namely: National Portrait Gallery forecourt sculpture.
This works approval is for a sculpture to be placed in the forecourt of the new National Portrait Gallery. The work is intended to reflect the purpose of the National Portrait Gallery: to enhance ‘the understanding of the Australian people—their identity, history, creativity and culture—through portraiture’.
The gallery itself is scheduled to be completed by 21 October 2008 and is due to open in December. It is hoped that the sculpture will be completed and in place by June 2009. The sculpture was chosen by an expert panel, which included a member of the board of the National Portrait Gallery.
The decision to commission the work awaits this works approval.
Question agreed to.
FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (FURTHER 2008 BUDGET AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2008
12
Bills
R3085
Second Reading
12
Debate resumed from 24 September, on motion by Mr Griffin:
That this bill be now read a second time.
upon which Mrs Markus moved by way of amendment:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “while not declining to give the bill a second reading the House:
-
notes the Coalition’s support for the provisions concerning the maternity immunisation allowance and child support;
-
notes the Coalition’s agreement to setting at 50 years of age eligibility for partner service pension for the partners of veterans who are in receipt of the equivalent of or less than the special rate but above the general rate disability, or who have at least 80 impairment points;
-
condemns the government’s stubborn determination to insist that from 1 January 2009 partners who are separated but not divorced from their veteran spouse and who have not reached the age for the age pension, will have their partner service pension eligibility cease 12 months after being separated or immediately if the veteran enters a marriage-like relationship”.
12
10:07:00
Hale, Damian, MP
HWD
Solomon
ALP
1
0
Mr HALE
—I rise today to make my contribution to the second reading debate on the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008. This bill will provide the legislation for certain further budget and other measures affecting the portfolios of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, and Veterans’ Affairs—namely, to pay the maternity immunisation allowance in two instalments and extend the program’s eligibility to ensure equity. The bill will also cease the partner service pension to married partners who are separated but not divorced. Additionally, the bill makes minor and technical amendments to the child support legislation.
These amendments, particularly the maternity immunisation allowance, are extremely important to me because, just like all dads, I am extremely passionate about the health of my kids. I have been lucky enough to be blessed with five healthy children. The health of my kids is not something I take for granted. In fact, every day I think about how lucky I am. I remember that when each of them was a baby, I took on board my own involvement in making sure that they did get to the doctor and have their immunisations. Very often the child is not very happy with you after that, so there were always some chocolates and ice-cream or things like that to deaden the pain of the needle. I must admit I used to look away when they put the needle in but I knew that it was for the right cause.
Having doorknocked extensively around my electorate in both Darwin and Palmerston, I know that kids’ health is a passion issue with all families. I think that is true right across the board, right across Australia. It does not matter what side of politics you are on; there are certainly a few not-negotiable issues. One of those issues is the health and safety of our kids. Children’s health and wellbeing is at the forefront of the government’s commitment to the Australian people. That is why the Prime Minister, in his speech setting out our nation’s sights for the future at the Sydney Institute annual dinner this year, proposed affordable parent and child centres for all zero- to five-year-old Australian children—parent and child centres that will provide maternal and child health services such as baby health checks, baby weighing, feeding advice and vaccinations.
We are taking action. Practical examples of our government investing in our children were introduced on 1 July this year when two brand new initiatives were launched. The Get Set 4 Life, habits for healthy kids guide was the first one. This initiative is a practical user-friendly guide that helps parents help their kids develop healthy habits for life. Also available for parents and carers is the second new initiative: the Healthy Kids Check. Under the Healthy Kids Check, each child starting school will now have access to a free basic health check through Medicare. I know that this initiative has been welcomed in my electorate of Solomon. We have a growing population, particularly in the city of Palmerston, where more than 500 babies were born last year. The checks are to make sure that kids are happy, healthy and ready to learn when they start school. The Healthy Kids Check will be available for all four-year-olds at the request of the parents or carer. This check corresponds with the time of their four-year-olds’ immunisations. Delivered by GPs or practising nurses, it will help make sure kids are on track in their health and wellbeing. I know that those formative years—minus nine months to five years—are very important in the development of children, both in education and health.
These initiatives show that we as a government are serious about the future of our nation, and the future of our nation is in having healthy kids. I know that those opposite will fully support these types of initiatives because this is bipartisan. There are no political barriers between the two major parties on this issue. The budget measure on the maternity immunisation allowance will restructure the allowance. The restructure will improve the program’s effectiveness, not diminish it. It needs to be restructured so that it is more in line with the National Immunisation Program. The maternity immunisation allowance was introduced as a single payment 11 years ago. The allowance is currently paid for children aged between 18 months and two years if they are immunised to the recommended level, or if parents have a formal exemption. This initiative was designed to act as a strong incentive and reminder to parents to immunise their children on time. It is a commendable initiative. However, the program does not provide the same strong incentives for parents when their kids turn four years old and need the booster. In fact, statistics tell us that immunisation rates for Aussie kids are higher when they are aged two than when they start school. This is a problem. Ninety-three per cent of children aged two are fully immunised. This drops to only 88 per cent of kids being fully immunised at the age of six. By bringing this legislation in, the government will certainly be providing an incentive for parents to follow up with their boosters.
As we get busier and more kids arrive—in my case, they kept arriving at a regular interval for a while; I had five under 10 at one stage, but they are all growing well now and they were all immunised as they went through—sometimes we might forget and not follow up with those boosters. So the amendments in this bill will really give people an incentive to make sure that they follow up with boosters for their children.
The proposed changes will increase the incentives, as I have said, to give four-year-olds the recommended booster before they start school. This should result in many Australian children having better overall levels of immunisation. The types of vaccinations that are recommended in the National Immunisation Program currently include measles, mumps, german measles, polio, diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough—all serious illnesses that no parent would ever want their children to get.
The good people of Solomon have just had a reminder of the dangers associated with whooping cough. Earlier this year in the Northern Territory we had 12 children diagnosed with whooping cough, and 11 of them had to be hospitalised. The NT government’s Director of the Centre for Disease Control, Dr Vicki Krause, urged parents across the NT to ensure that both they and their children were vaccinated against it. She said:
Infants are the most vulnerable to the complications of whooping cough and it can lead to pneumonia and sometimes death in young babies.
About one in 200 children under the age of six months who develop whooping cough die from pneumonia or brain damage. It is definitely a case where prevention is far better than cure.
This bill proposes that from 2009 the maternity immunisation allowance be divided equally into two payments. The first payment will be paid when the child is aged between 18 months and two years and the second payment will be paid when the child is aged between four years and five years. To ensure no-one is worse off, both instalments will be indexed twice yearly.
Another very important aspect to the bill goes to who is eligible to receive the maternity immunisation allowance. Currently the payable allowance does not accommodate older children adopted from outside Australia. That is hardly fair. That is why in 2005 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Inquiry into Overseas Adoption in Australia recommended:
The Minister for Family and Community Services amend the eligibility criteria for the maternity immunisation allowance in the case of children adopted from overseas so the eligibility period is two years after the child’s entry to Australia.
This bill will accommodate the recommendation from the committee and ensure that parents of all children in Australia, irrespective of whether they were born in Australia or are newly arrived through adoption, will be able to obtain the allowance. These changes reinforce the fundamental purposes of the payment, which is to get as many people immunised as possible.
The second part of this bill relates to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The amendment will cease the partner service pension to married partners who are separated but not divorced from their veteran spouse and who have not reached pension age. Under this measure, eligibility for partner service pension will cease 12 months after separation or if the veteran enters into a marriage-like relationship. It should be noted that a spouse who is a member of an illness-separated couple remains the partner of a veteran and therefore does not lose eligibility for partner service pension. A couple who are illness-separated must be unable to live together in the home because of the illness or infirmity of either or both of them. Obviously, certain assessment criteria must be met to ensure eligibility to receive the pension in this situation. The amendments will also set the eligible age at 50 years for the partner service pension for the partner of a veteran who is in receipt of the equivalent of or less than special rate but above general rate disability pension or who has at least 80 impairment points under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.
Aspects of this bill also relate to child support. On 1 July this year much-needed new reforms to the child support formula commenced. As a result of their introduction anomalies need to be addressed and minor and technical amendments are required. For instance, this bill ensures the Child Support Agency, CSA, can prevent parents with a child support debt from leaving the country without paying or at least ensuring payment arrangements for the debt are made. This is done through departure prohibition orders, or DPOs. The recent amendments which moved the DPO provisions from regulations into primary legislation unintentionally removed the ability for the CSA to issue a DPO for certain registrable overseas maintenance liabilities. The proposed amendments now ensure that the Child Support Agency can apply the same departure prohibition orders to international parents in Australia as it would apply for domestic parents.
Another anomaly that has been identified relates to Child Support Agency decisions about care. The amendments to the legislation will ensure that, in all situations where parents agree on the level of care for a child, that level of care will be reflected accurately in the assessment.
This budget is delivering for the people of Solomon. This budget is good for families and for children in my electorate of Solomon. I encourage those opposite to support the amendments introduced in this bill because they are important amendments aimed at making sure that children are immunised and that they receive their boosters. A healthy society is something that Australia should be striving towards. I commend this bill to the House.
14
10:22:00
Shorten, Bill, MP
00ATG
Maribyrnong
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services
1
0
Mr SHORTEN
—The Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other measures) Bill 2008 introduces several amendments affecting the portfolio of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and the Veterans’ Affairs portfolio. I note the opposition’s support for the maternity immunisation allowance and child support measures and some of the veterans’ affairs measures.
The first set of amendments relates to the maternity immunisation allowance, a payment designed to encourage families to immunise their young children to protect against disease. Currently, the maternity immunisation allowance is paid in one lump sum when a child receives their 18-month immunisation. However, immunisation trends in Australia show that the overall immunisation level of Australian children actually decreases between the cohorts of children aged under two years and those aged between four and six years of age. The amendments in this bill will restructure the maternity immunisation allowance and align it more closely to the National Immunisation Program to encourage higher rates of immunisation among children before they start school. This will particularly help the booster rates for diptheria, tetanus, whooping cough, measles, mumps, german measles and polio immunisations.
Under these changes, the allowance will be paid in two payments, as children meet the 18-month and four-year-old immunisation requirements. The first payment will be made when the child is aged between 18 months and two years. The second payment will be paid when the child is aged between four years and five years. The new arrangements will apply from 1 January 2009. The government believes that this measure will help strengthen immunisation levels of Australian children.
The bill will also extend eligibility for the maternity immunisation allowance to children adopted from outside Australia who enter Australia before turning 16. Older adopted children will need to be immunised between 18 months and two years after their arrival. Older children adopted from overseas currently are not well served by the existing arrangements, and therefore the public policy purpose of the payment, to encourage the immunisation of children, is undermined. These changes will help encourage the overall rates of childhood immunisation in Australia. And, importantly, this measure finally implements one of the recommendations of the 2005 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services inquiry into overseas adoption in Australia.
In relation to the Veterans’ Affairs portfolio, the changes in this bill will cease eligibility for the partner service pension for the spouse of a veteran who has been separated from the veteran for 12 months or more. Eligibility will also cease if the veteran enters a marriage-like relationship with another person. This measure does not affect partners who are over the age pension age, unless the partner were to enter into a marriage-like relationship or proceed with divorce, which is current policy. Currently, the partner service pension can be paid indefinitely to a separated but still married partner provided they do not enter into a marriage-like relationship with another person. This is different to the non-married de facto partners, who lose their pension immediately after they separate from the veteran.
For a partner who has been separated from a veteran for more than 12 months, other than for reasons of illness separation, it is hard to accept that a marriage-like relationship still exists. On this basis, it is difficult to continue to provide the partner service pension. Allowing a spouse to continue to receive the partner service pension for up to 12 months after separating from a veteran gives a separated spouse time to consider options, such as increased workforce participation or alternative income support. This measure will not apply to a spouse who is separated from a veteran because of illness. A spouse who is a member of an illness separated couple remains the partner of a veteran and therefore does not lose eligibility for the partner service pension.
The last set of amendments in the bill relates to child support; notably amendments that address some minor anomalies in relation to the child support formula reforms that commenced on 1 July 2008. These are relatively minor, uncontroversial and, indeed, supported by the opposition.
10000
Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. BC Scott)—The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. All those of that opinion say aye, the contrary no.
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—I think the—
PK6
Randall, Don, MP
Mr Randall
—The noes have it.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Do the ayes have it? Do the ayes have it or do the noes?
00ATG
Shorten, Bill, MP
Mr Shorten
—The ayes have it.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Do the ayes have it?
E07
Markus, Louise, MP
Mrs Markus
—The noes have it.
PK6
Randall, Don, MP
Mr Randall
—The noes have it.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Is a division required?
00ATG
Shorten, Bill, MP
Mr Shorten
—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: you called for the ayes and the noes and you indicated that the ayes had it.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—No, I did not say that the ayes had it.
00ATG
Shorten, Bill, MP
Mr Shorten
—Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I had not finished my point of order. As I understood, you called for the vote, you acknowledged that the ayes had it, and there was some—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—No.
00ATG
Shorten, Bill, MP
Mr Shorten
—I do not know whether there was some confusion, but you were looking for some sort of guide from the opposition. You asked three or four times, and we indicated that the ayes had it. Why would we need to have a division on this?
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The parliamentary secretary raises a point of order. The noes had it, and I was waiting to see whether there were two voices before I called ayes or noes. The noes have it and a division is required. Ring the bells.
Question put:
That the words proposed to be omitted (Mrs Markus’s amendment) stand part of the question.
10:32:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. BC Scott)
79
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Bradbury, D.J.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Campbell, J.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neal, B.J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Oakeshott, R.J.M.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Swan, W.M.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Vamvakinou, M.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Zappia, A.
54
NOES
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Farmer, P.F.
Forrest, J.A.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hawker, D.P.M.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Johnson, M.A. *
Keenan, M.
Ley, S.P.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Randall, D.J.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Secker, P.D.
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Vale, D.S.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
2
PAIRS
Bevis, A.R.
Abbott, A.J.
Smith, S.F.
Laming, A.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
In division—
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, can the Hansard note that there is a stranger in the House, Ryan Karlovic, and even though he is most welcome in the House his vote should not be counted on this occasion!
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—I thank the member for North Sydney for bringing that to my attention.
A government member—We don’t need his vote, but if we did we’d use it!
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Third Reading
16
Mr SHORTEN
(Maribyrnong
—Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services)
10:39:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
COMMITTEES
16
Committees
Publications Committee
16
Report
16
16
10:40:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
1
0
Mr HAYES
—I present the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Publications sitting in conference with the Senate Standing Committee on Publications. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
Report—by leave—agreed to.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND GIFTS) BILL 2008
16
Bills
R3051
Second Reading
16
Debate resumed from 27 August, on motion by Mr Bowen:
That this bill be now read a second time.
16
10:40:00
Smith, Anthony, MP
00APG
Casey
LP
0
0
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—This is not the first time this House has seen this proposal from the government to abolish tax deductibility for political contributions and gifts. At present, as members opposite will know, the limit is $1,500. It was proposed earlier in the year in a tax law amendment bill—the first tax law amendment bill of this year, back in February—that tax deductibility for contributions up to $1,500 be abolished in entirety and that there be no lower limit. We at that point expressed our opposition. That has not changed; we oppose the Tax Laws Amendment (Political Contributions and Gifts) Bill 2008. This proposal by the government highlights its hypocrisy on issues of campaign finance reform. The position consistently articulated by the opposition is that all of these issues should be considered through the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, and that is precisely what is happening at present. The government itself has commissioned a green paper, which the public has yet to see and which is due sometime before the end of the year, and the comprehensive report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters will arrive sometime after that and will do so with the committee having considered all of the issues relating to political donations, elections and campaign finance in a holistic way. A proposal to cherry pick one item at the start of the year, before that process has occurred, highlights the true intent of those opposite.
I will take just a small amount of the time of the House to go through the history of the issue of tax deductibility for political contributions or donations, because that history highlights very strongly the hypocrisy of those opposite. If we listen to the Assistant Treasurer and other ministers responsible for this measure, we would think that the Labor Party has always opposed tax deductibility for political donations. Tax deductibility itself was introduced not during the term of the Howard government but rather during the Labor government of Bob Hawke and/or Paul Keating—because it was in December 1991 that tax deductibility first came into existence in this country. The level then was $100, and the reason for that introduction was to promote public involvement in the political process, to promote and broaden involvement in our democracy. All parties thought that was a good thing as a matter of principle.
In 1996, in its consideration of our electoral laws and the election that had just passed, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters had another close look at this issue and, having looked at the operation of tax deductibility for what would then have been about five years—I think my colleague will know—the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters thought that this was operating so well that tax deductibility should be extended. It would have considered a whole range of levels in its deliberations. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters normally takes about a year to conduct a comprehensive review of our electoral laws. It does so every three years. It is the primary inquiry into the operation of our electoral laws in this country. So in 1996, after five years or so of the operation of tax deductibility, the committee had a close look. And what did that committee find? It found that the level of tax deductibility, far from being abolished, should in fact be increased—not to $200 or $300 but to $1,500, which is precisely the amount it is today. This was not a year or two ago; this was in 1996, just after the election of the Howard government. The committee stated its reasons for that proposed increase as being to encourage small to medium donations, thereby increasing the number of Australians involved in the democratic process, and decreasing parties’ reliance on a smaller number of large donations.
What was most compelling about this report from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters with respect to tax deductibility for political donations was that that recommendation was unanimous—that is, with a change of government back in 1996 all of the members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters considered the electoral landscape, considered the operation of tax deductibility, which had been in for just a few years, and determined unanimously that the level should be increased to $1,500. It is quite insightful that those members of that committee who are now part of the government recommended in the cold light of day, without any politics involved, that $1,500 was the sensible measure that ought to be introduced. They included the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Stephen Conroy, now the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Mr Laurie Ferguson, now a parliamentary secretary, and the Hon. Robert McClelland MP, now the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General, the communications minister and a parliamentary secretary in this government were the first people to recommend the tax deductibility threshold be increased to $1,500, and now they hold the view that the tax deductible limit should not be $100, as it was back then, but should be zero. That sums it all up. That reveals the motive of those opposite. That highlights their utter hypocrisy on this issue.
The level of $1,500 was introduced in 2006, precisely 10 years after the recommendation was first put forward. At that time those opposite opposed this, although years before, as I have just outlined, they had strongly advocated it. They opposed it for political reasons. They opposed it because, in my view, they came to the view that encouraging members of the public to be involved in our democracy was not something that suited the Australian Labor Party. They are more than happy with tax deductibility for trade unions. There is no problem with that; there is no rush to deal with that issue. In 1996, the now Attorney-General, the now Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services and the now communications minister might have considered what was best for Australian democracy, but now they are in government they are considering what is best for the Australian Labor Party—that is the difference. And so what we have here is a partisan measure.
There is a wide-ranging review going on into all aspects of campaign finance. As the new opposition, we have said we are happy to look at everything but everything should be looked at together. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has a comprehensive review underway. There is a green paper that no-one has seen as yet, and what we now have is this measure—
RH4
Kerr, Duncan, MP
Mr Kerr
—He said he was only going to go for 5 minutes. We are getting the full lecture!
00APG
Smith, Anthony, MP
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—The honourable member opposite has motivated me to explain the history to him in great detail. It is fine for the government to seek to ignore the opposition members on that committee, but what is really revealing is they are ignoring their own members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and bringing in this legislation without allowing them to have a say on it. Why would they do that? They are fearful that the members on the committee might do what they did back in 1996—they might do the right thing.
We opposed this bill in a different form back in February. We are going to oppose it again. The history of this episode highlights utterly the hypocrisy of those opposite. This bill should not be before this House. We will oppose it. The measures in it should be considered as part of a wider review.
18
10:51:00
Owens, Julie, MP
E09
Parramatta
ALP
1
0
Ms OWENS
—I am pleased to hear the member for Casey speak so strongly about the need for us to engage in a full review of the issues before we cherry-pick, and I am looking forward to him raising that matter in his own caucus next time the opposition speak about pensions. The Tax Laws Amendment (Political Contributions and Gifts) Bill 2008 is an important little bill and it is sad to see it bouncing backwards and forwards between this House and the Senate. I did not speak on it the first time it reached this House, but I am taking the opportunity to do so this time.
Blocking bills in the Senate is a very powerful act. The world we live in is not about politics; it is about governance. I fear that the behaviour of the opposition in the Senate over the last few months has been more about politics than governance. It is a very powerful environment in which to play that game. If you look at the range of bills, which, it is threatened, will bounce backwards and forwards you will see that we have issues such as the alcopops tax, the luxury car tax, Fuelwatch, the Medicare levy surcharge and now political donations. The member for Stirling, in his speech to this House the first time the legislation passed through, let the cat out of the bag by confirming that this is very much about protecting donations to the Liberal Party; it is clearly very much a political issue and not one of governance.
At a time when families have been struggling under the pressure of back-to-back interest rates for the last seven years—in fact, we have just had the first decrease in interest rates in seven years—and at a time when keeping a strong budget surplus is absolutely essential for the people in my electorate, as well as those around the country, the behaviour of the Liberal Party in blocking budget measures is quite extraordinary. At a time when families need relief and at a time when we need to keep downward pressure on interest rates we see them blocking this $10 million revenue measure. We also see them retaining the loophole in the alcopops tax, also blowing a hole in the surplus, and retaining the luxury car tax at pre-election levels, also contributing to a growing hole in the budget surplus. When families need relief, we see the opposition fighting against Fuelwatch so that families cannot find out every day the cheapest price for petrol. And yesterday we saw the blocking of the Medicare levy surcharge changes, which would have provided individuals and families with an opportunity to decide for themselves whether to take out private health insurance.
The opposition are attempting to blow a hole in the budget surplus. Let us hope we can stop them from doing that at this most important time. They would blow a hole in a surplus that is doing exactly what we need that surplus to do: keep downward pressure on inflation and therefore on interest rates. They are also doing something quite extraordinary in that they are blocking the government from doing things that we committed during the election to do. We went to the election on this issue. We announced it prior to the election and the people voted. We had an absolute mandate to remove the tax-deductible status from political donations. Like blocking bills in the Senate, voting down something that a government has a mandate on is a very serious business. There might be times when any one of us might need to do that—and I can imagine issues on which I might like to do that—but this is not one of them.
The opposition clearly has a different view. Having read all of the speeches that were presented the first time this bill came around in this House and those made in the Senate, I have to say the opposition’s opposition to this measure cannot be taken seriously. Remarkably, it has been over the top. For example, we heard from the member for Wentworth, who said:
This is a big moral issue. It is not just a financial issue; it is not just a political issue. It goes to the very heart of our democracy.
We have heard that it is an assault by the Australian Labor Party on democracy itself. We have heard that it is poisonous to democracy itself. We have heard that what is at stake here is democracy itself. Those are extraordinary over-the-top statements. In fact, you would think it was the end of democracy, as we know it, because we are proposing to remove tax-deductible status on donations up to $1,500.
But it is worth pointing out to the House that, prior to 2006, the deduction limit was $100. The previous Howard government increased that threshold to $1,500 in 2006. They expanded the deduction to include donations to Independent candidates and members and to donations made by business. If this is the end of democracy, as we know it—democracy only started in 2006—then before that time it was clearly the democratic Dark Ages. Some of us would think that the period from 1996 to 2006 was the Dark Ages, but I know that is not what those opposite are referring to. I can imagine people in 2006, just two years ago, waking up in the morning, rubbing their eyes, walking outside, and thinking, ‘Thank goodness John Howard increased the tax-deductible threshold for political donations to $1,500. Democracy is here.’ How did democracy survive before 2006?
Let us have a look at exactly what we are doing. Let us put the overblown rhetoric aside and the ridiculous notion that returning this nation to a situation similar to what we were in before 2006 would somehow end democracy as we know it. The government is reintroducing legislation to remove tax deductibility for contributions and gifts to political parties, Independent candidates and members. This measure was an election savings commitment. We promised to do it. The measure was originally introduced into parliament on 13 February 2008 in the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008, before being referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Although the committee recommended that the measure be passed by the Senate unamended, the measure was voted down in the Senate on 26 June.
We on this side of the House introduced the bill quickly because it was an election commitment and because it applied from 1 July 2008. It was a clear part of the Labor Party’s election campaign. It is not a new commitment of the Labor Party. We have been consistent on this issue for 10 years. We argued against tax deductibility each time the previous government tried to introduce it. In all, they tried to introduce it three times. They tried firstly in 1998, and that particular measure lapsed when the 1998 election was called. Then they tried again after the 1998 election and it was rejected in the Senate. In 2006 they tried a third time and, third time lucky, with control of the Senate, they succeeded.
The Labor Party opposed those measures and campaigned at the last election with a clear policy of removing the tax deductibility of election donations. We were clear on this with the people of Australia. We clearly said that Australian taxpayers were already subsidising political parties through the electoral funding procedures. They already provided money to political parties for the democratic process, and that was a transparent process with parties treated equally.
We do not believe that they should provide more for the election process through tax deductions for individuals and businesses. We clearly said that we do not believe it is appropriate that Australian taxpayers subsidise donations to political parties—that, just because someone wants to make a donation to a political party, other taxpayers should be required to put their hands in their pockets and pay even more in public funding than they currently do. But since 2006, when the previous government finally got its legislation through, Australian taxpayers have been putting their collective hands in their pockets and contributing effectively an additional $10 million per annum to political parties. We are seeking to remove that loophole, providing an efficiency gain to the Commonwealth. I would have thought that anyone in this House would see that as a responsible course of action.
I say to the opposition: there is considerable cynicism out there about what we do in this place and the way we behave. One responsibility of each of us as custodians of the important positions that we hold is to leave those positions in better shape than we found them. There are many things that we can do better. One very important thing, which we on this side of the House are doing—and it should be a very basic thing for all elected governments but unfortunately it has not been—is honour our election commitments in full. Another thing is to be honest with the Australian people about how and how much they pay for us and to be careful about what we ask taxpayers to pay for in the way we operate. The government have already taken a knife to some of the excesses of the previous government. We have cut back on printing budgets, which increased dramatically in the last years of the previous government. We have reduced our capacity to carry funds over. We have introduced responsibility into our own offices and new rules for government advertising. We still have a long way to go, and the measures in this bill are part of that.
If the opposition want the taxpayer to pay more for the political side of the democratic process, they should be honest and say so. If you are asking the taxpayer to pay $10 million more to political parties so that they can spend even more on television advertising, have the guts to put a big sign on your chest, or at least a big header on your press release, and say so. This is $10 million of taxpayers’ money. I know the opposition are concerned about all those people who might not now make donations to the Liberal Party because they will not get a tax deduction. That is fine. That may happen to both sides. But we should also show concern for all the taxpayers out there who do not want to give any more of their money to the political process and who do not want to be dragged into bigger taxpayer contributions by the donations made by others under tax-deductible status.
This is a sensible measure. It is honest and a sound budget measure. It undoes something that has only been part of our democratic system since 2006. The fearmongering on this—that this is the end of democracy as we know it—is beyond belief. It is sound policy, and I commend the bill to the House.
19
11:03:00
Morrison, Scott, MP
E3L
Cook
LP
0
0
Mr MORRISON
—The Tax Laws Amendment (Political Contributions and Gifts) Bill 2008, which we now see in this place in a different form but really for the second time, goes to matters that are quite dear to my heart—not because I am terribly fascinated with the inner workings of these types of issues but because it goes to the heart of what we need to do in this country to ensure that we protect our democracy from the excesses of campaign finance and fundraising that we are seeing at a state level and a federal level. If we look to the evidence and experience of what is happening overseas, particularly in the United States, we see it is not something we want to happen here in Australia. In our democracy we do not want the same sort of excessive spending in elections and we do not want corruption in the way donations are handled, particularly in relation to members who sit in this place.
Our objection to this bill is its timing. Currently, a significant review of these matters is being undertaken, and what we have seen from those opposite is the cherry picking of issues of campaign finance reform. They have been finding little bits and pieces here and there and looking to sneak them through before they are subjected to the full force of a comparative assessment of all measures in one go.
The coalition parties, in contrast, have a deep and genuine commitment to addressing what I believe is a crisis of confidence. Those opposite like to talk about crises. I will offer one crisis that they should think about: the crisis of confidence in the Australian political system caused by revelations involving ALP donors and ALP councillors on Wollongong council. To address this we must put our campaign finance regime under the microscope at both state and federal levels. There are two things I think we need to take into account when we do that. There need to be sufficient authorities, investigatory powers and enforcement measures in the future to prevent such illegal acts as we have seen in Wollongong. Secondly, we need to remove weaknesses in our legislative and regulatory frameworks that may give rise to an environment where such illegality could take place in the future. We should not delude ourselves that what took place in Wollongong was necessarily the fault of something such as tax deductibility. Of course it was not. We are talking about illegal acts. People are appearing before inquiries and ultimately before courts because of illegal acts. There is an issue of illegality at play here, and we need to ensure that when we look at the overall system of campaign finance we look not only at the framework and the regulatory structure but at how these matters are enforced.
The coalition successfully referred the matters relating to campaign finance to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters when the government failed to take the initiative. After an election it is common practice for the government to make a reference to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, but when the government did it on this occasion they refused to make any reference to the issue of campaign finance. Being aware this was the government’s intention, Senator Ronaldson put forward in the other place a reference to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that put on the table all the issues relating to reform of campaign finance.
Not only was it not good enough for the government to fail to go there themselves, but the motion to refer these matters to the joint standing committee was actually opposed by the government. They did not want to have a warts-and-all look. This government like to take a good look at a few things but they were not too keen on having a good, hard look at what was happening with our system of campaign finance reform. They want to have this committee talk about all sorts of matters relating to squeezing in votes where numbers are not put in correctly, and have long debates on those sorts of issues, but one thing they did not want to have a good look at when they put forward this reference was campaign finance reform.
To the great credit of the committee—and I pay tribute to the committee chair, the member for Banks, who agreed with other government committee members—it agreed that this reference provided from the Senate should be taken concurrently with the reference from the Special Minister of State. We do have, as a result of the goodwill that exists in the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, a genuine and very serious inquiry going into the matters of electoral reform.
By contrast, in putting forward these measures, the government has taken a very piecemeal approach. There is also going to be a green paper. We look forward to that green paper. I look forward to it with a lot of enthusiasm because it is my sincere hope that the Special Minister of State will be taking these matters seriously and putting serious measures of reform on the table. Why we are looking at individual items in this place in advance of a green paper where we can look at these matters altogether continues to puzzle me.
My colleague the member for Casey made some points about the real origin of the measures in this bill. He made reference to a previous gathering of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that had actually been in favour of having tax deductibility where it currently rests. The previous speaker, the member for Parramatta, indicated this was an election policy commitment. I am a keen observer of politics and campaigns but it was a very quiet morning when that press release was put out. It did not tend to get the coverage which most major election commitments are given. As a result, I think it is a bit rich for the government to stand there and say: ‘This is our mandate. We have a mandate for this and it is going to save all of this money.’
The real origin of this measure was the ALP’s policy platform at the national convention in Sydney in 2004. That is when the decision was made by the Labor Party to walk away from a bipartisan commitment to improving these arrangements. They walked away in 2004, and there was no discussion in that context of savings measures or how much money would be saved by removing tax deductibility. No, it was all about trying to entrench an advantage. What we have here is a bill which effectively implements the decision of the Labor Party delegates, more than half of whom are from the union movement, who decided that political donations made by people who pay taxes and who are contributing to the political party of their choice should not be tax deductible but—of course—union fees, levies and so on should continue to be.
No reference was made to revenue savings at that time. The government has definitely failed to demonstrate the urgency of this matter, and why it should be treated in isolation. That is not just my view. In the course of the inquiry it was not only the view of the opposition members on that committee that this matter should be dealt with concurrently with all the other matters before the committee but also the view supported by Associate Professor Graeme Orr from the Democratic Audit of Australia, who said:
... it is very premature to do away with a form of encouraging small-scale donating at the same time as seriously considering, in a few months time, the banning of large corporate and organisational donations. That is going to lead to serious questions as to where parties get the money from and deductibility, or matching funds, is something that needs to be kept in the mix.
In other words, we should not proceed with these measures in isolation. We must assess the comparative benefits or otherwise of these measures.
But there are other defects with this bill. The estimates of revenue savings are overstated and, at best, represent a bold guess. In their appearance before the committee, Treasury officials confirmed that the costing comprised two components: (1) savings achieved by the removal of deductions for party membership subscriptions and (2) contributions. According to officials, the membership component of the costing is $4.3 million in each year, yet in evidence, Treasury officials qualified the veracity of these estimates, saying:
… the thesis … is that parties do not give out numbers, because membership may be declining and they do not want to reveal that. I do not know whether that is true or not.
That is how confident that Treasury officials were in the estimates of savings to be achieved regarding memberships. Furthermore, in response to questions by the government chair of the committee about the $4.3 million figure used by Treasury being based on estimates of a 90 per cent claim rate, Treasury was unable to provide any evidence as to what that 90 per cent claim rate was based upon. In fact, in response to a question on notice inquiring as to the behaviour of taxpayers in relation to making claims for political deductions, Treasury officials confirmed:
The Australian Taxation Office does not have data on the median deduction claimed for gifts and contributions, or the number of taxpayers claiming any deduction.
In relation to donations, Treasury officials confirmed in evidence the difficulties of estimating revenue savings relating also to the claims for gifts and donations:
In the data we have from the Australian Electoral Commission website for 2003-04 and 2004-05, the $1,500 disclosure threshold was already in place, and there were very few donations disclosed below that level; therefore, we have had to make assumptions about what the potential level of donations below that level was in order to take up that distribution to probably being about the actual size that it was.
In other words, Treasury had no knowledge of the amount or value of donations less than $1,500, which is the subject of this bill. They derived an estimate based on a series of assumptions to arrive at a figure. While I do not doubt the internal logic of Treasury’s reasoning, the result is totally arbitrary as it relies completely on the base data, which in this case was completely nonexistent.
Treasury officials similarly acknowledged this point by drawing attention to their qualifications noted in the officially published release of the election costings, namely:
Given the range of implicit and explicit assumptions used to produce these revenue estimates it should be noted that actual outcomes may vary from these estimates if assumptions or behaviour change from our expectation. In particular, data on political party membership fees received is poor, and data on donations below the AEC disclosure threshold is also poor.
So Treasury officials have basically made it very clear that they frankly have no idea how much money this is going to save. The previous speaker made quite a point of saying that these measures would add $10 million a year to the surplus, but they cannot justify the claim for one cent of that saving. This is what has been put forward as the cause for urgency to bring in this bill. The bill does contain measures that should be considered as part of a very serious and broader inquiry, and there are, I believe, some very genuine bipartisan and cross-party efforts to try and arrive at a better system. But, no, those in the executive ranks do not want to allow that process to be given too much air. ‘We need to get these measures in quickly, so we’ll trump up some idea of saving $10 million a year that even the smart minds of Treasury cannot substantiate.’ I have to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I listened to the Treasury evidence about this bill and they were trying very hard to give some substantiation to the figures in the bill—and they were shuffling, not through any lack of capacity on their part but because the savings which are projected here are basically fiction.
Arguments were also advanced—as the reason why tax deductibility should be abandoned—that tax deductions confer greater value to people on higher taxable incomes and are generic and not specific to this measure. Such arguments could be used to argue against every single tax-deductibility measure that sits within the tax act. So the reason we have to abolish tax deductions for political donations is that a tax deduction is of greater value to someone on a higher income? If that is what the government seriously think, they should remove every single tax deduction from the tax act—which is an absolute nonsense. This is a further pretext for bringing this bill into this place at this time which is exposed as being complete nonsense.
The bill fails to deal with the real issue of the culture of fostering influence and influence procurement, preferring to penalise small business donors while allowing unions and other non-taxpaying entities to channel funds, tax free, to their political parties of choice. The nature of illegal activity involving donors and councillors from Wollongong City Council will not be impacted on by the measures in this bill. The bill will have not a jot of influence on these types of activities—not one. Those are the issues that I believe are creating the crisis of confidence out there, but this bill is not seeking in any way to address that crisis of confidence. Treasury officials confirmed that those involved in the business of securing influence with this government—lobbyists—will continue to be able to claim deductions under the general provisions, while small businesses who are not seeking to procure such influence will be denied.
Senator Birmingham asked, in the committee inquiry into schedule 1 of this bill:
If a lobbying company attends a function with the Prime Minister or a premier—
and plenty of them are doing that around the country—
are they able to claim as an expense the entirety of that cost and up to what reasonable limit?
The response from the witness, Mr Hardy, was:
Basically, yes. If their business role is lobbying, networking and advocacy and they go to a function with political leaders in order to network, advocate and lobby, that will be just a business deduction for their business activity. There is no cap to that expense.
So Treasury have confirmed that this great initiative to introduce greater transparency and participation and remove the culture of influence that allegedly exists with political donations continues to have a provision which actually allows those whose business it is to procure influence to continue to claim a tax deduction. The mum or dad who makes a contribution of $200 to support a candidate that they believe is doing a good job will be denied that opportunity. But when the big Labor lobbying firms come to Canberra and they nosh up over in the Great Hall, they will be able to claim every single cent as a tax deduction.
E0J
Keenan, Michael, MP
Mr Keenan
—Hawker Britton.
E3L
Morrison, Scott, MP
Mr MORRISON
—Hawker Britton will be filling out the claims now in their massive accounts departments as their business has grown with the influence of this government.
The other matter I wish to draw the House’s attention to is that Treasury also confirmed that, while the bill will deny business tax deductibility for donations, non-taxpaying entities such as unions and charitable organisations will be permitted to secure contributions from taxpayers on a deductible basis and pass these resources on to a political party, non-capped and tax free, in the form of a donation. So they still get the money from their mates through their lunches, they still get their money from the unions and they are able to procure that money in a way that does not offend the tax act, but we are going to clamp down on those who are simply trying to make a donation to the political party or candidate of their choice.
These issues are incredibly serious and I am, frankly, offended by the way that the executive of the government is bringing these matters into this House without allowing a proper assessment really to be done to look at all of the measures that need to be on the table. We need to deal with the real problems in our campaign finance system, and this bill does not address them. One of the most fundamental truths in modern politics—and I would be surprised if any member disagreed with this statement—is that political parties enjoy raising money to fund their campaigns about as much as the public enjoys being subjected to them. Being able to provide support in our political process is a democratic right, whether it is through voting, volunteering or donating. This is far better than the alternative—just ask anyone living in Zimbabwe; however, no such rights are ever absolute, especially when they compromise the broader liberty of our system. While some believe the answer is just in greater transparency and banning certain donations from people they do not like, I believe that these measures simply do not go far enough. On their own, they fail to deal with the real problem: the need for so much money. They are part of a solution, arguably, but they are certainly not the solution.
A former Federal Director of the Liberal Party and a person of great standing in the Australian community, Lynton Crosby, once told me that money alone can never buy you an election, but not having enough money can certainly lose you one, in the context of campaigning. That used to be true in Australia, because in New South Wales I have seen the most comprehensively incompetent government re-elected on so many occasions it defies belief. They did it on the back of a $12 million fund in 2003 and a $16 million fund in 2007. The Labor Party of New South Wales have demonstrated you can buy any election you want if you can raise enough money. Labor’s big money club in New South Wales certainly does that. Then there was the $30 million war chest delivered by the unions to the current Prime Minister and the ALP at the last federal election. These experiences demonstrate a very unhealthy thirst for funds in our political process.
It is important that we consider real measures to address these campaign finance reforms. Foremost amongst those is the idea of a cap on election expenditure, as applies in Canada, and the registering of third parties to ensure that they are similarly involved in a cap and have to disclose where they get their money from. It is not good enough for just a political party to disclose donations; those channelling funds into the parties, particularly the union movement, need to disclose where they are getting their money from also. We cannot afford to go down the American road. This bill does nothing to stop us from going down that road. I call on the government to put some serious reform on the table.
23
11:23:00
Neumann, Shayne, MP
HVO
Blair
ALP
1
0
Mr NEUMANN
—This bill is part of the Rudd government’s comprehensive program of campaign finance reform. It fulfils an election commitment that we made to remove tax deductibility for political donations. It also ensures that the GST treatment of political parties is not affected by income tax amendments. The bill opens the door on the issue of campaign donations and breathes even more life into our democracy. There is an old joke in Washington, DC that congress is the best that money can buy. That is a cause for concern in Australia, as the inquiry to which the member for Cook referred was told.
The Howard government failed to implement the reforms that we have proposed. In fact, during their final term in office, electoral laws were changed so that people could donate up to $10,000 without being publicly identified. In fact, after they did that, there was a more than 85 per cent reduction in declared donations. That is an indication of the transparency that the Howard government believed in. We also saw a real decline, vis-a-vis our growth in population, in the number of people who cast valid votes at the last election. It was more difficult to vote at the last election by reason of the Howard government’s changes to the electoral laws. Those opposite do not have a great record when it comes to this. Sometimes I wonder, when I hear those opposite talk about electoral reform, whether they hark back nostalgically to the old days, when there needed to be a property entitlement before someone could vote. Certainly historically the conservatives in the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand opposed the democratisation of their countries. That is a fact. They opposed it, just as they oppose the legislation here today. I think it is quite sad that they have done so.
This bill, the Tax Laws Amendment (Political Contributions and Gifts) Bill 2008, amends the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999, or the GST act, and the Income Tax Assessment Act to ensure that individual taxpayers will no longer have the ability to claim a tax deduction in respect of political party membership fees paid on or after 1 July 2008. Further, the bill denies tax deductions to corporate taxpayers and individual taxpayers in relation to contributions or gifts to political parties, members of council, candidates, parties and Independents on or after 1 July 2008. Interestingly, employees or office holders will continue to be entitled to claim tax deductions for those amounts incurred in earning their taxable income.
Currently, the maximum deductibility for corporate taxpayers and individual taxpayers is $1,500 per annum if the contribution or gift is paid to a political party registered under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Before 22 June 2006, the maximum amount was $100 per annum and only for gifts or contributions made to parties registered under the Commonwealth Electoral Act.
Earlier this year, the House passed identical legislation to the bill here today. However, on 19 March 2008 the Senate referred the bill to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for inquiry and report by June 2009. On 26 June 2008 the Senate voted down the legislation. The committee tabled an advisory report on schedule 1 on 16 June 2008. I will speak about that report a little later.
