2009-02-26
42
1
4
REPS
0
0
2009-02-26
The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 9 am and read prayers.
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 5) 2008-2009
1931
Bills
R4063
Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.
First Reading
1931
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bowen.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
1931
1931
09:01:00
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.
Since the introduction and passage of the nation-building and jobs bills, it has become necessary to introduce a further two annual appropriation bills. These bills propose appropriations that complement the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, including implementation costs, they give effect to important elements of the December 2008 nation-building package and they propose appropriations for enhancements to employment and apprenticeship programs and other urgent measures and variations.
The two bills are the Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2008-2009 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2008-2009. I shall introduce the latter bill shortly.
The total additional appropriation being sought through these supplementary additional estimates bills is $2.2 billion, of which $384 million is sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 5).
I will now outline the major items provided for in the bill.
To support and secure the jobs and training of apprentices, trainees and adult workers who are vulnerable to redundancy in the economic downturn and to provide assistance to workers recently retrenched, the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations will be provided with funding for a range of measures, including:
-
An additional $43.7 million to provide for the increase in the commencements and completion claims under the Australian apprenticeships system, which provides financial support for employers and their apprentices.
-
An additional $38.8 million to assist apprentices and trainees to return to the workforce and maintain their training. Employers and training organisations will also be encouraged to retain apprentices and trainees through an additional payment on completion of training.
-
An additional $34 million will be provided to keep 241 ABC Learning centres open until 31 March 2009. The receiver assessed these centres to be unviable under the ABC Learning business model.
-
An additional $36.8 million will be provided to ensure that any Australian worker made redundant will receive immediate and personalised assistance to help them get back into the workforce. Rather than having to wait at least three months to receive intensive customised assistance, all newly redundant workers would be entitled to receive this support immediately.
-
An additional $70 million to meet an anticipated increase in expenditure against the General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme. The scheme assists employees who have lost their employment due to the liquidation or bankruptcy of their employer and who are owed certain employee entitlements. The scheme will require this additional amount before May 2009.
The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government will be provided with an additional $16.4 million in 2008-09 and $195 million in total over two years to implement the East Kimberley Development Package. The package is designed to support economic development in the region through investment in social and common use infrastructure. The contribution is conditional on a joint assessment with the Western Australian government of the most effective infrastructure investments to meet the social and economic development needs of the region. The Western Australian government will match this contribution with an aim of doubling the available irrigated development area from 14,000 to 28,000 hectares to provide for a possible large-scale expansion of agriculture. The social infrastructure component of the package may provide for investment in schools, health, early childhood, aged-care and recreational facilities. Common use infrastructure may provide for the development of roads, aeronautical and power infrastructure.
The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs will be provided with funding to double the Emergency Relief Program until 30 June 2011. The additional funding of $11.1 million will enable the community organisations concerned to respond to the expected increase in demand for emergency relief resulting from the recent deterioration in economic conditions.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will receive an additional appropriation of $14.9 million to account for the impact of foreign exchange fluctuations on its ability to make payments to international organisations on behalf of the Australian government.
Appropriations amounting to $68.7 million will be provided to a range of agencies to meet implementation costs associated with the economic stimulus package.
The remaining amounts that appear in Appropriation Bill (No. 5) relate to other estimates variations.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Coulton) adjourned.
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 6) 2008-2009
1932
Bills
R4064
Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.
First Reading
1932
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bowen.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
1932
1932
09:07:00
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.
Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2008-2009 provides additional funding for payments of a capital nature, such as for the purchase of administered assets and for payments to the states, territories and local government authorities.
The total additional appropriation sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2008-2009 is $1.83 billion.
As part of the $4.7 billion nation-building package, the government will provide the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government with $1.189 billion additional equity for the Australian Rail Track Corporation. The Australian Rail Track Corporation is a wholly owned Commonwealth company and is undertaking a significant infrastructure investment program. This includes 17 projects to improve the reliability and competitiveness of the nation’s rail freight network, including the expansion of capacity along the rail corridors connecting Hunter Valley coalmines to the Port of Newcastle. This expansion of capacity will more than double the amount of coal capable of being transported to port from 97 million tonnes a year to 200 million tonnes a year.
The government also proposes under the package to bring forward $711 million to invest in building better roads. The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government will be provided with $392 million in 2008-09 for payment to the states, territories and local government to accelerate the commencement of a number of important projects on the national network and other strategic roads. This will bring forward expenditure on projects including the Bulahdelah bypass on the Pacific Highway, Melbourne’s Western Ring Road, the Douglas arterial on the Bruce Highway in Townsville, Adelaide’s Northern Expressway and the Brighton bypass on the Midland Highway in Tasmania. The payment to the states also includes an additional $60 million investment this year in the highly successful road safety Black Spot program.
Consistent with the agreement reached with minor parties during the passage of the nation building and jobs package, the government proposes to bring forward expenditure totalling $500 million over four years beginning in 2008-09 to assist in expediting the return of water to the environment and deliver long-term benefits to the Murray Darling Basin. The Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts will be provided with $250 million in 2008-09 for this purpose. The government considers that this is the maximum pace of water recovery that can be pursued without causing unnecessary disruption to the water market and without compromising the amount of water that can be returned to the rivers over time.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Lindsay) adjourned.
COMMITTEES
1933
Committees
Public Works Committee
1933
Reference
1933
1933
09:10:00
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
Attorney-General
1
0
Mr McCLELLAND
—At the request of the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support, Dr Kelly, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: RAAF Base Edinburgh redevelopment stage 2, South Australia.
For the information of members, the Department of Defence proposes to undertake redevelopment stage 2 at RAAF Base Edinburgh, in South Australia, at an estimated out-turn cost of $99.56 million, plus the goods and services tax component. The main role of RAAF Base Edinburgh is to provide maritime surveillance operations throughout Australia’s airspace and operations related to information warfare. The project will provide improved infrastructure services, upgrade existing security for the base and provide new air-side and domestic facilities to improve the overall capability of the base. The object of the referral and the proposal is to enhance those capabilities. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction will commence in late 2009 and be completed by 2012. I commend the motion to the House.
1933
09:12:00
Lindsay, Peter, MP
HK6
Herbert
LP
0
0
Mr LINDSAY
—I rise to support this motion. As I move about Australia’s defence bases, it is obvious that there are at a lot of ageing components at the bases. It is important that we give the men and women of the Australian Defence Force the best working accommodation that we can. I was part of the Public Works Committee inquiry into the redevelopment of RAAF Base Edinburgh stage 1. That redevelopment has been completed and has made a major difference to the base. As RAAF Base Edinburgh gets folded into the Edinburgh defence precinct, that super base continues to grow. I am hopeful that the defence white paper will pay significant attention to the state of our bases and the infrastructure on our bases and will recommend a way forward to make sure that all of our bases are brought up to speed.
The Public Works Committee, of which I am a member, has resolved hearing dates for this particular program and we will do it as expeditiously as possible. I support the consideration of RAAF Base Edinburgh stage 2 redevelopment at a cost of $99.56 million.
Question agreed to.
Publications Committee
1934
Report
1934
1934
09:14:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
1
0
Mr HAYES
—I present the report from the Publications Committee. Copies of the report are being placed on the table.
Report—by leave—agreed to.
PRIVILEGE
1934
Privilege
1934
09:15:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—On Tuesday, 24 February 2009, the member for Sturt raised, as a matter of privilege, an alleged interference with members performing their duties as members due to certain arrangements put in place by the government for the participation of members in school infrastructure programs. The member tabled a range of documentation, which I have examined carefully. As I noted in my earlier written response to the member for Sturt, an act or omission which obstructs or impedes members in the discharge of their duties as members can be regarded as contempt. It has been recognised that, as well as participating in proceedings in parliament, members’ duties extend to electorate responsibilities, although the range of these duties to which parliamentary privilege would apply have not been fully defined.
It is a moot point as to whether a necessary involvement in government sponsored programs and activities in their electorates is within members’ responsibilities for the purposes of the protection against improper interference. I refer to a similar matter that was raised in the 41st Parliament by the member for Swan. The member raised the issue of an invitation he had received to a launch of the then government’s Green Corps program in his electorate which was subsequently withdrawn. The then Speaker noted that:
The attendance of members at the launch of Green Corps programs in their electorates does not seem to be an essential part of members’ duties and hence attendance is by invitation, just as members may or may not be invited to other events within their electorates.
I find that this sentiment is relevant in the present case.
There are two matters of detail raised by the member for Sturt. The first concerns a letter sent by the Deputy Prime Minister to members, on 5 February 2009, inviting them to register as a participating member of parliament in the Building the Education Revolution program. Members were invited to complete a registration form to be informed about and involved in a range of programs’ activities. Setting aside the issue of whether the involvement of members in this program is an essential part of their duties, members were being invited freely to register to be involved in the program just as they can freely choose to involve themselves or not in any activities in their electorates. I am not persuaded that this constitutes an interference with members performing their duties.