The Labor Party first announced its position on these matters as early as 3 October 2006. It was announced by the then Leader of the Labor Party and Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley. It was re-announced by the now Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Lindsay Tanner, during the last election campaign. Labor’s election commitment was to deny tax deductibility for gifts and contributions for political purposes. The estimated financial impact of this bill is that it will benefit the Australian government’s revenue by about $31 million over approximately three years. This is a considerable saving. I think the average person in my electorate of Blair would consider $31 million to be a lot of money.
The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, to which I referred, made some recommendations in its advisory report, but I accept that there was division along party lines. The committee supported the discontinuation of tax deductibility for political donations and recommended that schedule 1 of this bill effectively be passed by the Senate without amendment. Regrettably, there was a minority report in relation to this matter and the opposition has steadfastly opposed these reforms. So the majority of the committee supported the removal of tax deductibility for contributions and gifts made to political parties, members and Independent candidates and made the recommendation that the bill should be passed.
The committee went through a long process, with much advertising, with respect to this matter. In fact, they announced the inquiry on 28 March 2008 and advertisements were placed in the Australian newspaper on 2 April 2008. Correspondence was sent to all political parties and others who might be interested in the issue. Ten submissions were received and a public hearing was held on 29 April 2008. So the Australian public was told about this and stakeholders and interested parties were given the opportunity to respond in relation to it. As I said, there were a number of submissions, which I have looked at.
Tax deductibility can be viewed as part of a matrix of campaign finance funding. Currently in the law there are two ways political contributions and gifts can be deemed deductions. Firstly, there is the general deduction, which any person might have for expenses incurred in earning assessable income—and there is no limit to that general deductibility concerning political gifts and contributions. Secondly, there is the specific deductibility for gifts greater than $2 but less than $1,500 in any single year. It is in relation to the second that deductibility applies separately. It is possible that an individual personally can make the full deductible claim of $1,500. That individual, if they have a corporate structure which they use to run their business, for example, could then also make the claim of $1,500, effectively allowing a $3,000 deduction. This is a double dip, a double claim, on taxpayers’ funds. In 1991, after Senate amendments, the House of Representatives passed legislation including the tax deductibility for contributions of $2 or more to parties registered under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, with a further amendment setting a maximum deductibility of $100. That is where it stood until 2006. In 2006, the Howard government increased the threshold from $100 to $1,500. Further, it allowed deductibility for contributions made to political parties registered under state and territory legislation. Thirdly, it permitted deductibility for payments to members and independent candidates. Fourthly, it extended deductibility for payments from companies.
This bill allows the continuation of the general deductibility for individual taxpayers. It prevents businesses from claiming deductibility for donations in relation to the general deductibility provision. It amends the capital gains tax provisions to ensure that types of expenses do not form part of its cost base or reduced cost base for capital gains purposes. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters found that about 2.1 million individual taxpayers in 2005-06 had a taxable income of less than the tax-free threshold of $6,000. These more than two million individual taxpayers would receive no benefit from tax deductibility for political donations. However, presently if a person is paying 40c or 45c in the dollar—perhaps earning an income in excess of $80,000 or $180,000—they can claim the full deductibility. If they have the benefit of a corporate structure, they can claim up to $3,000. Mr Deputy Speaker, you can see there is an equity argument in these circumstances. It is a matter of fairness and treating individual taxpayers the same.
There are some very good arguments for the removal of tax deductibility in this bill. First, as I said, it is discriminatory. It treats taxpayers differently depending on their circumstances—their socioeconomic status and their ability to contribute financially to political parties and individuals. The tax deductibility favours those parties who have high incomes and can therefore afford to pay large donations to political parties and candidates. It allows them to adjust their financial affairs to minimise their tax and yet contribute to political parties they love or support. In addition, there is an opportunity cost. As I said before, my constituents would consider $31 million a very large sum. Tax money given back to individual taxpayers who earn high incomes and is given by way of tax concession could be used for public purposes. Think of what that money could do for education, health, roads and the community sector—all of which require considerable amounts of money and all of which we are contributing to after many years of neglect. So there is $21 million worth of taxpayers’ funds which could be put back and given out to help my community and other communities around Australia.
There is another argument. If tax deductibility is given in this way, what about not-for-profit organisations which may not have a charitable purpose or be registered under tax legislation as charities? Why don’t they get the same treatment and the same benefit as political parties? There is an argument that they should if we are going to maintain the tax deductibility. It could be argued also that tax deductibility increases the likelihood of individuals or businesses being involved in the political process. That is the argument that has been put by those opposite—and I have heard that argument before—but I am not convinced of that because I do not think there is any cogent evidence to that effect. Businesses donate for a whole range of reasons, and the committee made that point in its report. It said in paragraph 2.41:
Businesses donate to political parties for a range of reasons including altruism, management self promotion, corporate social responsibility, to express political free speech and to maximise profit.
There is a whole host of reasons why they do it. In the circumstances, I am not convinced that the tax deductibility should remain. It provides an opportunity for high-income earners to gain a deduction in circumstances where the average Australian—struggling to pay their mortgage, pay their rent, pay their food costs, clothe their children and pay for sporting and cultural events their children are involved in—just does not have that sort of income. That is an unfairness in our system that should not be maintained in all circumstances. For a lot of corporate entities, paying money to political parties is all about self-interest. It is about access. It is all about ensuring that they have a seat at the table and that they benefit. Sometimes it is given with a hook involved. Sometimes it is altruism. But often it is so they get a benefit that other taxpayers would not enjoy.
The Rudd government’s position is to remove tax deductibility, and I think it remains as the best policy option to promote honesty, transparency and integrity in our polity. It is a very good thing if it is allied with a reduction in the threshold for disclosing political donations.
It is interesting that one of the organisations that made a submission to the standing committee’s inquiry was the Democratic Audit of Australia. I think they made a very cogent argument in support of the Rudd government’s now position on removing tax deductibility. They noted, contrary to what the member for Cook said, that removing tax deductibility for donations was in line with the Rudd government’s pre-election commitment. In the circumstances I agree with the Democratic Audit’s electoral reform agenda in relation to tax deductibility. As the Democratic Audit stated, corporations are not holders of political rights. Why should they be treated in a more preferential way than individuals who do have the right to vote? I do not think it is fair that proprietors of businesses could effectively have an annual tax-deductible donation of $3,000. Corporations also claim for political access as business donations and they often sponsor sessions at conferences and the like.
The minority coalition report is that removal of deductibility should be deferred until such time as the committee has had the opportunity to conclude a broader inquiry into the 2007 federal election. I think there should be a broader inquiry into the 2007 federal election, because it concerns me that, as our population grows, we are not seeing commensurate parity with those on the electoral roll and those who are actually casting votes. That is of great concern for the Australian political system. I encourage the state governments and the federal government to think about changing their systems when it comes to making it easier for people to register and to vote, because it is the hallmark of any democratic system that people who are eligible should be able to vote and should be able to vote without feeling pressured to do so. They should not have obstacles placed in their paths to vote.
It is important for our long-term political democracy that people learn more about our political system. I am pleased that this year the Rudd government had a roundtable conference and a report in relation to constitutional law reform. But one thing that really concerns me as a federal politician is that a lot of people do not understand the federal system of government, the way our political structures have evolved over many years and the importance of those. In the short time I have been here I have observed that politicians on both sides of the House generally work very hard. In my experience I have come across very few politicians who do not aspire to serve their constituents to the best of their ability—even if I disagree with their political philosophy.
This particular bill is about improving where we go as a country in terms of the integrity, transparency and honesty of our political system. I think this is a just and fair bill. I think it is fulfilment of the Rudd government’s pre-election commitment. The coalition should reconsider their position and support the Rudd government’s proposals in this bill and consider again the folly of so much of what they did in the last few years under the Howard government to make it more difficult for people to enrol, to vote and to be involved in the political processes. I support the bill and I commend it to the House.
25
11:42:00
Keenan, Michael, MP
E0J
Stirling
LP
0
0
Mr KEENAN
—I rise, like previous speakers, to address the Tax Laws Amendment (Political Contributions and Gifts) Bill 2008. This bill, I think rather strangely, reintroduces measures that have been very recently defeated in the Senate. The coalition, as well as other members of the Senate, opposed these measures in the past because they represent a piecemeal approach to what should be a significant issue facing this parliament—that is, the rather vexed issue of campaign financing. The bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to remove tax-deductible status for contributions or gifts to political parties, independent members and independent candidates.
The Senate referred these measures to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for investigation and report. That committee has also been asked, as they are after every election, to investigate and consult with the community and stakeholders before providing a report on the whole of the campaign finance system or, in this case, on the whole of the conduct of the election. It has always been the case after every election that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters scrutinises the conduct of that election and recommends changes to improve our system. This has allowed our system to evolve and it allows us to address changes in the Australian political environment. Australia has one of the world’s oldest and greatest democracies. The system of review that we have established for the conduct of elections has served us extraordinarily well. It is one of the great strengths of our vibrant democracy.
It is a grave mistake to cherry-pick issues outside of that process—like we see with this bill today—particularly one, as I said, about campaign finance, which I think is an issue that warrants more respect and deeper consideration from this parliament. It is ludicrous to introduce this bill, which is aimed at making ill-considered changes to the campaign finance system, without the benefit of allowing the joint standing committee to actually report on the conduct of the election.
The current law affords tax deductibility status for contributions—gifts of money or property—to political parties, independent members and independent candidates to a maximum value of $1,500 in any financial year. These provisions are subject to the conditions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and other relevant state or territory legislation. This bill reverses that and allows for no tax deductibility status for political donations.
I want to turn to the heart of what I have to say today, and that is campaign financing. This is an issue that is a great challenge for this House. It is an issue that, if handled badly, could lead to the perception that our great democracy is somehow for sale. I also think that, if it is handled badly, it has the ability to undermine people’s faith in our democratic processes. All members would be aware that there is some cynicism about politics in the community. I think the reality is that there is less cynicism in Australia than there is in some comparable countries. Although cynicism can be healthy, there is a point where it becomes unhealthy. If we do not have our house in order when it comes to how we fund campaigns, we will be giving the public greater cause to have less faith in political processes in Australia—which should actually be celebrated as one of the greatest democracies on the face of the globe.
My views on campaign financing have evolved considerably over the past few years. If you had asked me a couple of years ago, Mr Deputy Speaker, what I thought about campaign financing, I would have said that any limitation on your ability to raise money is an infringement on your rights and your freedom of expression and that that would be a completely unwarranted intrusion from this parliament. But, having watched and, of course, actively participated in the process of campaign fundraising, I have, very reluctantly, formed the view that our system is broken and in dire need of reform—and not reform by piecemeal measures such as this. What we need to do is have a wholesale look at how political parties fund campaigns in Australia. We need to look at how comparable jurisdictions do it. The member for Cook very wisely suggested that we look at the Canadian model. Members will know that the Canadian model arose after significant campaign finance scandals within Canada. I think all members here and political parties generally around Australia have a reluctance to talk about campaign fundraising, and that says something in itself. When we are reluctant to talk about it, we know that there is a problem with it.
Before I go any further down this track I want to make it very clear that I am not coming to this debate from a position of moral superiority. I am not trying to say that I have not been involved in fundraising—of course I have. I have done it extensively, and I will continue to do so until we have wholesale reform of this issue from the parliament. So I am not pretending to be holier than thou; I am not coming into this chamber pretending that I have not participated in fundraising, because of course I have.
I think it is important that the House think about what is in the interests of our democracy. It is clear that political parties need to fund their campaigns, but we need to do it in a way that takes away any perception of conflict of interest. We are very alive to the issue of conflict of interest when it comes to executive responsibilities. For instance, if the Minister for Resources and Energy were to hold even just $500 in a resource company and he were to make a decision that benefited that company, even though most sensible people would say, ‘I’m sure he didn’t make that decision just so he could make $100 or something on his share parcel,’ we all know that that would be considered to be a substantial conflict of interest. But we do not seem to be as concerned about the conflicts of interest that may arise if that resource company paid to sit down with that minister—and I am not singling out that particular minister for any reason; I am just using him as an example—at a lunch or a dinner, and I think this parliament should be.
That is what I find so absurd about this bill. The government have raised this prospect of looking at campaign financing. They said they are concerned about it; they said they want to look into it. Yet the first thing they do is reintroduce this isolated measure into this parliament. They want us to have a look at it in isolation from other campaign funding issues. Like so much about the Rudd government, there remains an enormous gap between their rhetoric and what happens in reality.
There is a green paper process underway into campaign financing. Of course, nothing is truly on the agenda of the Rudd government unless there is a green paper process or some such inquiry. The coalition will be waiting to see what comes out of that process, but I have to confess I do not hold high hopes for it, considering what we see in this bill. What we see is a piecemeal approach when we should see a wholesale approach, an approach to campaign financing that benefits the government at the expense of other political parties or independents in Australia. So we will oppose these measures. We do not believe in this approach. We believe that we should take a holistic approach to campaign finance reform that will truly benefit our democracy.
It is no surprise that public confidence in campaign financing has been severely reduced. I think the member for Cook outlined a good example: the corruption that has occurred in the Wollongong City Council. Instead of addressing the issues that arise from those events, the Labor government believes that it is more important to go after the funding sources of other parties while leaving their own primary source of funding—the union movement—intact.
It is absurd that Mr Rudd and the Labor Party believe that this measure—this rather minimal measure—to reduce tax deductibility is more important than addressing the serious allegations of misconduct and corruption that have led to this loss of confidence in our campaign finance system. I have heard some members—and the previous speaker, the member for Blair, was among them—talking about this measure as a justified savings measure. But those claims were clearly demolished when the Senate looked at this measure. I will not go through those claims again, but they were amply highlighted by the previous coalition speaker, the member for Cook.
The reality is that the measures contained within this bill are drawn straight from the change that was made to the Labor Party’s policy platform at the national convention that was held in 2004. When that resolution was passed, no reference at all was made to revenue savings and its impact on inflation being the driving force behind this policy change. This is a policy that is aimed solely at securing the Labor Party’s advantage over other parties and Independents when it comes to campaign financing.
In contrast with their own policy to undertake wider consultation before introducing tax bills, this very arrogant government have not undertaken any consultation in relation to this bill. The coalition believe that campaign finance reform should be broad ranging and bipartisan in order to protect Australia’s system of democracy—a system that, as I said, is the envy of the world. That is why we have the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters process, a process that has served us incredibly well. We strongly believe that any reforms to campaign finance should be beneficial to our community and should impact equally on all political parties, large and small. In contrast, we have seen that the Rudd government are only interested in campaign finance reform when it benefits their own political ends.
The measures in this bill do not remove any of the deductibility entitlements that relate to how the Labor Party operate the majority of their campaign financing. These measures secure the campaign finance support that the Labor Party receive from the union movement whilst denying funding sources available to other political parties, independent members and independent candidates. During the inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, the committee received a number of submissions. I would like to draw the attention of the House to a particular submission that was made by Professor Graeme Orr of the University of Queensland. He provided the following evidence, which I think is very good advice for the House. He said:
We particularly recommend that deductibility be not abolished altogether until the government and/or JSCEM settles proposals for any revamping of the broader system of political finance.
Other evidence provided to the committee overwhelmingly supported the view that these tax-deductibility measures should not be considered in isolation of other aspects of campaign finance reform. I think it is clear from the measures in this bill that the Labor Party have absolutely no intention of undertaking any serious campaign finance reform that is in Australia’s interests.
The party system is, of course, integral to Australia’s system of democracy. All political parties, along with independent candidates, perform a crucial role within our democratic system. We support campaign finance reform and we support a sensible discussion in this place and the other place on campaign finance reform. We should not be doing this in a piecemeal way; we should be doing it in a wholesale way. Australia’s system of democracy will benefit from us taking that approach, and I would urge all members of this House to protect Australia’s democracy system by opposing this bill and by endorsing an approach that looks in a wholesale way at campaign financing in Australia, so that we can look the Australian people in the eye and know that we have done everything we can to protect our own integrity when it comes to financing our own political campaigns. I urge all members to reject this bill and consider the approach that I have outlined.
27
11:52:00
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
1
0
Mr KELVIN THOMSON
—The Tax Laws Amendment (Political Contributions and Gifts) Bill 2008 abolishes income tax deductions for political contributions and gifts. It was an election commitment of the Labor government to remove tax deductibility for donations made to political parties. Indeed, this measure was introduced earlier this year as part of the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008, which was rejected by the opposition parties in the Senate. The introduction of this bill provides an opportunity for the new Leader of the Opposition, Mr Turnbull, to show that he understands that there has been a change of government, that he is not leading a government in exile, thinking and behaving as though they are still running the country and that the election of November last year simply did not happen. This provides an opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to show he understands that and to support this bill.
This bill implements Labor’s election commitment to improve the transparency, accountability and integrity of the Australian electoral system. It addresses the problems caused by the large increase in the deductibility threshold introduced by the Howard government, which raised the level of tax deductibility from $100 to $1,500—a 15-fold increase. The coalition changes also allowed corporations and other large entities to deduct the full amount, whereas the previous laws were confined to individual persons—real person donors. Labor took a strong stand against these changes when they came before the parliament when we were in opposition. Indeed, we further opposed these changes in our Labor Party national platform. Clause 49 of that platform from 2007 says:
Labor will abolish the tax-deductibility of political donations, and reverse the Howard Government’s attempt to hide donations by lifting the disclosure threshold from $1500 to $10,000.
So our position was made clear at the national conference, it was made clear in the parliament, and it was made clear through pre-election announcements.
Further to that, the public policy grounds in support of this bill are clear. The Democratic Audit of Australia, for example, said in its 2006 paper that the Howard government’s changes:
... can also have regressive effects and hence, undermine political equality. The present system of tax relief, for instance, favours the wealthy because, having more disposable income, they are more able to take advantage of the subsidy. Further, for the same amount of political donation, the wealthy, being subjected to higher income tax rates, receive a greater amount of public subsidy.
I believe that donations from individuals to political parties should be genuinely philanthropic and that an additional inducement from the taxpayer is unnecessary and unjustifiable. I do not believe that taxpayers should subsidise individual donations in this way. Further, removing tax deductibility is a good policy option for promoting integrity in the political system. It is a reform which could well have a beneficial impact on the not-for-profit and charitable sectors; these are areas which attract tax deductibility status and may turn out to be a more attractive option for philanthropic donors as a result of these reforms. I believe this is a measure which will improve the integrity of the electoral system.
The amendments intend to abolish income tax deductions for political contributions and gifts. We have a situation where the previous government expanded the deduction, in terms of both its quantum—from $100 to $1,500—and the range of people who could take advantage of it, extending this from individuals to corporations. The coalition changes allowed corporations and other large entities to deduct the full amount. The existence of the high threshold that we have now skews political influence, provides financial advantage to those who are wealthy, is regressive in nature and undermines political equality. It is fundamentally corrupt. It has no place in Australia’s democracy. I further note that it has a cost of $10 million per annum to Australian taxpayers, which is money that would be better spent by taxpayers themselves. We are told that removing tax deductibility for contributions to political parties will save an estimated $31.4 million over the forward estimates and that this forms part of the government’s savings plan and response to inflationary pressures in the economy by reducing government spending and lifting the budget surplus.
The government believes that removing tax deductibility is an important policy option for promoting integrity in the electoral system. It is similar in intent to Labor’s more rigorous donation disclosure reform, which has been introduced into the parliament but was regrettably thwarted by the Liberal Party. The government is committed to delivering greater electoral transparency and progressing electoral reform. Let me point out to the House that this includes the commitment made by the Prime Minister last year when in opposition to hold a referendum calling for the introduction of four-year fixed terms for the federal parliament. I believe that that is the kind of reform which we need. It provides stability and responsibility. I think it is unfortunate that we have seen governments of different political persuasions over the years calling elections opportunistically and damaging public confidence in the electoral process. We should not have arbitrary, partisan or capricious election dates. Professor John Quiggin of the University of Queensland has said:
If elections are intended as the primary democratic check on executive power, it seems counterproductive to allow the executive so much freedom to manipulate their timing.
We also note that governments, as well as seeking to manipulate election dates, are also keen to engage in taxpayer funded advertising. Prior to the parliament rising in 2007, we saw the amount being spent on taxpayer funded advertising rising to $1 million a day. I note that the average period between federal elections since 1901 has been 945 days, or 31½ months, which is well short of the three years provided by the Constitution. I further note that fixed terms are an accepted feature of a number of states and territories in Australia. We have recently had elections in the Northern Territory and in Western Australia which were called early. I think we have observed the consequences of that. The Northern Territory Chief Minister, to his credit, announced after the Northern Territory election that the government would introduce fixed four-year parliamentary terms to provide more certainty to the electoral process. He said:
The decision to go to an early election has been shown to be a concern to many Territorians.
I think he has learnt from the experience of the early election. I note also that the opposition leader in the Northern Territory welcomed the announcement, saying it was a ‘good day for democracy’. He also said that fixed parliamentary terms will save Territorians ‘time and money’ by ending opportunistic early elections. The specific deduction provisions in division 30 of the Income Tax Assessment Act currently allow deductions for contributions and gifts to political parties, independent candidates and independent members up to a maximum of $1,500. These provisions will be repealed. Also, to ensure that deductions are not available to business taxpayers, they will no longer be able to deduct a contribution or gift to political parties, candidates or members under general deduction provisions. Taxpayers will be unable to claim deductions for political party membership fees.
I note that the Liberal and National parties have been opposed to this bill. I know that other political parties—the Greens and Family First—have been supportive of this bill. It is clear to me that the coalition parties are more interested in ensuring that they can receive donations from supporters than in either responsible fiscal management or transparency and disclosure. This is of a piece with the other decision made by the Liberal Party in opposition to greater integrity in electoral laws where it sent the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2008 off to a parliamentary committee and gave it a year—until 30 June 2009—to report. This was a deceitful tactic designed to let the Liberal Party avoid any vote on the bill and to hide their unwillingness to support greater openness, accountability and fairness in our electoral laws. No genuine review or consultation on this bill could possibly require a full year or more.
In terms of the passage of the Tax Laws Amendment (Political Contributions and Gifts) Bill 2008 being delayed, political donors will continue to be able to hide their identities while donating up to $10,500 to candidates or political parties—or, indeed, more, if they exploit the loophole which enables them to donate to the state branches of the same political party. This bill would reduce the donation disclosure threshold from the current $10,500 to $1,000—that is, reversing the previous government’s efforts to cover up donations of thousands of dollars. Just to point out the impact of this: in 2004-05, when the threshold was $1,500, there were 1,286 returns lodged. So there were many donor returns. In 2006-07, the number of submissions plummeted to just 194—so something like 10 per cent of the number of donor returns we had been able to see before the previous government lifted the disclosure threshold.
I believe the community has a right to know who is giving what to whom. In contrast, the Liberal Party wants to keep donations hidden in the shadows. Now we have a delay which is allowing candidates and parties to continue to be able to make a profit from public election funding. It is extraordinary that the opposition is prepared to allow this rort to continue and is not willing to vote with the government to close this practice down. Other urgent reforms which have been sent into legislative limbo include the banning of overseas and anonymous donations and a twice-yearly disclosure and reporting obligation on political parties.
In so many ways the opposition has shown that it is not interested in campaign finance reform. It is not interested in greater transparency and accountability, and it is all too willing to continue with the policies it introduced in government which damaged accountability and transparency. In this debate, we have had the member for Casey say that these issues should go to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. So he urges delay. But the point is: this is an election promise. The Liberal Party should respect the will of the voters. The member for Casey also said that tax deductibility for campaign donations was an initiative of the Hawke government. Indeed, it was. But, in its original form, it was limited to $100. It was a minor matter. It was dramatically opened up, by the previous government, to $1,500. That created a completely different scenario and opened up opportunities for influence-buying, particularly by corporate interests. So it became not simply a small matter for individuals who could donate up to $100 but a significant capacity for corporations to seek to influence our political process through campaign donations. I do not think that this issue should be allowed to raise the risk and prospect of influence-buying and, as a result, I do not think we should have tax deductibility for election donations.
The member for Casey said that everything should be looked at together. That is nonsense. We have an express election commitment here. We are entitled—indeed, it is our obligation—to bring this election commitment to the parliament. The opposition say, ‘We need to link this up with all the other electoral matters’—this is among some of the things I have been discussing. But there are two problems here. The first is: what is their position on these matters? Frankly, in terms of election disclosure, they are trying to block those things as well. In terms of the piecemeal approach, I notice that what they are arguing for here is absolutely at odds with their position on pensions where they say: ‘We’ve got no interest in a thorough review. We’ll just go for the stunt.’ This is yet another case of the Liberal Party blocking a budget measure. This is a small one but there are other more serious holes that they are seeking to blow in the budget.
In support of their position, the Liberal Party makes outrageous claims, such as: ‘What is at stake is democracy.’ That is laughable. People will still be free to make donations to political parties to their heart’s content. All Labor is saying is: ‘If you make a campaign donation, it ought to be transparent. People ought to know about it. If you’re going to make a donation, do it with your own money. Don’t do it with taxpayers’ money.’ Labor’s position is not something which endangers the health of Australian democracy. On the contrary, it is something which strengthens the health of Australian democracy. We are fortunate to have a very healthy, robust democracy, but one of the blots on it is the influence of campaign donations—particularly corporate campaign donations.
The member for Cook suggested in his contribution that the basic objection to this was around the issue of timing. He spoke in favour of campaign finance reform. If you are sincere about campaign finance reform, vote in favour of this bill. It is very hard to believe his contention that the only problem is the problem of timing when other speakers speak about this as an attack on democracy, when the Liberals have voted down this measure in the Senate before and, indeed, it was the Liberals who introduced this measure during the last parliament in the teeth of Labor opposition.
The member for Cook said, in response to Labor’s observation that we are implementing an election policy commitment, that we had been pretty quiet about it. He said that there had been just the one press release. That is absolute nonsense. When the former government introduced the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill back in 2005-06, we spoke and voted against it. Quoting myself takes me into the realms of Malcolm Turnbull, but I take the House back to March 2006—
10000
Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. Peter Slipper)—Order! The honourable member ought to refer to the Leader of the Opposition by his title.
UK6
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
Mr KELVIN THOMSON
—The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Deputy Speaker. I said in March 2006:
To make matters even worse, the Liberal Party also plans to deliver a huge tax break for campaign donors, lifting the amount that can be claimed as a tax deduction from $100 to $5,000. Why should someone get a tax break for donating to a political party?
So I said it very clearly back then: you should not get a tax break for donating to a political party. As I said:
Tax deductibility for political donations should be abolished, not increased. ... it is naked, shameless self-interest—the Liberal Party putting its own political advantage ahead of the national interest and a clean, corruption-free political system.
That was in the debate in March 2006. The then Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Kim Beazley, in October 2006 announced the Labor policy to abolish tax deductibility. That was reconfirmed by the shadow minister for finance as part of an election commitment in March 2007. It appeared in Labor’s national conference decisions and announcements. So we have been very clear about this. We have been on the record all the way through as saying we oppose the tax deductibility.
The member for Cook says the problem is the need for so much money to fund election campaigns. And he is right about that; that is quite true—it is a problem. We are acting here to reduce the amount of money available for spending on election campaigns, and the member for Cook is opposing that. That is regrettable. The member for Cook and the member for Stirling claim to be supporting campaign finance reform but their actions speak louder than words.
Australia has an A-grade democracy. We should give thanks every day of our lives that we live here. But that does not mean that it is perfect. We should not be complacent; we can do better. We should safeguard our democracy against attack. I believe that the previous legislation was corrosive of our democracy. What we are doing here to restore transparency and accountability is absolutely right and it ought to be supported by members opposite.
Debate (on motion by Ms Roxon) adjourned.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (MEDICARE LEVY SURCHARGE THRESHOLDS) BILL (NO. 2) 2008
30
Bills
R3094
First Reading
30
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Roxon.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
30
30
12:17:00
Roxon, Nicola, MP
83K
Gellibrand
ALP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
0
Ms ROXON
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill will adjust the Medicare levy surcharge thresholds for individuals and families.
The Medicare levy surcharge is a one per cent increase on top of the Medicare levy for individuals and families who do not have private hospital cover. The thresholds are currently set at $50,000 for individuals and $100,000 for couples and families.
This bill will increase the thresholds to $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for couples and families, and index these thresholds against wages growth into the future.
In doing so, this bill will deliver tax relief to working families struggling with household budgets.
When the Medicare levy surcharge tax was introduced it was meant to apply to high-income earners to encourage them to take out private health insurance, the rationale being that those who could afford to take out private health insurance ought to be encouraged to do so.
The then health minister, Dr Michael Wooldridge, said at the time:
High income earners will be asked to pay a Medicare Levy surcharge if they do not have private health insurance … These are the people who can afford to purchase health insurance …
The then Treasurer, the member for Higgins, said at the time that he hoped it was a tax no-one would ever have to pay.
But since 1997, courtesy of the Liberal government’s failure to adjust the thresholds, the Medicare levy surcharge has become a tax trap that has caught more and more working families, to the point where people earning below the average full-time wage are now confronted with the choice of taking out private health insurance that they cannot afford or paying a tax that is meant to apply only to high-income earners.
Indeed, in August 2006 the member for Dickson and the now shadow minister for health, in his former role as Assistant Treasurer, demonstrated the tax trap the Medicare levy surcharge has become. I quote from the Age:
The assistant treasurer, Peter Dutton, has revealed that the number of taxpayers hit by the Medicare levy surcharge has more than doubled since it was introduced in 1997.
And of course we have seen those rates increase.
In his answer to a question on notice the former Assistant Treasurer revealed that in 1997, 167,000 people paid the surcharge. By 2001 it was 198,000; by 2002, 235,000; by 2003, 282,000; by 2004, 362,000—and we know that by 2005-06 it had risen to 465,000 people.
To remove the tax trap created by the Liberals, the government announced in the budget that we would seek to raise the Medicare levy surcharge thresholds from $50,000 for individuals, and $100,000 for couples and families, to $100,000 and $150,000 respectively.
Since we announced those changes in the budget, there has been some criticism of what we proposed.
We listened carefully to that criticism. We have talked with the private health sector, with other stakeholders and with those on the cross-benches in the other place.
Having consulted, and having listened, we decided to put forward an alternative proposal. Instead of lifting the individuals threshold to $100,000 we are now proposing to increase it to $75,000, while retaining the couples threshold of $150,000 which we proposed in the budget.
We have also listened carefully to what those in the private health sector and the other place have had to say about the threshold levels into the future. That is why we are now proposing to index the thresholds against wages growth each year, to ensure that the threshold levels keep pace with wages growth rather than ever threatening to become the tax trap that the previous government’s thresholds had created.
We want to provide relief from that tax trap. Unfortunately we won’t be providing tax relief to as many people as we would have liked—the Liberals saw to that in the other place last night.
But this measure will deliver immediate tax relief to 330,000 Australians—a significant number of people. For two average income earners, each earning about $60,000 a year, this will deliver a saving of $1,200 in its first year.
And it will give working families a real choice about whether they wish to take out private health insurance—rather than forcing them into it because the alternative is to pay a tax they cannot afford to pay.
The proposals we are putting forward in the bill today are sensible and they are a reasonable position. Let me take the House through what others have had to say about what we are proposing today.
Tasmanian Liberal Senator Richard Colbeck, unceremoniously dumped from his position as the shadow parliamentary secretary for health this week, has said:
If they are talking about indexation, and that is the intent of the government, then indexation of this measure would have put the threshold at about $75,000 or $76,000.
West Australian Liberal Senator Matthias Cormann, the current shadow parliamentary secretary for health, has said:
… would it be more appropriate, instead of doubling it and probably overshooting the mark, to look at what the figure would be if it had been indexed? I am talking about approximately $75,000 per annum.
The Australian Private Hospitals Association has recommended thresholds of $76,000 and $152,000, indexed thereafter.
Access Economics, in a report for the AMA, said that thresholds of $70,000 and $140,000 would have ‘restored the system to previous real levels, if this was the goal’.
Terry Barnes, former senior adviser to former Health Minister Tony Abbott, suggested that thresholds of around $80,000 and $160,000 would be appropriate.
Our revised proposal is a reasonable, sensible mid-way point, and it is a measure that those opposite should get behind.
In his first press conference as the Leader of the Opposition, the new Leader of the Opposition said:
I know what it is like to be very short of money … I know Australians are doing it tough, and some Australians, even in the years of greatest prosperity, will always do it tough.
Well now he has his very first test on whether he wants to help, and whether he really understands that some people are doing it tough in our community.
Fifty thousand dollars is not a high income. South Australian Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham conceded this in the media this morning. He said: ‘It’s certainly not a high salary. Indeed, it is a working salary.’
So this being the case you have to ask yourself why the Liberal Party would be opposed to putting $500 in the pocket of someone earning a working salary of $50,000 a year who is currently forced to pay the Medicare levy surcharge right now.
Why on earth would the Liberal Party continue to support slugging people on working salaries with a tax that was meant to apply only to high-income earners?
The Liberal government’s failure to adjust the thresholds when they were in government, and their stubborn refusal to support our proposal to do so now, brings into question whether they ever really intended it to be a tax that just applied to high-income earners in the first place.
Is the Liberal Party for or against tax relief? That is the question. If the new Leader of the Opposition really understands that some Australians are doing it tough, the opposition will support the government’s Medicare levy surcharge bill and will join with us in providing tax relief for hundreds of thousands of Australians.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Anthony Smith) adjourned.
FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (FURTHER 2008 BUDGET AND OTHER MEASURES) LEGISLATION
32
Bills
R3085
32
12:26:00
Byrne, Anthony, MP
008K0
Holt
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr BYRNE
—I present a correction to the explanatory memorandum to the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND GIFTS) BILL 2008
32
Bills
R3051
Second Reading
32
Debate resumed.
32
12:26:00
Neal, Belinda, MP
B36
Robertson
ALP
1
0
Ms NEAL
—I rise in the House today to speak in support of the bill before us, the Tax Laws Amendment (Political Contributions and Gifts) Bill 2008. This bill amends three pieces of legislation, namely A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999, the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. The amendments contained in the current bill will remove from individual taxpayers the right to claim a tax deduction in respect of political party membership fees paid on or after 1 July 2008. This bill also denies—and this has been the main focus of debate—a tax deduction to both individual and corporate taxpayers in respect of contributions or gifts made on or after 1 July 2008 to political parties; members of parliament, including state, territory and federal members; members of local governing bodies, such as councils; and candidates, both party nominated and Independent, for political office. Employees or office holders may continue to claim tax deductions for those amounts incurred in earning tax assessable income—that is, the expenses of the candidates themselves are part of their normal tax deductions.
At the moment, a tax deduction is available in respect of contributions and gifts made to political parties registered under part XI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 or registered under relevant state or territory legislation, under subdivision 30-DA of ITAA97, the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. The maximum deduction for both individuals and companies is $1,500 per annum.
Before 22 June 2006, tax deductions in respect of these amounts were limited to $100 per annum for contributions and gifts. Before this date, the deduction was only available in respect of gifts and contributions made to parties registered under the above Commonwealth act. This meant that contributions made to Independent candidates, state and territory political parties, members of state and territory parliaments, and all state and territory political candidates made before 22 June 2006 did not qualify for any tax deduction.
The policy of removing the tax deductibility of political gifts and contributions was first announced by the then Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Kim Beazley, on 3 October 2006. On 2 March 2007, the then shadow minister for finance, the Hon. Lindsay Tanner, announced the denial of tax deductions for political gifts and contributions in relation to the views of this government. Identical provisions to those contained in the bill before the House today were included in schedule 1 of the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008. The measure was originally introduced into the parliament by this government on 13 February 2008. On 19 March this year the Senate resolved to refer these provisions to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for inquiry and report by June 2009. The committee tabled its report on 16 June this year. Although the committee recommended that the measure be passed by the Senate unamended, the measure was negatived in the Senate on 26 June with the opposition of the coalition—which was quite shameful in my view.
It is clear from the brief history outlined above that the coalition has consistently opposed reform of the provisions governing tax deductibility for political contributions and gifts. It should be kept in mind by honourable members that the coalition parties have attempted three times, in fact, to increase the threshold on tax deductibility. They tried to increase it before the 1998 election but the matter lapsed. They tried to increase it after the 1998 election but were defeated in the Senate. But when the Senate was under Liberal control in 2006 they ultimately succeeded.
The Labor Party has a long history of trying to reform the tax deductibility threshold for political donations. It went to the last election with a clear policy and clear commitment to remove the tax deductibility of election donations. The Rudd Labor government is formally of the view, as am I, that the Australian public should not be compelled to subsidise political parties and candidates. Taxpayers across Australia already provide money for this purpose via the electoral funding provisions. They should not be burdened further by having to pay for tax deductions for those same political parties and candidates.
By stark contrast, when the coalition was in government in 2006, it was quick to use its Senate majority to increase deductions claimable from $100 to $1,500 for both individuals and companies. At the same time the coalition, when in government, expanded the scope of those political entities and parties to which tax deductibility for contributions to political parties could be made by individuals and companies. Thereafter, in addition to parties registered under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, tax-deductible contributions could also be made to a host of other political entities. These included Independent candidates, state and territory candidates, parties and members of parliament. This blatant attempt to bolster coalition coffers by appealing to big business saw those opposite abandon any semblance of responsible fiscal policy.
The coalition seems determined, in its pursuit of donation dollars, to make it as easy as possible for its business backers to maximise contributions to the coalition and to use the public purse to do so. The Liberal-National Party coalition has been concerned with one issue alone in this drawn-out debate over political donations, and that issue is the protection of its fundraising base. So determined was the coalition in 2006 to increase both the threshold and the scope of tax-deductible contributions that it abandoned many of the responsible safeguards that had been in place in this area. This has continued since 2006. It continues into the present sitting year and is in evidence again in regard to their stance on this bill.
The coalition’s refusal to pass the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008 in the Senate on 26 June this year was in direct contradiction to, and in defiance of, the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters published earlier in June 2008. The committee recommended that the bill should be passed unamended by the Senate. It should be remembered that it was the Senate that insisted on referring the measures to committee. So for the Liberal and National parties to then ignore the advice and guidance the Senate was so eager to receive from the committee on this matter seems not only irresponsible but a complete waste of the committee’s time, and, frankly, shows a disregard for proper parliamentary process. These actions, which ultimately caused the defeat of the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008, also show a level of contempt, as I have said, for the proper processes of parliament that should be of great concern to all members and senators.
What is also clear from this historical overview is that the coalition parties appear far more interested in the dollar value of donations than in maintaining a responsible approach to fiscal management or regard for the parliamentary process. Their 2006 changes to this area of policy illustrate clearly that the coalition has shown and continues to show scant regard for the responsible safeguards that once protected this area of legislation.
It must be admitted that fundraising for campaigning purposes has been a necessary and more or less accepted part of the political process in Australia for many years. Many people, both individuals and corporations, choose to donate to the political process generally with a preference for the party that they think will provide better leadership for the nation or the state. I am not suggesting, and the bill before us today does not contain, any unreasonable curbs or restrictions in this area. Donations to political parties, members and candidates can continue to be made. But a reasonable and equitable system of allowance for tax deductibility for political donations must contain sensible safeguards. These safeguards were provided in the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008 but, as we have seen, that bill was scuttled in the Senate by the Liberal and National parties. While this was a disappointing outcome for good governance and good policy, I am pleased to say that very similar safeguards are provided in the bill before the House today.
This commitment was originally made as part of Labor’s $3 billion savings plan, which was announced on 2 March 2007. The Tax Laws Amendment (Political Contributions and Gifts) Bill 2008 forms part of the Rudd Labor government’s response to inflationary pressures in the economy and is a contribution to our savings plan. Everyone in the community needs to share in the pain of that savings plan, including those in this chamber and in the other place who may need to provide further funds for their own campaigning.
This measure and other savings measures are an important component of our effort to put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. The changes foreshadowed in the bill at hand will have a positive financial impact, delivering savings of just over $10 million per annum. Maintaining a high-tax deductibility threshold for political donations and contributions—as those members opposite want to do—concentrates political influence in the wealthier sectors of Australian society. Tax deductibility also has the potential to grant to those with the greatest capacity to donate a proportionally higher level of taxpayer funded subsidies.
By abolishing tax deductibility for political contributions, the Rudd Labor government removes any potential advantage that high-income donors may receive in making a tax-deductible contribution compared with the average man or woman on the street. If this government can achieve the goals of removing such inequities from our political system, while at the same time delivering a fiscally responsible package that will bring a positive return of more than $10 million per annum or more than $30 million over the next three years, then this is a truly creative initiative.
It may be noted that the bill also ensures that political parties, independent members and independent candidates will not lose access to certain goods and services tax concessions to which they may be entitled as a consequence of the removal of income tax deductibility for gifts or contributions. It is disappointing in the extreme that the Liberal and National parties have opposed this measure so vehemently in their own personal self-interest.
I note that the Greens supported the original bill in the Senate in June this year, with Senator Brown clearly stating that the party favoured ‘the abolition of tax deductibility for donations for political purposes’. The Family First Party too has signalled its support of a similar position. I hope that the Liberal and National parties will take note of the benefits that this measure brings to the system of political contributions and gifts, and reconsider their opposition to this bill. The coalition members of this House should remember that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has already recommended that measures virtually identical to those presented to the House today be adopted without amendment by the Senate. The time has come for those members to heed that sensible advice and pass this measure. The Tax Laws Amendment (Political Contributions and Gifts) Bill 2008 will strengthen democracy, enhance equity and simplify the system of political donations. I commend the bill to the House.
34
12:40:00
Parke, Melissa, MP
HWR
Fremantle
ALP
1
0
Ms PARKE
—I rise to support the Tax Laws Amendment (Political Contributions and Gifts) Bill 2008, which is being introduced after consideration by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, and after being defeated in the Senate at the end of June. This legislation seeks to make good on an election commitment. It seeks to amend three pieces of tax legislation so that donations or gifts to political parties or to independent candidates and members are no longer tax deductible, and no longer receive GST treatments that apply to gift-deductible entities.
As such, this bill is one part of a wider legislative effort to substantially improve the way politics is played in Australia. At the last election, Labor made it clear that it would seek to make a range of changes to the ground rules of the political process. These changes can only be described as pro-democratic because they increase transparency in the political process, particularly where money is concerned; they increase the objective scrutiny of government advertising; and they reduce the value of incumbency. The changes, some legislative and some administrative, to the electoral rules and to the operational practice of government include: re-instating sensible disclosure thresholds for political donations; prohibiting foreign and anonymous donations to registered political parties, candidates and Senate groups; reducing the printing and communications allowances that are available to members and senators; adopting a Lobbying Code of Conduct and establishing a Register of Lobbyists; and releasing new guidelines to govern the content and oversight of Commonwealth government campaign advertising.
These guidelines spring from those developed by the Auditor-General in 1998, and refined by the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts and Audit in 2000—the same guidelines that the Howard government studiously and, I think it is fair to say, scandalously refused to implement. The guidelines will ensure that a government cannot advertise as government policy what is in fact a proposed election policy, as happened with the tax advertising campaign in 1998, and they will ensure that all campaigns over $250,000 will be scrutinised by the Auditor-General.
Desperate and flagrant taxpayer funded self-promotion was one of the clearest signs that the Howard government had lost all hope and self-respect in the course of 2007. To place, in 2006, a record $213.2 million worth of government advertising was one thing—an increase of seven per cent on the previous record financial year advertising figure. But in 2007, to spend $368.8 million of Australian taxpayers’ money, an increase on the previous year of not seven per cent but 72 per cent—it also happened to be an election year—was breathtaking in its cynicism, maladministration and sheer waste.
A number of the changes I have described as forming part of the Rudd government’s pro-democratic agenda were contained in the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill that was introduced in the Senate in May of this year. To put the Tax Laws Amendment (Political Contributions and Gifts) Bill into context, I want to briefly mention a few things about that earlier, as yet unresolved, piece of legislation. The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill was referred by the Senate to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters which, at this stage, the opposition has required to report in all apparent haste by 30 June 2009. I understand that Senator Fielding has shown common-sense to move that the joint standing committee report earlier than that. The two most significant aspects of that bill, which the opposition has sent to Coventry for its own reasons, are: (1) to reduce the political donations disclosure threshold from $10,900 back to $1,000; and (2) to prohibit foreign and anonymous political donations.
There was no principle behind the massive increase in the disclosure threshold when it was amended in 2006; there was only political self-interest. Money and democracy will always have an uneasy relationship because political influence is one of those things that we should not be able to buy. The power of each individual’s vote and of each citizen’s voice must be paramount and, in a perfect world, only the freely chosen aggregation of those votes or voices would be capable of creating something stronger than a single vote or voice. But the reality is that communication is not free and, therefore, campaigning costs money. The reality is that money affords certain people more political influence than others, and the only effective countervailing force is the requirement that such influence be there for all to see. Any measure that reduces the transparency of political funding is, for that reason, profoundly anti-democratic.
The prohibition against foreign donations speaks for itself. While I am absolutely the last person to take a Fortress Australia attitude in general terms, there is every good reason to rule out the influence on Australian domestic politics of foreign individuals, companies and political groups; and there is every good reason to require Australian political parties and candidates to rely upon what support, electoral and financial, they can draw from an Australian constituency.
It is now perhaps a constitutional anachronism that an Australian citizen who also happens to hold the citizenship of another nation cannot be elected as a representative in this national parliament. Section 44(i) of the Constitution currently operates to exclude from representative politics at the national level the estimated four million to five million Australians who are holders of dual citizenship on the basis that they are presumed to be subject to an ‘allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power’.
Yet, as it stands, unlimited funds from abroad can be applied in support of an Australian political party or candidate without disclosure to the Australian public. It is a matter of record that in 2004 the Liberal Party received a donation to the tune of $1 million from the British peer Lord Ashcroft. The truth about this substantial treasure chest of political influence was not disclosed until 2006. Like so many things about the Liberal Party and the Howard government that might have been interesting to know at the time they occurred, this was yet another matter that only became clear once a federal election had safely come and gone.
This bill removes the tax deductibility of political gifts and donations. In so doing, it undoes an arrangement by which the Commonwealth and indeed Australia’s taxpayers were effectively underwriting or defraying the contributions that companies and individuals made to political parties and their candidates. It is estimated that the Commonwealth was conceding tax revenue in the order of $10 million per annum under the existing legislation. It is hard to see how that could be justified. We might ask why the taxpayer at large should defray the financial contributions of what is comparatively a very small number of individuals, not to mention companies or unions. We might ask why a pensioner or low-income earner who chooses to donate $100 to a candidate should pay the full $100 out of their limited means while someone who earns enough to put them in the highest income tax bracket would have the same contribution subsidised to the tune of $40 by the government. We might go further and ask: which side of politics would benefit most by subsidising the contributions of those at the highest end of the income scale?
The process through which charities and not-for-profit community organisations acquire deductible gift recipient status is an onerous one—and so it should be. The tax concession involved is not given lightly, and when DGR status is received it makes a big difference. I know that the Leeuwin Foundation, a sail training organisation based in Fremantle that works with disadvantaged and troubled kids, were over the moon when their application for DGR status was recently approved. It will of course help them to attract donations, which in turn will assist in the funding of their important and selfless community based work. I am sure that the Leeuwin folk would agree that political parties and candidates, however important they may be to the functioning of Australian parliamentary democracy, are not quite in the same boat—if you will pardon the pun.
The income tax and GST treatment amendments contained in this bill, in company with the raft of pro-democratic changes I have described and which this government is committed to making, will, in sum, make Australian democracy fairer and more transparent. This bill is another important part of the Rudd government’s pro-democratic program; it is another step in restoring integrity of process to both government and politics in this country. As I have said, this bill has the effect of repealing those aspects of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 which currently allow the tax deductibility of contributions and gifts to political parties and to independent candidates. It is worth noting that a monograph issued by the Democratic Audit of Australia in 2004 entitled Australian Electoral Systems: How Well Do They Serve Political Equality? noted with approval the fact that federal income tax deductibility was limited, at that point, to $100 per annum and was explicitly not available to corporations.
That changed—as did so many things—in the Howard government’s fourth term. Indeed, one can look at the period from 2005 to 2007 and make an argument that very few terms of government have seen so much unconscionable anti-democratic change. But democracy is resilient and it is resistant to anti-democratic change. The abuse of democratic structures, rules, laws and practices came back to haunt the Howard government. The unfettered bicameral power of the Howard government was its undoing. On 9 October 2004, with control of the House and the Senate, the Howard government might have thought that politics did not come any sweeter. But history will show that the Liberal Party drowned in honey.
It suits the opposition to run a line that the Rudd government is about symbolism instead of substance. It suits the opposition because the opposition do not have a positive agenda. It suits the opposition because, where they have abandoned principle, they can run a line that principles are only symbolic, that principles are hollow. Based on the incredibly strong response from my constituents in the electorate of Fremantle, I can say with confidence that, with the ratification of the Kyoto protocol, the apology to Indigenous Australians and the ending of the mandatory detention of asylum seekers, there is an overwhelming relief that an Australian government has rediscovered the clinching and foundational importance of acting on principle.
The change that this legislation effects, and the change represented by the other pro-democratic measures I have mentioned, are not to the political advantage of the Rudd government. Some of the provisions and measures they reverse were undoubtedly of political advantage to the Howard government. As I have already noted, a number of them were instituted in the final term of the Howard government when it had turned to burning the furniture against the cold wind of voter discontent. It would do anything, say anything and spend anything to defend its majority.
This government in its first term rests on half the margin that the previous government had, and this change is a change of substance. Like the other changes I have discussed, it is quite possibly to the disadvantage of this government because it involves unwinding a series of provisions that were nakedly designed to strengthen the position of the incumbent Howard government. It is a bill for which we cannot and do not expect much political mileage, but I am sure that those opposite, like Ron Clark lying on the track at the national championships in 1956 when he suddenly found John Landy there to help him up, will recognise that the Labor Party is a party with the courage of its convictions and that the Australian Labor Party has won government on the basis that there is no victory without honour. With this bill the Rudd government continues on its program of making positive and substantial changes to the framework and to the ground rules of politics in Australia.
36
12:53:00
Bradbury, David, MP
HVW
Lindsay
ALP
1
0
Mr BRADBURY
—I rise in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (Political Contributions and Gifts) Bill 2008. I do so after having previously spoken on the former bill, Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008, of which these particular proposals largely constituted schedule 1. Back when that item was before the House, I note the proposals that are currently contained within this bill were largely the measures contained within schedule 1, although I do note that there are some additions in this particular bill. They relate to some of the concessions and definitional issues that need to be resolved so far as the GST is concerned. I welcome the fact that those proposals have come out of the consultation that occurred on the previous bill, because they were matters that had not been taken into account when the bill was previously before the House.
I would like to address some of the issues that have previously been raised in this debate, but I begin by making a very simple point: the measures that are contained within this bill are seeking to take away the tax deductibility that currently exists for political donations. It is important to note that there is a limitation on the extent to which deductions are available under the existing legislation. Notwithstanding that limitation, this bill seeks to remove the ability of donors to obtain the benefit of a tax deduction. That is a principle that was very clearly put before the Australian people before the last election. It is not a secret. It was not concealed from the public or from those on the other side, although I do note that it has become part of their modus operandi to block the election commitments that we made so they can try to stall our budget, particularly when it comes to some of the key revenue measures that were part of that budget.
I note that back on 2 March 2007 the then shadow finance minister, the member for Melbourne, issued a press release—‘Labor’s $3 billion savings plan’. I think we all appreciate that, when an opposition releases a savings plan, it is normally a document that is the subject of considerable scrutiny. If you have a look at the degree of scrutiny to which the Labor Party was subjected in all those years of opposition when it came to any financial plan or attempt to identify savings, it was always considerable. For those on the other side to say that this was not explicitly put before the Australian people is just plain wrong. It is an election commitment. We believe that it should be passed. I note that some on the other side keep suggesting that this should be considered as part of some broader reform. I welcome their commitment to broader reform, because there was no such commitment when they had the ability to do something about it in government. In fact, the only reforms that they ever introduced when they were in government were to extend the lurks when it came to these matters, to increase thresholds for tax deductibility and to increase thresholds when it came to disclosure. None of those things achieved any meaningful reform in support of the principles of democracy; on the contrary, they actually allowed donors to maintain some anonymity and also provided greater tax benefits to those who made a contribution.
I welcome the newfound commitment to reform in this area, but I simply say that the fact that it has taken more than a decade for those on the other side to come to the view that some of these things need to be reformed is not of itself a reason to block the delivery of an election commitment. We made this commitment. It is a clear commitment. There are revenue gains to be made out of this, and that is an important part of the overall budget strategy that we have. We want to make sure that we can deliver a significant budget surplus to take pressure off inflation and to deliver for the people whom we are elected to deliver for by ensuring that the only pressure on interest rates is downward. I take on board the commitment to greater reform, but that should not stop us from moving ahead with this particular proposal.
In relation to the issue of the equity of what is being proposed here, it has been said by some of the previous speakers on this side—and the point cannot be made often enough—that, when it comes to tax deductibility, any tax deductibility measure will inevitably provide a greater benefit to a higher income earner because the benefit of a tax deduction is essentially the government forgoing tax revenue from a particular item of expenditure.
With government forgoing that tax revenue, obviously those on a higher income, who are paying a higher level of tax, receive a greater subsidy than those who are on lower income levels. There are some tax exempt entities out there that would get no benefit, but let us look at those that might be on the lower levels. Take the 15c in the dollar level. I often hear from the other side that this measure will stop pensioners from putting their hands in their pockets and contributing to support a political party. If we have a look at the breakdown of the number of pensioners who are currently making a contribution in that sense, the analysis that is available seems to indicate that the bulk of money for funding campaigns is not coming from pensioners, in any event. So the benefit of this tax subsidy is only being provided to those who already have a considerable amount of money.
I must say that I was struck by the comments of the member for Stirling, who said that he was once a great supporter of raising lots of campaign funds and that this is something that was very dear to his heart but now he has seen the error of his ways and he would like to embrace a greater commitment to campaign finance reform. I certainly encourage that because I think we have a long way to go when it comes to these matters. But I would say with respect to the member for Stirling that most people on the other side did nothing to advance the interests of democracy—let us go beyond the circumstances of this particular bill. We saw, particularly in relation to the increase in printing and postage allowances of members of parliament, the entrenching of the incumbents of the parliament. The measures that were undertaken by those on the other side when they were in government made it more and more difficult to have contestable elections.
We have already taken measures in that regard. They are important measures because, in the end, a balance needs to be struck between allowing an MP the resources that they need to communicate with their electorate to get the job done and ensuring that you are not just creating a taxpayer subsidy that allows someone to entrench themselves into a position that denies the contestability that democracy requires. So there is an enormous degree of hypocrisy in the bleeding that has come forward from those on the other side.
I find it extraordinary that we now hear that the new Leader of the Opposition is very much committed to campaign finance reform. I welcome it but I find it very strange, given his history in these matters. An article in the Daily Telegraph of 1 August 2007 has the headline ‘Mal’s party: Turnbull no toff but to join club costs $55,000.’ The article reads:
For most Australians $55,000 is a lottery win, but for the richest politician in Australia—Malcolm Turnbull—it’s the entry fee to his elite election fundraising club.
Just in case you thought you misheard that—$55,000. That, I think, is pretty close to the median household income in my electorate.
The Environment Minister has asked his well-heeled Eastern Suburbs to fork out between $5,500 and $55,000 for membership to the Wentworth Forum, a think-tank whose main aim is to get him re-elected.
And he’s even throwing a party at his harbourside mansion as part of the campaign, with a guest appearance from Prime Minister John Howard.
Mr Turnbull, a former merchant banker, said he needs the money because the Liberal Party is at a financial disadvantage to Labor, which he claims receives a “torrent of cash” from the unions.
I find it extraordinary that fundraising could be operating on that scale to begin with, and I think that that is something that needs to be addressed. To the extent that concerns raised by those on the other side go to the issue of trying to rein in some of the campaign fundraising that is occurring, I support that, and I think most people within this House would support that. But I think it is a bit rich to start receiving lectures in relation to these matters from those who were the master practitioners of this particular art.
Another article, in the Age and dated 7 October 2003, speculates about the capacity of the Liberal Party to raise funds after Malcolm Turnbull had moved on from his position as federal treasurer of the party. The article says:
Mr Turnbull strongly rejected such suggestions—
the suggestions were that he would no longer be raising funds for the party and that he had left the party in a less than desirable financial position—
describing them as “ nonsense”.
He said that last year he had raised more money than the Liberal Party had ever raised in a non-election year.
So we have a Leader of the Opposition who cut his teeth, earned his medals and rose up through the party by making an art form out of raising serious campaign finance. If those on the other side are serious about reforming the whole system we embrace that. But I think that the Australian public will be very cynical, given the lack of action—and indeed if they look at the actions of those opposite in all those years when they were in government they are right to be cynical about the approach that is being taken by those on the other side.
I would like now to turn my attention to the issue of trade unions and the extent to which they are a part of this debate. There have been a number of very misleading statements made in the debate prior to this point. Some of them, I think genuinely, display a lack of understanding of how the current tax law provisions operate, but others I think are more deliberately disingenuous. The suggestion seems to be that, in denying tax deductibility in relation to political donations and given the fact that union dues that are paid by members of a union to their union are tax deductible and that unions in some way make contributions to various election campaigns that the Labor Party is involved with, somehow an indirect tax deduction is being made available for union dues that is not available elsewhere. I think it displays, firstly, a lack of understanding of how the tax law operates—and I see the former Assistant Treasurer in the House and I know he would be very much aware of these issues.
Section 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 is one of those really significant provisions within what is a very large act. It is the general deductions provision. It essentially provides that, where expenditure is incurred in the course of undertaking activities that relate to the derivation of income—to the earning of income—a tax deduction is available. There are certain statutory exceptions, but that is the basic principle. In fact, it is under section 8-1 where the principle of tax deductibility of union dues finds its legislative source. It is not some special provision that was created. You have to understand the political contributions provisions that this bill seeks to repeal—the ones that give you that tax deduction—are a specific set of provisions. But section 8-1 is the general deductions provision that applies to all taxpayers. It states: ‘If you incur an expense and that expense is incurred in the course of producing an income you get a deduction.’ It is a universally acknowledged principle and that is why it is known as the general deductions principle. I want to read from tax ruling 2000/07, which states:
Periodic subscriptions paid by a person for membership of a trade, business or professional association are deductible under section 8-1 of the Act where the principal activities of the trade, business or professional association are relevant to the gaining or producing of assessable income by the member, or the carrying on of a business by the member for the purpose of gaining or producing assessable income. Therefore, where the principal activities of the association are negotiating and administering employment agreements, and/or providing professional development services, the subscription is an allowable deduction, provided that the member is earning assessable income from the relevant trade, business or profession.
Importantly, the tax ruling is an ATO statement of what the current law is. At paragraph 7, the ruling goes on:
Where the principal activities of the association relate to lobbying politicians or influencing public opinion on matters not related to the derivation of the members’ current assessable income earning activities … a deduction is not allowable under section 8-1 of the Act.
An important distinction is being drawn here. As it currently stands, the law states, ‘A union member who pays union dues that contribute to the provision of services for that member, and their fellow members, in advancing their pay and conditions, has an expense that is incurred in the course of producing their assessable income and therefore that fits within the universally accepted section 8-1, the general deductions provision.’ So it is general tax law at work. The same would apply if it were an employers association, and that is also an important point to remember.
There is no special concession being provided to trade unions, because the same concession is provided to all associations of that particular description. So the Law Society, for example, would fit into that category; employers associations would fit into that category. The special treatment that those on the other side claim is being afforded to trade unions is treatment that is generally available to any other organisation in that situation. This bill is only taking away the specific provisions that deal with the tax deduction relating to political contributions, and they are in division 30 of the act. By taking those provisions away, the existing tax deduction that is available will be removed and other deductions that might be available under the general deductions provision will continue to prevail.
So to come in and suggest that somehow the trade union movement is getting some special treatment is, as I said before, either being deliberately disingenuous or displaying a lack of knowledge of the provisions that we are dealing with here. I could go on at much greater length on that particular point, but I think the point has been made.
Finally, in conclusion, this is an important measure for a few reasons. Firstly, it was an election commitment, and we are a government committed to delivering on our election commitments, however unique that might sound. But it is also an important revenue measure. We are also a government committed to delivering a significant surplus that will take pressure off inflation, protect our economy against the global economic turbulence and, ultimately, ensure that the only pressure on interest rates is downward pressure. In addition to that, this measure will restore some equity to these particular provisions. It will ensure that the very wealthy, as well as the less wealthy, who contribute and make donations to particular political candidates do not get a tax windfall. It is a question of equity. It is also a question of ensuring that those who want to make a contribution to the political process in this way can do so, without the need for any additional public subsidy, given the fact that we already have a considerable regime of public funding of political elections in this country. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.
WATER AMENDMENT BILL 2008
39
Bills
R3091
First Reading
39
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Garrett.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
39
39
13:13:00
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts
1
0
Mr GARRETT
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The current severe and prolonged drought, the onset of climate change and the consequences of past decisions and practices are placing an enormous strain on the communities, industries and natural environment of the Murray-Darling Basin.
Since pre-Federation times, water resources management in the Murray-Darling Basin has been characterised by tension between governments and competing interests, particularly between upstream users and downstream users.
It is time for effective action to address the challenges we are seeing. It is time for the Commonwealth to provide national leadership for present and future generations.
Today the government is putting forward reforms in the Water Amendment Bill 2008 that reflect a new era of cooperation and collaboration between Murray-Darling Basin governments for basin-wide water resource management.
In response to concern about many of Australia’s river systems, the Council of Australian Governments agreed in 1994 to reforms for Australia’s rural and urban water industries.
In 1995, as partners to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, governments introduced a cap on diversions of surface water from the Murray-Darling Basin. This cap was based on historic levels of use.
We have, however, the situation today where science, and the evidence of what we can see for ourselves, is clearly telling us that our rivers and aquifers are stressed and overallocated.
This government was elected on a platform of ending the blame game and buck passing between Canberra and the states and territories. We have reinvigorated the Council of Australian Governments with a major reform agenda, underpinned by more effective working arrangements. We have established a policy and financial framework to address Australia’s long-term challenges.
One of those challenges is to secure a sustainable water supply in the face of a changing climate and the pressures of economic development.
Cooperative partnerships between the Commonwealth and state and local governments, farmers, industry and the community are critical to addressing this challenge.
We took a major step forward in March 2008, with the Memorandum of Understanding on Murray-Darling Basin Reform, signed by the Prime Minister and the premiers of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Queensland, and the Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory.
The central principle of the memorandum of understanding was to improve planning and management by addressing the basin’s water and other natural resources as a whole, in the context of a new federal-state partnership.
The agreement embodied the sound principles of Commonwealth-state relations by assigning a basin-wide planning and management role to the Commonwealth, while providing for clear participation by basin states in decision making and affirming the autonomy of basin states to manage water within their catchments.
In July 2008, as promised, an intergovernmental Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform was signed by first ministers, which built on the principles of the memorandum of understanding. In the intergovernmental agreement, governments committed to a new culture and practice of basin-wide management and planning, through new governance structures and partnerships.
Today I present historic governance reforms in the Water Amendment Bill 2008 that are possible only because basin state governments have agreed to propose legislation to their parliaments providing for a referral of certain powers to the Commonwealth parliament in accordance with section 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution.
The matters covered include:
-
the transfer of current powers and functions of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority;
-
the strengthening of the role of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission by extending the application of the water market rules and water charge rules; and
-
enabling the Basin Plan to provide arrangements for meeting critical human water needs.
The Commonwealth bill is being introduced into the House at this time as the bills to refer power to the Commonwealth have entered both the New South Wales and South Australian parliaments. Indeed, the bill passed through both houses of the New South Wales parliament yesterday. I look forward to the referrals by the Victorian and Queensland parliaments, so that this bill can be considered in another place.
The bills being considered by state parliaments refer specific powers and a limited, defined subject matter amendment power to the Commonwealth. In relation to the amendment power, the Commonwealth has committed to securing the agreement of states before proposing any amendments to the Commonwealth parliament. Reflecting the cooperative underpinnings of the referral, any amendments proposed by the Commonwealth would be consistent with the principles of the intergovernmental Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform signed by first ministers.
The Water Amendment Bill 2008 represents a historic agreement for the long-term reform of water management in the Murray-Darling Basin. It introduces a new era of cooperative arrangements between the Commonwealth and the states, so that governments, industry and the community can face head-on the challenges of water scarcity and water security.
Thanks to this strong collaborative approach, together we are putting in place a much better system for managing the basin in the national interest. We will now be in a position to make the hard, but necessary, decisions to ensure a sustainable future over coming years.
A key element of the Water Act is the preparation of a whole-of-basin plan by the independent, expert Murray-Darling Basin Authority in the context of clear accountability to the Commonwealth minister.
The Basin Plan will also include an environmental watering plan to coordinate management of environmental flows throughout the basin, including the additional environmental water that is recovered by the Commonwealth.
Central to the Basin Plan will be sustainable diversion limits on surface water and groundwater use in the basin to ensure the long-term future health and prosperity of the Murray-Darling Basin and to safeguard the water needs of the communities that rely on its water resources.
Further to the Water Act, this bill introduces governance arrangements for the new Murray-Darling Basin Authority that take account of the need to work closely with the states.
It is imperative for Commonwealth, state and local governments to share a common understanding of the problems in water and to respond in a comprehensive and coordinated way.
This bill provides basin states with a clear and important advisory role in the preparation of the Basin Plan through a new Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council and the Basin Officials Committee. The basin states will also have a major role in putting the Basin Plan into effect.
While it is important that the states have a seat at the table, final approval of the Basin Plan will rest with one government, the Commonwealth, acting in the national interest.
The states will also retain a decision-making role through the new ministerial council in relation to specific functions that will be moved from the Murray-Darling Basin Commission into the new Murray-Darling Basin Authority.
This bill delivers on our election commitment to bring the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the Murray-Darling Basin Commission together into a single body. This ensures there will be a single body responsible for overseeing water resource management in the Murray-Darling Basin. This body will be the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, an independent, expert agency established by the Commonwealth. The authority has the functions and powers, including enforcement powers, necessary to ensure that basin water resources are managed in an integrated and sustainable way.
The authority will have autonomy to prepare the Basin Plan, the first-ever single basin-wide water resource management plan. The Commonwealth minister, in approving the Basin Plan including the new sustainable cap on water diversions, will be accountable to the people of Australia through this parliament.
The Basin Plan will take account of future climate change and address the legacy of past overallocation. It will also set out arrangements for securing the critical human water needs of people reliant on the river Murray.
A properly functioning water market will be essential to help the irrigation industry manage future reductions in water availability.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will play a key role in improving the functioning of the water market in the Murray-Darling Basin by monitoring and enforcing compliance with water charge rules and water market rules.
The rules will reflect the water charging and trading principles in the National Water Initiative, ensuring that the water market in the basin works efficiently and that there are no inappropriate barriers to trade.
This bill strengthens the role of the ACCC by:
-
providing for the water charge rules and the water market rules to apply to all water service providers and transactions. This means that all users will be assured of a uniform approach to regulation, irrespective of the structure of their water service providers; and
-
extending the reach of the water charge rules to enable the ACCC to determine or accredit determination arrangements for all regulated water charges. This will promote a uniform approach to the regulation of rural water charges to the benefit of water providers and users.
The bill also allows for individual states and territories to choose to extend the geographic reach of the rules and the ACCC’s new powers beyond the basin, so they are not necessarily limited to the Murray-Darling Basin.
The bill will allow markets to operate much more effectively in allocating water between competing uses, improving water use efficiency and delivering water to its highest value uses.
This government has recognised that a new approach to water resource management is required to deal with the pressures of climate change, economic development and environmental degradation in the Murray-Darling Basin.
The Water Amendment Bill 2008 will implement governance arrangements that, in the long term, will improve the use and management of the basin’s water resources and will protect and enhance the basin’s social, environmental and economic values.
These reforms are for the medium to long term. The first Basin Plan will commence in early 2011. The government recognises the severity and urgency of the current condition of the basin.
The Commonwealth government is complementing its governance reform with our $12.9 billion Water for the Future program, which has four priorities: tackling climate change, supporting healthy rivers, using water wisely and securing our water supplies.
In delivering Water for the Future, we are setting a new standard in national leadership and cooperative relations with state and territory governments.
In July 2008, when the Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform was signed, the Commonwealth announced investments of close to $3.7 billion for significant water projects in South Australia, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory. These projects will improve irrigation efficiency, raise the productivity of water use and make water savings that will be returned to the rivers of the Murray-Darling Basin.
What Australians want in the Murray-Darling Basin is action. This government is responding with immediate practical measures to take the stress off the rivers of the basin. For the first time in the history of Federation, the Commonwealth government is buying water entitlements from willing sellers in the water market to tackle overallocation in the Murray-Darling Basin so that rivers and wetlands will get a greater share of water when it is available.
The bill revises the risk assignment framework for the Murray-Darling Basin. Where states have also adopted these new arrangements in legislation, the government intends to recognise the state adoption through an amendment to the bill if a state parliament passes the relevant legislation before the Water Amendment Bill leaves this House. I note that the New South Wales Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council passed such provisions yesterday. Accordingly, we intend to recognise the adoption by New South Wales through an amendment to this bill.
The government has already established the statutory position of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder to manage water entitlements that we purchase or recover through infrastructure efficiency measures. Our environmental water entitlements will be used to protect and restore wetlands of international importance, as well as rivers and wetlands that support listed migratory and threatened species.
We are accelerating specific infrastructure and water savings projects to return flows to rivers and wetlands and to secure water supplies for townships, communities and irrigators.
The government is making wise investments to create efficient irrigation areas and return water to our rivers. We aim to secure a long-term sustainable future for irrigation communities in the context of climate change and reduced water availability into the future.
We are working with irrigation communities to buy out water entitlements from areas willing to move out of irrigation, facilitated by a price premium reflecting the value of water savings from closure of infrastructure such as supply channels.
We are working with state governments to co-fund the purchase of appropriately located irrigation properties and their water entitlements to enhance environmental outcomes in the northern basin.
We are also committed to freeing up water trade in the basin to allow water to go to where it brings most benefit, as agreed under the National Water Initiative.
Governments and the community need to have a clear understanding of the volume of water in storage across the Murray-Darling Basin. To this end, we have initiated the first comprehensive, detailed and externally reviewed audit of both public and private water storages in the basin. The audit will be updated every three months and the information will be publicly available.
These are practical measures which are part of our long term plan to deal with a highly stressed river system, which is suffering from the impacts of overallocation and climate change.
The Commonwealth is responding to the enormous challenges we face in the Murray-Darling Basin with national leadership and decisive on-ground actions. These things have never been done before and they will require us to make some difficult decisions, but that does not in any way detract from the fundamental need to take action now.
I can introduce the Water Amendment Bill 2008 because the Rudd government has reached an historic agreement with basin states to refer certain Constitutional powers to enable the Commonwealth to manage the waters of the Murray-Darling Basin as a single system, in the national interest. This is much needed, long overdue reform in governance that will put the Murray-Darling Basin on the right footing to face the challenges ahead.
This bill implements governance reforms that are complemented by the $12.9 billion investment under our national water plan, Water for the Future, which is already being rolled out.
The government recognises that many basin communities are doing it tough. They have been under stress for a number of years. With reform in governance and substantial but wise investment, the Commonwealth is working with basin communities and basin governments to deliver a sustainable future.
Debate (on motion by Mr Dutton) adjourned.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND GIFTS) BILL 2008
42
Bills
R3051
Second Reading
42
Debate resumed.
42
13:31:00
Zappia, Tony, MP
HWB
Makin
ALP
1
0
Mr ZAPPIA
—Australia prides itself on being a democratic country with a government and a legal system underpinned by the fundamental principles of democracy. In fact, the oath of allegiance to Australia sworn by new citizens states, in part:
… I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share …
Democracy—our belief in it and our practice of it—is fundamental to good government and an inclusive society. Only last week, the member for Fremantle gave an excellent address in this place about the virtues and importance of democracies, not only in Australia but throughout the world, for mankind generally. Democracy, however, implies much more than the right to vote and the right to participate in the governance processes of a nation. The democratic process must be transparent, must be free of any form of manipulation and must have the confidence of the people it serves. Yet in Australia, a country where we constantly espouse the importance of democracy, we can still do better in ensuring that our claim of democracy is matched by the processes we have in place to deliver that democracy.
This bill, the Tax Laws Amendment (Political Contributions and Gifts) Bill 2008, has a number of important implications with respect to the principles of democracy. The bill’s primary function is to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to remove tax deductibility for contributions and gifts to political parties, independent members and independent candidates. Presently, tax deductions of up to $1,500 for such donations can be claimed, costing taxpayers over $10 million per annum. In fact, in the last federal election the taxpayers contributed an additional amount of $49 million.
The current measure, which allows tax deductions of up to $1,500, was introduced in 2006 by the Howard government, along with a raft of other amendments. When the bill was introduced, the member for Eden-Monaro, who was the Special Minister of State, said, in justifying the need to provide tax deductions of $1,500:
By changing the tax deductibility arrangements, the bill will encourage greater public participation in the democratic process.
It was a theme that was supported by the member for Wentworth, now the Leader of the Opposition, when he spoke to the bill that is presently before the House. He said:
This is a big moral issue. It is not just a financial issue; it is not just a political issue. It goes to the very heart of our democracy. We cannot afford to allow our democracy to become less contestable than it is today.
He also said:
The question that we have to ask ourselves, as Australians committed to a contestable democracy, is what price democracy if one side of politics has an inordinate share of the financial resources available for campaigning?
In the first quote from the member for Wentworth, and in the introduction of this measure two years ago by the Howard government, the obvious underlying implication is that, if you allow tax deductions for political donations, then clearly more people will make political donations. The obvious implication of more people making political donations is that there will be more funds raised by the political parties. So on one hand the Leader of the Opposition is saying that, if you increase the amount of political donations that are made, that is good for democracy; but on the other hand he questions whether, if one side of politics or another has an inordinate amount of funds at its disposal, that skews the process of democracy. Quite frankly, I cannot see the logic. I do not know whether he is supporting this bill or opposing it.
The reality is that the opposition are opposing this bill because of their personal reasons with respect to the need to have people donate to their particular party. I will just go to some other comments made by the member for Wentworth, because in speaking about this he also raises some other matters. It is interesting that when the member for Wentworth refers to donations that have been made over the years to political parties he also says that it appears that in recent years the business sector, which in the past would have traditionally made most of their donations to the Liberal and National coalition, have now gone on to share their donations between the two major parties.
I say to the Leader of the Opposition that if he is concerned about that particular aspect of political donations then perhaps he should ask himself this very simple question: why? If the corporate sector is today giving donations to both sides of politics, the obvious conclusion that I draw from that is that the corporate sector has faith in the Rudd Labor government and the alternative parties to the Liberal and National parties. In my mind, if the corporate sector is no longer making the kinds of donations it might have made in the past to the Liberal Party, that implies that it has also lost faith in the Liberal Party. So I guess that if the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about why his party is not receiving the levels of contributions and political donations that it might have done in the past, rather than relying on legislation which is fundamentally flawed, it should look to its own performance and its policies.
Contrary to the views of the member for Wentworth, it is my contention that this bill in fact enhances our democracy and that the existing provisions introduced by the Howard government, under which tax deductibility for donations of up to $1,500 is allowed, are in fact what undermines our democracy.
Another matter that I want to comment on is the Leader of the Opposition’s reference to the trade unions when he was speaking about his opposition to this bill. He said:
At the same time, the Labor Party has 100 per cent of the donations that come from the trade union movement.
If the Leader of the Opposition were rational about that, he would know that the trade union movement has from time to time donated to parties other than the Australian Labor Party. But, more importantly, if the member for Wentworth, the Leader of the Opposition, were simply to ask why that is so, the answer would be staring him in the face. How can he expect the trade union movement, which has been under attack from the Howard government for almost 12 years—with a whole raft of measures aimed at undermining the trade union movement—to make donations to the Liberal and National parties? Again, if you want anyone to make donations to you, then clearly you have to put forward policies that are in the interests of the organisation from which you are seeking donations.
When you introduce policies such as those of the Howard government, which included the Work Choices policy, when you introduce government entities like the Australian Building and Construction Commission and when you do everything you can to undermine the trade union movement, then how can you in all seriousness criticise them for supporting parties other than your own? I say to the Leader of the Opposition—because he now is the Leader of the Opposition but at the time that he gave that address he was not—that perhaps he ought to start looking at ensuring that the Liberal and National parties stand up for the rights of working Australians and support the efforts of unions in this country, who are doing nothing more than trying to ensure a fair go for the members that they represent. It is absolutely clear that the members opposite are simply opposing this bill for their own political purposes and nothing else.
What is also interesting about this bill is that it highlights the fact that providing tax deductions for people who make political donations of up to $1,500 is costing the Australian taxpayers $10 million per annum. I am sure that if you asked those same Australian taxpayers what they would rather see that money spent on, the last thing they would say is: ‘Tax deductions to those people who make political donations.’ I am sure that they would rather see that money spent on health, education, water, pensioners, carers, veterans and so on and so on. There are a whole range of needs out there in the community that people would rather see the government spending its tax dollars on.
The other matter is that by withdrawing the tax deductibility of political donations it is likely that lesser amounts will be donated. That, in my view, is a good thing for democracy because it means that the democratic process is less subject to the manipulations or influences of advertising dollars. Let me just return to the point about $10 million of taxpayers’ funds being returned to those people who make political donations. As the member for Lindsay quite rightly said in his address prior to mine, tax deductibility is allowed where expenditure is made in order to earn an income. If the expenditure is legitimate expenditure for the purpose of deriving an income and is necessary in deriving that income then tax deductibility is allowed. The only other scenario in which I can recall tax deductibility being allowed—and I am certainly not a tax law expert—is where the expenditure is made for the public good. A typical example is where a donation is made to a public charity or similar.
Political donations do not fall into either of those categories. They are not necessary expenses in earning an income and nor are political parties public charitable organisations. Why political donations were ever allowed as tax deductions bewilders me. As I said, the argument used at the time by the Howard government was that it enhanced our democracy. If, however, for some obscure reason, a political donation can be demonstrated to be a legitimate income expense, then I would expect that the general laws of taxation would apply. If you can demonstrate that having made that donation is relevant and necessary to the income you are going to earn, then argue that case with the Commissioner of Taxation.
Cynics will argue that political donations ultimately affect incomes and that is why they are made. I recall—I think it was in about 1984—that when the measure allowing the government to fund public elections was made, the point that political donations can certainly affect the public’s confidence in the political process was also raised, and raised quite properly. The argument was that political parties and individual politicians, if elected to office, would give special consideration, and perhaps even favourable consideration, to the views of those who supported their election. Of course, that perception will continue even if political donations are not tax deductible, because political donations will still be made. The donations, however, are likely to be of a lesser amount, and that in itself is an important outcome of this legislation.
Of greater relevance is that taxes are used by governments to fund expenditure for public good. Tax deductions are a form of government expenditure. Whenever a government gives back a tax deduction, it is part of the budget process, it is part of a budget allocation—in other words, it is part of government expenditure. By allowing tax deductibility of public donations, governments are effectively returning money to individual taxpayers, who in turn use that money to fund political parties or politicians of their own choosing without any form of accountability to the community. It is hardly an appropriate or legitimate use of tax revenue. The net effect is that taxpayers are indirectly funding political campaigns—something which, perhaps, they have no interest whatsoever in doing.
Political donors are more often people who donate large sums and support politicians or political parties that the donor believes will implement policies which the donor subscribes to. That is normal practice and no-one would be critical of that. It is, in fact, the case that those who make political donations are generally supporting something because it is self-serving; it has nothing to do with good policy or democracy. Self-interest, however, is more easily protected by wealthy, large entities, or a collection of entities with a common objective who pool their resources, than it is by individual households, who have neither the finances nor the resources to coordinate their position. Encouraging protection of self-interest by providing tax deductions for political donations simply fuels the perception that governments are beholden to their political donors. The public good is set aside in order to protect the interests of those who make the political donations. Not surprisingly, people lose confidence in and become cynical about the political process.
Political donations are not the only option available for supporters of political parties or politicians, of course. Donors can fund their own campaigns which indirectly support a particular political position and in which expenditure incurred may still be eligible for tax deductibility. As result of this legislation, I suspect we may see more of that type of political support in the future. Of course, there will be other forms of tax-deductible options that some smart tax accountants will use to ensure that political donations will be tax deductible. These options, however, are much more cumbersome than simply making a donation. Not all political donors will be interested in pursuing complicated options of making political donations for which they can claim a tax deduction. We may also see less money spent in donations to election campaigns and more spent on professional lobbyists, who will use their skills to influence the government that is ultimately elected.
There are a few more points I would like to make in relation to this matter. The first is this: this bill not only affects candidates or political parties at federal level; it also affects both state and local government candidates. Local government candidates with a small amount of money can have a huge advantage over other candidates when they contest their election because, generally speaking, there is very little private funding of local government candidates. Any candidate who has access to funding will have a huge advantage over other candidates.
This bill will also ensure that it will be a much more even playing field for both state and local government candidates and parties. The reality is that making state and local government elections much more even and much more democratic will be good for all Australians. The federal government, as we all know, has a huge interest in what happens at both state and local government levels, because much of the funding spent by both the state and local governments comes from the federal government. If we are going to ensure democracy is in place, we need to ensure that it is in place not only at federal government level but also at state and local government level.
The last point I want to make is in relation to a point that was made by a number of opposition speakers. They said that they oppose this measure because it should not be made in isolation and because it should be part of a series of changes that may be necessary—or at least should be looked at—to the electoral laws. I say to members opposite: if something is wrong, if something is flawed, if something needs to be changed, it should be changed regardless of whether it is a single measure or part of a number of measures. The fact that it is part of a series of measures does not change the fact that these laws need to be changed. (Time expired)
45
13:51:00
Danby, Michael, MP
WF6
Melbourne Ports
ALP
1
0
Mr DANBY
—The Tax Laws Amendment (Political Contributions and Gifts) Bill 2008 shows that Chris Bowen, the Assistant Treasurer, and the Labor government are taking electoral reform seriously. By bringing forward this measure so early in the government’s term, as we pledged to do before the election, the government is putting into legislation the views that so many speakers prior to me outlined. As well as being a timely change to improve our democracy, this measure is an election commitment that will save around $30 million over three years. During the last parliament, electoral reform was an issue that I spoke on constantly and I said that we should tackle it during our first term. I remember an exchange I had with the honourable member for Indi after a debate on electoral matters in the Main Committee. During that debate she rather cynically expressed her scepticism that we meant what we said on this matter. Now she can see that we meant what we said.
The government is reintroducing this legislation to remove tax deductibility for contributions and gifts to political parties, independent candidates and members. It was originally introduced into parliament on 13 February 2008 in the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No.1) Bill before being referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Although the committee recommended that the measure be passed by the Senate unamended, in what has become the norm—because of our obstructionist opposition—this measure was blocked in the Senate on 26 June 2008. I have been a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters since I was elected to this House, and for a time I was deputy chair. During that time I watched at very close quarters the former Howard government manipulating Australia’s electoral laws to their own partisan advantage. I have been involved in formulating the current government’s response to those efforts.
As I said earlier, this bill is one of several instalments of the government’s commitment to electoral reform. An extensive review of electoral laws has been announced by the government. This process will lead to the publication of a green paper on electoral reform that will appear later this year. Senator Faulkner, the minister responsible for electoral matters, will deal with a wide range of issues relating to the enhancement and modernisation of our electoral system. Senator Faulkner’s discussion paper will be followed by a white paper—a statement of the government’s further legislative intentions in this area. Obviously at present I do not know what the content of the white paper will be; that is the point of having a process of consultation. But I certainly hope and expect that it will contain proposals to roll back the other regressive changes that the Howard government made to our electoral law in 2006—namely, the shorter period for new and changed enrolments after the announcement of an election; the requirements for photo ID when enrolling and the requirements for photo ID when casting a provisional vote; and also some earlier changes to the savings provisions that the previous government made which virtually increased the informal vote by a third.