The second matter concerns issues raised by the member for Hinkler in a letter to the member for Sturt relating to the Investing in Our Schools Program and the recognition arrangements for the opening ceremonies of projects funded under that program and other programs. The member for Hinkler suggests that his role as a member has been diminished by not being directly involved in the ceremonial arrangements for the events. As a general comment: these programs are government programs and the administrative arrangements for them, including the ceremonial arrangements and responsibilities for representing the government, are matters for the government at the time. Unless these arrangements are shown to interfere improperly in members performing their general responsibilities in their electorates or having the effect of interfering with members, I do not see them as raising any matters of privilege.
Specifically in relation to the Investing in Our Schools Program, I note that the detailed guidelines for recognition under the program state who will be the representative of the government at the opening ceremony of the projects. I also note that the guidelines provide for alternative arrangements if a government representative is unable to attend the opening ceremonies. Finally, the guidelines state that schools are welcome to invite any member of parliament—federal or state—as a guest to an opening ceremony and that those invited guests may speak at the ceremony if invited to do so but they may not officiate at the ceremony. Again, I do not see how these arrangements amount to an interference with members being able to perform their duties as members.
For these reasons—while I acknowledge the importance of these matters to all members—I iterate the conclusion in my letter to the member for Sturt that I have not seen evidence sufficient to support a view that a prima facie case of contempt has been made out by the member in relation to the matters he has raised. Consequently, I would not give precedence to a motion to refer the matter to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests. I present a copy of all the documentation I have referred to in my statement.
1935
09:20:00
Pyne, Chris, MP
9V5
Sturt
LP
0
0
Mr PYNE
—Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the statement to the House on the privileges matter. As you would imagine, it does not satisfy the opposition’s desires with respect to what we regard as a very serious breach of privilege; therefore—by leave—I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Sturt from moving immediately:
That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests: Whether the actions of the Deputy Prime Minister, by:
-
issuing Members of Parliament with a form requiring that they indicate whether they wish to be informed of, or participate in, launches and ceremonies at new buildings and redevelopment of their local schools, with the intention being that only through registration will Members be allowed to participate;
-
changing the guidelines for the launches and ceremonies associated with the former government’s Investing in Our Schools Program:
-
to prevent schools from inviting their local Members of Parliament; and
-
so that they now require the officiating individual at any such launch or ceremony to be a member of the Australian Labor Party; and
-
instructing schools to disinvite their local Members of Parliament from attending programs and announcements at those schools, where the local Member of Parliament is a member of the Coalition,
amount to improper interference with the free performance by members of their duties as members.
We understand the limitations with respect to what can be done with a government that is drunk with power and incapable of allowing free democratic processes to take their course. We in the coalition are deeply concerned about the infringement of our rights as members of parliament with respect to launches, ceremonies and opening events at schools in relation to the Investing in Our Schools Program. The key point to make today is that the coalition’s guidelines, from when we were in government before 2007, have been demonstrably changed by the current government to be much more strict and much less capable of allowing members of parliament to perform their duties. Let me explain why that is the case.
When we were in government the Investing in Our Schools guidelines for 2007 required that a minister be invited to all opening ceremonies. It also required that a representative of the government be given the opportunity to open those events. In practice, that meant that often a coalition government senator would get the opportunity to open a school event. Most senators usually did not get the opportunity to open school events in electorates, whether they were Labor electorates or coalition electorates. We left open the fact that schools would organise those events, but they would work with the department to organise those events. We never at any point suggested that schools not invite their local members of parliament. I am not aware of any occasion when we were in government when a Labor member of parliament who had been invited to open a school events was then ‘disinvited’. Mr Speaker, that has happened to the member for Hinkler, who is in the House and who has written to me, and that is the basis of the reference to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests that we asked you to rule on. The shadow minister for education and I were bizarrely disinvited from opening an Investing in Our Schools Program event just last year at the Paradise Primary School in my electorate of Sturt.
I reiterate that the coalition government’s guidelines have been demonstrably altered. The Deputy Prime Minister keeps repeating that they have not been changed one iota. Let me give two very clear examples where they have been changed. The House will be most interested to hear this. The new guidelines for the Investing in Our Schools Program, right at the beginning, referring to inviting the Minister for Education to an opening ceremony, say: ‘Schools should not invite the minister or their local member directly. The department coordinates all opening ceremony requests between the minister’s office and the school.’ So the invitation goes to the Labor Minister for Education’s office, and they will apparently invite the local members of parliament in coalition seats. Previously, the schools were quite entitled to invite the local members of parliament. In fact, that was the practice.