Last week the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters held hearings as part of its inquiry into the conduct of the 2007 federal election. Amongst the witnesses were Professor Brian Costar of Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne and his colleagues from the Democratic Audit of Australia, a group that advocates reform of our electoral system. I was able to ask Professor Costar a series of questions about the effect of the Howard government’s changes to the procedures for enrolling and voting. Professor Costar stated his views based on his research on the tighter requirements for provisional voting—that is, that voters wanting to cast a provisional vote had either to bring photo ID to the polling both or have a person from a prescribed category witness their photo ID if they wanted to fill in a postal vote. He said that in his view this requirement had significantly reduced the ability of people to cast provisional votes. He said that this had had a partisan effect—namely, that it took votes away from the Labor Party. His estimate was that this change cost Labor three House of Representatives seats. He did not name the seats, but I can name them: McEwen, Bowman and Swan—and I would probably also suggest Dickson, which should interest the member sitting on the front bench over there. Professor Costar, one of Australia’s most respected political scientists, told the committee about the partisan effect of making it harder for people to cast provisional votes. He said:
I think a case can be made that it changed the result. If the admission rate had been what it had been in the past, three electorates might have changed hands ... We know that provisional voters, because of their choice, are not a mirror image of the electorate as a whole. They tend to be more Labor and Green than they are Liberal, National, or anything else.
My view about it is that it is a demographic explanation. There is nothing partisan about it; that is just how it is.
He was explaining the fact that provisional voters are slightly more pro-Labor than the ordinary run of voters.
This bill on electoral funding should be seen in the light of all of the regressive changes that the previous government made to our electoral laws and to the process of democracy in Australia. The Australian Electoral Commission has provided me with some figures on the impact that this change has had on the ability of Australians to cast provisional votes. At each of the last three elections, between 165,000 and 180,000 people cast a provisional vote. In 2001 and 2004, about 50 per cent of those applications were rejected. This was usually on the grounds that the identity of those people could not satisfactorily be established, perhaps because they were not on the roll at the address they gave or because their application was not properly witnessed. This shows that the AEC was doing its job, ensuring that only people who were entitled to vote actually did so.
What all Australians should know about the previous government and their rorts that influenced the last election, however, is that in the 2007 election the proportion of applications rejected jumped to 86 per cent—that is, about 60,000 Australians who applied to cast a provisional vote were rejected. What was the explanation for that sudden rise? Was it that 60,000 people had suddenly become enrolled at false addresses or had forgotten to sign their names? No. It was because they were unable to provide photo ID, as required by the Howard government’s regressive changes to the act or, more likely, because they did not realise that they were required to do so.
We have a compulsory voting system in Australia; we ought to be doing everything we can to widen the franchise not to minimise it. Taking 60,000 Australians off the electoral roll is just like the coalition’s opposition to this legislation—typical of their regressive behaviour as far as Australian democracy is concerned. The great majority of the voters, in other words, were honest citizens who were entitled to vote and who wanted to vote but were prevented from doing so by these quite unnecessary changes to the electoral act. We do not have to look very far to find out who these people were; people who wanted to cast a provisional vote but were unable to do so either because they were unable to provide photo ID or because they did not realise they were required to do so are likely to be first-time voters, people whose languages is not English, new citizens, Indigenous people, people with disabilities sufficient to prevent them holding a drivers licence and people on low incomes who are less likely to have passports. All of these categories are, on balance, more likely to be Labor or Green voters than Liberal or National Party voters.
When you look at the fundraising and transparency issues together with the early closure of the roll and these changes to provisional voting, you understand why people like the Democratic Audit of Australia and Professor Costar are concerned about Australian democracy and think that the changes made by the opposition are very regressive.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 2.00 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Melbourne Ports will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
MEMBERS SWORN
46
Miscellaneous
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have received a return to the writ which I issued on 4 August 2008 for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Mayo, in the State of South Australia, to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of the Hon. Alexander Downer. By the endorsement on the writ, it is certified that Jamie Edward Briggs has been elected.
Mr Jamie Edward Briggs made and subscribed the oath of allegiance.
BUSINESS
46
Business
46
14:03:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Leader of the House
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—For the benefit of members and as a courtesy, it is likely, and indeed hopeful, that the House will rise today at 6 pm or before. If need be, in order to facilitate that, we will negate the adjournment. In terms of people being able to make their arrangements, I thought it was best to inform the House at the earliest possible opportunity.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
46
14:03:00
Questions Without Notice
Bipartisanship
46
14:03:00
46
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer the Acting Prime Minister to the Prime Minister’s comments in New York, where he appealed for bipartisanship between the Republican and Democratic parties in dealing with the international financial crisis. Why is the Prime Minister preaching political peace to the US Congress but playing cheap politics here at home, where he refuses my offer of bipartisanship to meet the great economic challenges facing all Australians?
47
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Acting Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I very much welcome this question from the Leader of the Opposition. Can I say to him: we would welcome bipartisanship on delivering the government’s budget in these uncertain global times. It seems to me remarkable that the Leader of the Opposition would call for bipartisanship on a day on which his Liberal Party has shown less economic responsibility than every independent member of the Senate and even the Greens. His Liberal Party have stood in the way of the condensate measure in the Senate. They voted against it. It has been delivered on the votes of the government, the Independents and the Greens. He was there ready to punch a $2.1 billion hole in the government’s surplus this morning. This morning in the Senate, as we prepared for question time, there was the Liberal Party punching a $2.1 billion hole in the government’s budget—less economic responsibility than Senator Fielding, less economic responsibility than Senator Xenophon and less economic responsibility than the Greens.
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr Turnbull
—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. Unless the Acting Prime Minister says $6 billion of new tax—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Acting Prime Minister is responding to the question.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—I was asked about bipartisanship, and let me tell you where it can start. It can start with delivering the Medicare levy surcharge changes the government has reintroduced into the House today in order to give hardworking Australians some tax relief. He could indicate some bipartisanship by saying that he regrets showing the economic vandalism and irresponsibility that the Liberal Party showed in the Senate this morning. He could show some bipartisanship on the delivery of the government’s budget.
The Leader of the Opposition is a man who claims to know something about economics. Well, you do not need to be an expert to come to this very simple conclusion: in uncertain global economic times, the last thing that we can afford is budget uncertainty here at home. In uncertain economic times globally, we need to deliver budget certainty. If he is offering bipartisanship, that is where it should start—deliver the budget, deliver it in whole and deliver the Medicare levy surcharge.
Economy
47
47
14:07:00
Symon, Mike, MP
HW8
Deakin
ALP
1
Mr SYMON
—My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House the conclusions of the Reserve Bank’s Financial Stability Review, which was released today?
47
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I certainly welcome the question. Today we have had the Reserve Bank’s half-yearly Financial Stability Review delivered, and it certainly does highlight the difficult global environment that we face. The report adds, I think, weight to the government’s view that we are not immune from global difficulties but we are certainly well placed to withstand the fallout. If I could just quote from the report:
While the Australian financial system has not been completely insulated from developments abroad, it is weathering the current difficulties much better than many other financial systems.
It also goes on to highlight the strengths of our financial system, which is very important at a time such as this. I quote:
The Australian financial system has coped better with the recent turmoil than many other financial systems. The banking system is soundly capitalised ... and it continues to record strong profitability and has low levels of problem loans.
So the Reserve Bank stresses that we do not face the same problems as those that are at the core of the US financial market troubles. If I could quote again:
It is important to note, however, that the ratio of banks’ problem loans to total assets remains below the average since the mid 1990s, a period of unusually low credit losses.
This report underscores the strength of the IMF report yesterday—two reports which are very welcome. But the government is certainly not resting on its laurels.
There are some things we can control and there are some things that we cannot control. One of the things we can control is that we have built a strong surplus to act as a buffer against global uncertainly. I heard earlier the Leader of the Opposition pretend that he was in favour of bipartisanship. The fact that he could do that within 30 minutes of a vote in the Senate where the Liberal and National parties opposed the condensate measure is breathtaking. He would make a cat laugh! His hide is so thick. How can he on the one hand call for bipartisanship and then on the other blow the surplus apart in the Senate? It is like somebody calling for peace and then turning around and throwing a grenade. That is what it is like. It is entirely phoney.
We certainly welcome bipartisanship. We would welcome it at a time of global economic uncertainty. We certainly do thank those minor parties in the Senate and the Independents who voted for the condensate measure. We thank the Greens, we thank Senator Xenophon and we thank Senator Fielding. As the Acting Prime Minister said before, they have got more economic responsibility in their little fingers than those opposite have got in their whole body. The hide of them to come into this House and claim to be in favour of bipartisanship! And the hide of the new Leader of the Opposition to claim that he represents some new era of economic leadership!
Everybody knows that, at a time of global economic uncertainly, we need a strong surplus. This government has put a strong surplus together to act as a buffer and to fund investment for the future. That process has been given a huge tick by the IMF. If the opposition ever needed a reason to support the government’s budget measures in the Senate, it is contained in the Reserve Bank report today.
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr Turnbull
—Mr Speaker, on indulgence and very briefly, I just want to note—
Government members interjecting—
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr Turnbull
—I think it is important in these times to note that the opposition endorses the comments of the Treasurer about the Financial Stability Review but, plainly, we do not agree with what he said about the surplus and—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Indulgence is something that is not given lightly, and we should remember that in the future.
Age Pension
48
48
14:12:00
May, Margaret, MP
83B
McPherson
LP
0
Mrs MAY
—My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Does the Acting Prime Minister stand by her statement that it is impossible to live on the pension of $273 a week? With a $22 billion surplus, why won’t the government do something for pensioners right now?
48
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Acting Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the shadow minister for ageing for her question, and I would make the following simple points in return. Firstly, the member might like to investigate and find out that the pension has actually been the subject of indexation. Indexation measures were delivered this week and a proportion of the utilities allowance, $128, was delivered this week. So she may want to get her facts right when she asks a question. Point No. 2: the shadow minister for ageing uses the surplus figure. Maybe the shadow minister for ageing might like to reflect on the fact that she is a member of a political party that is determined to destroy that surplus and is acting in the Senate each and every day to destroy that surplus.
83B
May, Margaret, MP
Mrs May
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. I specifically—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for McPherson will resume her seat.
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The point of order has been made with me on relevance. The Acting Prime Minister is responding to the question.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—The second point is that it was the member herself who, in her question, raised the budget surplus. I am simply explaining to her a basic economic fact which members of the Liberal Party seem incapable of understanding. In the walk from the government benches over to the opposition benches they have lost every strip of economic credibility. They no longer seem to understand simple facts such as that they are on a course to punch a hole in the surplus. Had they won the vote in the Senate earlier today, $2.1 billion would have been ripped out of the surplus figure the member has quoted in her question.
On the question of the age pension, can I say to the shadow minister for ageing as follows: when the shadow minister for ageing was a member of the Howard government, the minister responsible for families and community services, the then member for Longman, went to the Howard cabinet with a proposal for an increase in the base rate of the pension and the Howard government rejected it. Earlier this year, when the shadow member for ageing said that she and the Liberal Party were committed to an increase in the base rate of the pension, she was slapped down and repudiated by the now Leader of the Opposition, who was then the shadow Treasurer. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition did not advocate an increase in the base rate of the pension until he came last week to sit in the chair of the Leader of the Opposition.
Compared with that track record, this is a government that is delivering practical measures. We did it in the recent budget. We delivered for older Australians a $500 cash bonus. We delivered for older Australians a $500 utilities bonus—and $128 of that utilities bonus has been delivered in the last week. Unlike the Howard government, which as recently as last year turned its back on Australian pensioners, this is a government that has said we understand it is tough being on the age pension. We understand that action is needed on the age pension. We also understand that it is important to get that action right—not a proposition that leaves two million pensioners out, as the proposition put by the Liberal Party did; not a proposition that was unconstitutional, as the Liberal Party’s proposition was; not a proposition that did not understand the intersections between the age pension and other parts of the social security system. This is a government that has already delivered practical measures to make a difference. This is a government that is proceeding in a responsible manner—both responsible in policy and responsible economically. The Liberal Party is committed to neither policy responsibility nor economic responsibility.
Medicare Levy Surcharge
48
48
14:17:00
Rea, Kerry, MP
HVR
Bonner
ALP
1
Ms REA
—My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Why are changes to the Medicare levy surcharge thresholds necessary and is there opposition to these changes?
48
Roxon, Nicola, MP
83K
Gellibrand
ALP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Ms ROXON
—I thank the member for her question. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition denied 330,000 Australians tax cuts worth up to $1,500 for many families. Shame!
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr Turnbull interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Leader of the Opposition does not have the call.
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms ROXON
—Today we introduced a new bill to the House, with a clear message for the Leader of the Opposition. He needs to be able to look those 330,000 Australians in the eye and explain why he refuses to support a tax cut for them. He needs to be able to do that. I have been giving a lot of thought to why it is that the Liberal Party is so doggedly hanging onto the threshold of $50,000. After a lot of thought, I have decided that there are only three possible options. The first option is that that there was so much scientific justification for choosing that $50,000 threshold that the Liberal Party dare not change it—ever. The second option would be that the original thresholds were set in such a way that, although they were not relevant at the time they were introduced, they would somehow be magically relevant today when they are being defended by the Liberal Party so doggedly. The third option would be that the Liberal Party think that $50,000 is a high income and they do not think that people earning $50,000 deserve tax relief—something the Leader of the Opposition is trying to contest.
On option 1, is there any scientific justification for this threshold that they are so doggedly hanging onto? Members might not remember that I advised the House of some comments made by the then Minister for Health, Dr Michael Wooldridge, about how these thresholds were set. Just in case any members have forgotten, I might remind them. He said:
I think the numbers in the end were negotiated with Senator Harradine—it was over a bottle of Jameson’s whisky late at night …
So much for there being any scientific justification! The second option is that they were not relevant at the time that they were introduced but they were going to be magically relevant today. Dr Wooldridge gave us some assistance on this issue as well. He said:
We were happy to successfully get through 12 months, let alone worry about a problem in 10 years …
Of course, we know that the member for Dickson, having answered questions in the House on this matter, sat idly by as part of the government as the number of people hit by this tax slug doubled and then tripled—and he did nothing.
Option 3 is that the Liberals think $50,000 is a high income. Interestingly, Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham was asked exactly this questions morning. AAP reported that Senator Birmingham conceded that $50,000 was not a high salary. In fact, he said:
It is certainly not a high salary. Indeed, it is a working salary.
The members opposite are denying people on a working salary this sort of tax relief. Let me quote what Dale, a caller to 3AW this morning, said:
I’m one of those poor people, working hard, who has to take a second job to help for bills, and I can’t afford PHI in the first place. There is just not the money there.
He is pushing $51,000 a year, and he said: ‘I can’t afford it. The money is simply not there.’ All over Australia, people have a sinking feeling, like Dale, that the Liberal Party are not going to help working families. But the only sinking feeling that the Leader of the Opposition has is when he loads up his gondola with too much Italian luggage. I mean, really, this is ridiculous!
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The House will come to order!
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms ROXON
—The thresholds that the Liberal Party are doggedly hanging on to are not logical, they are not designed with any thought of the consequences in 10 years time and now they are hitting families that even Liberal senators call ‘those on working salaries’. There is an easy question for the Leader of the Opposition to answer today: does he think people on $50,000 deserve a tax cut or not? The Leader of the Opposition can turn his back, but does he think people on $50,000 deserve a tax cut or not? He can vote on that here and he can provide tax cuts and relief to people earning $50,000. If he is not going to deliver that tax cut, he should jump on his gondola and head back to Venice.
Medicare Levy Surcharge
49
49
14:23:00
Dutton, Peter, MP
00AKI
Dickson
LP
0
Mr DUTTON
—My question is also to the Minister for Health and Ageing. I refer the minister to the Senate inquiry into the changes to the Medicare levy surcharge. The submission of private health insurer NIB states:
The proposal has seriously affected investor confidence in the private healthcare sector ... The consequences can only be less investment in private sector services and infrastructure such as hospital beds. Of course this will only place further pressure on the public health system ...
Will the minister guarantee that private health insurance premiums will not rise and that public hospital waiting lists will not grow as a result of the government’s changes to the Medicare levy?
49
Roxon, Nicola, MP
83K
Gellibrand
ALP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Ms ROXON
—One clear thing that I can guarantee this House is that we will back public hospitals more than you ever did. Let us get that straight.
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr Dutton interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Dickson has asked his question.
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms ROXON
—The member for Dickson also wants guarantees about premiums. Let us be honest about this. The member for Dickson, who has been in the job only for three days, already knows that it would be totally irresponsible for us to try to make some projections about premiums when private health insurance funds—
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr Dutton
—Mr Speaker, a point of order which goes to relevance: the minister has introduced a bill. There must have been modelling as to how much this bill will increase private health insurance—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Dickson will resume his seat. The minister is responding to the question, and I will listen carefully to her response.
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms ROXON
—The truth is that the member opposite does not want to have an answer from us on premiums where private health insurers are the ones who make applications at the end of the year for the premiums that they are seeking. It is not the job of government to predict what that will be. It does not matter how loud the member for Dickson yells, the truth is that there is of course very commercially sensitive information—not that we are withholding it—that the private insurers themselves do not provide to government until the application round begins. I will say something else: I notice how readily the member opposite wants to quote the private health insurers. I think that the private health insurers’ views on premiums will be about as objective as the member for Bradfield’s view would be on the member for Wentworth. This is a ridiculous position.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: this was a very serious question about the impact of government policy on public hospitals and private insurance premiums. If the minister cannot give a guarantee, she should pull the bill and apologise.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. It was not a point of order. The minister has finished.
Infrastructure
50
50
14:26:00
Raguse, Brett, MP
HVQ
Forde
ALP
1
Mr RAGUSE
—My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Will the minister advise the House on reactions to the government’s nation-building agenda, and is the minister aware of any threats to the government’s efforts to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure?
50
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
1
Mr ALBANESE
—I thank the member for Forde for his question. Indeed, the government’s nation-building agenda has received widespread support. That is not surprising, because we went to the election with a plan to have an infrastructure minister and infrastructure department, and we have done it. We had a mandate to introduce legislation to establish Infrastructure Australia, and we have done it. We had a mandate to establish the Building Australia Fund, and we have done it. We did this over a number of years in the lead-up to the November 2007 election. In that period we were surprised, frankly, that the opposition continued to ignore infrastructure, as they had for 12 long years. It is therefore not surprising that the government’s agenda, particularly the agenda of establishing nation-building funds in terms of infrastructure, education infrastructure and health infrastructure, has received such widespread support. We stated that our priorities would be rail, road, ports and broadband. Once again, that has received widespread support from the Australian business community. Just yesterday the International Monetary Fund released a report endorsing the government’s strong approach on these issues. That is why I was surprised that those opposite have learnt absolutely nothing during this process. In today’s Australian, on top of their attempt to trash our budget surplus, the new shadow minister for infrastructure—they did not bother having an infrastructure minister in government—has threatened to oppose the Building Australia Fund. He has threatened to oppose nation building—quite an extraordinary position.
They have come up with a whole range of reasons for that perhaps being the case. They have argued that there are some weaknesses in the Infrastructure Australia legislation. I remind them that they moved amendments in the Senate, which we rejected when they came back to the House, and then they folded their deck of cards and voted for Infrastructure Australia. They did that because of pressure from the business community, who want a nation-building agenda, but also because of pressure from people in their electorates, who want issues such as urban congestion addressed with support and national coordination from the federal government.
There is criticism about some of the arrangements that are made regarding the way that the fund will be managed. That is pretty extraordinary, too, because of course we have stated that the Future Fund Board of Guardians, which they set up, will manage the funds. We are currently finalising the arrangements to allow the fund to be set up by 1 January 2009.
FU4
Robb, Andrew, MP
Mr Robb
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The minister was asked about threats to the proper application of these funds. The minister has not addressed the prospect of this being an almighty Labor slush fund.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Goldstein knows that the latter part of that was not a point of order and he is warned. The minister for infrastructure will respond to the question.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will quote from the Merchant of Venice: ‘I am not bound to please thee with my answer.’
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The minister will address the question.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—I certainly will, Mr Speaker. Those opposite need to understand that in threatening the Building Australia Fund they are threatening support for broadband access for Australians. They are threatening solutions to urban congestion. They are saying that they want parents to remain stuck in traffic jams rather than spend time at home with their kids. The fact is that their opportunism knows no bounds. In threatening to oppose these funds in such an extraordinary fashion, they are showing just how out of touch they are with their constituents in their electorates and also with the business community, with the Business Council of Australia, with the Australian Industry Group—with every other business organisation in this country that is supporting the Building Australia Fund and supporting the other long-term investment funds. They should wake up to themselves, get in touch with their electorates, get in touch with their business community and support Labor’s nation-building agenda.
Economy
51
51
14:32:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
Mr HOCKEY
—My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer the Acting Prime Minister to the statement by the member for Longman in this House that ‘legitimate retribution’ could be taken against members of parliament that vote against the government and:
If ... revenue measures are blocked, ... infrastructure projects in the opposition electorates ought to be blocked ...
Does the Acting Prime Minister agree with the member for Longman that this ‘would be a great way’ to handle the distribution of taxpayers’ money’?
51
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Acting Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for his question. This is a government that believes there should be proper processes when it comes to disbursing government funds. That was not a belief shared by the Howard government when it had its Regional Partnerships program—and do I need to remind members of the Liberal Party about the things that were uncovered about the Regional Partnerships program and its straight-out, unmitigated political manipulation by the Howard government for the advantage of the members in marginal and National Party seats?
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question was: ‘Did you support the member for Longman’s comments or not?’ That is what we want to know.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The Acting Prime Minister is addressing the question.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—I can understand why members of the opposition and Liberal Party do not like to be reminded of their shameful track record when it comes to regional rorts—a shameful track record of waste and manipulation for political purposes.
00AMX
Johnson, Michael, MP
Mr Johnson
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. It is about the member for Longman’s views.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member will resume his seat. To be consistent with earlier events of a few months ago, if that is the stress that is placed on the question it is a borderline question. As I take it, the Acting Prime Minister is responding on behalf of the government. I would have thought that members who have actually had executive office in government would know the distinction between members of the government and members of the governing party.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—Can I remind members opposite that the approach of this government is one where we have established Infrastructure Australia to advise on infrastructure decisions, the first time that we have had a body to comprehensively look at the need for a nation-building agenda. Looking across this country, we know there are communities that are crying out for nation-building projects. We have urban congestion, we have bottlenecks when it comes to rail, when it comes to ports, when it comes to the transfer of goods from rail to ports. These are economic capacity constraints. They are things that confront working Australians every day as they try and do something as simple as travel to work.
Infrastructure Australia is there to provide objective advice. When it comes to the other funds that the government is establishing—for example, the Education Investment Fund in my own portfolio—there will be an objective advisory structure. All of this stands in stark contrast to the days when the former member for Dawson would manipulate documents immediately before caretaker periods in order to splash money out in marginal seats to assist Howard government members—a shameful track record, one that Liberal Party members should recall, and one of these days they should apologise to the Australian people for it.
Economy
51
51
14:37:00
Neal, Belinda, MP
B36
Robertson
ALP
1
Ms NEAL
—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. How do efforts to block the budget restrict the government’s ability to respond to uncertain international economic circumstances?
51
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
YU5
Melbourne
ALP
Minister for Finance and Deregulation
1
Mr TANNER
—I thank the member for Robertson for her question. The government is committed to delivering long-term sustainable growth for Australia. In order to do that, the government has set out a very clear plan to pursue that objective, which is focused on the development of long-term investment in infrastructure through the three big infrastructure funds and on establishing major projects, such as the national broadband network; the education revolution; taking action on climate change and water, which is long overdue; improving productivity in our workplaces and businesses through deregulation and regulatory reform; and the most important element of all, maintaining a strong budget surplus.
The opposition’s response to the government’s plan has been totally incoherent. The opposition tell us that they support lower taxes and, apart from lower taxes for Ferrari buyers and Porsche buyers, their track record suggests the opposite because they have just defeated in the Senate a reform measure with respect to the Medicare levy surcharge that would have delivered substantial tax relief to thousands upon thousands of middle-income families in Australia. They say they want to spend up big on pensioners, and yet they have defeated the government’s initiatives in the Senate with respect to dental services for low-income earners and pensioners. So they did not seem to really care very much about pensioners there! While they are suggesting the government should spend up big helping pensioners, at the same time they are endeavouring to make it much harder for the government to do that by blowing giant holes in the surplus. And they claim to be the party of responsible economic management! They are deliberately spreading fear, deliberately seeking to talk up the risks to the Australian economy by suggesting that Medibank Private and private health insurers are in financial difficulties, thereby undermining confidence amongst investors and consumers, with significant potential negative impacts for the economy into the medium term.
A couple of days ago I confessed that I was feeling a bit nostalgic about the absence of the former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Bradfield. I am sad to say the feeling is getting worse. There has to be some treatment I can get for this condition. It is getting worse.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—They have got billboards around Sydney advertising treatment for that sort of condition!
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for North Sydney sought the call for a—
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, my point of order goes to relevance.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The minister is responding to the question.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr TANNER
—I have no idea what is on billboards in Sydney. The former Leader of the Opposition, on major economic issues, had a habit of sitting on the fence. At least he knew where the fence was. That was helpful. The current Leader of the Opposition and shadow Treasurer have been all over the place with respect to the opposition’s economic policy in their first week and a half in place—plagiarising the Wall Street Journal, not knowing the Reserve Bank interest rate and, most importantly, in the Senate by knocking over tax relief for middle-income earners. In truth, the opposition do, in reality, have a plan, even though they do not know they have a plan. Their plan is simple. The Liberals have a three-point plan for economic policy: spreading fear, spending money and wrecking the surplus. That is the three-point plan for economic management that the Liberal Party are putting forward.
The government has a very different plan. The government has a plan that is built around investing for the future, that is built around investing in infrastructure and skills, that will deliver the economic capacity that will deliver prosperity into the future, that will deliver sustainable long-term growth for Australia’s economy and ensure that the working people and pensioners of this country have decent living standards in the future. The government will stick to that plan. The government remains committed to delivering that plan, notwithstanding the obstruction and resistance in the Senate. We will continue to pursue all of the elements of our budget in order to deliver the surplus that will be the foundation stone for long-term sustainable growth.
Medicare Levy Surcharge
52
52
14:42:00
Dutton, Peter, MP
00AKI
Dickson
LP
0
Mr DUTTON
—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, given that the Treasury estimates that 485,000 adults will drop out of private health insurance as a result of the government’s original Medicare levy changes, how many adults will drop out of private health insurance as a result of the government’s new proposed changes? Treasurer, if the changes to the Medicare levy are about tax cuts for families, why is the government making over $300 million out of this measure?
52
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I thank the member for his question. I do not necessarily accept the premise of the opposition’s critique of the proposal that we are putting.
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr Dutton
—What is Treasury’s advice?
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—The Treasury figures are indeed out there.
An opposition member—Do you accept Treasury’s figures?
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—Of course I accept the Treasury figures: less people will be dropping out. But I do not accept the opposition’s critique of the consequences of that. I do not accept it for one minute because your critique says that that therefore has an extraordinary impact elsewhere in the health system. You come in here and carry on about the public hospital system, when this government has put an additional $1 billion into the public hospital system. They have the hide in the Senate to vote down a tax cut for hundreds of thousands of working families. You should be absolutely embarrassed by your performance in the Senate.
We will run the bill back up into the Senate, we will appeal for the support of the minor parties and the support of the Greens and we will get the support of the Australian people, because they deserve some tax relief, which has been denied them by the Liberal and National parties.
Why is there an advantage in the first year? Because the indexation arrangements are entirely different. That is why. In the first year it does cost more, but in the end there is a greater saving. That is the case. If you are incapable of understanding that and incapable of understanding the Treasury modelling you are not fit to be the health spokesman.
Equine Influenza
53
53
14:45:00
Bradbury, David, MP
HVW
Lindsay
ALP
1
Mr BRADBURY
—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Will the minister update the House on the latest developments at the Eastern Creek quarantine station?
53
Burke, Tony, MP
DYW
Watson
ALP
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
1
Mr BURKE
—I thank the member for Lindsay for his question. I am sure all members of the House are very mindful of the devastation caused 12 months ago by the outbreak of EI. There have been different estimates of the total cost to industry. The figure of $1 billion is often quoted. It is probably fair to say that we will never know the full extent of the cost of that outbreak. Therefore we can understand the anxiety felt by many of those involved with the horse industry with the reports overnight—and more information has come out today—that, of the 74 horses in quarantine at the Eastern Creek quarantine station, one horse has tested positive for equine influenza. An immediate retest on the same sample was done last night, and on the retest it came back negative.
Each horse is tested some five times—twice on pre-export and three times on arrival in Australia. This horse had already passed the first four tests, with negative findings. The fifth one came through with a positive finding and there was an immediate retest, which again came out negative. As an extra precaution to make sure that there is no equine influenza within the quarantine station, each of the 74 horses within the station has now had two samples taken, and they are being sent to two separate labs—the Camden lab and the Geelong lab. Those tests will be done independently, and in the next few days we will know whether or not the negative tests we have had in every other instance are confirmed by the independent sampling.
Under the new quarantine arrangements for imported horses, each horse has these extra tests done—two pre-export and three post-arrival. The Eastern Creek quarantine station was already in lockdown and remains so. No horses will be released until the test results confirm that they are indeed free from equine influenza. Quarantine measures at Eastern Creek have been strengthened since last year’s outbreak to include 24-hour security, close monitoring and strict enforcement of quarantine procedures. Revised import conditions also now enforce a strict vaccination requirement for horses entering pre-export quarantine facilities.
On 12 June this year I released the government’s response to the inquiry by Commissioner Ian Callinan AC into the outbreak. The government accepted every single one of the 38 recommendations to strengthen our quarantine measures for imported horses. These recommendations are being implemented with the cooperation of the horse industry, importers, airports, airlines and freight handlers. This week I met with internationally recognised quarantine expert Dr Kevin Dunne, who has been appointed interim Inspector-General of Horse Importation by the government. A little over two hours ago I spoke with him on the phone and he was on-site out at Eastern Creek.
The government takes Australia’s quarantine and biosecurity challenges seriously. We need to do all we can to ensure all Australians and other nations have confidence in the integrity of our systems and we act quickly and efficiently when facing challenges like those at Eastern Creek. As we head towards this year’s spring racing carnivals, I acknowledge that the tougher quarantine measures do create some inconvenience for industry. But they also place Australia and the horse industry in a much stronger position to withstand threats to our biosecurity.
Taxation
53
53
14:49:00
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
0
Mr TRUSS
—My question is to the Treasurer. Why should a businessman in Sydney pay less tax on an X-type Jaguar sports than a fencer in Broken Hill pays on the Toyota LandCruiser that he drives across distant paddocks and on dirt roads?
53
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I am delighted that the member has asked me that question. He asked me a similar question yesterday. It relates to the luxury car tax, which those opposite tried to defeat in the Senate, tried to vandalise the budget surplus in the Senate, only a few days ago. We got a lot of common sense out of the minor parties in the Senate and they voted for a revised proposal. What occurred in the House later on yesterday was—I think it was suggested by one of the members of the National Party up there—that, when I said that the Liberal and National parties had introduced this luxury car tax, he got up and said they had not. In fact, they did. The member for Higgins introduced the new luxury car tax in 2001.
Opposition members—No, he didn’t.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—Yes, he did. He introduced the new luxury car tax in this House in 2001. We put a proposal to increase the luxury car tax from 25 per cent to 33 per cent in the budget so that there would be a small saving from people who bought luxury cars to assist us in the savings process of building a very significant budget surplus. As a consequence of the vandalism of those opposite in the Senate and their inability to be reasonable in the passage of those budget measures, we agreed to some changes with the minor parties in the Senate.
The member opposite pretends to represent rural people, when he knows that most four-wheel drives are completely unaffected by this increase in the tax. Things like farm utes are not affected at all. But some fuel-efficient vehicles that are luxury cars were exempted as a result of amendments carried in the Senate. The consequence of those amendments is as the member has indicated. But the fact that those amendments occurred is the fault of the Liberal and National parties in this House. They put the interests of Porsche drivers ahead of the interests of average working families and people living in regional areas. It is as simple as that.
Same-Sex Relationships
54
54
14:52:00
Danby, Michael, MP
WF6
Melbourne Ports
ALP
1
Mr DANBY
—My question is to the Attorney-General. What is the government doing to remove same-sex discrimination from Commonwealth laws, and what contributions have been made to this debate?
54
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
Attorney-General
1
Mr McCLELLAND
—I thank the honourable member for Melbourne Ports for his question. Yesterday, this House passed the second stage of the Rudd government’s reforms to remove same-sex discrimination from Commonwealth laws. In fact, the laws that were passed by this House yesterday remove discrimination from some 68 laws, with knock-on effects to others. They include the areas of social security, taxation, Medicare and educational assistance.
The debate took place over some three days, and there were some outstanding contributions from members from both sides. I congratulate those who participated. I expressed disappointment yesterday, however, that one member was absent from the debate, and that was the member for Wentworth. Members will recall that before the last election, the member for Wentworth circulated a newsletter—
Opposition members interjecting—
JK6
McClelland, Robert, MP
Mr McCLELLAND
—Members in the House will recall that before the last election, the member for Wentworth circulated a newsletter to his electorate in which he supported the need for reform. Indeed, that newsletter referred to statements such as ‘Turnbull takes on mission for gay and lesbian rights’ and ‘Malcolm Turnbull has embarked on a personal crusade to convince his’—
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 100(c). I would say that the minister is reflecting on the character of the Leader of the Opposition, and therefore is in breach of the standing orders. It can only be done by way of substantive order, and I would ask that the question be ruled out of order.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I will listen very carefully to the minister’s answer. The matters that the member has raised are to do with the question, not the standing order relevant to the answer. But I will listen carefully to the Attorney-General’s response.
JK6
McClelland, Robert, MP
Mr McCLELLAND
—The statement contained in the newsletter was that, ‘Malcolm Turnbull has embarked on a personal crusade to convince his cabinet colleagues.’ The article also quoted the honourable member, ‘I pledge to continue the fight until justice is done.’
I personally accept that the honourable member is entirely genuine and sincere in expressing those views—that is accepted. But clearly, now that he is in the position of Leader of the Opposition, he has the ability to exert a little more than a degree of influence on his colleagues. It was sincerely disappointing that the honourable member did not counter some of those more extreme sentiments that were expressed during the course of the debate yesterday. Indeed, I note that a spokesman for the honourable member told the Age newspaper—or, at least, it is reported in the Age newspaper—that the honourable member had spoken on the first reading of the bill. I think the record will show otherwise.
But, at the end of the day, these reforms are long overdue. They do nothing more and nothing less than remove discrimination against a group of fellow Australians who have been discriminated against for far too long. They do not undermine in any way, shape or form the institution of marriage. That is made quite clear in legislation that has supported in this House—that marriage is between a man and a woman. As I say, these reforms do nothing more than remove unjustified discrimination that has occurred for too long. I genuinely believe that the Leader of the Opposition is sincere in his views on this matter, and we look forward to him using his new position to secure passage of the legislation.
Local Government
54
54
14:57:00
Morrison, Scott, MP
E3L
Cook
LP
0
Mr MORRISON
—My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer please advise the House how many local councils across Australia are exposed to financing arrangements linked to overseas subprime mortgage securities or distressed lending institutions? What will be the impact of this exposure on local government rates, charges, services and infrastructure projects?
54
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I thank the member for his question. The government is aware that some local government councils around Australia are exposed because they have had investments in organisations such as Lehman Brothers. Some may have had investments in other subprime type products.
Most of the high-exposure councils appear to be in New South Wales and Western Australia. All other states have relatively little exposure to these types of investments. Of course, as we all know, local government is established by state and territory legislation, and it is the responsibility of the states and territories to exercise proper financial oversight of council investments. I note that the New South Wales and Western Australian governments have commenced reviews of the local government investments in 2008 and have certainly significantly tightened up on the oversight of local government.
I am also aware that some councils in New South Wales are contemplating legal action to recover some of the investments. So that is the extent of our knowledge of the exposure of local government to these investments, but as we have been saying in this House for a long time and has become readily apparent in recent times—
E3L
Morrison, Scott, MP
Mr Morrison
—Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: I was specific in my question—how many local councils and do you know?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Cook will resume his seat. The Treasurer is responding to the question.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—I know he is a new shadow minister, but the truth is that they are not accountable to us. But we certainly do take a deep interest in these issues.
E3L
Morrison, Scott, MP
Mr Morrison interjecting—
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—If they want to play this silly game, when were these investments made and were they accountable to the previous government? If you want to play that serious game, when were the investments made? Many Australians, who are very genuine, and many organisations, both government and corporate, have made investments in these products. They are going to live to regret the investments in these products. People around this country and around the world have been victims of what has been the fallout from the US subprime crisis. We have said repeatedly that we need to strengthen our system as much as we possibly can. As I have said to the House of a number of occasions, we are implementing in full all of the recommendations in the Financial Stability Review, and we have been doing that this year. We have introduced legislation in this House to pursue those recommendations, to strengthen our financial system. We will continue to do that.
Office for Youth
55
55
15:01:00
Rishworth, Amanda, MP
HWA
Kingston
ALP
1
Ms RISHWORTH
—My question is to the Minister for Sport and the Minister for Youth. Would the minister update the House on the establishment of the new Australian government Office for Youth?
55
Ellis, Kate, MP
DZU
Adelaide
ALP
Minister for Youth and Minister for Sport
1
Ms KATE ELLIS
—I thank the member for Kingston for her question and note that she is herself a very passionate advocate for the interests of young people in Adelaide’s south, as well as I believe being the youngest member of this House. It is my great pleasure to provide both her and the House with further information about the Australian government Office for Youth, which was launched earlier today. Our government recognises that young people today face some complex and unique challenges quite unlike those experienced by previous generations. Media reports just this very week highlight issues such as the prevalence of self-harm practices, predominantly amongst teenage girls; the intense and increasing focus on body image; and emerging challenges, such as cyber-bullying, which accompany new technologies.
In addition to so-called youth issues, we also recognise that there is a generational divide in the opportunities and experiences of younger Australians across a broad range of portfolio areas. Many young Australians have quite different challenges and experiences in areas such as the costs that they pay for their education, the struggles for first home ownership and the consequences for them of dangerous climate change when the rest of us may not be here to pay the full price. Clearly, different times and different issues require different mechanisms and measures. Through the establishment of the Office for Youth, the Rudd government will be well placed to honour its election commitment and respond to the particular issues, challenges and needs of our youth.
The office will undertake a number of key roles. They will play a strategic role across government to bring a youth specific focus and ensure that the very best policies, programs and services are in place to serve the needs of young people. They will provide a safety net to alert government to issues and initiatives going forward which may have particular implications for young people. They will work on a few targeted priority areas. I can announce that one of the first of these will be working with the ministers for health, communications and the status of women to address what has been identified in major national surveys as the No. 1 concern of Australian youth, that being healthy body image. The Office for Youth will ensure that, at a structural and policy level, there is a dedicated focus on young Australians. Our efforts to serve this generation well will be further boosted next week with the official launch of the Australian Youth Forum, an initiative to better directly engage with both young Australians and the youth sector.
This government is strongly committed to making a real difference in the lives of Australia’s youth. The announcement today of the Office for Youth is yet another one of our election commitments that have been honoured. It is yet another step forward towards undoing the damage that was done by the previous government in this area. Most importantly, it is another way that the Rudd government is demonstrating its commitment to ensuring that young Australians are empowered, are included and are well supported by their government.
Economy
55
55
15:05:00
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
0
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his answer yesterday to my question on lack of competition in the mortgage backed securities market. Will the Treasurer advise the House how issuing further government bonds will increase liquidity in the residential mortgage backed securities market?
56
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I thank the shadow Treasurer for her question. I am happy to answer questions on liquidity in our banking system. It is a very important issue, and perhaps it has never been more important than it is at the moment. I would like to remind anyone who is commenting on liquidity issues that we are in a very difficult period in which matters of confidence are paramount and we need to keep our comments balanced. I would like to just quote from the Reserve Bank’s Financial Stability Review, which was published today, which I think gives a pretty good and comprehensive analysis of what is going on in the banking sector, what is going on with deposit-taking institutions, what is going on in terms of securitisation and so on. I would commend her to have a look at that. I just want to quote a little from the report:
The Australian financial system is well placed to weather the current difficulties in the global financial system … the Australian banking sector continues to be highly profitable. The system is soundly capitalised and the banks have high credit ratings and relatively little exposure to US sub-prime—
debt. That is very important. When we are talking to this issue, we have to continue to repeat that so this country does not get mixed up with the problems that are occurring in the United States. Any loose talk along those lines can be very hurtful to confidence and certainly not very helpful in the current environment.
That report card, if you like, from the Reserve Bank today is not an argument for complacency. It is an argument for confidence in our system. If you go through that Reserve Bank report, you will see that they do make the comment that in the securitisation market at the moment things are very difficult and that those organisations, including smaller banks and other institutions that have been relying on securitisation, are having great difficulty. As a consequence, the deposit-taking institutions are doing more business. Certainly those who are in the big four are doing more business. That tends to indicate to me that we may have some issues in terms of the competitiveness of our mortgage market and that they may need to be addressed in the near future. The government put legislation through this House in June—
HK5
Andrews, Kevin, MP
Mr Andrews
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order which goes to relevance. The question was: could the Treasurer advise the House how issuing further government bonds improves liquidity in the residential mortgage backed securities market? Will he answer the question, please.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Treasurer will continue responding to the question.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—I think the problem lies with the member, Mr Speaker. In June, we took steps to support liquidity in the bond market, but we also broadened the investment powers of the AOFM. We did this to provide increased flexibility to respond to difficult global circumstances. These powers are there if they need to be used, and they will be used if it is necessary.
Climate Change
56
56
15:08:00
Dreyfus, Mark, MP
HWG
Isaacs
ALP
1
Mr DREYFUS
—My question is to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. Will the minister update the House on the government’s commitment to increase energy efficiency to help reduce Australia’s carbon pollution and deal with dangerous climate change?
JT4
Bailey, Fran, MP
Fran Bailey interjecting—
56
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts
1
Mr GARRETT
—I thank the member for Isaacs for his question and the member opposite for her contribution on addressing global warming, which is to put shadecloth over the Great Barrier Reef. They would not ratify Kyoto but they had the bits of green out ready to go.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The minister will address the question.
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—The government takes seriously the need to have a comprehensive approach to tackle dangerous climate change. In delivering the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, we have committed to providing assistance to Australian households to take practical action to reduce their energy use, to save on energy bills and to make a tangible contribution to reducing carbon pollution. We are bringing forward a national strategy on energy efficiency to provide the coherence and national leadership in this area that has been lacking for the last 12 years—leadership for business, for industry and for households to take cost-effective energy efficiency actions.
I note, today, a new report from the Brotherhood of St Laurence, KPMG and Ecos Corporation emphasising the importance of energy efficiency for households, particularly those on low incomes. We welcome the contribution of that report. It is something that the government understands very well. In fact, we are putting in place some $1 billion of household and community renewable energy and energy and water efficiency measures, which we have announced in the recent budget. Since 1 July, over 2,200 schools around Australia have registered to become solar schools. We very much welcome the great interest that communities and schools are showing around Australia for the Rudd Labor government’s program. We will be providing more funding and more installations of PV solar systems in 2008 and 2009 than in any year in Australia’s history. This comes after—
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt interjecting—
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—the member for Flinders, who is making interjections across the chamber, jumped out of an aeroplane to tell us how the solar industry was in free fall. Within days, we found that the figures on solar applications for the PVs were at record highs. Memo to the member for Flinders: look before you leap.
If we look at the coalition policy approach in this area, we can see that there is scant evidence that they recognise the importance of the scale of the challenge, or the role that constructive programs and a comprehensive strategy can bring into play. Next month, I am pleased to say, we will start seeing the first energy rating labels appear on televisions, which are one of the fastest growing sources of household energy use. Households will soon be able to identify cost-saving, super efficient appliances through new 10-star labels. Last Sunday, in Melbourne, I was pleased to announce, with the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, the Green Precincts Fund—a commitment of some $15 million to support at least 10 high-profile energy and water saving projects around Australia. We have launched Green Precincts—
Opposition members interjecting—
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—Water savings—that is absolutely right, as the member opposite interjected.
JT4
Bailey, Fran, MP
Fran Bailey
—Mr Speaker, my point of order is that this minister has no credibility as the minister for the environment.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for McEwen will excuse herself from the chamber for one hour under 94(a).
The member for McEwen then left the chamber.
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—Despite a team that some of us here support not going quite as close to the grand finals as it possibly could, we were very pleased to launch the Green Precincts project at Windy Hill in Melbourne—home of the Essendon Football Club. It is also a community facility where families come to kick a footy around with their kids. They will be installing an innovative 800,000 litre water storage system under the oval and utilising other renewable energy technologies. Good on you, Bombers. It is a fantastic program that is delivering on one of this government’s election commitments. These are responsible and positive measures that we are taking now, like the response from the community and like the 2,200 schools that are already registered to become solar schools. This government is delivering on energy efficiency and tackling dangerous climate change.
Economy
57
57
15:14:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his speech on 18 March 2008 and a second speech overseas on 6 June where he stated that the ‘market for Australian residential mortgage backed securities vanished late last year’—which he restated in the House today. Why has the Treasurer done nothing to support the mortgage lending market in Australia?
57
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. It is true that late last year and early this year it was very difficult in the securitisation market. It is also true that as recently as only a month ago a number of those institutions that were active there were beginning to be successful again. Of course, that has now been dramatically affected by the events of the last couple of weeks. That is the very simple answer to the member’s question.
What we are doing is keeping in constant contact with our regulators. We want to ensure that the system is robust—it is well capitalised through this difficult period. The one thing we will not be doing is making silly suggestions like that made by the Leader of the Opposition that we should somehow go out and buy US-style bad debt. That is what he said to Laurie Oakes last weekend. I note there has been a fair bit of commentary about the Leader of the Opposition’s statements to Laurie Oakes last weekend, not the least of which came from the member for Higgins on Lateline on Tuesday night. The member for Higgins was not impressed at all on Lateline on Tuesday night. If I could just have a look at what he had to say, this is Peter Costello on Tuesday night:
I’m going on to make the point in my view no major financial institution in Australia has the exposure to the subprime of anything like the dimension of the United States.
And then:
TONY JONES: Why doesn’t Malcolm Turnbull repeat what you say?
PETER COSTELLO: You ask Malcolm Turnbull what he’s on about, I’ll tell you what the situation is.
TONY JONES: But is it economically wise to be recommending the Government back financial institutions if they don’t need backing?
PETER COSTELLO: If an institution gets into trouble in Australia, there has been backing. HIH is an obvious example.
That has to be the understatement of the week! The government is watching and monitoring this situation closely. The government is in daily contact with all of our regulators. We stand ready to take any action that is required. But our system is healthy—and you can see that from the report today from the Reserve Bank.
RUDD GOVERNMENT
57
Miscellaneous
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
57
57
15:17:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Mr TURNBULL
—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving immediately—
That the Rudd Government be condemned for being out of touch, out of its depth and out of the country. In particular:
-
that the Government be condemned for its complete indifference to the plight of Australian pensioners who are struggling on a daily basis to meet the rising costs of petrol, groceries and rent;
-
for their complete indifference to the plight of Australian families who are facing increasing job uncertainty and rising day to day living costs, when they were led to believe that Kevin 07 would do something about it;
-
that the Prime Minister be condemned for becoming “Kevin 747” and spending more time and effort on his grandiose plans for the world, than on real plans for Australia; and finally
-
that this House condemns the Treasurer for his complete lack of understanding about the domestic impact of the global financial crisis and his inability to understand the impact it will have on Australian families, their jobs and their mortgages.
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
15:18:00
—I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
A division having been called and the bells being rung—
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: in accordance with standing order 67, I ask you to state the question again before it is finally put.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The question at the moment before me is that the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
15:23:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
76
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Bradbury, D.J.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neal, B.J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Swan, W.M.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Zappia, A.
57
NOES
Andrews, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Farmer, P.F.
Forrest, J.A.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hawker, D.P.M.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Johnson, M.A.
Keenan, M.
Ley, S.P.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Oakeshott, R.J.M.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Randall, D.J.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vale, D.S.
Washer, M.J.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Wood, J.
2
PAIRS
Bevis, A.R.
Abbott, A.J.
Smith, S.F.
Laming, A.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Is the motion seconded?
58
15:26:00
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
Deputy Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—I second the motion. This government is afraid of a debate on the incompetence of the—
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
15:26:00
—I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
15:28:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
76
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Bradbury, D.J.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neal, B.J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Swan, W.M.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Zappia, A.
57
NOES
Andrews, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Farmer, P.F.
Forrest, J.A.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hawker, D.P.M.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Johnson, M.A.
Keenan, M.
Ley, S.P.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Oakeshott, R.J.M.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Randall, D.J.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vale, D.S.
Washer, M.J.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Wood, J.
2
PAIRS
Bevis, A.R.
Abbott, A.J.
Smith, S.F.
Laming, A.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition for the suspension of standing and sessional orders be agreed to.
59
15:30:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
0
Mr HOCKEY
—This government does not want to have a debate on an issue that goes to the heart—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for North Sydney will resume his seat.
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
15:30:00
—I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
15:31:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
76
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Bradbury, D.J.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neal, B.J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Swan, W.M.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Zappia, A.
57
NOES
Andrews, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Farmer, P.F.
Forrest, J.A.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hawker, D.P.M.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Johnson, M.A.
Keenan, M.
Ley, S.P.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Oakeshott, R.J.M.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Randall, D.J.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vale, D.S.
Washer, M.J.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Wood, J.
2
PAIRS
Bevis, A.R.
Abbott, A.J.
Smith, S.F.
Laming, A.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House for the suspension of standing and sessional orders be agreed to.
60
15:33:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Leader of the House
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—The fact is that this is the most pathetic suspension in the history since Federation. On 21 occasions those opposite have moved to suspend standing orders. Those people who have observed this House over a long period of time will know that, if you are going to move to a censure, you have to actually build up some sense of momentum. What you cannot do is ask nine questions on nine different subjects and then move a motion that does not relate to any of the nine subjects that you have raised during question time. The Leader of the Opposition is getting the same bad tactical advice that helped to destroy the former leader.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Leader of the House will resume his seat.
Mr HOCKEY
(North Sydney)
15:34:00
—I move:
That the question be now put.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition for the suspension of standing and sessional orders be agreed to.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, in accordance with standing order 67, I ask you to repeat in full the motion before the chair.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I will first take advice on the meaning of ‘state’ in standing order 67. The Manager of Opposition Business has raised with me a point of order under standing order 67. The guide that is given to occupants of the chair indicates that the question is normally stated by saying, ‘The question is that the motion be agreed to.’ So far in this debate, I have on at least three occasions stated the question in the form: ‘The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition for the suspension of standing and sessional orders be agreed to.’ The intent of standing order 67 might be interpreted as being that the full terms of the motion should be stated. I am guided by the final aspect of standing order 67, which indicates:
This requirement shall not apply when the terms of the question or matter have been circulated among Members.
As I understand it, the full terms of this motion have not been circulated, and I feel that I should state the question in full. The question before the House is:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving immediately—
That the Rudd Government be condemned for being out of touch, out of its depth and out of the country. In particular:
-
that the Government be condemned for its complete indifference to the plight of Australian pensioners who are struggling on a daily basis to meet the rising costs of petrol, groceries and rent;
-
for their complete indifference to the plight of Australian families who are facing increasing job uncertainty and rising day to day living costs, when they were led to believe that Kevin 07 would do something about it;
-
that the Prime Minister be condemned for becoming “Kevin 747” and spending more time and effort on his grandiose plans for the world, than on real plans for Australia; and finally
-
that this House condemns the Treasurer for his complete lack of understanding about the domestic impact of the global financial crisis and his inability to understand the impact it will have on Australian families, their jobs and their mortgages.
Question put.
15:39:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
55
AYES
Andrews, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Farmer, P.F.
Forrest, J.A.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hawker, D.P.M.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Johnson, M.A. *
Keenan, M.
Ley, S.P.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Randall, D.J.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vale, D.S.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
76
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Bradbury, D.J.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neal, B.J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Swan, W.M.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Zappia, A.
2
PAIRS
Abbott, A.J.
Bevis, A.R.
Laming, A.
Smith, S.F.
* denotes teller
Question negatived.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
61
15:43:00
Questions Without Notice
Workplace Relations
61
15:43:00
61
Champion, Nick, MP
HW9
Wakefield
ALP
1
Mr CHAMPION
—My question is to the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy. Will the minister advise the House on the government’s unfair dismissal system for small businesses and any reaction to it? Are there any obstacles to the system’s implementation?
61
Emerson, Craig, MP
83V
Rankin
ALP
Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy and Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation
1
Dr EMERSON
—I thank the member for Wakefield for his question. The Rudd government believes that good workers should not be dismissed on the spot for no reason and with no remedy. At the same time, the government recognises the special circumstances of small businesses. They have no human resource management departments. They cannot easily redeploy their staff to other divisions or to other workplaces. They do not have the time for drawn-out processes and cannot pay expensive legal bills. Compared with larger businesses, small businesses will benefit under our unfair dismissal system from a doubling of the qualifying period from six months to 12 months, during which time no claim for an unfair dismissal can be made. Small businesses will also benefit from a simple, six-paragraph Fair Dismissal Code, which, if followed by a small business owner, enables the employer to dismiss an employee fairly.
I want to thank the members of the Small Business Working Group and the union working group, who worked so hard and so cooperatively with the government in developing this simple but fair system. In working together, we have shown that you do not have to make a choice between fairness and efficiency.
I am asked by the member for Wakefield as to the reaction that we have received to the announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister of the government’s arrangements for unfair dismissals for small businesses. I am very pleased to be able to report that the National Farmers Federation has indicated its support for the regime and it has said:
Farmers sign off on Govt’s ‘Fair Dismissal Code’
THE National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) today endorsed the Australian Government’s Fair Dismissal Code … as “striking a sensible, practical balance for employers and employees”.
There has also been reaction from the Council of Small Business of Australia, COSBOA, headed ‘Fair dismissal code acceptance’:
Small business can be pleased with the outcome as this tool provides a simple checklist to follow which ensures employers can be protected from fraudulent unfair dismissal claims.
And the Australian Industry Group has said that the fair dismissal code for small business will be short and easily applied. So there you go, Mr Speaker—endorsements from small business representative organisations.
But I was asked about obstacles to the passage of this legislation. Well, senior coalition frontbenchers have indicated their opposition to providing protection against unfair dismissal for the employees of small businesses. Just a little earlier this month, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, now the shadow Treasurer, confirmed that the opposition would adhere to three core principles, including a small business unfair dismissal exemption. So there is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying that the coalition will support an ongoing exemption—that is, oppose our fair dismissal arrangements. Also, the shadow small business minister said, earlier in the year, that any attempt by Labor to apply unfair dismissal laws to small business will receive his absolute and confirmed opposition.
So what happened a couple of weeks ago to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the shadow small business minister under the new leadership of the Liberal Party and the opposition? They were both promoted. They were both promoted because the Leader of the Opposition is opposed to providing basic protections for the employees of small businesses. The Leader of the Opposition is saying that four million Australians who work in small businesses should be able to be sacked on the spot with no explanation and no remedy.
The truth is, under the new Leader of the Opposition, the Liberal Party is still the party of Work Choices. No matter if there is a change in the leadership; the Leader of the Opposition is leading the party of Work Choices. I would urge the Leader of the Opposition, here and now, to repudiate his deputy leader, to repudiate his shadow small business spokesman and to pledge his support for the government’s fair dismissal system. But he will not, because the Liberal Party was, is and always will be the party of Work Choices.
There is a pretty clear pattern here, and the pattern is that the Leader of the Opposition does not support the vulnerable in this country but supports the powerful in this country. We have seen that in relation to the budget measures and the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition and his party in the Senate. What has happened? Increasing the threshold of the Medicare surcharge would have provided much needed relief for people earning between $50,000 and $100,000—opposed. They were opposing that tax cut for these people in the Senate. What are they doing in relation to the Commonwealth dental scheme? They are opposing our ability to restore the Commonwealth dental scheme.
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How is this possibly relevant to the question?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The question was rather broad, but the member will address the question and bring his answer to a close.
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr EMERSON
—I will indeed, Mr Speaker. While they are opposing these measures for vulnerable people, they are also opposing a condensate tax increase that would have affected some of the wealthiest companies in this country. If they got their way, it would ensure that those companies would keep more of their earnings. They were opposing a luxury car tax—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister will bring his answer to a close.
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, again on relevance. The coalition will oppose Labor’s $20 million tax grab at every step.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Moncrieff knows that that is not a point of order.
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr EMERSON
—I saw on television today the actor Michael Douglas doing some very important work with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and it reminded me of the Leader of the Opposition.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister will bring his response to a close.
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr EMERSON
—The Leader of the Opposition is the Gordon Gekko of Australian politics. You are the Gordon Gekko of Australian politics!
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! the minister will resume his seat. I call the member for O’Connor.
Gas Pipeline
62
62
15:50:00
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
SJ4
O’Connor
LP
0
Mr TUCKEY
—I address my question to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer the Acting Prime Minister to reported plans of the Japanese Inpex Group to pipe gas to Darwin for liquefaction. Acting Prime Minister, what is the estimated increase in global greenhouse gas emissions arising from the manufacture of this unnecessary extra 800-kilometre pipeline and the ongoing pumping energy requirements? Furthermore, what is the negative effect on Australia’s terms of trade and Commonwealth resource rent tax revenue arising from those additional costs?
62
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Acting Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I think we have seen a very real indication that the opposition is out of questions. I think it was very generous of the member for Kennedy, who must have consulted with the member for O’Connor in the drafting of that question! In response to the member for O’Connor’s question, can I say the following. No. 1, it is interesting to me that he should be questioning about greenhouse gases, when he sits in a party of climate change sceptics.
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr Tuckey
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. This is a simple question seeking facts. Why do we have to have blustering when she does not know the answer?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for O’Connor will resume his seat. The Acting Prime Minister has the call.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. No. 2, can I say to the member for O’Connor that, of course, the government is very happy to look into the questions that he has raised—should he seriously want to pursue them—and provide him with a briefing on the matter. But it does seem to me that the member for O’Connor might want to think seriously about the policy settings of the party of which he is a member when it comes to climate change before coming into this House and feigning any degree of concern about the matter.
84T
Haase, Barry, MP
Mr Haase
—You’re the government. $25 billion worth of investment lost. You’re a pack of frauds.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Kalgoorlie will withdraw that remark.
84T
Haase, Barry, MP
Mr Haase
—Mr Speaker, this government have been asked a serious question about why they are dudding Western Australia for $25 billion. They are frauds.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Kalgoorlie will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).
84T
Haase, Barry, MP
Mr Haase
—With absolute satisfaction, Mr Speaker.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I name the member for Kalgoorlie!
84T
Haase, Barry, MP
Mr Haase
—Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
15:53:00
—I move:
That the member for Kalgoorlie be suspended from the service of the House.
Question put.
15:58:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
76
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Bradbury, D.J.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neal, B.J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Swan, W.M.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Zappia, A.
55
NOES
Andrews, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Farmer, P.F.
Forrest, J.A.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hawker, D.P.M.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Johnson, M.A. *
Keenan, M.
Ley, S.P.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Randall, D.J.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vale, D.S.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
2
PAIRS
Bevis, A.R.
Abbott, A.J.
Smith, S.F.
Laming, A.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Kalgoorlie is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours.
The member for Kalgoorlie then left the chamber.
Workplace Relations
64
64
16:01:00
Bird, Sharon, MP
DZP
Cunningham
ALP
1
Ms BIRD
—My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Would the Acting Prime Minister please update the House on progress made by the government in replacing Work Choices and analysing its effects on working families? How important is it to provide certainty and stability in the workplace relations system and to provide for job security?
64
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Acting Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the member for Cunningham for her question, as we draw to the end of another sitting fortnight in the federal parliament—and an interesting sitting fortnight it has been. It started with the memoirs of the member for Higgins, was inclusive of a change of leadership with a new Leader of the Opposition, encompassed a gaffe filled start by the new shadow Treasurer, and today gave us, most remarkably, the spectre of an opposition gagging its own suspension motion and appointing the member for O’Connor to be in charge of Liberal Party tactics in this place—a remarkable week in Australian politics.
I am asked, at the end of this remarkable fortnight in Australian politics where we have seen these events emerge, about progress in the government’s agenda on workplace relations and getting rid of Work Choices. Can I remind the House that the government has already delivered the end of Australian workplace agreements through its transition act and before the end of the year we will introduce into this parliament the rest of the government’s Forward with Fairness agenda. That agenda will introduce fairness and balance back into Australian workplaces—a safety net that people can rely on, a fair bargaining system, a new industrial umpire and a fair system for unfair dismissals. We know the history of Work Choices and Australian workplace agreements is one of rip-offs. We know from the data that 63 per cent of Australian workplace agreements cut penalty rates, 52 per cent cut shift loadings and 51 per cent cut overtime.
I am asked by the member for Cunningham about progress on analysing the impact of Work Choices on working families. At the end of this sitting fortnight I regret to inform the House that a new analysis is not available. I had hoped that with the publication of the member for Higgins’s memoirs we would have the inside story of Work Choices and we would have access, finally, to the inside information about how much the Howard government knew about how bad Work Choices was. I even went to the trouble of getting a discounted copy of the member for Higgins’s book out of the remainders bin at a bookshop. It cost me slightly over $30—discounted from $55. The bookshop proprietor said to me, ‘If you picked out one that was signed I’d give you 10 bucks to take it out of the shop!’ But the one I picked out of the bin was not signed so I actually had to part with $30 for it, but not $55. Having parted with the money to help the member for Higgins’s book sales, to help him with his royalties—I am a generous woman—I looked—
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr Costello
—I will sign it for $10. Come round here!
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—Well, he is offering to sign it and then I can give it to someone and give them 10 bucks to take it as well. Despite my act of generosity in supporting the member for Higgins’s income stream, I had a good look at it and the words ‘Work Choices’ were not mentioned once—not once! Writing the history of the Howard government, you do not mention Work Choices. Purporting to write about the last term of the Howard government, 2004 to 2007, you do not write ‘Work Choices’ in there.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order which goes to relevance. How is any of this piffle relevant to the question?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The Acting Prime Minister has the call.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—I was asked about updates to analysis on Work Choices and I thought that the member for Higgins’s book might be of use in that regard, but unfortunately it was not. The member for Higgins’s book, though, does take the opportunity to chide the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth, on tax policy. That is an interesting addition to the member for Higgins’s book. To quote The Merchant of Venice, I suspect the member for Higgins knows that all that glistens is not gold and he has worked out that the member for Wentworth’s claims to economic responsibility are as fraudulent as fool’s gold itself. Can I also say that I do have good news for the House, on the question of new analysis, of the impact—
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr Costello
—Get back to the book!
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—Get back to the book!
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! I am pleased that there is some common hilarity, but it would assist the chair if the Acting Prime Minister could address the question and start on the downward spiral to the end of her answer. The member for Higgins should not encourage her.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—I am doing everything I can to help the member for Higgins with those sales, because I do think it is demeaning that it is in the remainder bin so quickly after publication. I am happy to help push the book. I am in a position to advise the House that a new analysis of Work Choices will shortly be available. The member for Higgins promised us a sequel, and here it is, the sequel to the Costello memoirs, ‘My Role in Work Choices’, and this time the co-author is the HR Nicholls Society!
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Acting Prime Minister will bring her answer to a close.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard
—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper—there is only so much we can do to help the member for Higgins.
MR ANDREW CHIN
65
Miscellaneous
65
16:08:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—A couple of people have indicated they have business for me but, before I go to that, can I make a statement that I hope will unite the House. This week a highly valued and very well respected member of the staff of the Parliamentary Library, Mr Andrew Chin, retires. Many members and senators have benefited from Mr Chin’s advice on a wide range of issues and will recall how helpful he has been and the breadth of his knowledge.
Mr Chin’s path to the Parliamentary Library took him across the sea and required a commitment to education in two nations. He came to Australia from Malaysia in January 1972 to undertake a Graduate Diploma in Librarianship at the Canberra College of Advanced Education, and has stayed in Canberra ever since.
While he was finishing his studies he worked briefly in the National Library until he gained a permanent position in the Parliamentary Library in June 1973. This makes Andrew the longest continuously serving member of the library’s staff, and the longest serving reference librarian.
Andrew’s first role in the Parliamentary Library was as a social policy subject librarian for a year, covering issues such as consumer protection and Aboriginal affairs. When he joined the library there was no email and no fax machine, and members and senators came to the old Parliamentary Library to ask questions, sometimes on their way to the dining room. Andrew has a fabulous nose for information and would ferret out the most tricky information from a network of contacts extending across the world to meet the tightest deadline.
In mid 1974, Andrew became the foreign affairs and defence subject librarian. He has worked in the field of foreign affairs ever since. This grew to include his responsibility for the library’s United Nations deposit collection.
In 1984, Andrew and two other staff members travelled through the South Pacific for a month to examine how Australia could assist parliaments of the region to develop libraries of their own. Andrew went to Western Samoa, the Cook Islands, Tonga and Niue. The result of this trip was the establishment of measures to assist parliaments in the South Pacific, including a training program for staff providing library services to parliaments in the region. In addition, Andrew provided these parliamentary libraries with a current awareness service for some years. The Australian Parliamentary Library continues to assist libraries of parliaments in the South Pacific to this day.
In 1995, Andrew’s professionalism, knowledge and skill were recognised by the United States Embassy with an invitation to participate in a month-long visitors program. This included visits to the Library of Congress, the Brookings Institution, and universities, which were involved in the early internet and the world’s first virtual libraries.
In his long and successful career, Andrew has seen many changes in the way the Parliamentary Library provides service to its clients, but no matter how he delivers his services to the library’s clients, Andrew has always been highly professional, courteous and charming. His colleagues in the library will miss him enormously and are preparing to extend their expertise to fill in the gap he will create. Many members and senators will also miss his great detective skills and wonderful briefs. On behalf of all members, I wish Andrew all the best in his future endeavours.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
65
16:12:00
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Acting Prime Minister
1
0
Ms GILLARD
—If I could associate the government with your tribute to Mr Andrew Chin: I am sure that every member of this parliament is well aware from personal experience of the great service of the Parliamentary Library. We all rely on it. We rely on their professionalism. We rely on their assistance. I am aware that Andrew has been a pivotal part of the library for a long period of time. He has seen huge development in that time, including the move from the Old Parliament House to here. I suspect the development of all the new technology in that period has not actually made the job any easier—if anything, it has possibly made it harder as our requests for information from the Parliamentary Library become ones where we wish for the return of information ever more quickly. I also suspect that one of the challenges for Andrew in the Old Parliament House was not so much being asked for information by members of parliament on their way to the dining room; it may have been being asked by members of parliament on their way back from the dining room that actually was the more profound challenge. We all wish him well. It is a very proud record of service to be working in the parliament in any capacity over that length of time. It really does show a very special dedication to the working of the parliament and the working of the Australian democracy. We wish him very well for his future.
66
16:13:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Mr TURNBULL
—Mr Speaker, I also associate the opposition with the very generous tribute you paid to Andrew and indeed the remarks made by the Acting Prime Minister. None of us would be able to sound as well informed as we hope we do sound without the support of the Parliamentary Library. They have a great challenge assisting all of us and we could not do our work without them. They are indeed the unsung heroes of this place and we applaud Andrew for his many years of great service.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
66
Personal Explanations
66
16:15:00
Sullivan, Jon, MP
HVS
Longman
ALP
1
0
Mr SULLIVAN
—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
HVS
Sullivan, Jon, MP
Mr SULLIVAN
—Most grievously, Mr Speaker.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
HVS
Sullivan, Jon, MP
Mr SULLIVAN
—The member for North Sydney asked the Acting Prime Minister a question allegedly quoting from a speech I made in the House. But he selectively quoted me, and what he omitted in the same sentence was:
... so that the people in their electorates can look them in the eye and say, ‘Your actions in blocking government money have led to the loss of infrastructure in our electorates.’
I did not say that this would be a great way to handle the distribution of taxpayers’ money and I also pointed out that this was against government policy.
AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORTS
66
Auditor-General's Reports
Report No. 5 of 2008-09
66
66
16:15:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I present the Auditor-General’s Audit report No. 5 of 2008-09 entitled Performance audit: the Senate order for departmental and agency contracts (calendar year 2007 compliance).
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
DOCUMENTS
66
Documents
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
16:15:00
—Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
BUSINESS
66
Business
66
16:15:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Leader of the House
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—Mr Speaker, I have consulted with the Manager of Opposition Business. It might suit the House to receive the message from the Senate on the condensate legislation now. For the benefit of members, because it is a request from the Senate it has to be received here, then go back to the Senate and come back here. So the earlier we deal with it the shorter the sitting will be, which might suit the convenience of the House.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I understand that it would suit the convenience of the House if we took that course of action.
EXCISE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CONDENSATE) BILL 2008
66
Bills
R2983
Consideration of Senate Message
66
Bill returned from the Senate with requested amendments.
Ordered that the requested amendments be considered immediately.
Senate’s requested amendments—
(1) Clause 2, page 1 (lines 7 to 9), omit the clause, substitute:
2 Commencement
(1) Each provision of this Act specified in column 1 of the table commences, or is taken to have commenced, in accordance with column 2 of the table. Any other statement in column 2 has effect according to its terms.
Commencement information
Column 1
Column 2
Column 3
Provision(s)
Commencement
Date/
Details
1. Sections 1 to 3 and anything in this Act not elsewhere covered by this table
The day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.
2. Schedule 1
The later of:
(a) the start of the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent; and
(b) the start of the day on which the Excise Tariff Amendment (Condensate) Act 2008 receives the Royal Assent.
However, the provision(s) do not commence at all if the event mentioned in paragraph (b) does not occur.
Note: This table relates only to the provisions of this Act as originally passed by both Houses of the Parliament and assented to. It will not be expanded to deal with provisions inserted in this Act after assent.
(2) Column 3 of the table contains additional information that is not part of this Act. Information in this column may be added to or edited in any published version of this Act.
(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (line 3), omit “or in the regulations”.
(3) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (line 9), omit “or in the regulations”.
(4) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (line 12), after “following in”, insert “the regulations, or in”.
(5) Schedule 1, item 13, page 7 (after line 14), after subitem (2), insert:
Determination of interim VOLWARE prices
(2A) Subsections 7(2), (3) and (4) of the Petroleum Excise (Prices) Act 1987 apply, in relation to a prescribed condensate production area and the pre‑commencement period, as if those subsections were replaced with the following:
“ (2) The Minister, or a person authorised by the Minister to exercise the Minister’s powers under this section, must, not later than 2 months, or such longer period as the Minister allows, after the day on which Schedule 1 to the Excise Tariff Amendment (Condensate) Act 2008 commences, determine a price in relation to each month in the pre‑commencement period and an oil producing region, to be known as the interim VOLWARE price for that month and that region, being an estimate by the Minister or authorised person, on the basis of the information available to him or her at the time (being information obtained under section 6 or otherwise), of the amount that will finally be determined to be the volume weighted average of realised prices for that month and that region.”
“ (3) The Minister, or a person authorised by the Minister to exercise the Minister’s powers under this section, must, not later than 6 months after the day on which an interim VOLWARE price is determined for a month in relation to an oil producing region, determine a price in relation to that month and that region, to be known as the final VOLWARE price for that month and that region, being the final determination by the Minister or authorised person of the volume weighted average of realised prices for that month and that region.”
“ (4) A determination of the final VOLWARE price for a month and an oil producing region must not be made unless:
(a) the Minister or authorised person is satisfied that accurate and complete information concerning all of the transactions relevant to determining the price has become available to the Minister or authorised person; or
(b) 5 months and 20 days have passed since the day on which an interim VOLWARE price was determined for that month and information that the Minister or authorised person is satisfied is accurate and complete concerning all of those transactions has not yet become available to the Minister or authorised person.”
(6) Schedule 1, item 13, page 7 (before line 15), before subitem (3), insert:
Definitions
(7) Schedule 1, item 13, page 7 (after line 16), after the definition of month, insert:
pre‑commencement period means the period:
(a) beginning at midnight (by legal time in the Australian Capital Territory) on 30 April 2008; and
(b) ending at midnight on the last day of the last month that ends before the day on which Schedule 1 to the Excise Tariff Amendment (Condensate) Act 2008 commences.
(8) Schedule 1, item 14, page 8 (lines 11 and 12), omit “the definition of first day were 14 May 2008”, substitute “the references to “the first day” in paragraph (a) and subparagraph (b)(iii) of the definition of transition period, and in subparagraph 15(4)(a)(ii) and paragraph 15(4)(b) of the Excise Act 1901,were references to “the day on which Schedule 1 to the Excise Tariff Amendment (Condensate) Act 2008 commences””.
(9) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 12), at the end of the Schedule, add:
15 Time for compliance with Excise Act 1901
Section 15 of the Excise Act 1901 applies in relation to condensate as if the references to “the first day” in the following provisions were references to “the day on which Schedule 1 to the Excise Tariff Amendment (Condensate) Act 2008 commences”:
(a) paragraph (a) and subparagraph (b)(iii) of the definition of transition period in subsection 15(3);
(b) subparagraph 15(4)(a)(ii);
(c) paragraph 15(4)(b).
67
16:16:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Treasurer
1
0
Mr BOWEN
—I move:
That the requested amendments be made.
The government’s budget condensate measure has the effect of removing the current exemption of condensate from the crude oil excise regime. It applies to condensate produced after midnight Canberra time on 13 May 2008. Earlier today, the Senate passed the condensate measure with the government’s minor amendments. I would like to acknowledge the cooperation of the Greens, Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding on this measure. I would also like to note again the government’s support for Senator Xenophon’s reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics of the North West Shelf project joint marketing arrangements and their impact on competition in the upstream gas market and on prices paid by consumers.
The government’s minor amendments are required to ensure that the measure operates from the announcement date of 13 May 2008. The amendments to the Excise Legislation Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2008 will ensure that a price can be declared for condensate produced in the period following the announcement of the measure and prior to the legislation receiving royal assent. The amendments to the Excise Act 1901 and Petroleum Excise (Prices) Act 1987 will extend interim arrangements in the bills to ensure that condensate may be produced and entered for home consumption lawfully prior to the bills receiving royal assent. These amendments are transitional changes and so do not establish a precedent for future excise measures. Two other technical amendments strengthen the operation of the legislative framework. The measure allows the Australian community to share more fairly in the benefits from allowing the extraction of non-renewable energy resources located in the North West Shelf project area and onshore. As the development of petroleum fuels in this region is now reaching maturity, together with high world oil prices for non-renewable energy resources, there is no longer a need to retain this generous concession. This measure also makes a significant contribution for the government’s fiscal discipline. I commend the amendments to the House.
Question agreed to.
EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT (CONDENSATE) BILL 2008
68
Bills
R2982
Consideration of Senate Message
68
Bill returned from the Senate with requested amendments.
Ordered that the requested amendments be considered immediately.
Senate’srequested amendments—
(1) Clause 2, page 1 (lines 16 to 18), omit the clause, substitute:
2 Commencement
(1) Each provision of this Act specified in column 1 of the table commences, or is taken to have commenced, in accordance with column 2 of the table. Any other statement in column 2 has effect according to its terms.
Commencement information
Column 1
Column 2
Column 3
Provision(s)
Commencement
Date/
Details
1. Sections 1 to 3 and anything in this Act not elsewhere covered by this table
The day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.
2. Schedule 1
The later of:
(a) the start of the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent; and
(b) the start of the day on which the Excise Legislation Amendment (Condensate) Act 2008 receives the Royal Assent.
However, the provision(s) do not commence at all if the event mentioned in paragraph (b) does not occur.
Note: This table relates only to the provisions of this Act as originally passed by both Houses of the Parliament and assented to. It will not be expanded to deal with provisions inserted in this Act after assent.
(2) Column 3 of the table contains additional information that is not part of this Act. Information in this column may be added to or edited in any published version of this Act.
(2) Schedule 1, item 13, page 5 (lines 23 to 25), omit the item.
(3) Schedule 1, item 32, page 18 (lines 7 and 8), omit “the definition of first day were 14 May 2008”, substitute “the references to “the first day” in paragraph (a) and subparagraph (b)(iii) of the definition of transition period, and in subparagraph 15(4)(a)(ii) and paragraph 15(4)(b) of the Excise Act 1901,were references to “the day on which Schedule 1 to the Excise Tariff Amendment (Condensate) Act 2008 commences””.
Mr BOWEN
(Prospect
—Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Treasurer)
16:20:00
—I move:
That the requested amendments be made.
Question agreed to.
MEMBER FOR LONGMAN
68
Miscellaneous
68
16:20:00
Pyne, Chris, MP
9V5
Sturt
LP
0
0
Mr PYNE
—Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to ask a question relating to the personal explanation of the member for Longman.
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—The member for Sturt does not have the call. My apologies, but if you are not on your feet I cannot give you the call.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr PYNE
—Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. With respect, of course, there was an arrangement about the condensate bill, which came between the member for Longman—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—My apologies; I understand. To assist the progression of the House I will allow the member for Sturt to place his question. I am probably in the situation where I cannot answer that question as I am not the Speaker, but I will allow the question to be put.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr PYNE
—Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will put it in a way in which you can deal with it, because obviously the Speaker is no longer here. The member for Longman, in his personal explanation, said to the House, ‘I did not say that would be a good way to distribute government money.’ My question to you is: could the Speaker review the Hansard for what the member for Longman said? It concerns me that it is directly in conflict with what he actually said in the Main Committee. I believe that would be a great way for us—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The Leader of the House will resume his seat. There are other procedures in the House if the member for Sturt seeks to proceed down that line.
4T4
Melham, Daryl, MP
Mr Melham interjecting—
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr Dutton
—Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask that the offensive remark by the member for Banks on this National Police Remembrance Day be withdrawn.
4T4
Melham, Daryl, MP
Mr Melham
—I withdraw my remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The member for Sturt has put his question. As I stated, I do not think I am in a position to answer that. It is not about the procedures of the House and there are other forms by which to address it.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
69
Ministerial Statements
Caring for our Country Program
69
69
16:22:00
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts
1
0
Mr GARRETT
—I ask leave of the House to make a ministerial statement relating to the Caring for our Country program.
Leave not granted.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—You want to close us down; we close you down. You started this.
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—The member for North Sydney is warned.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
69
Matters of Public Importance
Medicare Levy Surcharge
69
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Dickson proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The government's failure to fully disclose the real impact on families and the public hospital system of its proposed changes to the Medicare levy.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
16:23:00
—I move:
That the business of the day be called on.
Question put.
16:28:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Ms AE Burke)
72
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Bradbury, D.J.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P.
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neal, B.J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Swan, W.M.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Zappia, A.
52
NOES
Andrews, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Farmer, P.F.
Forrest, J.A.
Georgiou, P.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hawker, D.P.M.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Johnson, M.A. *
Keenan, M.
Ley, S.P.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Randall, D.J.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Vale, D.S.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
2
PAIRS
Bevis, A.R.
Abbott, A.J.
Smith, S.F.
Laming, A.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—It being past 4.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—I require that the question be put immediately.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The question is that the question be put immediately.
Question put.
16:34:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Ms AE Burke)
72
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Bradbury, D.J.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P.
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neal, B.J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Swan, W.M.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Zappia, A.
52
NOES
Andrews, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Farmer, P.F.
Forrest, J.A.
Georgiou, P.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hawker, D.P.M.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Johnson, M.A. *
Keenan, M.
Ley, S.P.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Randall, D.J.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Vale, D.S.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
2
PAIRS
Bevis, A.R.
Abbott, A.J.
Smith, S.F.
Laming, A.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
Question put:
That the House do now adjourn.
16:37:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Ms AE Burke)
51
AYES
Andrews, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Farmer, P.F.
Forrest, J.A.
Georgiou, P.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hawker, D.P.M.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Johnson, M.A. *
Keenan, M.
Ley, S.P.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Randall, D.J.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
73
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Bradbury, D.J.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neal, B.J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Swan, W.M.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Zappia, A.
2
PAIRS
Abbott, A.J.
Bevis, A.R.
Laming, A.
Smith, S.F.
* denotes teller
Question negatived.
AUSTRALIAN ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION AND TRANSPLANTATION AUTHORITY BILL 2008
71
Bills
R3065
Report from Main Committee
71
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
71
Dr KELLY
(Eden-Monaro
—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support)
16:43:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
COMMITTEES
71
Committees
Health and Ageing Committee
Family, Community, Housing and Youth Committee
Economics Committee
Public Accounts and Audit Committee
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity Committee
Australian Crime Commission Committee
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee
71
Membership
71
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—Mr Speaker has received advice that the Chief Opposition Whip has nominated members to be members of certain committees.
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
16:44:00
—by leave—I move:
-
Mr Morrison be discharged from the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing and that, in his place, Mr Briggs be appointed a member of the committee;
-
Mrs Markus be discharged from the Standing Committee on Family, Community, Housing and Youth and that, in her place, Mr Morrison be appointed a member of the committee;
-
Mr Dutton and Mr Keenan be discharged from the Standing Committee on Economics and that, in their places, Ms J. Bishop (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) and Mr A. D. H. Smith be appointed members of the committee;
-
Mr Baldwin and Mr Morrison be discharged from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and that, in their places, Mrs B. K. Bishop and Mr Briggs be appointed members of the committee;
-
Mr Pyne be discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and that, in his place, Ms Ley be appointed a member of the committee;
-
Mr Pyne be discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission and that, in his place, Ms Ley be appointed a member of the committee; and
-
Mr Robb be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and that, in his place, Mrs Markus be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND GIFTS) BILL 2008
72
Bills
R3051
Second Reading
72
Debate resumed.
72
16:45:00
Danby, Michael, MP
WF6
Melbourne Ports
ALP
1
0
Mr DANBY
—As I was saying, in discussing the Tax Laws Amendment (Political Contributions and Gifts) Bill 2008 you have to look at the Liberal Party’s attitude to transparency in contributions. With the $10,000 threshold you could have given $10,000 to seven different state or territory branches—you could have donated $70,000 without transparency. You also have to look at the early closure of the rolls, where many hundreds of thousands of people were disenfranchised. And you have to look at the very strange changes to provisional voting which, the Electoral Commission has shown, disenfranchised large numbers of people. The former government claimed that this change was necessary to protect the integrity of the electoral roll and prevent electoral fraud. This was always a spurious piece of deception designed to conceal the partisan self-interest of the Liberal Party.
Let me reiterate what I repeatedly said during the inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters into the 2004 election and during the debate on the Howard government’s legislation. There is no evidence at all of any significant electoral fraud in Australian federal elections and thus no merit to the coalition’s claim that these regressive changes to the legislation were required to protect the integrity of the electoral roll. These claims were nothing but a fig leaf for the coalition’s naked self-interest. The Australian Electoral Commission, the independent statutory authority charged with safeguarding the integrity of our election system, whose commissioner was appointed by the Howard government, said in October 2001:
It has been concluded by every parliamentary and judicial inquiry into the conduct of federal elections, since the AEC was established as an independent statutory authority in 1984, that there has been no widespread and organised attempt to defraud the federal electoral system ... and that the level of fraudulent enrolment and voting is not sufficient to have overturned the result in any Division in Australia.
This view was shared by Emeritus Professor Colin Hughes, a highly respected former Australian Electoral Commissioner, who wrote in 2005:
The thorough review of the electoral roll conducted in 2002 by the Australian National Audit Office, concluded that ‘overall, the Australian electoral roll is one of high integrity, and can be relied on for electoral purposes’.
There are adequate safeguards in the current electoral laws and procedures to deal with any future attempts at fraud without stripping the vote from hundreds of citizens. That is precisely what happened at the last election: 60,000 fewer people than the previous election got their provisional vote. (Quorum formed)
The regressive changes introduced by the Howard government’s 2006 legislation can be reversed by new legislation. I hope and expect that Senator Faulkner in the other house and the green paper and then the white paper process will see such legislation in this parliament by 2009.
72
16:50:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Treasurer
1
0
Mr BOWEN
—in reply—I thank all honourable members who have contributed to this debate. The Tax Laws Amendment (Political Contributions and Gifts) Bill 2008 forms part of our mandate to govern. We campaigned on abolishing the tax deductibility of political donations. We had a clear election commitment to do so. Political parties receive considerable public funding. We do not believe they should receive further public funding through the tax deductibility of political donations.