Principals or governing councils reading these guidelines could be forgiven for not inviting their local members of parliament to school openings that are federally funded. In our view, nothing could be more clearly a breach of the privileges of members of parliament. This amounts to a prima facie case of privilege and we believe it should be referred to the Privileges and Members’ Interests Committee. It is a direct change from the period of the coalition government, and we know that it is affecting members of parliament in their capacity to do their job. The member for Hinkler and I have been disinvited from events. The member for Ryan, in Queensland, has sent me an email in which he specifically indicates that the guidelines have been changed and that he has been stopped from doing his job as the member for Ryan.
There is a second demonstrably different aspect of the Rudd government guidelines—or the Gillard government guidelines—for Investing in Our Schools and that is the second paragraph. It states: ‘The minister generally appoints an Australian government representative to officiate at the ceremony. In 2008 an Australian government representative is a member of the Australian Labor Party.’ The Deputy Prime Minister would say that the Australian Labor Party is in government, so naturally that is the case. But, in the coalition government, we did not have any requirement in our guidelines for Investing in Our Schools that a member of the Liberal Party of Australia or the National Party of Australia be the representative of the government. None at all. You can check the 2007 guidelines and you will find nothing in appendix 4, ‘Recognition requirements’, which says that the person who officiates at the ceremony should be a member of the Liberal Party or the National Party. It is nowhere in those guidelines.
But that is what you will find in the 2008 guidelines. They actually state: ‘In 2008 an Australian government representative is a member of the Australian Labor Party.’ Now, the Deputy Prime Minister might be slightly obtuse about this point. Perhaps she does not realise that, when members of the Public Service are chosen to represent the government and are sent along to open the events or the programs or whatever the change is under Investing in Our Schools, according to the guidelines—and this has happened more often than not—they must also be members of the Australian Labor Party. There is a serious question—and this is another matter for debate—about whether that is in breach of the Public Service Act because it politicises the Public Service.
When I sat in the back row at Paradise Primary School last year—because I had been disinvited from opening the program at Paradise Primary School—I asked whether the public servant who had been sent along was a member of the Australian Labor Party. I can only assume that he was and that when they passed the invitations around at the department of education in Adelaide to go along to Paradise Primary School to do Christopher Pyne’s job for him they asked, ‘Which of you are members of the Australian Labor Party?’ I assume this fellow put up his hand and he was sent along. We are seeing the government politicising the Public Service and finding out who in the Public Service is a member of the Australian Labor Party and who is not. If you want to open an Investing in Our Schools Program event, you must sign up to the Australian Labor Party or you cannot do it.
1K6
Billson, Bruce, MP
Mr Billson
—No ticket, no start.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr PYNE
—As the member for Dunkley says: no ticket, no start. We are seeing the blatant politicisation of the Australian Public Service. I believe it is in breach of the Public Service Act. That is probably not a matter for debate today under this matter to do with the privileges committee, but it is a matter for another day as to whether the Deputy Prime Minister is in breach of the Public Service Act. So there are two demonstrable changes between the Investing in Our Schools Program of 2007 and the Investing in Our Schools Program of 2008.
Mr Speaker, I heard what you said in your report to the House on privileges but I must say that on this occasion we disagree with you. We very rarely disagree with you but we do on this occasion. We believe that this does warrant a referral to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests. We believe that the inalienable right of members of parliament for 108 years has been to attend events such as openings at schools in their electorates when there are federal funds involved. I have been a member of this House for 16 years and I have attended hundreds of school events and programs. No-one had ever suggested that I could not be there to open a federally funded event in my own electorate until the government changed in 2007.
The Deputy Prime Minister puts on her smug, snarly smile, which she has perfected in this House, as though we do not know what we are talking about. There were Labor state governments for most of the time the Howard government was in power. This is exactly the process that they undertook for state project openings and events, and we used to complain about it even then. Federal members would turn up and find state Labor people or public servants opening events in our electorates when members of parliament should have been doing it.