This bill is also a savings measure, one of many the government is taking through this place and through the other place. We again call on the opposition to support this measure in this House and in the other house. We do not need another talkfest from the opposition. We do need another inquiry to determine whether this is the right thing to do. This is a measure that the Australian people would warmly welcome. It is a measure that the Labor Party campaigned on. It was a clear part of our election campaign. The previous government tried three times to increase the threshold on tax deductibility. They tried it in 1998, they tried it after the 1998 election and they tried it in 2006. On the first two occasions they introduced this into the parliament it was defeated in the other place. Of course, on the third occasion, in 2006, it was supported in the other place because the Liberal Party and National Party had a majority in their own right.
The 2006 changes were part of their wider reforms—if I can use the term ‘reform’ very loosely—which increased the disclosure threshold, for example, from $1,500 to $10,000, which I know the honourable member for Melbourne Ports referred to. That meant that you could make a substantial donation by spreading your donations across state and territory entities. The opposition in this debate have continued to argue valiantly to defend the tax deductibility of political donations. I do not believe that is something the Australian people would welcome, and I certainly commend this bill to the House.
Question put:
That this bill be now read a second time.
16:56:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Ms AE Burke)
72
AYES
Albanese, A.N.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Bradbury, D.J.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neal, B.J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Swan, W.M.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Zappia, A.
46
NOES
Andrews, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.
Chester, D.
Cobb, J.K.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Farmer, P.F.
Forrest, J.A.
Georgiou, P.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hawker, D.P.M.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Johnson, M.A. *
Keenan, M.
Ley, S.P.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Randall, D.J.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
2
PAIRS
Bevis, A.R.
Abbott, A.J.
Smith, S.F.
Laming, A.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
AUSLINK (NATIONAL LAND TRANSPORT) AMENDMENT BILL 2008
73
Bills
R3053
AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH COUNCIL AMENDMENT BILL 2008
73
Bills
R3063
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (LUXURY CAR TAX) BILL 2008
73
Bills
R2993
Returned from the Senate
73
Message received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate had agreed to the bill as amended by the House at the request of the Senate.
URGENT RELIEF FOR SINGLE AGE PENSIONERS BILL 2008
73
Bills
S650
Consideration of Senate Message
73
Message received from the Senate requesting the House to consider immediately the bill.
PARLIAMENT HOUSE: SECURITY
73
Miscellaneous
73
17:06:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
0
Mr HOCKEY
—On indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to raise an issue. The member for Kennedy signed in two individuals on unaccompanied passes today. Those two individuals have been harassing my office and, without any proper reference to those individuals by the member for Kennedy, those two people came into my office—specifically into my office—and harassed my staff. I ask that you investigate the matter. It does relate to the security of the building, and I would like to see a report from the Speaker on the matter as a matter of priority, please.
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—I thank the member for North Sydney. It is an important matter and it will be investigated.
73
17:08:00
House adjourned at 5.08 pm
2008-09-25
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke) took the chair at 9.30 am.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
74
Constituency Statements
Canning Electorate: Graffiti
74
74
09:30:00
Randall, Don, MP
PK6
Canning
LP
0
0
Mr RANDALL
—I speak today on an issue that is very prominent in my electorate of Canning, and that is the cost to local business and local government of graffiti. It is costing them a fortune. For a long time I have been calling for the reinstatement of the Graffiti Taskforce because it is the only thing that works. Stamping out unwanted ugly vandalism must become a priority at neighbourhood, community and government level. There must be action taken against those blatant vandals to rid our streets of this growing scourge. Just as an example: a local businessman, a real estate agent, approached me only this week seeking greater assistance in stamping out graffiti and wanton vandalism in the Kelmscott and Armadale areas of my electorate. His building has been a constant target for vandals since its completion in January this year. After months of arduous removal, costing at least $8,000 last week, matters got worse when two windows were broken and the remaining nine windows scratched with graffiti. All these windows will now need replacing, at a cost of $13,000. Having to pay $21,000 for this is an outrage and unsustainable. This is a burden on businesses trying to make a go of it.
Small business owners should not be forced to consider moving to other, so-called cleaner suburbs to earn their livelihood. Local communities are frustrated that the police have not been resourced to act upon reports of vandalism and the problem has gotten much bigger at a local government level. It is bigger than they can handle, costing the Armadale City Council $200,000 a year to clean up. State-wide it is a $25 million problem. The previous state Labor government did nothing to clean up this problem. With its Goodbye Graffiti program, the clean-up process was slow and dysfunctional. Simply, the program just did not work, taking more than three weeks to clean up graffiti, and catching vandals became a very low priority. Labor pulled the funding from the previous Liberal initiative, called the Graffiti Taskforce, which generally took less than 24 hours to address a problem.
I have looked at a number of options—neighbourhood led action groups and local government funded groups—but it is the Graffiti Taskforce which is the most effective. It is time to take a tough stance against this kind of behaviour. I am calling on the new Liberal government to honour their commitment to immediately reinstate the Graffiti Taskforce and introduce tougher penalties for offenders and those selling spray paint to minors, as well as speed up removal. We know that the key deterrent is removing graffiti immediately, not giving the offenders the satisfaction of seeing their own handiwork. I am also urging Premier Barnett to honour his promise to introduce proof-of-age requirements for the purchasers of paint and harsh fines on businesses who offend and to increase penalties for repeat offenders to jail time and large fines.
Commonwealth Law Reform: Same-Sex Couples
74
74
09:33:00
Plibersek, Tanya, MP
83M
Sydney
ALP
Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women
1
0
Ms PLIBERSEK
—Prior to the last election, Labor made a number of commitments, including a commitment to remove discrimination against same-sex couples in all areas of Commonwealth legislation. I have been campaigning on this issue since before being elected to parliament and certainly since I was elected in 1998. In fact, I first raised the issue in federal parliament in June 1999. Many of my constituents have written to me over very many years detailing how this discrimination has personally impacted on them in their everyday lives. As soon as we came into government, our Attorney-General started to audit all Commonwealth laws to identify discrimination. There were a number of pieces of legislation that were identified by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report Same sex: same entitlements, but many other pieces of legislation were missed by that HREOC report. The Attorney-General, in his very thorough audit, has picked up many of those. The Rudd government has now introduced bills into the parliament that will achieve what we set out to do—to remove discrimination against same-sex couples from all Commonwealth laws. These bills will extend rights to same-sex couples in areas like taxation, veterans affairs, social security, immigration and Medicare.
As the member for an electorate that has one of the highest concentrations of same-sex couples in the country, I know that my constituents will benefit enormously from these laws. One constituent, Neil Murray from Newtown, wrote to me about the discrimination that he and his partner face. He wrote:
I am a retired air force officer, having served for 21 years, including a tour of South Vietnam. Since retiring in 1986, I have received a DFR&DB pension appropriate to my rank—wing commander—at the time of my separation from the RAAF. Should I die, my male partner of 20 years will receive nothing in recognition of our relationship. However, if I was married for even one day or I was in a long-term de facto relationship, my female partner would receive a five-eighths widow’s pension.
Tim Evans, a former constituent now living overseas, is looking to move back to Australia with his partner. He wrote:
When looking into the requirements to buy a property, I realised with absolute horror that the Federal Investment Review Board is discriminatory. In short, it discriminates against same-sex couples. Opposite-sex couples, where one member is an Australian, are exempt from reporting requirements when they purchase real estate in Australia. To quote their website: “The exemption for foreign persons purchasing residential real estate as joint tenants with their Australian citizen spouse does not extend to same-sex couples. Foreign persons in a de-facto same-sex relationship must seek foreign investment approval for the acquisition of any residential real estate or vacant land.
I hope that the government’s legislation to eliminate this discrimination is passed quickly so that Neil’s relationship is given the legal recognition it rightly deserves and so that Tim and his partner can purchase property properly in Australia. (Time expired)
New South Wales Government: Property Taxes
75
75
09:36:00
Hawke, Alex, MP
HWO
Mitchell
LP
0
0
Mr HAWKE
—I also rise this morning to address a matter of discrimination—discrimination against the residents, families and taxpayers in my electorate of Mitchell in the outer suburbs of Sydney. I also rise on behalf of those people who live in the outer suburbs in the south-west and in Western Sydney.
Yesterday ratepayers, residents and taxpayers in my electorate rose to the news that the New South Wales state Labor government is considering yet another property tax on homes in north-western Sydney to fund infrastructure. This is on top of the exorbitant taxes and charges that have been levied against homeowners over many, many years in New South Wales. In fact, in New South Wales you are lucky if you can get an average block of land without $120,000 of government taxes and government charges.
I am pleased to be following the Minister for Housing, who spoke here this morning. I did not hear her explain how her new measure, which provides 17c in the dollar for first home saving accounts, will address a new property tax placed on homes that will be built near the North West Metro line. That 17c in every dollar will be wiped out by any new tax imposed by the state Labor government. If you look at the proposal they are considering, you will see the travesty that is unfolding in New South Wales and Mr Rees’s desperate move to fund the North West Metro rail link.
In the article I am holding, we see that not only are they considering imposing a levy on developers who build homes serviced by the metro, and a new property tax on the homes contained near the metro line, but they are also looking at halving the metro line, from Epping to Castle Hill. We have heard since 1999 from the state Labor government that there would be a heavy rail line built from Epping to Rouse Hill. We then heard it would be a metro line, which is a reduced capacity rail initiative. Now we hear that they are considering a new tax to fund it and they are considering halving the length of the line, when all of the development assumptions in the outer suburbs of Sydney have been premised on the fact that a mass transit line would be coming. There have been increased densities and there have been landmark developments. We have a corridor in the north-west of Sydney which will now grow to 60,000 homes, premised on the fact that there will be a rail line.
In New South Wales, we have a situation where the state government is in a state of freefall collapse. This federal Labor government is silent on the fact that, in New South Wales, property development is being cruelled by government taxes, charges and levies, and the state government is planning to impose a new property tax on homes in the outer suburbs of Sydney, at the expense of the residents, to provide infrastructure. There should be no new infrastructure taxes or charges without infrastructure provision. (Time expired)
Mr Keith Dowding
75
75
09:39:00
McMullan, Bob, MP
5I4
Fraser
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance
1
0
Mr McMULLAN
—I want to use this time to comment on, note and mourn the passing of a very distinguished but largely unremarked Australian, Keith Dowding. Keith was a voice of principle, a voice for the underprivileged and the oppressed. He died recently on 18 August at the age of 97, in Western Australia. Keith was a church minister, originally in the Presbyterian Church. After the amalgamation into the Uniting Church, he was, at one point, the moderator of the Presbyterian Church. I also knew him as an activist in the Labor Party and as a trade union activist.
But those are not the singular contributions for which I wish to commend Keith Dowding today. In the 1960s Keith Dowding did things which these days would not be so unusual but back then were extraordinary. In 1963 he went to Calcutta as Director of the Bengal Refugee Service. He spent two or three years there from 1963 to 1965, accepting responsibility for the welfare of 20,000 refugees in and around Calcutta, as it was then called. With the support of many charitable groups in Australia, he successfully resettled 6,000 refugees who, despite all other attempts to move them, had been squatting in a railway station for 16 years. That is an extraordinary contribution by an Australian. Having done that, he then went to Nigeria as the administrator of the Save the Children Fund in Nigeria in 1966 and 1967. He then went to the United Kingdom and organised the International Year of Human Rights in the UK and Northern Ireland.
It was, overall, a life well lived; a great contribution on behalf of the poor and the underprivileged in Australia and around the world. When I first met Keith Dowding he commented on his unique status as the only person who had been expelled both from the RSL and the Labor Party, and it turned out to be true. He was kicked out of the RSL for opposing the war in Vietnam and he was kicked out of the Labor Party for being opposed to the White Australia Policy. So at least he had a long and distinguished record of principle. He was later known as Peter’s father because his son Peter became the Premier of Western Australia. But Keith himself was a distinguished and notable Australian and, as I said, he died on 18 August aged 97. He made a significant contribution. Those of us who aspire to public service could only aspire to match his contribution.
Bonnie Babes Foundation
76
76
09:42:00
Johnson, Michael, MP
00AMX
Ryan
LP
0
0
Mr JOHNSON
—Today I want to talk about babies. I have a baby myself—he is two years and a couple of months old. In particular, I want to talk about the Bonnie Babes Foundation and to very strongly associate myself with the wonderful work that they do. As a young father of a two-year-old baby, I can only imagine how difficult it must be for some parents with children and babies with great challenges. Some of my constituents have asked me to help the Bonnie Babes Foundation as much as I can, and I want to talk about some of the things that they do because they are a wonderful organisation in our community.
The Bonnie Babes Foundation provides medical equipment to hospitals for premature babies struggling in intensive care. As someone who has a sister and brother who are doctors, I quite often hear the stories that my brother and sister tell me when they are at home with me. So there is that link. The Bonnie Babes Foundation also assists with vital medical research into pregnancy loss and complications to women’s health during and following pregnancy. They provide education and training for health professionals. They also provide a 24-hour seven days a week free family crisis phone line for those who have lost their baby through miscarriage, stillbirth or premature birth. My mother lost a couple of babies, so helping mums who have miscarriages or stillbirths is something that is very close to our family.
The Bonnie Babes Foundation also provide health, nutrition and wellness advice for women prior to and during pregnancy. They provide support for families with infertility issues and they provide support for babies born with abnormalities. They also support women who develop pre-eclampsia and other medical conditions during pregnancy. Those points say so much about the wonderful Bonnie Babes Foundation. I have a very young electorate, a very family type of constituency, and I enjoy very much the opportunities I get to talk to young parents, being one myself. On 16 October Bonnie Babes will be here in parliament and I encourage all my colleagues in the House and in the Senate to meet those that are leading this organisation and to support them in whatever way we can. This is an organisation that reflects very much the spirit of this great country.
Anaphylaxis Australia
76
76
09:45:00
Burke, Anna, MP
83S
Chisholm
ALP
1
0
Ms BURKE
—I would like to put on the record my great appreciation for a terrific organisation that has helped many people across the country and has been of great assistance to my family. Anaphylaxis Australia is a small organisation that runs on the smell of an oily rag. As a mother of a child with anaphylaxis, I know the great work that it does and it is a comfort to know that there is such support out there.
Today I particularly want to thank one of my constituents who has been a great member of this organisation: Leith Pawsey. Leith Pawsey has been working tirelessly behind the scenes on the implementation of the Victorian legislation which now makes it compulsory for all carers of children to be trained in awareness of anaphylaxis and for the administration of the life-saving drug that is administered by an EpiPen. I call on the other states to adhere and introduce similar legislation to Victoria. I do not know why they have not, given the coronial inquiries in numerous states.
I want to put on the record my absolute appreciation for Leith’s tireless efforts. Leith Pawsey is a great emailer, advocate and phone ringer. She is a terrier when it comes to these things, and you have just got to respect that. She has a child with severe anaphylaxis and she knows all too well the dramas that this can cause. So I say a big thankyou to Leith.
I also want to put on the record my sincere appreciation to Lynn Sendy Smithers, who has been a phenomenal active volunteer within Victoria for Anaphylaxis Australia. Lynn has been working at this for many years and has been instrumental behind the scenes for the Victorian legislation and now with the implementation of it. Lynn is now taking a step backwards. It has taken a big toll on her and her family. She is an amazing person. We forget that behind a lot of what goes on in parliament relies on groups of volunteers, who do a lot of the legwork. Lynn and Leith have done a huge amount of the legwork in ensuring that this legislation came to pass and that we now have the best legislation in Victoria.
I also want to put on the record my appreciation to Nigel and Martha Baptist, who were recently recognised with the John Ruhno Award through Anaphylaxis Australia. Nigel and Martha may be recognised by people in this place. They tragically lost their son Alex to an anaphylactic attack a couple of years ago. He went off to kinder and never came home. They have been instrumental in raising awareness through the tragic death of their child from this illness. It can be treated, and we need to do more about it.
I also want to say a huge thankyou to Maria Said, the President of Anaphylaxis Australia out of Sydney. Maria is the mother of a child with anaphylaxis. Most of the people involved in these organisations are people who deal with this situation day in and day out. She is a courageous woman who spends a lot of her own money going around the country and advocating on behalf of the organisation. We could not survive without such people.
Cowan Electorate: Blackmore Primary School
77
77
09:48:00
Simpkins, Luke, MP
HWE
Cowan
LP
0
0
Mr SIMPKINS
—I rise today to speak about Blackmore Primary School and a couple of volunteers that define what is good about the school and the local community. Blackmore Primary School is located in the western part of the suburb of Girrawheen within Cowan. It is an excellent school under the leadership of Russell Hahn, the Principal, and Darrilyn Dawson, the Deputy Principal.
Russell certainly defined the school as progressive, having received a $150,000 Investing in Our Schools grant during the previous government’s term. He has instituted a wireless ICT capacity in the school. Unfortunately, in 2007 the state government decided that this school would close, despite good infrastructure, excellent location advantages and car parking, and very strong local support from the community for its retention. I fear that it is now too late to save this school, and that is a tragedy.
I want to speak particularly about the two volunteers that the school has referred to me. I have known Peter Jackson for several years now. He is a scripture teacher, a chaplain and a long-time advocate for the federal funding for chaplaincy programs that the Howard government introduced. He also has been there for the school for many years doing soup and breakfast clubs. He is always available to staff and students in the school community. He is a positive role model and a great support person. He is always willing to help anyone. I run into Peter Jackson all the time across a number of different organisations. He is really out there. He was the driving force behind the Sunshine Children’s Ministry in the Girrawheen area. I know that he helps Nigel and Linda Godfrey in the Children in Action Ministries as I see him each year when they go away for the Easter camp.
The other person I would like to mention is Ray Villarroya. Ray is a positive influence on many of the children at Blackmore Primary School. He is a reliable volunteer and has mentored a significant number of children for many years. He is a vital part of the school and has joined my crime prevention program as well—Cowan Community Watch.
I have always said that volunteers keep our community strong. Peter Jackson and Ray Villarroya are great examples of dedicated community advocates who are always there to help. I thank them for their effort and their commitment.
Road Safety
77
77
09:52:00
Collins, Julie, MP
HWM
Franklin
ALP
1
0
Ms COLLINS
—I rise this morning to talk about the serious matter of road safety. I have listened to my constituents on a range of issues since I was elected over nine months ago, and road safety is certainly a very serious concern for families who travel on southern Tasmanian roads. The message is very simple: they want us to help them make their roads safer for their families and tourists visiting the area. You only have to turn on your TV and watch the nightly news to gain some understanding of the devastating road crashes and how bad they are for the local communities. Tragically, there was a fatal accident in my electorate in the last few weeks. My sympathy goes to the families involved. We all know that road accidents take a huge toll on families, our communities and the economy. They are a major cost to Australians, both financially and emotionally.
Despite notable improvements in road safety over past decades, there is still much to be done. This is why the Rudd government is committed to funding strategies and measures that are helping to improve road safety. One such measure that I would like to talk about today is the Black Spot Program. Members of the House would be aware that the Rudd government has increased funding for black spot projects. Increasing the funding was a commitment made by this side of the House in the lead-up to the 2007 election.
As chair of the federal government’s Tasmanian Black Spot Consultative Panel, recently I was pleased to announce with the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government the black spot funding for Tasmania for this year. I was particularly pleased to announce an investment of $160,000 to fix a dangerous black spot on a local road in Oyster Cove in my electorate in southern Tasmania. Oyster Cove is situated 35 kilometres south of Hobart, and this beautiful part of Tasmania is visited by tourists. The $160,000 will improve line markings as well as reduce roadside hazards that exist along Nicholls Rivulet Road from the Channel Highway to Kemps Road. It is a simple but effective project that is implementing minor road improvements to reduce the risk of crashes.
The $160,000 project is part of the $50 million funding that the Rudd government is delivering to fix black spots on local roads across Australia. The total funding allocation for Tasmania in this financial year is $1.2 million. This is a serious investment to ensure there are safer roads for local motorists and their families. In my capacity as chair of the consultative panel, I am working closely with the community and stakeholder organisations, along with their representatives, to ensure black spot projects continue to be rolled out across Tasmania.
The Black Spot Program has a proven track record of saving lives. An evaluation of the program has shown that it prevented 32 fatalities and more than 1,500 serious accidents in its first three years. I welcome the Rudd Labor government’s commitment to increasing black spot funding. It will certainly mean safer roads for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.
Gippsland Electorate: Gippsland Rotary Centenary House
78
78
09:54:00
Chester, Darren, MP
IPZ
Gippsland
NATS
0
0
Mr CHESTER
—I congratulate the member for Franklin, who has just spoken, for her contribution and endorse her comments. I rise to pay tribute to the outstanding men and women in Gippsland who have rallied together to establish Gippsland Rotary Centenary House. I recently attended the second birthday celebrations of this quite remarkable facility and the unveiling of a new pathway and new outdoor areas there. For the benefit of members who have not heard of Centenary House and the service it provides: Gippsland Rotary Centenary House provides a home away from home for patients and their families attending Latrobe Regional Hospital, primarily patients of the Gippsland Cancer Care Centre.
The facility contains six large en suite units and two smaller self-contained facilities, along with a communal kitchen, a dining room and lounge facilities, a children’s play area and a quiet room for family consultation and privacy. But merely describing the bricks and mortar which make up the skeleton of Centenary House fails to do justice to the heart which beats within. This is a house that love, compassion and empathy have built in Gippsland. In addition to funding from state and federal governments and many philanthropic trusts, the community of Gippsland, led by its Rotarians, was successful in fundraising more than $600,000 for stage 1. I say ‘stage 1’, because you cannot stop the enthusiasm of volunteers such as Ken Peake and the manager, Carol Crewe. They are already working hard on stage 2, which will lead to the doubling of services for the people of Gippsland.
It is a sad fact that the demand from seriously ill patients requires the doubling in size of this type of facility, but I have already pledged my support to help the committee achieve that aim in the future. Gippsland Rotary Centenary House has been a complete success, and it is a credit to the vision and hard work of the volunteers, the board members and the businesses throughout the Gippsland region which have contributed to the project. Once the design is finalised and costings are prepared, I will be working with all levels of government and the community to secure funding for the next stage. All levels of government from both sides of politics supported the original development, and now it is time to start building those partnerships again for the next stage of the project.
Centenary House is providing affordable and comfortable accommodation for Gippslanders when they are at their most vulnerable. No-one is ever turned away if they cannot afford the $15 a night price to stay. I have no doubt that the friendly and supportive environment which is provided in a safe and secure location is contributing to improved health outcomes for the guests.
There is a separate point that I would like to make. Although Centenary House is located between Traralgon and Morwell, the main beneficiaries of this project come from much further afield, with 82 per cent of the patients travelling from East Gippsland shire, Wellington shire and the South Gippsland areas. It says a lot about the community spirit of the people of Latrobe Valley businesses and the residents themselves that they are the major supporters of a project which helps their neighbouring communities across Gippsland. I pay tribute today to the volunteers and the generous donors who have helped bring this project to life and I wish them every success in their future endeavours.
Holt Electorate: Gateway Industries
78
78
09:57:00
Byrne, Anthony, MP
008K0
Holt
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr BYRNE
—Today I rise to speak about a very important organisation in my electorate called Gateway Industries, which provides disability employment support services. It was established by Dandenong Rotary about 25 years ago. The moving spirit behind it was of a gentleman called Arthur Wren, who unfortunately is no longer with us. When he was Cranbourne Shire president, it was his brainwave to give people with a disability every chance to work in a genuine workplace environment under normal working conditions. Arthur, if you are listening somewhere up there: you have achieved great work.
Gateway Industries is an iconic service in my area. It was relocated from Futura Road, Keysborough about five years ago to Progress Street, Dandenong. The service now employs about 40 people with special needs, and it has employed about 100 over 25 years. I would like to give special thanks here today to Alex Neitz, Arthur Wren, Margaret Cleary and Russell Smith for their dedication to and their work with this incredible organisation. They have achieved amazing results and they provide a great service to the local community.
Gateway provides a range of services, including litter collection, wine shelving and packaging services for local businesses and clients. They keep Dandenong tidy, with litter collection services for all parks, gardens and sporting fields in the city of Greater Dandenong. As well as services for the city of Greater Dandenong, they provide packaging services for Gates Australia in Dandenong South, who provide components for Ford and Holden Australia, and for Irwin Industrial Tools in Dandenong South, a large supplier of tools for Bunnings.
The wine shelving is built on site for clients right around the country—and we are talking about leading restaurants in Australia. If you walk down to this special needs employment facility then you will see these magnificent wine racks, which are being sold for a large sum of money. We should be very proud about these things. We hear about the work of people with special needs, but if you want to see the outstanding work that people with the right sort of motivation and the right support can provide then come down to Gateway in Progress Street. You will be blown away by the quality of work that they are doing.
On 8 September, I had the opportunity to open a new mezzanine floor at Gateway with David Neitz, the former Melbourne Football Club captain. He is a proud supporter and a great supporter. The centre received a $247,000 grant from the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, which assisted in the development of a new mezzanine level, giving the centre more space to package goods. Along with the mezzanine floor, a new specialised lift was built to assist staff in accessing the work space. The new space has already started to pay off and the staff have explored the surfaces. It is a great service and we should have a great deal more—
10000
Schultz, Alby (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr AJ Schultz)—Order! In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members’ constituency statements has concluded.
AUSTRALIAN ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION AND TRANSPLANTATION AUTHORITY BILL 2008
79
Bills
R3065
Second Reading
79
Debate resumed from 24 September, on motion by Mr Rudd:
That this bill be now read a second time.
79
10:00:00
Livermore, Kirsten, MP
83A
Capricornia
ALP
1
0
Ms LIVERMORE
—If you ask any member of this place why they got involved in politics and ran for parliament, they will tell you it was because they wanted to make a difference. The Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008, even more than most we debate, is really about making a difference. For those Australians anxiously and desperately waiting for transplants, organ donation is the difference between daily battles with pain and illness and good health. For many, it is the difference between life and death. If this bill succeeds in its aims, we will see the rate of organ donation in this country increase and, with it, the number of lives saved and transformed by that most generous of gifts—a donated organ.
Before I go any further I want to record here my thanks to all those families who have lost loved ones and, in the midst of their grief and pain, were able to offer hope to other families through the gift of organ donation. What a brave and selfless thing to do and what a wonderful legacy to create for their deceased husband, mother, son or daughter: knowing that they have given another human being—someone they may have never met—a second chance at life. Pope Benedict himself has declared that he is an organ donor and once stated that organ donation was an act of love.
The question of organ donation has come before the parliament in a number of forms in recent years. I make a point of participating in those debates at every opportunity. I always give my support to those motions as they come before the House because we need to do everything we can to keep organ donation on the agenda and take every chance to raise awareness and encourage people to register as donors.
We all know the statistics about organ donation in Australia. They have certainly been brought forward in the debate on this bill. Studies have shown that almost 95 per cent of Australians support organ donation but, on the other hand, only about 30 per cent of us are registered organ donors. Currently, there are just over one million registered organ donors. We have an enviable record of success when it comes to transplant procedures but too many Australians are denied the opportunity of a transplant because they do not survive the wait for a suitable organ. Today, there are 1,800 people on waiting lists around the country. Sadly, an estimated 100 people die each year while waiting for an organ transplant due to the shortage of organ and tissue donors.
Australians are generous people. We are known for our big hearts and our willingness to help others, so our low rate of organ donation compared to other countries—Spain and the US are often quoted as examples—is very out of place. It is clearly not a question of our character but of getting our policies and practices right. It starts with education and awareness. We must also reorient the relevant sections of our health system to make organ donation an integral part of training and procedures.
I am absolutely delighted that organ donation has been given such a high priority by the Prime Minister and the government. In saying that, I am not suggesting for a minute that it was not supported by the previous government—I know that lifting the rate of organ donation is something strongly supported by both sides of the parliament and that the previous government had a range of policies aimed at achieving that—but the work of this government in taking on the recommendations of the National Clinical Taskforce on Organ and Tissue Donation earlier this year has made organ donation a genuine priority, and this bill seeks to put those recommendations into effect immediately.
The bill does that by establishing the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority. That was a key recommendation of the clinical task force. The authority will provide national leadership in organ and tissue donation and will drive, implement and monitor national reform initiatives and programs aimed at increasing Australia’s access to transplants. The authority will be spearheaded by a CEO who will report directly to the Minister for Health and Ageing. The CEO will be advised by the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Advisory Council. That council will be made up of individuals with expertise in organ and tissue donation and transplantation, health consumer issues, management and public administration.
This bill contains measures that, over the next four years to 2011-2012, will cost $151 million. That includes about $136 million of new money put towards these initiatives. About $24 million of that has been allocated to setting up the authority. The other measures include $67 million to fund dedicated organ donation specialist doctors and other staff dedicated to organ and tissue donation in public and private hospitals around Australia.
The value of that measure in increasing the coordination of organ donation and having those donation specialists in hospitals should not be underestimated. Its value is illustrated by the findings of a study in Victoria that was reported a few years ago in the Medical Journal of Australia. That study looked at 17,000 deaths in Victoria over a period of time. It found that, of those 17,000 deaths, there were 280 potential organ donors. However, in 60 of those cases organ donation was not requested from relatives at the time of the potential donor’s death. So there were missed opportunities that were identified in that study. If that is multiplied across Australia, it really highlights the need for better coordination and specialisation in organ donation within our hospitals and our health system.
The funding that this bill brings forward also includes $17 million in new funding for hospitals to meet the additional staffing, bed and infrastructure costs associated with organ donation; $13.4 million to continue national public awareness and education programs to increase knowledge about organ and tissue donation and transplantation and to build confidence in Australia’s donation for transplantation system; and $1.9 million to support the families of deceased donors. I know that all members would welcome that recognition of what donor families go through, not just dealing with the death of their loved ones but understanding what donation means, to support the families as they go through that very difficult time.
Other measures included in the bill are the creation of a national network of state and territory based organ and tissue donation agencies to facilitate the donation process. You would have to say that the low rates of donation in Australia are not through lack of trying or lack of goodwill, but there just has not been that coordination of all the various initiatives that are going on. We really need to have national leadership and national coordination so that we are all working at the level of best practice.
The measures also include an enhanced national training and education program for hospital and other staff involved in organ and tissue donation for transplantation and equitable, safe and transparent national transplantation processes to manage waiting lists and the allocation of donated organs. They also include support to create and maintain a national eye and tissue donation and transplantation network and other national initiatives, including living donation programs such as paired kidney exchange.
These measures are expected to establish Australia as a world leader in best practice organ donation for transplantation. The goal is to achieve a significant and lasting increase in the number of transplants in Australia. The reforms have been designed using international and national best practice models with a proven track record of maximising donation rates. The experience of several comparable countries demonstrates clearly that a coordinated and integrated national approach followed by sustained effort will, over time, see real improvements in organ donation and transplant rates. Again, my research over the years has shown that that is correct. Spain is clearly a good example of those practices.
This bill, and the measures included in it, has received widespread support. It has the endorsement of all states and territories through COAG, which is very important. Following the July meeting of COAG, a communique was released by all participants in that meeting which stated:
This package will aim to establish from 1 January 2009, a world-class comprehensive national system of organ and tissue donation, led by the Commonwealth and delivered in partnership with the States. These reforms will provide long-lasting and transformative benefits for the approximately 1,800 Australians in need of an organ transplant at any one time.
The 2020 Summit reinforced the need for a reinvigorated national approach to organ and tissue donation. This package builds upon international models of best practice in the clinical systems for maximising the number of organ and tissue donors, for promoting community awareness and for supporting donor families.
I think almost all my colleagues in the debate have urged Australians to register as donors—to register and then also to talk through that decision with their families. I saw a very good quote from the executive officer of Transplant Australia, Mark Cocks, in the Australian a couple of years ago. He talked about their experience and studies they have done that show that, if the potential donor has told their loved ones of their intent to be a donor, 80 per cent of the time the family will agree to the organ donation. But, if that person did not tell their family, the refusal rate was around 50 per cent. Our job as MPs is, of course, to register ourselves as organ donors and also to encourage our constituents to take that step and, importantly, to talk it through with their family.
I know all members support this bill’s passage through the House, with those 1,800 Australians on transplant waiting lists in our thoughts. This bill is for you, and we hope with all our hearts that it makes a difference to you and your families.
81
10:12:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
1
0
Ms HALL
—I congratulate the government on introducing this legislation. I know it has the support of both sides of parliament. I do not think there would be a member in this parliament who is not committed to seeing that we increase the number of organ and tissue donations that take place within Australia. We all understand the need for this to happen. The Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008 establishes the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority to provide national leadership to the organ and tissue sector and to drive, implement and monitor national reform initiatives and programs aimed at increasing Australia’s access to life-saving and transforming transplants.
One of the key ideas discussed for the future of Australia’s health and hospital system at the 2020 Summit was the need for a national donation scheme. I am pretty sure that most members of this parliament have already registered as donors, as the member for Capricornia suggested. But for too long organ donation rates in Australia have lagged behind other nations. For too long, Australians have been left desperately waiting, month after month. These are Australians, mums and dads, waiting for a transplant. Currently, there are 1,800 Australians on the waiting list for an organ donation that could save or transform their lives. Last year there were just 198 deceased organ donors in Australia. This resulted in 657 transplants, meeting just one-third of the demand.
The International Registry of Organ Donation and Transplant reports that in Australia in 2006 there were just 9.8 donors for every one million people. That is a really low level. Spain had 33.8 donors for every one million people, more than three times the rate in Australia. Spain is the leader in this field, but the US is also up there, with 26.9 donors for every one million people, more than 2½ times the rate in Australia.
In the decades ahead, we will have an older population and a population with a much higher incidence of chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes. I see the member for Parkes is in the chamber. He is also on the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, and we are currently doing an inquiry into obesity. We know the connection between obesity and type 2 diabetes and kidney disease. It is imperative that we get this register right, because the need will be there, unfortunately. People who have chronic diseases often go on to need transplants.
More than three-quarters of the people waiting for organ transplants are in need of kidneys. The cost for each person waiting on the kidney transplant list is $83,000 per annum, if they are receiving hospital based kidney dialysis. The cost of a kidney transplant is $65,000 per person for the first year and $11,000 for each year after that. So, on a pure dollars and cents basis, it is imperative that we look at increasing the number of people that can actually have those kidney transplants. How do we do that? We increase the number of people that have their name on the Australian Organ Donor Register.
I would like to share with the House a story. A friend of my son’s had a little boy, and this little boy developed a tumour on one of his kidneys. He had the kidney removed but, during the operation, his good kidney was damaged. So here we had a young boy who basically had no kidneys. He had to wait two years before he was able to access a donated kidney, simply because they had to be sure that the cancer had gone. After two years of waiting and extreme anxiety for his mum and dad, his father was found to be a compatible donor and he gave young Bryce one of his kidneys. Young Bryce is now a healthy young guy and is living a normal life. He would be nearly ready to go to school now, I think. If he had not had that transplant, if his father had not been compatible, young Bryce would have died. That is just one very human story of how important it is that transplants take place. I am sure most members in this parliament would be able to tell stories of constituents or family members that have needed a transplant. I will finish my contribution to this debate by talking about a constituent in my electorate who had a liver transplant.
Australians waiting for transplants require extensive, expensive and time-consuming treatment. In the case of young Bryce, he needed to have dialysis and full-time ongoing medical care. When we look at the nations that have enjoyed much success with organ donation rates, we learn one clear lesson, and that is that national leadership is needed to drive the change necessary to improve the rate of organ donation. That is what this legislation does. It sets up national leadership. It sets up a structure. It pulls the states on board. It is government working together to get the best outcome for all Australians. Who knows? Next time it could be someone that is close to you that needs a donation.
As I said, nations that lead the world in organ donation and transplant rates have a national coordination system. The bill that we are discussing today reflects international best practice. Organisations that have played such an important part in promoting awareness of organ donation and who have helped in the development of the government’s national plan are the Transplantation Society of Australia and New Zealand, the Cognate Committee on Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation, Transplant Australia, Gift of Life, Zaidee’s Rainbow Foundation and ShareLife.
I would like to share with the parliament the story of a constituent of mine, Keith Galdino, who had a liver transplant. I spoke to him a couple of years ago. I spoke about Keith in the House when there was a private member’s bill on organ donation, in September 2006. I often see Keith down at the Windale bowling club. He is a pretty mean bowler and he represented Australia at the World Transplant Games. When I asked Keith what organ donation meant to him, he told me it had given him new life. He received his liver in 1994, at a time when he was so close to dying. He had been told he had one week to live. He received a phone call at 7.40 on a Thursday night, the ambulance arrived shortly after, he was taken to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney and he was on the operating table at 3 pm the next day. He had a 17½-hour operation and then spent six weeks at Prince Alfred. Then he went to Queen Mary’s Hospital for another six weeks and returned home after three months.
Keith’s story is one of success. He went on to represent Australia at the transplant games, and he is very active in his community and very active in the transplant society. I asked him what message he would like to give to parliament and the Australian people. His words were: ‘Don’t bury or burn your organs. Donate them.’ That is a really important message for all Australians. I think this legislation we are debating today is going to make it much more likely that people do not burn or bury their organs. It is about making people aware and making it easier for more Australians to be given the opportunity to live a long and fruitful life.
82
10:23:00
Elliot, Justine, MP
DZW
Richmond
ALP
Minister for Ageing
1
0
Mrs ELLIOT
—I am very pleased today to have the opportunity to sum up debate on the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008. The Minister for Health and Ageing regrets that she is unable to be here herself to sum up on this very important debate due to prior public commitments.
As has been acknowledged during the debate, too many Australians have suffered or died while waiting for a life-saving transplant. Families have been devastated and the economic and social costs are growing. For too long Australia has lagged behind other countries in its organ donation rates despite widespread community support for organ donation. For too long the benefits of tissue transplantation and our need to do better in this area have taken a back seat. For too long there has been a lack of national leadership to address this problem. While this government is determined to emphasise health maintenance and disease prevention, it is inevitable that, as Australia’s population ages and more Australians are affected by lifestyle diseases such as obesity and diabetes, the demand for transplants will continue to grow.
Earlier this year at the Australia 2020 Summit, one of the key ideas put forward was the establishment of a national organ donation scheme. Building on this idea, the government has recognised that national leadership and a coordinated national system are required to significantly reduce our transplantation waiting lists. We have recognised that a significant injection of new funding is needed to harness the efforts and skills of our hospital staff and the sector and the strong community support for organ donation. The government have recognised that we need to take the proven practices of the world’s top-performing countries and apply them to Australia.
The bill before us is at the core of the government’s response. It establishes the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority to build a new, best practice system. To realise the implementation of the government’s $151.1 million package of reforms, including $136.4 million in new funds, underpinning everything is a new national approach, spearheaded by the authority: nationally consistent processes and systems, in the local hospital; enhanced professional education; ongoing community awareness efforts that focus on the facts and encourage family discussion; sufficient resources in hospitals to maximise and measure the conversion of potential donors to actual transplants; a national approach to give the best support possible to the families of deceased donors; and national policies and protocols for consistent implementation throughout Australia. The new authority will work with states and territories, clinicians, consumers and the community sector to build this new system for Australia.
As noted when the bill was introduced, the rationale for the establishment of the authority, along with the various elements of the government’s reform package, is firmly grounded in best international and national practice. The experience of several compatible countries shows us that a coordinated and integrated approach followed by sustained effort is the only way to see real improvements in organ donation and transplantation rates. These lessons have informed this reform package and put us in the best possible position to achieve lasting, positive change for thousands of Australians and their families.
Also critical to lasting, positive change will be the ongoing support, focus and effort of all Australian governments and the organ and tissue donation and transplantation sector itself. To date, the Commonwealth has been delighted by the strong support of all governments and the sector, all of whom have recognised the significance of this reform package and the need to get on with the job of improving access to life-saving and transforming organ and tissue transplants.
I greatly appreciate the many heartfelt contributions of many members from both sides of the House to the debate on this bill. A number of speakers have contributed personal stories of how, in difficult circumstances, families have been extraordinarily generous in making the gift of organ and tissue donation. It has also been inspiring to learn of how many people’s lives have been transformed by this gift. In the light of the stories of these extraordinary families, it is important to highlight that the government’s reform package also includes $1.9 million for a national donor family support program. This will offer a coordinated, best practice approach to supporting the families of deceased donors, regardless of where they are located.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 10.28 am to 10.42 am
DZW
Elliot, Justine, MP
Mrs ELLIOT
—This package will be underpinned by the principle that each family must be provided with respectful support which is responsive to the needs of that family, from the time when donation is being considered to when donation proceeds and thereafter. All families whose next of kin are identified as possible donors will be offered bereavement counselling, information and support at the time and ongoing contact and support, whether or not the potential donor proceeds to donation.
Before closing, I would like to thank all of those who have directly or indirectly been involved in the development of the reform package and this important legislation. Over the past year the Minister for Health and Ageing and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator McLucas, have been fortunate to meet with many people involved in organ and tissue donation and transplantation, including clinicians, transplant recipients, support and advocacy groups and individuals who have made the difficult decision to proceed with the donation of their loved ones’ tissues and organs. The insights offered by all these people have helped us to identify the best means by which to improve the system.
Through this bill, along with the integrated package of reforms underpinning it, and through the generosity of individuals and families who make the ultimate gift, Australia will become a leader in best practice organ donation for transplantation. We hope to achieve a significant and lasting increase in the number of life-saving and transforming transplants for Australians.
Finally, I would like to make an appeal to my fellow members of parliament and all Australians. Please discuss organ and tissue donation with your family because it is your family who will make the critical choices if ever the day arrives when it might be your organs that can save the lives of others. If you are not on the organ donation list, please think about it and get your name onto it. It is an extraordinary gift of an individual and their family, made in very tragic circumstances. It is something we will support nationally through this bill before us today. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
84
Private Members' Business
International Day of Democracy
84
Debate resumed from 15 September, on motion by Ms Parke:
That the House:
-
notes that, on 8 November 2007, the United Nations General Assembly decided in resolution 62/7 that the International Day of Democracy would be observed annually on the fixed date of 15 September, and that all Member States, organizations, non-governmental organizations and individuals are invited to commemorate the International Day of Democracy in an appropriate manner that contributes to raising public awareness;
-
notes further that the United Nations General Assembly invited Member States to make sure that parliamentarians and civil society organizations are given appropriate opportunities to be involved in, and contribute to, the celebration of the International Day of Democracy;
-
notes also that the United Nations General Assembly reaffirmed that “democracy is a universal value based on the freely expressed will of people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems, and their full participation in all aspects of life;” and that “While democracies share common features, there is no single model of democracy and that democracy does not belong to any country or region.”;
-
notes that the Inter-Parliamentary Union adopted a Universal Declaration on Democracy on 16 September 1997 in which it recalled the principles of democracy, the elements and exercise of democratic government and the international dimension of democracy;
-
notes further the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s strong support for the International Day of Democracy held on 15 September as declared by the United Nations;
-
notes that the Inter-Parliamentary Union has urged parliaments to celebrate the International Day of Democracy as an opportunity for parliaments to:
-
emphasize the importance of democracy, what it involves, the challenges it faces as well as the opportunities it offers, and the central responsibility that all parliaments have as the key institution of democracy; and
-
examine and discuss how well parliament performs its democratic functions and identify what steps it may take to strengthen its effectiveness; and
-
declares its strong support for the International Day of Democracy.
84
10:45:00
Slipper, Peter, MP
0V5
Fisher
LP
0
0
Mr SLIPPER
—I rise to participate in the debate on the motion moved by the honourable member for Fremantle in relation to the International Day of Democracy and on the motion that was carried through the United Nations General Assembly, which essentially supports the principle of the International Day of Democracy and also urges that democracy be celebrated right around the world.
The motion moved the honourable member notes that the United Nations General Assembly affirms that:
“ ... democracy is a universal value based on the freely expressed will of people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems, and their full participation in all aspects of life;” and that “While democracies share common features, there is no single model of democracy and that democracy does not belong to any country or region.”
The problem with the United Nations is that, although it is a very useful international forum and has done much good work, it has often been accused, with some justification, of essentially being a talkfest. People express lofty sentiments and various delegates at the United Nations talk on and on. Motions are carried but, regrettably, there is often not a lot of positive impact flowing from the debate in the United Nations General Assembly. Having said that, I am not one to run the United Nations down, as it is certainly a force for world good. However, in some respects, I think it is regrettable that we do not see more actions of substance from the United Nations and more positive outcomes for the world community as a result of discussions at the United Nations General Assembly.
Often one finds countries which are completely undemocratic but are rather hypocritically mouthing pious platitudes about the importance of democratic principles. There is a whole series of nations that have totalitarian regimes, nations where the population has no authority or right to determine its government. One finds many of those countries are at the assembly putting forward sentiments of support for the notion of democracy while denying it to their own citizens. All honourable members would obviously not approve of such hypocrisy.
In Australia, we are singularly fortunate because we are one of the oldest democracies in the world, even though we are a relatively young country. Someone told me once that Australia was the sixth oldest democracy in the world. Initially, one’s reaction is to say that that simply could not be true, but then one looks at the fact that during the entire period of this country’s life, certainly since we gained representative government, we have always had democratic governments and we have always been governed by the rule of law. We have freedom, stability and a way of life that people in other places throughout the world do not enjoy. We have heard of the appalling examples in South America where people who oppose regimes there sometimes just disappear. But here in Australia if one is, shall we say, questioned by the law or charged under the law then one has an entitlement to one’s day in court. We have a system of which we are justly proud.
Personally, I believe that our constitutional monarchy has played a very important role in being one of the foundations of our society. It has been a guarantee of our freedom, stability and a way of life that many other nations simply envy. All members of the House support the system of democracy. I just think that, while we have a general election and we might not like the outcome, we ought not to question the process. I go round to the schools in my electorate, as no doubt you do, Mr Deputy Speaker Schultz, and talk to students about democracy.
Is it not wonderful that, when a government is defeated, the Prime Minister remains Prime Minister for the time being and then, under the conventions of how we are governed, as the head of government goes and formally advises the head of state, the Governor-General, of the result of the election—although obviously the Governor-General looks at the internet or watches the TV like everyone else—and advises that he as Prime Minister would no longer have the confidence of the House and recommends to the Governor-General that the Leader of the Opposition be commissioned to form a government? The Governor-General then issues a new commission and a new government is formed. There is an orderly transition. New ministers take over, the parliament is recalled and the system of democracy goes on. Then in three years time, when the next election occurs, the government has the opportunity of being judged by what it has achieved and the community of Australia will once again determine whether or not that government should be returned or whether another government should replace it. If the result were that that government was defeated, there would similarly be another orderly transition.
One can go right back to when Federation occurred to see that this has been the way that we have operated as a nation. While I certainly support the principles enunciated in the United Nations General Assembly about the importance of democracy, highlighting democracy, emphasising democracy and encouraging democracy, we as Australians—along with a number of other countries—lead by example. I said earlier that I was advised that we were the sixth oldest democracy in the world. The reason for that is that we have been continuously democratic, whereas many of the now democratic countries of western, central and even now eastern Europe for very long periods, particularly in the 20th century, were under the yoke of communism or other forms of totalitarianism. We as Australians have been fortunate because we have a system whereby the electorate makes a decision at the ballot box, the decision is respected, the people who win the election are allowed to take their place to implement their policies and there is never any question by anyone in our political system that that system should not continue and should not be encouraged.
We do find that there are a series of countries that play lip-service to democracy. While I do not want to highlight large numbers of these countries in the time available to me, Zimbabwe has been a case in point. President Mugabe’s government was defeated and it took an extraordinarily long period of negotiations before some sort of settlement was reached, one which still saw President Mugabe—who stole the election, who intimidated his citizens, who threw people who owned farms off their property—in a power-sharing agreement. Why on earth should there be a power-sharing agreement when there has been an election and the Movement for Democratic Change won and the party of the President, ZANU-PF, was defeated? Unfortunately, there had to be this long and fairly tortuous series of discussions before some semblance of democracy was restored. It is probably a question of watching this space to see just how effective that settlement is going to be. I certainly hope it is and I certainly hope it is only a transitional arrangement and that Zimbabwe can achieve a situation like that Australia has in that, when we have an election, everyone respects the results.
There was a recent election in Fiji. I was privileged, along with the now Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs, to represent Australia as part of the Pacific Island Forum election observer group. We collectively judged the election in Fiji to be fair and free, and Mr Qarase’s government was returned. Then, a few months afterwards, there were people who did not respect the result of the election and there was a coup. Commodore Bainimarama is now the dictator of Fiji, the so-called interim Prime Minister, but he does not have the support of the people and he seems to be, regrettably, quite reluctant to allow the people of Fiji to determine who their government is in fact going to be. Having said that, I do applaud the sentiments in the motion carried by the United Nations General Assembly. It is important to encourage member governments, non-government organisations and individuals to commemorate the International Day of Democracy. It is important to raise awareness of the value of democracy, but even more important than raising awareness of the value of democracy is the implementation of democracy so that people in other parts of the world are able to enjoy the freedoms that we have as Australians.
It could be that in some parts of the world they say that democracy is not the best way to go and that somehow you can have dictatorship of the majority through the implementation of the results of an election. I am not convinced by that argument at all. I think the best guarantee of democracy is having a government put in office as a result of the freely expressed will of the people and then, of course, that government has the opportunity to govern. If that government does not meet the expectations of its people after quite a period of time in government, then that government will be removed from office and replaced by another government.
It is important that democratic government is a government of the people, by the people. The democratic ideal and the concept of democracy as expressed in the resolution of the UN General Assembly ought to be applauded. I do support the international celebration of the International Day of Democracy but, more importantly than celebration, we need action. Actions speak louder than words. What we need to do as a world community is to act on that sentiment in favour of democracy and make sure that the oppressed people around the globe are given the same free political rights that we have as Australians. I commend the motion to the Committee.
86
10:56:00
Danby, Michael, MP
WF6
Melbourne Ports
ALP
1
0
Mr DANBY
—I am pleased to speak on this motion to mark the International Day of Democracy, 15 September, a day instituted by the UN General Assembly in a resolution in November 2007. It is appropriate that my colleague the honourable member for Fremantle has moved this motion. Before she came to parliament, her work in the United Nations took her to Kosovo, Lebanon and Cyprus, all places that have seen ethnic and political conflict and all places that are building stable democracies despite their problems. She follows in the footsteps of the previous member for Fremantle, Dr Carmen Lawrence, a tireless campaigner for democratic rights in Australia and overseas.
The instigation of the International Day of Democracy by the UN General Assembly is itself a significant development. For many years throughout the 1970s and 1980s the UN General Assembly was dominated by a bloc of undemocratic regimes—communist regimes from the Soviet bloc, military juntas in Latin America, dictatorships and absolute monarchies in the Middle East, and more dictatorships in East Asia and South-East Asia. It is hard to imagine the UN General Assembly as it was then—when in 1973 it welcomed a gun-toting Yasser Arafat to the podium—agreeing to a resolution on the International Day of Democracy. Such a resolution would have been denounced as an imperialist, neocolonialist ploy by the Soviet bloc and leaders of the so-called non-aligned movement, mainly a mixture of Asian, Latin American and Middle Eastern dictatorships, as I have said, most of them falsely claiming to be people’s democracies of one kind or another.
Over the past 20 years, we have seen the world transformed at the political level. The Soviet bloc has collapsed, allowing democracy to emerge in eastern and central Europe, in the Baltic states and in the Caucasus, although sadly not in all of the former Soviet republics. Every state in Latin America except Cuba is now a democracy, although some of them are a bit rocky, withdrawing civil rights, as in Venezuela at the moment. In Africa, apartheid has ended and in southern Africa many new democracies have emerged. Last week we saw free elections in Angola, a country long wracked by civil war and emerging from 25 years of authoritarian rule.
In our own region, democracy has emerged in South Korea, Mongolia, Taiwan and, most encouragingly and importantly, in Indonesia, where the courageous leadership of Abdurrahman Wahid and Megawati Soekarnoputri in leading the ‘Reformasi’ movement culminated in the fall of the Soeharto regime. We have also seen East Timor become an independent and democratic state, thanks in part to the timely intervention of Australia under the auspices of the UN.
These developments owe much to the courage and sacrifice of many people. Let me mention such heroic figures as Natan Sharansky; Lech Walesa, in Poland; Vaclav Havel, in Czechoslovakia; Nelson Mandela, in South Africa; and Corazon Aquino, in the Philippines. These are famous names, people who win Nobel prizes—and deservedly so. But we should also honour the thousands of unknown and anonymous heroes in the struggle for democracy, many of whom spent years in prison or paid for it with their lives. We recall the students who rioted in Soweto; those who stood against the tanks in Tiananmen Square; those who have dared to rebel against the junta in Burma; those who took part in the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine or the Rose Revolution in Georgia; the Catholic and Buddhist leaders who were imprisoned in China and Vietnam; and ALL those who risked beatings or death to vote against Mugabe.
It would be nice to say that the tide of democratic reform—the ‘end of history’ about which Francis Fukuyama theorised—which has swept the world over the last 20 years, sweeping aside despotic and unelected rulers, was a permanent thing. Unfortunately, it appears this is not the case. In our own region, communist and perhaps postcommunist authoritarian regimes still hold power in China, Vietnam and Laos, while North Korea continues to suffer under the world’s last remaining genuine Stalinist autocracy. Burma still languishes under a corrupt, incompetent and obscure military regime. We should honour the people who struggle for democracy in these countries and who have not been successful, at least not yet. The most notable of these of course is Aung San Suu Kyi, who won overwhelmingly Burma’s only free election in 1990 but was then denied the fruits of her victory by the military junta and has spent most of the last 19 years under house arrest. I think also of my friends in the Chinese democracy movement, such as Wei Jingsheng and labour leader Han Dongfang. Wei Jingsheng spent many years in the lao gai, including years in solitary confinement. Their day will come.
One such leader whose time is coming very soon is Morgan Tsvangirai, a man of enormous bravery who stood firm against the despotic Mugabe and his thugs in the face of violence, intimidation, legal harassment and threats to his life. I was involved in the previous election in Zimbabwe in 2004, when a disgraceful SBS episode of Dateline tried to paint Mr Tsvangirai as organising the assassination of Robert Mugabe. I am very pleased to see on Google still the article that I wrote exposing the two Zimbabwean government agents behind that called ‘Of liars and lives’. That is very highly rated on Google and continues to perform a role in exposing those who have tried to discredit that great democrat Morgan Tsvangirai.
It is a sad fact that the main exception to the worldwide spread of democracy has been the Arab-Islamic world. In that region the only stable democracy is Israel, which this year has marked its 60th anniversary as an independent democratic state. There has been great progress made in Lebanon following the Cedar Revolution, but that country unfortunately remains riven by ethnic and religious conflicts, with the minority Syrian Hezbollah interest group assassinating government MPs so that they can literally shoot down the majority. The US-led intervention in Iraq has allowed the creation of a constitutional state and the holding of elections, but I think Iraq has a long way to go before becoming a genuine democracy. Other Arab countries remain either absolute monarchies, such as Saudi Arabia, or dictatorships, such as Egypt, Syria and Libya.
As we have seen in Indonesia over the past decade, as we have seen in Lebanon, Pakistan and Afghanistan and as we are seeing in Malaysia at the moment, there is nothing inherent in Islamic societies that makes them immune to the attractions of democracy and freedom. Oppressed millions in the Arab world, in Egypt and Syria in particular, want the same kind of freedom, democracy and prosperity that people in Australia, Europe and the US have. The worldwide advance of democracy over recent times has not been without its setbacks. Even in our region we have seen military coups in Thailand and Fiji. Thailand has now restored democratic government, although it has not achieved stability. Fiji is still languishing under military rule. I would like to see Australia and our Pacific neighbours doing more to help the people of Fiji recover their freedom.
Recently we have had the emergence of a bloc of antidemocratic states led by China and Russia, allied with Iran and the post-Soviet dictatorships of Central Asia. This Eurasian bloc, imagined by George Orwell and Aldous Huxley, is organised into an organisation called the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which has great economic power in the current circumstances because its members have large reserves of oil and gas. It uses that power to oppose the spread of democracy; to subsidise and prop up oppressive and undemocratic regimes such as those in Burma, Sudan and Zimbabwe; and to give those regimes diplomatic cover at the UN, where of course the Russians and the Chinese have Security Council vetoes. This is a worrying development.
As we recently saw in Georgia, Russia under Vladimir Putin has become once again an expansionist power, seeking to re-establish its hegemony in the Caucasus at the expense of the new democratic states there. Moscow is also seeking to bully the Ukraine back into the Russian sphere of influence. The stranglehold that Russia has over western Europe’s gas supplies has made the European powers reluctant to face up to the facts of Russian expansionism, let alone to take firm steps to stop it. Those who remember the history of 20th century Europe can see a familiar pattern repeating itself. If the democratic powers fail to stand up to dictatorships and fail to defend small democracies, those dictatorships will grow bolder and their appetites will increase. It may be that one should not overextend the boundaries of NATO, but I hope the democracies will find a way to prevent that historical parallel coming to pass.
China, by contrast, has shown no evident desire to expand at the expense of its neighbours. I would argue that it is against China’s interests to be seen in the company of regimes such as those in Burma, Sudan and Zimbabwe. The Chinese leaders are surely wise enough to see that their future does not lie in joining a Eurasian bloc of anti-Western, antidemocratic powers led by Putin’s Russia and Ahmadinejad’s Iran. Rather, it should lie in partnership and alliance with the newly emerging, dynamic and increasingly prosperous Asian democratic powers of India, Indonesia, Thailand and South Korea.
Despite these worrying developments, I remain optimistic about the future of democracy in our region and in the world. Antidemocratic forces may be mobilising, but so are the forces of democracy and freedom. One of the leading forces for democracy in the world is the World Movement for Democracy, an international organisation in which I am proud to be an active participant. Some honourable members may only know the acronym WMD as standing for ‘weapons of mass destruction’, but I am pleased to say that it now has a new and more positive meaning. The WMD is a global network of democrats from almost every country in the world, including academics, policymakers and parliamentarians.
Using the technology of the internet for information, the World Movement for Democracy is arousing world opinion to press for democratic change in countries like Malaysia, Iran, Burma, Cuba, Zimbabwe and Egypt. It is part of a growing global movement which includes bodies such as Amnesty International, Medecins Sans Frontieres, Reporters Without Borders, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House and the US National Endowment for Democracy. Many other bodies are also part of this movement. Unfortunately, the WMD is hamstrung at the UN by Russian and Chinese vetoes. Over the past few years, I attended WMD congresses in Istanbul and Kiev and was inspired by the optimism and enthusiasm of the hundreds of democracy activists I met there. These included the great Egyptian political scientist and freedom activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim and opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim of Malaysia, who is on the cusp of democratic victory in his country.
As the honourable member for Fremantle said, democracy means more than just freedom and regular elections—although I am sure the people of Burma, for example, would be happy to have even those freedoms. It means social and economic emancipation, particularly for women and children. It means the struggle against poverty, against illiteracy, against epidemic diseases such as HIV-AIDS and malaria, against organised crime, corruption and people-trafficking, against racial, religious and political persecution and against international terrorism. All these causes are linked. They are major challenges for the world, particularly when we are facing economic upheaval and the challenges of climate change.
I have always been inspired by the example of the brave democracy activists I have met, activists from many countries, through the World Movement for Democracy, the Federation for a Democratic China, the National Endowment for Democracy and other international organisations with which I am involved. The institution of International Day of Democracy is a symbolic but nevertheless important recognition of their struggles and their sacrifices. I urge all honourable members who share my enthusiasm for democratic change to lend their support to those who work for these worthy organisations.
It is an inspiration to know people like Saad Ibrahim of Egypt, who was leading the democratic opposition to the Mubarak regime. It was an inspiration in Istanbul to meet Anwar Ibrahim of Malaysia. I hope Anwar will one day come to Australia as Prime Minister of Malaysia and be welcomed by this parliament. I know my friends in the democratic opposition in Malaysia, hopefully soon to become the democratic majority, are struggling at this very moment against all kinds of smears, arrests and the improper use of Malaysian laws to achieve a parliamentary majority there.
Having visited Malaysia recently, I can say that it is a country that is very successful and prosperous, and you can just feel the winds of democratic change coming. People in Malaysia argue that a more democratic system which will enable people to have transparency and openness and oppose corruption will actually help the economic prosperity of that society. And isn’t that one of the messages of democratic reform throughout the world? One of the messages that we can take from this UN General Assembly resolution is that democracy, as practiced in Australia and other countries, helps with the openness and transparency of the economic system as well, and that prevents the kind of corruption endemic to so many of these previously undemocratic countries like Malaysia. Let us hope, for the sake of Saad Ibrahim and Anwar Ibrahim, that democracy will prevail soon in Egypt and, imminently, in Malaysia.
88
11:10:00
Simpkins, Luke, MP
HWE
Cowan
LP
0
0
Mr SIMPKINS
—15 September 2008 was the first International Day of Democracy after the United Nations General Assembly decided to observe that day last year. Let me say at the outset that there are many countries in the world that should model their government’s processes and democratic institutions on Australia. These democratic processes and the way that Australians exercise those freedoms can be held up as examples to other countries.
I am proud of this country. It is a great country which has always stood up for the weak, the defenceless and the besieged. The strength of our country is in our traditions, our institutions and our values. The will of our country to act when the hard decisions need to be made comes from the collective faith of the great Australian culture—a majority culture forever grounded in the belief of the supremacy of the democratic tradition; a majority culture that will forever be guided by the one and only set of secular laws; a majority culture that supports those who aspire to improve themselves, while also being there to support those who need it and cannot provide for themselves. This is a majority culture that has a strong belief in the principle of personal responsibility. It has a strong belief that all citizens and residents have rights, but never without responsibilities. This country has a majority culture of Judeo-Christian values, and there is nothing wrong with that and nothing to be apologised for.
In making my comments today, I intend to speak about several countries that could greatly improve their political systems, and I do this to highlight the stark difference between those countries and Australia. But, before I do that, in general terms I would like to start with Africa. In Africa, internal conflicts continue to rage in several states—and I draw a lot of the material I have from Amnesty International’s 2008 report. In certain states in Africa there have been gross human rights abuses. Killings, torture and rape are common. Rights have been suppressed; freedoms have been trampled upon. Excesses and human rights abuses by police and other law enforcement officers in many countries are not being dealt with. There is no accountability. Furthermore, millions of people in Africa continue to live without their basic needs being met.
A particularly abhorrent example of poor governments hiding behind cultural excuses is the case of Sierra Leone, which, in 2007, passed a children’s rights bill—but only after the provisions criminalising female genital mutilation were dropped. I say that female circumcision is an uncivilised practice, and I am not afraid to say that any religion that prescribes it is a very strange and barbaric religion indeed.
I now want to go back to the manner in which some of these governments act, and I will make this point before I go any further: the fact is that there are certain governments in Africa and elsewhere in the world which do not exercise authority for the people; they exercise power for elites, and normally they do so for the ruling junta, elite class, or a governing party. It is corruption, whichever way you want to cut it. Governments exist because the people set aside some personal freedoms in exchange for the protection and services provided by the state. Yet, wherever countries rule for the few, as opposed to the many, you find other forms of government apart from real democracy. I will just mention a few countries where there is a long way to go.
How can you talk about countries ruling for narrow interests without covering Zimbabwe? I believe that everyone who has spoken before me has covered Zimbabwe. In Zimbabwe, throughout the year, police instituted severe restrictions on the right to freedom of association. What we are talking about here is the suppression of democracy. Let us not beat around the bush: ZANU-PF and its leader Robert Mugabe orchestrated torture, maiming and murder to undermine the democratic process.
Few commentators would disagree that the Movement for Democratic Change, or MDC, were victorious in the election earlier this year, yet the results were fixed and it has only recently been resolved with power-sharing arrangements. It should never have come to this. It was my view that the African Union should have acted decisively months ago and forced compliance with the democratic decision of the people, yet that did not occur, and I wonder what price vacillation will have in the end. Sadly, the continuing presence of Robert Mugabe, his ZANU-PF party and the military strongmen behind Mugabe do not augur well for the future of democracy, although we hope that recent events are a step forward. I would say that when the news vision of the power-sharing agreement was aired, it said it all about the limitations on the Zimbabwean democracy: the backdrop was uniformed generals. Such a link between government and the military is undesirable and should ring all the warning bells.
Of course, in any discussion on democracy it is also hard to go past Venezuela as an example of a democracy teetering on the brink. Socialist President Hugo Chavez was, I understand, re-elected in January 2007. The congress granted him powers to pass certain legislation by decree for 18 months, and that is not a good thing. But, on a more positive note, Venezuelans rejected significant changes to the constitution put forward by the President that included one amendment that would have seen President Chavez installed as President for life—clearly, that is not democracy. It has also been suggested that other amendments would have removed important human rights. I pray for the people in the democracy of Venezuela and hope that the people do not lose control and that President Chavez does not seize absolute power in that country.
Closer to Australia, I also want to address the matter of democracy or the tragic lack of democracy in the Union of Myanmar, or Burma, as most people would know it; this is clearly a military junta. After 1962 Burma was run by a military dictator, General Ne Win, who seized power when he took advantage of instability in the democratic government. From late 1985, student protests gathered intensity and culminated in 10 demands for a return to democracy. The result was the fall of General Ne Win’s government on 8 August 1988 in what is called the 8888 Uprising or ‘Four Eights’ Uprising, yet what then happened was the declaration of martial law and General Saw Maung seized control of the country. General Maung formed the State Law and Order Restoration Council, which then suspended all elements of the 1974 constitution. He was replaced with Senior General Than Shwe in 1992, and in 1997 SLORC was renamed the State Peace and Development Council. It made no difference to the way the regime operates, as it is still defined by its excesses in murder, torture, rape, forced relocations, forced labour, recruitment of child soldiers and imprisonment of political opponents.
I would also speak, as others have done, about the leader of the National League for Democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi, and her detention. In 1990 an election was held and 392 of the 492 seats were won by the NLD yet, soon after the election, SLORC reimposed its own control and did not let the NLD assume government. Aung San Suu Kyi is the 1991 Nobel Peace Laureate, and she has been in detention or house arrest for 13 of the last 19 years. She is the icon of liberty and democracy in Burma, and arguably in the world, and her courage and the resolute way she conducts herself ensures that the SPDC will always be seen as an illegitimate government standing in the way of democracy in Burma.
I would now like to turn my attention to Vietnam. As a member who has thousands of Vietnamese constituents in my electorate I remain concerned for the people of Vietnam, many of whose friends or family are my constituents. It is known that in Vietnam freedom of expression and freedom of association remain tightly controlled, and arrests and detentions do occur. By example, on 30 March 2007 Father Nguyen Van Ly was sentenced to eight years imprisonment for conducting propaganda against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. I recently received a letter from a Vietnamese friend in Perth who told me:
Recently there have been religious and human rights violations against Catholics by the Vietnamese government. The archbishop of Hanoi’s residence … and the convent of Sisters of Adorers of the Holy Cross are under siege by the Vietnamese police, militia and security personnel.
He tells me that before sunrise last Friday morning hundreds of police assembled in front of the archbishop’s residence, blocking access to the residence, the cathedral, and all roads leading to the nearby nunciature, which is an embassy of the Holy See. Bulldozers were brought into the area and began digging out the lawn. Later, at 6 am, after police and demolition workers were in place, the state-controlled television and radio stations made the announcement that the government had decided to abolish the embassy to convert the land into a public playground. An American reporter, Ben Stocking, who I understand is the Hanoi bureau chief for Associated Press, was an eyewitness at the site. He was attacked by security force personnel as he tried to take photos. He was later released, but his camera was confiscated and he needed medical attention.
The suppression of the Catholic religion in Hanoi is very concerning. From reports I have had in the past, it seems that freedom of religion is getting worse in Vietnam and that freedom of the press is also near to impossible. It is my understanding that the extreme action of the Vietnamese government was a reaction to peaceful and lawful protests by Catholics in Hanoi seeking the return of a building seized in 1959. That property was the former embassy for the Holy See. I have been informed that these protests took the form of prayer vigils. The Vietnam Conference of Catholic Bishops had by that time repeatedly sent petitions to the authorities for the return of the building, yet their petitions had gone unanswered. The protests—or the vigils—only came to a halt after the government had agreed to restore the building to them in February this year. However, repeated delays saw no action. Then, all of a sudden, the Vietnamese government announced that the embassy would be demolished for a playground and immediately carried this out with the support of security forces. This action seems to be a reversal of the policy of dialogue that the government had been having with the Catholic Church. It is greatly concerning because the action of the government disregards existing policy and existing laws, and clearly demonstrates religious repression.
The seizure of property of the Catholic Church also took place at the Thai Ha parish in the Hanoi archdiocese, with 15 acres of land that had been owned by the church since 1928 slowly being taken away since the Communist Party assumed power in 1954, leaving the church with only half an acre. As I understand it, the Redemptorist congregation purchased the disputed property in 1928, but following the Communist takeover in 1954 most of the parishioners had been jailed or deported, leaving Father Joseph Vu Ngoc Bich alone in charge of the 15 acres of land and the parish church. Despite Father Vu’s protests, the authorities slowly took the property piece by piece, leaving only that half-acre. Since 1966, Father Vu and other parishioners have been repeatedly requesting the restoration of the property, claiming that it was seized illegally—all to no avail. Daily protests broke out after Thai Ha parishioners discovered that local government officials had sold the land to individuals. The Redemptorists and their followers, in their desperation, were left with no choice other than holding peaceful and lawful protests to call for justice from the authorities. They began occurring from 5 January.
The government has not listened to them and has repeatedly attempted to silence protestors by using security forces. The Hanoi authorities also claimed that Father Vu had donated the land to the government, but their claim has never been proven and in fact has been repeatedly discredited or contradicted by their own documents. I understand that according to church rules only the bishop of the diocese can dispose of church property. Father Joseph Vu was only a local priest who neither was owner of the land nor had any authority to make such a decision. It is noteworthy that so many properties that once belonged to the church were transferred to state administration under coercive conditions on the grounds that they were needed for social purposes. Even when these purposes are no longer required, the properties are seldom returned to their owners. Recently it has been reported that they have been used as financial resources for government officials. Some of them have been turned into movie theatres, restaurants, nightclubs or government offices. Some were simply destroyed. Others were sold or provided to selected government officials for personal use.
I am informed that the Vietnamese government has been cracking down on protests for eight months and has launched a campaign against Hanoi Catholics, accusing them of using their influence to incite all Catholics to confront the government as well as, amongst other things, assembling and praying illegally in public areas, therefore disturbing public order. The campaign has apparently intensified since 28 August, with more arrests. I have other examples from Vietnam as they relate to both the Catholic and Buddhist faiths, but I will not deal with each of them as these events were reported in the Australian on 24 September. From these events it would appear that the government of Vietnam struggles to maintain political control, yet at the same time it wishes to portray an image of religious tolerance, and this is not working.
Furthermore, I was this morning informed that there had been a recent crackdown against dissidents in Vietnam, and in particular a crackdown on legitimate protests of political dissidents and human rights defenders trying to exercise their right. My view, and I believe the view of Vietnamese in the electorate of Cowan, is that we all look forward to a future when religious and political freedoms can be achieved. It is my view that democracy is the best form of government and here in Australia we have a very good example of it. The International Day of Democracy was 15 September. I strongly support the day and this motion.
91
11:25:00
Gray, Gary, MP
8W5
Brand
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia
1
0
Mr GRAY
—I rise to speak in favour of the motion on the International Day of Democracy. It is a UN day created to put a focus on and create interest internationally in the matter of democracy, how governments are formed and how the behave. In making the announcement in 2007, the UN statement read: ‘Stressing the continuing need to promote democratization development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, the General Assembly today agreed to observe 15 September each year as the International Day of Democracy.’
Over the course of the last 35 years, I have worked on over 50 election campaigns at state and federal level, 13 of them being federal election campaigns. For a goodly portion of those, I was either the campaign director or a senior official in those campaigns. In Australia, we are fond of thinking of democracy as being purely the event that we celebrate every three years to elect a national government or, in most states and territories, every four years to elect governments in states, the ACT and the Northern Territory.
But there is more to democracy than simply marking a ballot paper. Democracy is about how the judiciary works. Democracy is about how media reporting agencies report and about how people have the right to vent their views. Democracy is about how people with views that differ are treated. Democracy is about how minorities are able to express their opinions. And democracy is about how majorities are able to have their way. Fundamentally, in our form of democracy, it is important that the majority is able to govern.
In the course of the last decade, I have been fortunate enough to observe, participate in or work in election campaigns in numerous different countries—in the US, in the UK, in New Zealand, in Sweden, in Greece, in East Timor and in Mauritania in Africa. It is fascinating to watch how democracy plays out in wealthy first world countries such as the US, Sweden, New Zealand and Australia and how in poorer countries and poorer economies nations struggle to implement and deal with the rigours of an election day, let alone the protocols, procedures and respects that are granted through a democratically elected parliament.
It is with some amusement that in Timor Leste I observed an election system that looked as if it had been designed by a wealthy European nation. That electoral system, with all of its caveats on respect for electing minorities, respect for electing genders equally and respect for electing configurations of candidates, would have done the Danish, the British or the French parliamentary systems proud. In Timor, perhaps there was a little bit too much engineering put into the perfection of their election system rather than thought being put into how the actual democracy would work in a country that was both distressed from its years of occupation and learning how to work with this new idea of democracy.
In Mauritania I watched as people had their hands inked with indelible ink and voted using coloured pieces of paper as the most obvious way of demonstrating support for one political party or the other. Clearly, there were imperfections in the Mauritania model, but clearly it was both more culturally acceptable and obtained a result that was more representative of the people of Mauritania. The only problem was that that election came at the end of a coup and was put in place by the people who had engineered that coup. Subsequently, just a few weeks ago, the democratically elected government was thrown out in another coup. That takes one to the African Union and the role which the African Union plays in democracy in Africa.
My view of the African Union is that it is a splendid organisation. It is a wonderful idea and it has some great people in it. The work that is done by the African Union to underpin both respect and regard for democratically elected governments is significant. In my personal experience, from a very limited resource base with very limited capabilities the African Union worked very hard to try to make sure that there is respect for democracy in Africa. It took a very strong position in those two coups that I have referred to in Mauritania on behalf of properly and appropriately elected democratic governments.
In Australia, we perhaps become complacent about how our electoral system operates. It is a complacency that is born both of our wealth and of our certainty that our election system is one of the best election systems in the world, and you will often hear people in this place making that statement. In Australia, we have numerous election systems, and I noted down a few of them as I was waiting to speak this morning. We have a state-wide election system for members of the upper house that takes place nationally for the Senate. Victoria and Western Australia have regional multimember systems, New South Wales and South Australia have a state-wide system and Tasmania in its upper house has single member electorates. Nationally we have single-member full preferential election systems at work in our own federal parliament here and in the Northern Territory, Victoria, South Australia and WA. In New South Wales and Queensland we have single-member optional preferential voting systems. In the ACT and Tasmania we have Hare-Clark with Robson rotation.
We have in Australia over half-a-dozen completely different voting systems. We have completely different voting systems in one nation, with electoral terms that run for different lengths of time. Running elections in Australia is a complicated business. We have got quite good at it from time to time; mostly we are not that good at it. Two recent elections have raised some commentary in the media: local government elections in New South Wales, because of how the Electoral Commission in New South Wales managed it; but I am most familiar with the state government election in Western Australia just a few weeks ago.
The Western Australian Electoral Commission would normally be regarded as an organisation capable of ensuring that the 1.3 million people of Western Australia all get the right to vote and that all those ballots get counted. On the day before the election, on the Friday, I was driving through my electorate doing work to support the excellent candidates who had put themselves up for election when a news broadcast came on the radio. It took my attention for more than one reason. The news broadcast went as follows:
Residents of Eucla will not be able to vote at this weekend’s State election. The Electoral Commission says it does not have the resources to set up a polling booth in the town and it forgot to tell local people about postal voting.
It remembered to write a press release and get that out on the radio, but it did not have the resources to set up a polling booth in the town and it forgot to let people know that they might be able to postal vote. The deputy electoral commissioner said that the commission would send formal apologies to the town’s 20 electors. She said they will not be fined for not voting. She is reported as saying:
I only became aware of this issue on Tuesday. Had I known Tuesday a week ago we could have organised for the residents to be able to have cast a postal vote. Despite our best efforts this week unfortunately the mail couldn’t get to them in time to have them complete their ballot papers and have them returned in time.
So they did not get to vote. How incredibly pathetic. How bizarre. How we can stand in this place and have regard for our election systems while we are being so let down by electoral commissions baffles me. It appals me, and I know that this view is shared by all sides of politics and of our parliament.
I was fascinated by the idea that the Electoral Commission realised on the Tuesday that it would not be able to get ballot papers for the Saturday to a community where it would have been possible to have (a) driven, (b) flown, (c) caught a bus—even a carrier pigeon would have done. But no, we did not do that. To the 20 electors, say the Electoral Commission, ‘we apologise and you will not have to pay a fine’. It appears that, in some bizarre twist of what the function of an electoral commission is, the Western Australia Electoral Commission views its function as fining people or not fining people for voting or not voting rather than assisting them in being able to vote.
I looked at that number, 20 voters, and thought that I had driven through Eucla many times and that I would be driving through Eucla again on Sunday. I looked at the electoral roll and I was pleased that Western Australian Senator Sterle was able to give me a print of the electoral roll of 20 voters in Eucla. But there are 24 voters in Eucla. The Electoral Commission in Western Australia did not even know how many people it had willingly chosen to disenfranchise. Equally, it probably does not know how many people it might have to send letters to, inviting them to give reasons as to why they could not vote. The confusion went on from there.
We learned, in the middle of counting, that the Electoral Commission in Western Australia had lost 1,100 votes. There were 1.35 million votes cast that Saturday, and one might say that losing 1,000 was careless. There were 1,100 votes lost from one electorate where 19,000 people voted. They had lost five per cent of the ballot box for the ballot in Geraldton. Fortunately, these votes appear to have been found, but what one cannot deny is the great concern that any reasonable person would have about the capability of the Electoral Commission in Western Australia.
I noted last week the editorial in the West Australian newspaper which said this, under the headline ‘WA deserves better from the Electoral Commission’:
The WA Electoral Commission has not exactly covered itself in glory with the State election, coming under fire from all sides for the slow count and bungles such as losing 1100 ballot papers in the seat of Geraldton and disenfranchising the township of Eucla.
Granted, the commission had to cope with the redrawn boundaries on the new one vote, one value electoral map and was obviously caught on the hop by a snap poll. But by any measure its performance was poor, creating the impression that it was not up to the job, difficult as that job may have been. Steps need to be taken to ensure that next time, it gets it right.
I believe that editorial from the West Australian massively understates the reality of the task of getting our state electoral commissions to work effectively, operate in a functional manner and ensure that Australians who are registered to vote, who want to vote, who turn up to vote not to avoid a $50 fine but because they have something to say about how they are governed and how they wish to be represented, are able to do so.
I would like to put on the record a set of data that was provided by the AEC to me and to the federal Parliamentary Library. In 2007 the Australian Electoral Commission was able to establish a ballot place at the Eucla community hall. It was open from 8 am to 6 pm on 24 November. In addition to that, interstate voting was available because Eucla is on a major interstate highway for people travelling into or out of Western Australia.
Again, in 2004, the Australian Electoral Commission was able to arrange voting activity in this region. It covered townships and communities from Eucla and around Eucla way. It covered Cocklebiddy, Madura and Mundrabilla—communities of not many voters. But even a community as small as Madura, with three enrolled voters, has a right to vote, and electoral commissions have a responsibility to ensure those three people have a capacity to vote in the same way as the rest of the 1.3 million in the state of Western Australia had a right to vote. I am not saying that that vote has to be cast at a static polling place. But to have a press release issued when the electoral commission was in knowledge of its shortcomings four days before the polling day in Western Australia is incompetent and a shame.
93
11:40:00
Kelly, Mike, MP
HRI
Eden-Monaro
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support
1
0
Dr KELLY
—It is great to be able to speak on this motion on the International Day of Democracy and I applaud the member for Fremantle for bringing forward the motion. Democracy is something that Australians often take for granted, I feel. But, like the member for Fremantle, I have seen a lot of the alternatives and know that they are very ugly. I note also the presence in the chamber this morning of the member for Fadden, and I know that a lot of what I have to say he will no doubt have reflected upon from his time in Bougainville.
It is the question of the promotion and the challenges of democracy referred to in the motion that I would like to talk to this morning. It certainly is inspiring and sobering to see the way that the people of Timor-Leste and Iraq responded to the opportunity to vote for the first time in their lives, at great risk to their lives. That is often the case in these postconflict environments. It often also requires the exertion of great physical effort and patience—standing for long hours in queues, for example. And if you are in Iraq, of course, that brings with it the risk of being subject to suicide bombers and the like—something that we cannot really imagine as we participate in our electoral events here in Australia.
One thing that I have learned in the course of those experiences, in those environments where they are struggling through to achieve the level of democracy that we have here, is that elections do not equate to democracy. Often what we have seen in the past is that we conduct these elections and, as far as the international community is concerned, that is a tick in the box and a job well done—mission accomplished. But bitter experience I think has taught us that establishing sustainable and meaningful democracy is much harder than that. I think we have learned that close to home in Timor-Leste. Once those elections were conducted, the hard work began from that point—the hard work of both effectively growing the institutions and the agencies of democracy and the culture of democracy. Quite often we do not recognise that critical factor—the need to build a culture of democracy. So it is not just about frameworks and institutions at the end of the day. I have quite often seen attempts to impose Western solutions, elaborate solutions, on these environments which just do not take locally. In many ways it is akin to having an organ transplant. That organ will be rejected unless it is appropriately introduced and grafted on effectively in a way that will gel with the local culture. And that is really the test here: to evolve those institutions in that culture.
The situations in Afghanistan and Iraq also demonstrate that there are various levels at which democracy must occur. Certainly my own experience in Somalia emphasised this as well, that you need to build democracy at various levels. Provincial governance is quite often as important as—or, in some cases, more important than—a national-level democracy. The reason that is important is that often, in postconflict environments, we need to come to something akin to federalised solutions because often the issue in these internal conflict situations is that we need to do more to ensure people are comfortable about the protection of their cultural identities and minorities are respected. Quite often in those environments there can be a tyranny in majority because the rights of minorities and even their physical safety are not respected by the majority. So often the best way to move through this and to achieve an effective result is a federalist approach.
There are many elements in growing a culture of democracy, as I have discovered. It is not just about building institutions at the federal and local level but also about establishing public security so that responsible leadership has the confidence to move forward. All of the aspects of the rule of law need to be in place as well, such as the justice system and prisons. Transitional justice issues to do with truth and reconciliation processes or retributive justice are just as important to achieving a level of calm within society for democracy to flourish. Human rights bodies and independent watchdogs can also be part of that process, as well as good governance measures, which are quite often necessary to prevent corruption and distortion of the political process. We have seen that to be a major threat in places like Papua New Guinea. We need to be able to follow through, on the delivery of an election, to grow agencies and mentor them through to maturity. Quite often, that means putting in place inspector-general type mechanisms and other types of good governance and auditing approaches.
One thing that I thought was an effective concept in Iraq—but not particularly well implemented, because of the rush to do so—was the idea of graduating the various ministries. Instead of a straight handover of sovereignty to Iraqi governance, each department had to meet certain criteria to hand over and achieve autonomy. I think that is a good conceptual way of flagging that we need to sustain efforts in the transition to democracy by identifying points of weakness in the governance that exists and ensuring that we support and mentor those involved through to an effective outcome. What we now see in Iraq illustrates many such cases.
I was delighted to see overnight the announcement that the Iraqi parliament has moved through the provisions that are required to be in place for the conduct of the provincial elections. This was a key piece of the puzzle for the ongoing improvement of the situation there. We are now hoping to see provincial elections occur in Iraq towards the end of January, at the earliest, next year. This has been long delayed, and there have been a lot of issues that have caused that delay. They relate to the fact that we have seen quite a demographic shift in Iraq. Some have claimed that it is ethnic cleansing, but certainly what we have seen is shifts in population gravitating towards a more communal identity. One of the benefits of having provincial and federal approaches and solutions is that you can accommodate minority and cultural identity issues.
The last time there was an attempt to move forward with the provincial elections, it was defeated by the veto of the President, Jalal Talabani, but we are very confident that it will move completely through that parliamentary process, as the Kurdish legislators are in support of this new provision and have accepted the compromise that was brokered by the United Nations. I would like to salute the role that the United Nations has played all along in Iraq in helping with the political transition process and conducting elections in that country. Certainly, I was distressed to see how much time and opportunity were lost in the early days in Iraq by a failure to take the best advantage of what the UN has to offer and to capitalise on its strengths.
The interesting thing with regard to the provincial legislation that is going forward and the resolution of continuing issues is that a committee will be formed to look at property disputes and power-sharing concerns so that the remaining three provinces, which are quarantined from the process that will occur at the end of January, will be able to move forward as well. That relates to the issues of the Kurdish autonomous regions and the status of Kirkuk. Another aspect of that is the equitable management and distribution of resources, and of course the oil factor is the big one there. Quite often, in creating an effective democracy in postconflict environments, part of the issue is the equitable division of access to resources and the way funding from resources gets distributed in a community.
Interestingly, a new law bans political parties from using religious authorities, mosques and government institutions in their campaigns. That certainly is to be welcomed, along with the introduction of a 25 per cent quota of women on councils as part of the election process, which is a reflection of the constitutional provision for the national parliament. That continuation in the promotion of the status of women in Iraq is certainly to be welcomed. I salute the progress that has been made there and hope that it will move that country forward.
When we talk about different levels of government and democracy, it brings me back to our situation here in Australia. The Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia highlighted some of the challenges in local governance issues, even in this country. I note there have been comments about the decline in the ability of local governments to deliver for communities. Some people have even claimed that the status has reached a failed state level. I think that is probably taking it too far but, on the current trajectory, governance in rural and regional Australia is not sustainable without the sorts of measures announced by the Prime Minister in building a new federal relationship with our local government. I think that is critically essential. It was welcomed very rapturously by all my local councils during the campaigns last year, and it is good to see we are delivering on that.
I also highlight in relation to the building blocks of democracy that the Rudd Labor government is now stepping forward to see if it can deliver a more effective approach to that in those postconflict environments by the establishment of the new Asia-Pacific Civil Military Centre of Excellence. This centre will aim to harness all the elements of national power to target those buildings blocks of democracy at the same time as delivering effective public security to enable those building blocks to flourish and grow. We see this centre as harmonising our approach in agencies and helping them target fault lines in our regional neighbours that can be addressed before they develop to the stage where some intervention is necessary. An aim of this centre is to facilitate harmonisation of our cooperation programs and our planning in situations where agencies have to intervene. A lot of research will be harnessed and promoted through the development of this centre. We will be bringing private industry and NGOs into that process, as well as members of various government agencies. We will be networking with many of the think tanks that help us to facilitate that strategic thinking. We also intend to network with other institutions internationally that are pursuing the same objectives, such as the Post Conflict Reconstruction Unit in the UK, which was recently renamed as the Stabilisation Unit, the Stabilisation and Reconstruction Task Force in Canada, the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilisation in the United States, and also with Europe and what has been going on with their Civilian Headline Goal Program, to create deployable civilian capabilities to address these deficiencies and issues.
The centre will also help develop our integrated doctrine, training and exercise opportunities for our agency and external actors to enable cooperation to be more effective on the ground in these situations. It will also help us to have dialogue within the region to build an understanding of the need for this sort of approach and to enable us to work closely with our regional neighbours when that is required such as we have, for example, in East Timor and in the Solomon Islands.
We have discovered that there is a need for the deployable civilian expertise which the Europeans are looking at, and we are examining ways to be able to deliver that. I have commissioned a study within our Reserve capacity in the ADF to map the actual civilian skills that exist there so that we can draw on those skills. There are many people who have the economic, organisational, electoral, legal and economic skills that can help us tackle those issues in the short term as we move towards transition to Indigenous capabilities.
I hope that, with the contribution of the centre, all of our agencies will become known for two particular qualities: flexibility and imagination. This is what the contemporary security environment really requires of us. The challenge for us is the ability to be flexible in the capability that we bring to the table, in our strategic analysis and in our ability to think outside the square. It is the responsibility of those of us who have the opportunity to promote the cause of democracy through every possible means, as it is by no means free from threat or guaranteed, even to us in this country, without eternal vigilance. I commend the motion to the House.
10000
Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! The question is that the motion be agreed to. I call the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs—and, some say, ‘fun’!
95
11:54:00
Kerr, Duncan, MP
RH4
Denison
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs
1
0
Mr KERR
—Mr Acting Deputy President, I appreciate your designation as one with which I would be delighted if it were always the truth. I can say that our relations with the Pacific have been much improved over the last eight months as some of the tensions that were inherent in our dealings with our nearest neighbours have been dealt with effectively. Through both multilateral and bilateral engagements led by our Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, my colleague Bob McMullan and I have really done a lot of work to strengthen the effectiveness of Australia’s engagement with our own region, a region which we are both of and in. We are a country of the Pacific, we are in the Pacific, and the engagements that we are involved in through the partnerships for development, through bilateral arrangements with each of the countries and through multilateral negotiations with the Pacific Island Forum and other regional institutions have seen a very great improvement in our nation-to-nation and nation-to-region relationships.
On this particular motion, generally, the Pacific is a region where democracy has been established and is being consolidated, and that is all to the good. It is not always an easy thing to build national institutions in the Pacific, because for many of the countries the idea of nationhood is a relatively recent invention and one which would probably have been unimaginable to most of the populations of those countries only one or two generations previously. My own experience in Papua New Guinea, for example, reminds me that there were many people who had no knowledge of an external world beyond their valley. They had their own language—there are 700 languages in PNG—and so the creation of a vibrant democracy out of communities that saw their world as encompassing their tribe, their family and little more has been quite an enormous achievement.
Sometimes we are faced by critics who are very dismissive of the difficulties facing Pacific Island countries as they transition from countries which were essentially based around different forms of quite basic technologies to their involvement in a 21st century global environment, with the kinds of challenges and demands that that places upon them. Those critics give those countries far too little credit for the distance that they have achieved. We are working very hard to stabilise and make effective democratic institutions in the Pacific and, of course, there are specific bipartisan initiatives that have been established. The CDI—Centre for Democratic Institutions—is active in the Pacific but, very importantly, on a timescale that looks beyond the immediate next couple of years. We can be quite proud of the fact that we are engaged not only in strengthening the effectiveness of state building in those countries through institution strengthening but also in addressing some of the key critical issues that affect the citizens of those countries to enable them to participate effectively as members of a democracy that is addressing the Millennium Development Goals—extending opportunities for early education and post secondary education, making certain that people have relief from poverty, making certain that health services and education are addressed, designing our interventions in ways that will improve the lives of people and also improving the communications systems and the infrastructure that enable communication through those quite remote and sometimes complex societies so that people can actively take part in vibrant democratic institutions and see the benefit of that participation.
All of the countries of the Pacific are democracies, albeit at the moment Fiji is under a military interim government. Members of this House would know that there is bipartisan agreement within the Australian political system that we would wish that circumstance to come to an end as quickly as possible and for a restoration of genuine democracy in Fiji, because the people of Fiji are suffering at the moment. The GDP of that island has been reducing. It always has after coups, and the sooner we can find the political basis of an effective settlement that enables a return to democracy in Fiji the better. The Australian government has indicated on many occasions that it stands ready to assist in that process as best we can.
There were challenges to democracy in the Solomon Islands, a conflict that nearly brought the government of the Solomon Islands to a point of collapse. It was under considerable distress. The initiative that Australia was participating in, and to some extent was the driver of, the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands, has been very successful. We look forward to a period where the Solomon Islands is restored to the robustness both democratically and economically to which its people are fully entitled.
We are working with all of the islands of the Pacific and Papua New Guinea to make certain that we give reality and flesh to commitments that we have entered into through our commitment first articulated by the Prime Minister in the Port Moresby declaration and then manifested in the rollout of the partnerships for development and through continuing bilateral discussions with those countries. We wish to make certain that we not only support the structural elements of democratic governance in those countries but assist to make it effective in the interests of the people. We encourage through negotiations, for example, on PACER Plus, the integration of the Pacific into a wider free trade environment where people are able to maximise their participation and their chances of economic development as well as their entitlement as citizens to vote and to participate within those democratic governments. Thank you very much. I welcome the initiative of those who have put this measure onto the Notice Paper and commend its consideration to the chamber.
96
12:03:00
Sidebottom, Sid, MP
849
Braddon
ALP
1
0
Mr SIDEBOTTOM
—Colleagues, I am very proud to be able to participate in this motion put forward by the member for Fremantle. She follows the former member for Fremantle, who was a great advocate of democracy in every sense of the word—one of the few people I have heard in this place actually speak about genuine reform to the parliamentary practices and traditions of this place and throughout Australia. I am a beneficiary of a democratic community, like everybody here. I also work in, and am a participant in, an institution of our democratic system, our parliamentary system. Like all of you in this place I have stood for election, not just for federal parliament but for state parliament and local government as well. That means that I have been part and parcel of a democratic community and I have been able to participate in it and be genuinely free to do that. Thus, I want to be able to participate in this debate and to celebrate democracy.
In the interim between losing my seat in 2004 and regaining it in the last election—
83D
Murphy, John, MP
Mr Murphy
—That was tragic.
849
Sidebottom, Sid, MP
Mr SIDEBOTTOM
—What, that I got re-elected?
83D
Murphy, John, MP
Mr Murphy
—It was tragic that you lost your seat.
849
Sidebottom, Sid, MP
Mr SIDEBOTTOM
—Thank you. What I did in the meantime, once I got over the little bit of personal hurt, was postgraduate studies in international relations. One thing amongst many that I got out of those studies is that you can take democracy for granted, because you greatly appreciate the different forms of democracy throughout the world but even more appreciate the urge of many other peoples who seek just the basics of a democratic society and to be able to live in one. So I recognise the United Nations General Assembly resolution 62/7 that we have an International Day of Democracy celebrated on 15 September. I also note that democracy ‘is a universal value based on the freely expressed will of people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems and their full participation in all aspects of life’. The resolution goes on to say:
While democracies share common features, there is no single model of democracy and ... democracy does not belong to any country or region.
Indeed it does not. There is both a truth and a warning. The best democratic systems have evolved. To try and impose them on others for whatever political ideology will not work. Democracies evolve. They are dreamed of, they are fought for and people have died for them.
They are also taken for granted. Indeed, apathy is often a consequence of a long period of democratic experience, particularly the system of liberal democracy that we live under. That is one of the consequences and one of the great ironies of liberal democratic systems, that you can take it for granted. Some people think that voting on election day is basically your democratic responsibility and duty and that is all. But that is not all; that is just the beginning. Democracy, as many speakers have alluded to before me, is much more than the electoral process for parliamentary elections. We have many institutions that make up a democracy which are absolutely vital for that democracy to function properly. If we do not take notice of what is happening to those institutions, we do it at our peril. I know that the member at the table, my colleague the member for Lowe, has constantly been on in this place about the media ownership laws in this country, and the effects of those laws—that is, the concentration of ownership—can have on our democratic institutions. If we do not have a diversity of opinion, a diversity of information, then our community suffers for it.
We are being reminded of that daily, remembering that most people get their news and information from the traditional forms to this day, from newspapers, radio and television. They are concentrated in few hands. We do have greater access to the new technologies through the internet, through our iPods, our MP3 players and our mobile phones and so forth. But most people’s information does not come from those. So, although we have democratic institutions such as a free, fair, open media, we have to guard to make sure that that that in actual fact is the reality. So I suppose the one thing I want to emphasise today is that we should not take what we have for granted. It is sometimes under threat, often from without in many countries but at times from within, and sometimes by design. Sometimes it is just by apathy and neglect. So we need to be vigilant.
There are those in this country who believe that there are constant threats to democracy in Australia. They are often ridiculed as mad Lefties. But one of their major arguments is that one of the sure signs of our democracy being eroded is the growing disengagement of Australians from the democratic system. We are all aware of that. We in this place are an aberration; we are an exception rather than the rule. For a start, we belong to political parties. Most Australians will not have a bar of political parties. Why is that? We are passionate, we are dedicated, we are informed and we are educated. So are many other Australians, but why won’t they belong to our political parties? What is it about them? We are engaged. We believe that our political system is engaging, but many will not have a bar of it, and it is not just apathy. Sir William Deane, the former Governor-General said:
So let us rejoice and be grateful for all the achievements of our past ...
I would add, ‘Our democratic past.’ He went on:
At the same time, let us be honest and courageous about the failures and flaws which mar those achievements ...
That reminds me that people will engage with politics because it gives meaning to action. They disengage when politics lacks purpose. Essentially, for me that means that the political system that we are more thoroughly engaged in appears to be less relevant to their lives and it certainly is in their minds. That is an issue that we have to deal with.
One of the suggestions is that what has happened in the political arena of our democracy is that the executive rules, not the parliament. While we do have a parliamentary system, the parliament either lacks the will or the ability to scrutinise the executive. We in this chamber all know what I am talking about. That can be sheeted home to things like how we use the committee system within the parliament, whether it be in the House of Representatives or in the Senate. Are those committees properly resourced? Are those committees free to take up their review briefs? A review of the committee system could tackle the public view that the parliament is disengaged from those things that matter most to people. That is something that we can debate more in the future.
Others are concerned that the party system is still bound by either ideologies or by personalities through factional arrangements, whether it be on our side of the House or among others. We may say that that is an unfair view, but the fact that the view exists is a worry for us.
How do we engage with and communicate with generation Y? These are the people who are most disengaged from us? How do we go about that? It is absolutely crucial that we do that. I thought that I would share with you a little bit of research done on generation Y in the book No, Prime Minister: reclaiming politics from leaders by James Walter and Paul Strangio, published in 2007. I quote:
Research by the Australian sociologist Anita Harris shows that young people accept that future achievement is dependent on ‘individual choice and responsible self-making’ but resist the diminution of public space and surveillance of the private by establishing community, neighbourhood and friendship networks. In her investigations of the political attitudes and behaviour of Generation Y (those born in the early 1980s), researcher Rebecca Huntley confirmed that members of Gen Y are ‘turned off, annoyed by and distrustful of political parties, politicians and increasingly the [mainstream] media, but also found that they are ‘looking for alternative ways to get involved and so they focus on issues that affect them directly, at the local and the community level, or international issues, something facilitated by information technologies without borders.
So the last thing they need—and I will finish with this because I have other colleagues who want to speak—are electoral laws that disenfranchise them, a media that is controlled and dominated by a few, often on ideological grounds, and a parliamentary system that seems to churn on under 19th century conditions, yet in their name and in that of generation now. I will leave you with this thought—HL Mencken said of democracy in 1920:
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
I think we can all have a discussion about what ‘good and hard’ means. The important thing is that they get it, and many do not believe that they do. But, compared to many others throughout the world, what we do have should be cherished, we should be vigilant with it and we should be very proud of it.
98
12:16:00
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade
1
0
Mr MURPHY
—I congratulate the member for Braddon for his invaluable and lasting contribution to this important debate. It is an honour to join the parliament in recognising the first International Day of Democracy, which was held on Monday, 15 September 2008. There can be no greater place to acknowledge this important occasion than in our parliament, an institution which demonstrates better than any other the commitment of the Australian people to democracy and democratic institutions.
I note that the United Nations General Assembly recorded in a press release dated 8 November 2007:
... that democracy is a universal value based on the freely-expressed will of people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems ...
Furthermore, article 21(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948 by the United Nations General Assembly, to which I am a proud signatory, states:
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
Article 21(3) of the declaration states:
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Can there be a better place to focus attention on the promotion and consolidation of democracy than in an institution which is the ultimate expression of the will of the people?
While we conduct our day-to-day lives in this place, we can never underestimate the importance of our role in the democratic process. We should never underestimate the legitimacy and mandate of an elected government, a legitimacy that arises because of the will of the people. As parliamentarians, we all know that the will of the people is sacrosanct. We understand our duties to interact directly with our constituents and respect their right to decide policies and programs through free and fair elections. That is one of the impenetrable strengths of any true democracy and those in power will always remain accountable to the people—that it is the people who ultimately rule. It comes as no great surprise that the Inter-Parliamentary Union notes that the word ‘democracy’ is derived from two Greek words meaning ‘people’ and ‘rule’. It also comes as no surprise that the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the world organisation of parliaments, has fought for decades to promote democracy by strengthening the very institution of parliament.
On this historic day, we ought to pay tribute to this organisation, which has developed governance principles for free and fair elections, established parliamentary systems where they would not otherwise exist and assisted more than 40,000 parliamentarians to represent their constituents without the fear of retribution. While the strength of any democracy is its capacity to limit the power of government according to the wishes of the people, there is no place for complacency. Democracies have not always been fortified against failure; we need only refer to the atrocities committed against indigenous populations by rising democracies in the United States and Australia.
The member for Fremantle, Melissa Parke, has already made reference to Duncan Green’s book entitled From Poverty to Power. In that book, Green rightly notes that numerous institutions, be they the legislature, judiciary, executive or media, exert checks and balances on each other which will ultimately determine the degree to which democratic regimes respect the rights of their citizens. Nowhere is this clearer than in Australia. Australia’s democratic institutions are undoubtedly underpinned by the rule of law, which is upheld by a truly independent and incorruptible judiciary.
While notions like the rule of law can be utilised as powerful rhetorical weapons, we ought to be concerned about any action or inaction that makes a mockery of what those words actually stand for. It would be the antithesis of democracy if citizens were forbidden to participate in democratic processes on the basis of their race, gender, personal beliefs or lifestyles. It would be the antithesis of democracy and would go against one eminent principle of the rule of law if free men and women were deprived of their life, liberty or property except by due process of the law.
It is a truism that no nation can seriously be considered democratic if it only pays lip service to protecting opposing voices, the rights of minorities and individual freedoms such as freedom of speech, association and religion. The outgoing President of the United Nations General Assembly, Srgjan Kerim, has lived under democratic and non-democratic systems and would be well equipped to attest to that fact. He has been quoted recently as saying:
I have experienced the difference between being able to realize one’s individual initiative, and in circumstances that limit rights and opportunities.
Similarly, the UN Secretary-General, Mr Ban Ki-moon, has stated that while his home country, the Republic of Korea, had previously been exposed to emergency laws, censorship and political imprisonments:
With our transition to a pluralist state came greater transparency and accountability, a more effective government machinery, and a thriving business sector able to compete with the rest of the world.
In non-democratic nations or fledgling democracies, one can often find criticism that democracies are flawed, have failed people and are only promoted by meddling foreign powers. In this light, I applaud the United Nations General Assembly for deciding to commemorate the International Day of Democracy and for inviting all member states to participate in a way that raises public awareness. I also applaud the General Assembly statement that:
… while democracies share common features, there is no single model of democracy.
It would be wrong to feed any misconception that democracies are a product of interfering foreign nations. It would be wrong to assume that democracies can be exported from one country to another without the will of the people. While Australia is one of the oldest uninterrupted democracies and is recognised worldwide for its political stability, it would be naive to assume that our parliamentary democracy, with its Westminster traditions, is one that can be transported elsewhere. No democracy will succeed if people are not given a genuine say in their own governance.
Australia is best served by sharing its experiences, both good and bad, and its knowledge of governance principles for free and fair elections. Our mission should be to support fledgling democracies, not dictate to them. In this context, we should also pay tribute to the United Nations, which, arguably more than any other organisation, has supported the growth of democratic institutions and practices worldwide. The United Nations has matched the talk in numerous General Assembly resolutions with action on the ground—most visibly through countless peacekeeping missions. The role that multilateralism has to play in the spread of democracy should never be downplayed. It is a far greater challenge for nations to promote and consolidate democracies around the world unilaterally, or even bilaterally. In this global village, we are integrating with our neighbours to a far greater degree than we have ever done before.
There is no room for unilateralism. International cooperation and understanding are as necessary for peace and democracy as they are for trade and investment. Just as the epic struggles of the 20th century were fought hand in hand with those that shared our values and experience of democracy, so too we will work together against the modern threat to democracies and human rights around the world. We well remember 11 September 2001 and the callous and cowardly attack on the values of freedom, and on the democracy of not only the United States and Australia but of all free democracies around the world.
Only this week, terrorists tried, yet again, to assault democratic traditions and institutions in Pakistan with the cowardly suicide bomb attack on the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad. While terrorist attacks have taken place in areas such as New York, Bali and Islamabad, their targets were very clearly each and every free nation—those defending freedom over oppression and democracy over dictatorship. Democratic traditions and institutions have been resilient against far greater challenges in the past and we must remain vigilant. We must support all people who stand up against violence and overwhelmingly commit themselves to democratic causes and values. We must ensure that we continue promoting freedom and democracy as a positive force for change, particularly given the sheer forcefulness of the rhetoric used by terrorists. We must also remain attuned to the needs of our fellow human beings who turn sympathetically to such rhetoric out of desperation or ignorance. It cannot be denied that poverty, combined with the absence of education, has fuelled the capacity of terrorist organisations to recruit people to their cause.
It is legitimate to ask whether many fledgling democracies can survive if we do not take real action to eliminate poverty. Australia’s fate, and the fate of many democracies, is inexorably linked with the fate of the majority of the world’s people that are struggling with poverty. It would be naive of us to assume we can promote and consolidate democracies around the world while leaving the door open for extremists to recruit from the poor and marginalised. That is why I am proud to be playing my role in the Rudd government’s active re-engagement with Africa. I am also proud of the Rudd government’s commitment to the millennium goals and our long-term ambition to increase Australia’s overseas development assistance from 0.3 per cent of Gross National Income to 0.5 per cent by 2015-16.
Before concluding, I wish to speak about the free and sceptical press in Australia that has no doubt given our democracy the strength and vitality that makes it one of the most revered around the world. Notwithstanding my own reservations about policies which I believe were inconsistent with his statement, former Prime Minister Howard was spot-on when he said:
... the strength and vitality of Australian democracy rests on three great institutional pillars: our parliament with its tradition of robust debate; the rule of law upheld by an independent and admirably incorruptible judiciary; and a free and sceptical press.
I have already spoken about the role of parliament, the rule of law and the judiciary. The role of journalists, and their ability to dissect and report on the serious issues of the day, is no less important. Their role extends beyond keeping government accountable. The media is central to the free flow of information in a participatory democracy. Diversity in news, current affairs and journalistic commentary is essential to ensure people are made fully aware of all views and opinions. Without a free media, citizens are unlikely to be able to participate in the political, democratic, process. How can citizens who are disengaged and uninformed be expected to legitimately take part in the democratic process? That the juntas and dictators of the world will stop at nothing to tear down a free and sceptical press is proof enough of the importance of the press to any democracy.
We must all remain vigilant and obstruct any moves that would weaken the pillars of our democracy. The International Day of Democracy has an important role to play in sustaining this vigilance. I commend the member for Fremantle for moving this very important motion.
Debate (on motion by Ms Grierson) adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
100
Adjournment
Ms GRIERSON
(Newcastle)
12:30:00
—I move:
That the Main Committee do now adjourn.
Parkes Electorate: TAFE
100
100
12:30:00
Coulton, Mark, MP
HWN
Parkes
NATS
0
0
Mr COULTON
—Today I rise to highlight the importance of TAFE—Technical and Further Education—in New South Wales. There are currently 1.3 million people studying at TAFEs across Australia, and 89 per cent of them study fulltime. TAFE provides a wide variety of qualifications and courses. Also, TAFE has close connections with industry. TAFE is at the intersection between schools, higher education, adult community education and industry.
TAFE is an institution that is very important to regional Australia, particularly in my electorate of Parkes. In Parkes there are two main TAFE institutes. The first is the Western Institute of TAFE. It services an area that covers 50 per cent of New South Wales but has less than five per cent of the population of New South Wales. It has 24 campuses, eight of which are in the Parkes electorate, and it has more than 60 associated campuses. In 2007, the Western Institute had 35,975 course enrolments and delivered 5,291,743 hours of training. In 2007, enrolments at the institute included 2,421 apprenticeships; and, of the institute’s student population, 14.7 per cent were Aboriginal. In 2007, the number of students enrolled in courses at Coonamble was 63; Dubbo, 6,349; Dunedoo 134; Gilgandra, 425; Lightning Ridge, 208; Mudgee, 1,208; Walgett, 347; and Wellington, 619. You can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, that a lot of people in the western part of my electorate are benefiting from being a student at TAFE.
In 2007, the Western Institute was named the Australian Large Training Provider of the Year in the Australian Training Awards. The other TAFE institute in my electorate is the New England Institute of TAFE. It covers 100,000 square kilometres and has 11 campuses—five of which are in the Parkes electorate. Both TAFEs are web enhanced, have online learning and flexible delivery systems and offer vital educational opportunities for my constituents.
I have had quite a bit to do with TAFE over the last couple of years. Before I came to this place, I was chairman of a well-known community learning organisation, the Gwydir Learning Region. It was a partnership between high schools and primary schools in the shire of which I was mayor, as well TAFEs, universities and adult community education centres. The Gwydir Learning Region delivered TAFE courses into an area where there were no institutes or campuses. Through this innovative program, we won the 2006 New South Wales Training Initiative Award, and we came third in Australia for the same award. I know firsthand the importance of TAFE and training. Indeed, in the organisation of which I was mayor up until last year, 97 per cent of our 150 employees have undertaken training up to certificate III. So I am very aware of the importance TAFE to the people of my electorate.
TAFE is under threat. Technical education is going to competitive tendering, and TAFE is having a lot of trouble competing with registered training organisations that do not have the same standards and qualifications for teachers and facilities. The funding model is now 40 per cent from the federal government, 50 per cent from states and 10 per cent from industry, and in regional areas that 10 per cent is very hard to find. I am terribly concerned about the education revolution that we are undertaking. I am not just aiming that at the present government. I think that if I had been in this place under the previous government I might have had some words about the Australian technical colleges, because I think we have a great institution in TAFE that probably needs some help and nurturing, rather than, in places, being duplicated. Education should be delivered to the highest standard, not down to the lowest price. I feel very strongly about this, and I certainly hope that, when we look at the future in terms of our technical needs, TAFE is not overlooked.
Education
Health
Shortland Electorate: Schools
101
101
12:36:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
1
0
Ms HALL
—My contribution to the adjournment debate is around education. Before I move to the substance of my contribution, I would like to put on record my strong support for TAFE. TAFE is an outstanding institution. It has made an enormous contribution to education throughout Australia and particularly in my region. I would like to record my support for the teachers in the Hunter region, particularly those teachers that work at the Belmont TAFE. I would like to say to the member for Parkes that I fully concur with his comments about the ATCs. I have presented to this House examples of how students enrolled in the Hunter ATC were misled into believing that they would be offered courses with on-the-job training, which they never received. I would also like to put on the record that one of the first acts of the Howard government was to rip millions of dollars out of the TAFE system.
Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, I would like to put on record the contribution that you made to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing on Wednesday, when you came along and openly talked to the committee about the surgery that you have had, how it has made a difference to you and how it can contribute to the health of people in Australia.
The main purpose of my contribution to this debate is to acknowledge two schools within my electorate. The mention of one of those schools flows on very nicely from the comment I made about your contribution to the health and ageing committee, Mr Deputy Speaker. Two weeks ago, that committee came to my electorate and visited Marks Point Public School, where they joined in with the after-hours school program. The school opened its gates and allowed its students to interact with the members on that committee. The member for Parkes also attended that. It was a demonstration of the commitment of the teachers, it was a demonstration of the commitment of the people that were involved in the after-hours school program and it also showed how the community, the school and government can work together to make a school not only a place of learning but an important place within the community. It also showed the role that schools play in addressing the obesity problem that we have within our society. The terms of reference of the committee’s inquiry is for the committee to look at obesity, the importance of exercise and diet in addressing obesity within our community and the importance of addressing it at the student level. I thank Marks Point Public School for their contribution to the deliberations of the committee.
Last Friday, I attended Caves Beach Public School. It was a very different event that I attended there. It was the 40th anniversary of the school and it was a celebration of that school in the community. It was a celebration of the contribution that that school had made to the education of the students of Caves Beach. Caves Beach, like Marks Point, is very much a school that is part of the community. The local state member, Robert Coombs, addressed the assembly and talked about the time that he attended Caves Beach Public School and the changes that have taken place. Interestingly, the first principal of Caves Beach Public School actually attended that 40 years celebration. In addition, we had some students that were original students at Caves Beach. Caves Beach is a very special community. It is a community that really comes together very closely. The 40th anniversary celebrations reflected the enormous strength of that community.
Sturt Electorate: Road Works
101
101
12:41:00
Pyne, Chris, MP
9V5
Sturt
LP
0
0
Mr PYNE
—Having turned 41 in August, 40 years does not seem so long ago after all! I would like to speak on the adjournment today on two local issues in my electorate. One is the need to upgrade Gorge Road, Athelstone; the second one is the upgrade of the Margaret Bond Oval. Tragically, the issue of pedestrian safety at Gorge Road, Athelstone, was thrown into stark relief in the last two weeks because of the very sad death of Mr John Ficcadenti, of Athelstone, who was killed while running on this stretch of road.
At the moment there are steel guard rails on both sides of Gorge Road where it crosses an embankment just west of King George Avenue, without making any provision for pedestrians. Consequently, constituents who live on King George Avenue are forced to walk around 110 metres across the embankment between two guardrails 6.4 metres apart with no escape should two vehicles meet on the embankment. The embankment is the only pedestrian route to access the nearest bus stop, the River Torrens Linear Park, the local shops and other community facilities at the Athelstone township.
Gorge Road is used extensively as a tourist route into the near Adelaide Hills, particularly on weekends. It is commonly used by motorists who are unfamiliar with the potential hazards of the road. During the week, traffic includes large numbers of trucks hauling quarry materials from two quarries on Gorge Road. Tragically, Mr Ficcadenti was killed just metres away from his home after a wheel came off a semitrailer while travelling along Gorge Road—a freak accident.
I, along with Campbelltown City Council, have been lobbying for some time, seeking support for funding for Gorge Road to make that stretch of road safe for pedestrians. We have together lobbied both the previous government and also the state government in South Australia about trying to do something for the pedestrian access to Gorge Road. I have also been lobbying for a pedestrian crossing near St Ignatius College—across the road from a cemetery and on a very busy stretch of the road. About 800 students use that school on a daily basis, with all their parents, grandparents and others who are part of that school community. We have had petitions, which have been lodged in this House over the last 12 months, to try to do something. We have also lobbied Minister Zollo, the road safety minister. We have had responses from the state government, but not as yet any action. So I call on the state government of South Australia to do something rather than talk about the need to improve pedestrian access for Gorge Road, Athelstone.
In the time remaining, I would like to put on record that I have been lobbying the new Minister for Sport, Kate Ellis, for an upgrade of the Margaret Bond oval, in the southern part of my electorate. It is in a very poor state. I have written to her on two occasions over the last few months, and I am yet to have a satisfactory response. The Margaret Bond oval is used by local soccer clubs, both the Old Ignatians—I was an Old Ignatian—and Metro United, as their home ground. The facilities are in a poor state. The toilets leak and there are no proper change rooms, with many players having to get changed behind a curtain. The soccer pitch on the oval has been described as ‘the worst in the women’s league’. There is no proper irrigation; players from both teams have suffered ankle injuries due to the poor playing surface. At times, Metro United has had to cancel games because the ground was too dangerous to play on.
The Burnside City Council owns the Margaret Bond oval and maintains it, but without a substantial injection of funds from the Commonwealth government the Margaret Bond oval facilities and the playing ground will not be properly upgraded. The estimated cost is about $600,000.
I ask the minister to hear the pleas of the local community to upgrade the sporting facilities of the eastern and northern suburbs. The state government are planning to close down large parts of the Glenside campus of the mental health hospital. In that carve-up, sporting facilities will be lost to the local community. So we are seeing a reduction in the local sporting facilities of the eastern and north-eastern suburbs. The upgrade of the Margaret Bond oval would go some way towards ameliorating that.
Queensland Government
102
102
12:46:00
Sullivan, Jon, MP
HVS
Longman
ALP
1
0
Mr SULLIVAN
—Australian people expect their governments to be forward-thinking, to have a vision for the future and a plan to achieve that vision, but the Australian people also expect their governments to include them in the development of those plans and that vision. That is why Kevin Rudd’s Australia 2020 Summit was such a success, as were the many smaller 2020 forums held around the country, including one I convened at Deception Bay in my electorate. The government has reaped a rich reward in so many areas from that consultation with the community. As a consequence, so too will the people of Australia. In particular, I am looking forward to the outcomes of the Henry commission on taxation—what the Prime Minister has called a ‘root and branch’ review of Australia’s tax system—which emerged as a result of the 2020 processes.
As an Australian who is also a proud Queenslander, I am delighted by the latest initiative of our Bligh Labor government: Toward Q2. Toward Q2 sets, for a target date of 2020, a collection of challenging ambitions in the five key areas of economy, lifestyle and environment, education and training, health, and community inclusion. Queenslanders can visit the online website, www.towardQ2.qld.gov.au, where they can obtain a 44-page document outlining Toward Q2, as well as provide input into the process. Public forums are also being held across the state to give as many Queenslanders as possible the opportunity to contribute via that medium.
For the people of Longman, their first opportunity to attend a forum was at Strathpine on Tuesday of last week. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend and observe, as this parliament was sitting at the time. The next opportunity for my constituents to attend a forum is next Monday night, when a forum will be held at the University of the Sunshine Coast. Again, unfortunately, I will not be able to attend because of another longstanding commitment in my electorate.
The ambitions for Queensland set out in Toward Q2 are far-reaching, as the Premier says they are ‘bold and meant to stretch’ the government. Queensland Labor governments have transformed the state. It is no longer the backwater it was in the Bjelke-Petersen years. Achieving the Toward Q2 goals will ensure that it never is again. Trends suggest that Queensland will in the very near future become the second largest state in the Commonwealth in population terms. That carries with it a serious responsibility, and I am pleased that the Bligh Labor government is not shirking that responsibility.
I note with satisfaction that the government actions anticipated under the health target of having the shortest public hospital waiting times in Australia include the building and rebuilding of hospitals across Queensland. I have a special interest in ensuring that the community I represent is adequately served by public hospitals. The Caboolture Hospital was built in 1992 as a result of an election commitment I gave as a candidate in the 1989 state election, a commitment I acknowledge played no small part in my success in that election. During the federal election campaign of 2007, I pledged to do all I can to ensure that our rapidly growing community does not have to wait well beyond the time the need is apparent for another public hospital, as was the case throughout the late 1970s and the 1980s.
The relationship between the Commonwealth and the states has, in the last 10 months, undergone a transformation, a surge of cooperation replacing the finger-pointing, name-calling blame game of the past. The acknowledgement that the state will need to build new hospitals and the economic ambition to develop infrastructure that anticipates growth are pleasing indicators that my own goal will be easier to achieve, and will be achieved in a cooperative environment. I am certainly committed to cooperating with my state colleagues on this matter so that together we can bring a new hospital into existence in good time to meet the needs of the community we all represent.
Flinders Electorate: Road Toll
103
103
12:50:00
Hunt, Gregory, MP
00AMV
Flinders
LP
0
0
Mr HUNT
—I rise to speak today about the rising road toll on the Mornington Peninsula. In fact, there are three elements I would like to raise here. Firstly, I want to address the sad and tragic loss which the Mornington Peninsula has seen over the course of this year. Secondly, I want to address some of the possible causes of that. Thirdly, I want to look, hopefully constructively, at some of the solutions.
We have seen something quite dramatic on the Mornington Peninsula this year. There have been 13 deaths so far this year—we are effectively just over three-quarters of the way through the year—compared to a total of 10 for the whole of 2007. Of course, in every case, this is a human loss and a human tragedy. It is a loss which is felt, and I have met affected families along the way. I know Gwen Bates, who is the mother of Kay Stanley, and I have seen the irreconcilable loss that she has suffered. I have met others as well, and their grief is deep and profound and ultimately will live with them forever.
Given the fact that the number of accidents causing serious injuries on the Mornington Peninsula is also up significantly on last year’s figures, we need to ask why. That brings me to the question of causes. This is, of course, a difficult issue to judge, so I can only go on my discussions with police from the traffic management unit and others. Firstly, there is an element in any one year of bad luck. Secondly, are there systemic causes which can and should be addressed? The view that I have had put to me by some within the police on the Mornington Peninsula is that we have seen an increasing number of weekend visitors to the Mornington Peninsula, that we have seen a large number of accidents on major through roads and that there are real dangers in relation to these roads. That means that we have a combination of young drivers and people who are perhaps not as familiar with the Mornington Peninsula. Taken together, that means that we have risks which need to be mitigated. Those risks need to be mitigated both on the driver education and driver awareness side and on the road quality and road black spots side.
I turn for the bulk of my statement to this question of the solution. The first part of the solution is about driver education and the monitoring available to police. The traffic management unit on the Mornington Peninsula do a great job. There is a review at present of the number of traffic management unit officers across the division—that is, Frankston, Hastings and Rosebud, as well as the Mornington area. Police management has said that the number of officers deployed at each traffic management unit will change. We are hopeful that Rosebud will retain its figures. I want to make this plea to the state and to police management: Rosebud is an area which is growing and which has need of significant traffic management and emergency response facilities, and it would be wrong to take away police from that area. So I respectfully submit to the state police minister and to those carrying out the work of the police minister that Rosebud should not be short-changed. The southern peninsula has a real and pressing need, and the distances can be too great and the time taken can be too long if police and other emergency units are not based clearly in sufficient numbers in the southern peninsula area.
I would also note that there is, perhaps, a role for an enhanced training and education program in our schools on the Mornington Peninsula. The drivers of tomorrow are being trained right now, and we have a significant opportunity to deal with a high-level, high-volume driver education program in our secondary schools. I would like to see that happen on the Mornington Peninsula.
The other element of the solution is that we need to ensure that the Moorooduc Highway is upgraded. This is a dangerous road. It needs to have clearer markings, better preparation and better protections. It is a dangerous road. It needs to be patrolled and it needs to be upgraded, and that is a priority. (Time expired)
National Police Remembrance Day
Page Electorate: Bonalbo
Burma
104
104
12:55:00
Saffin, Janelle, MP
HVY
Page
ALP
1
0
Ms SAFFIN
—I will begin my contribution by noting that National Police Remembrance Day is 29 September. It is a day when we pay tribute to police officers who have lost their lives in the course of their duties. I want to mark that day and also honour their families.
I recently attended the Old Bonalbo Spring Fair. It was a fundraiser to buy a new defibrillator for Bonalbo hospital. It was organised by those I call the ‘good local women’ from the United Hospitals Auxiliary at Bonalbo hospital, who were at the forefront of the fundraising efforts. When I recently attended Coraki’s United Hospitals Auxiliary AGM at Campbell Hospital, I was not surprised but was encouraged to know how much money they had raised. There was $7 million across New South Wales from the United Hospitals Auxiliary, with $2 million across the North Coast area. That is a wonderful effort, and I say well done to all of those good women, and some men, in the United Hospitals Auxiliary. We commonly refer to it as a women’s auxiliary because that is what it was for a long time: a group of all the women who did fundraising around the hospitals. Dare I say it, there are still a lot of good women but they are joined by some good men in those efforts.
It was a lovely way to spend Saturday afternoon at Bonalbo. I ended up at the local bowling club talking to the locals after having opened the annual fete at Manifold primary school, which is in the Bentley area between Lismore and Kyogle on the Kyogle Road. Fetes are a national and local institution and, again, they raise money for things that are needed in some of the schools. This school, like most, does a lot with a little and gets good results. Manifold has a wonderful garden that is fed hydroponically and uses little water, and it can be attributed to all the locals mucking in and helping. I even got to have a painting lesson with my old mate and local bush artist and teacher Gary Holmes, and I managed to do a small landscape painting. My staff kept asking who did it and would not believe me when I showed it to them. They were surprised, and I told them it was the value of a good teacher. They can get us to do anything.
Yesterday I was able to announce, along with Minister Albanese and the state Minister for Roads, Mr Daley, that tenders for the Alstonville bypass would be called on 6 October. It is a project that has been on people’s minds for about 40 years. The local Alstonville Bypass Action Committee and its chair, Bob Wilson, have been beavering away at it for some 18 years. The community are delighted. They knew the money was in the budget but to know that the tender is being called on 6 October is far more concrete. So the community are quite happy about that.
I also want to raise an international issue to do with somebody whom I know quite well. Her name is Aung San Suu Kyi and she has been a political prisoner for about 12 years. Just recently in Burma-Myanmar it was reported that some 9,002 prisoners were released. This means that a lot of people were released from jails and some significant political prisoners were released. As always, it is hard to get exact information, but it is clear that U Win Tin and U Win Htein were both released. They are very significant political leaders in Burma-Myanmar. I also have just been told this morning that U Win Htien was rearrested within a day or two of his release. It is said he did a radio interview. He is up in Katha, and that is up in Kachin state. U Win Htein is Aung San Suu Kyi’s advisor, and U Win Tin is quite a famous journalist in Burma. Like a lot of people, I dare to hope that it may be the harbinger of some change, but there has been so little change in that country over a long period of time because it is a dictatorship. I just hope that the next person who is released is Aung San Suu Kyi, along with her deputy, U Tin Oo, and the SNLD leader, Khun Htun Oo. They are three very significant political leaders and I hope they will also be released.
Question agreed to.
104
13:00:00
Main Committee adjourned at 1.00 pm
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
105
Questions in Writing
Productivity Places Program
105
105
233
105
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
TK6
Boothby
LP
0
Dr Southcott
asked the Minister for Education, in writing, on 28 August 2008:
In respect of the Productivity Places Program: are job seekers able to acquire multiple training certifications under the program.
105
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion
1
Ms Gillard
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Yes, participants can acquire multiple qualifications under the program however, they must successfully complete a qualification to be eligible to enrol in another qualification. Over the life of the program this will allow participants to progressively upgrade their skills.
Employment Services
105
105
260
105
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
TK6
Boothby
LP
0
Dr Southcott
asked the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 2 September 2008:
What is the expected frequency of servicing for a job seeker who has a (a) Disability Maintenance Instrument rating 4; (b) Disability Maintenance Instrument rating 3; (c) Disability Maintenance Instrument rating 2; and (d) Disability Maintenance Instrument rating 1?
105
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
00AN3
Gorton
ALP
Minister for Employment Participation
1
Mr Brendan O’Connor
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The frequency of job seeker servicing is determined by a provider relative to the job seekers’ individual needs, not the Disability Maintenance Instrument rating they attract.