The member for Hinkler wrote to me—a letter that you have, Mr Speaker—giving us a good example in his electorate where funding of $123,000 was being used at the Coalstoun Lakes State School west of Bundaberg. They were spending the money on tubular steel playground equipment, a T-shaped shed, reverse cycle air-conditioning and a storage and assembly area. He had been involved in securing those funds for the Coalstoun Lakes State School. When the member for Hinkler turned up to the opening, the principal shamefacedly informed him—he was embarrassed, I am sure, because I am sure he knows the member for Hinkler well after all the member’s years of service; Mr Neville is also a class of ’93 member—that he could not do the opening; that he would have to let somebody else do it. The principal ended up doing it because he had been instructed by the government not to allow the member for Hinkler to do his job as a member of parliament. But it is an inalienable right of this parliament.
I have another very recent example, from the member for Ryan, of the opening, at the Middle Park State School, of an Investing in Our Schools Program project. He was sent an email from the Branch Manager of Infrastructure, Funding and Coordination in the National Education System group in the Deputy Prime Minister’s Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. In that email, she confirmed that the member would not be able to open the event at the Middle Park State School in Ryan because, according to the 2008 guidelines, ‘An Australian government representative is a member of the Labor Party.’
We are seeing a classic example where the member for Ryan has been denied the opportunity to fulfil his tasks as a member of parliament. In 2009 the Labor Party say, ‘If you are not Labor, you are not really a fully fledged member of the parliament.’ We know that they basically do not have any great attachment to the democratic traditions of the Westminster system. That was on full display yesterday in the pathetic attempts by the member for Hunter to defend his incompetence as the Minister for Defence. We know that they have only a cursory attachment to the democratic principles that have underpinned this parliament for the last 108 years. And this cannot be allowed to stand. Members on this side of the House will not stand by and see their right to serve their electorates infringed upon. Their electorates expect it—the schools, the governing councils, the parents and friends, the local community groups, the Scout groups and all the others. Where will this stop, when members of parliament are not able to do their jobs as local members? We cannot allow our own constituencies to be let down. We cannot give way to unelected public servants who are members of the Australian Labor Party, which is apparently the only qualification that is required to do an opening—
1K6
Billson, Bruce, MP
Mr Billson
—A recruitment drive.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr PYNE
—It is a recruitment drive, as the member for Dunkley says. We cannot allow those people to fulfil the tasks that we were elected to do and that our constituents expect us to do. We feel very strongly about this motion. It will be strongly supported on this side of the House. We have not even touched on the extraordinary Building the Education Revolution guidelines because that is not a matter for debate today. It will become a matter for debate in the future. We will not let this matter rest. We will return to it again and again.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! During the member for Sturt’s speech he indicated that he wished to table a document. He requires leave to table a document. Is leave granted?
Leave not granted.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Is the motion seconded?
KV5
Neville, Paul, MP
Mr Neville
—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
1939
09:36:00
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion
1
0
Ms GILLARD
—I know that the member for Sturt is trying hard in his new position as Manager of Opposition Business but I think he has missed his true calling, which would be as a teller of Australian fiction, because the story he has just put to the House is exactly that—a story. There are no facts behind it and the only thing that is fuelling it is the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party when it comes to this matter.
Let us calmly go through the facts, not the hysterical rantings that we have heard so far. Fact No. 1: the Howard government had a program called Investing in Our Schools. The then Prime Minister, John Howard, brought that program to an end by way of a press release. The then minister for education, Julie Bishop, in and around the time of the 2007 election, said that the Howard government, if re-elected, would remain committed to an Investing in Our Schools Program. But when the Liberal Party submitted their Charter of Budget Honesty figures, they did not put any money next to the program. So a frequent misrepresentation from the Liberal Party is that, if they had been in government, Investing in Our Schools would have continued—not true.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Rubbish!
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—Yelling abuse does not change the facts, member for Sturt.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne interjecting—
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—I did not interrupt you. As a man who has just been carrying on about the Westminster tradition, you should know that allowing someone to have their say is a part of that. All of this is going to hurt the member for Sturt because it punctures the story he has been telling over the last few days. Fact No. 2: the Investing in Our Schools Program always came with guidelines. Those guidelines had a few iterations but they always provided that it was the Australian government that would be contacted for arrangements in relation to the opening ceremony. To directly quote:
If an opening ceremony is required schools are advised that they must:
These are the words of the Liberal Party, the Howard government—
i. before organising an official opening, contact the IOSP Liaison Officer in the Parliament House Office of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Science and Training … to arrange the Australian Government’s participation;
ii. provide the Minister with at least two months prior notice of any openings and public events relating to the projects;
… … …
iii. make provision in the official proceedings for the Minister or their representative to speak.
The arrangements of the Liberal government were as follows: contact a public servant stationed in the office of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Science and Training, who was then Mr Farmer; Mr Farmer, with that public servant, would arrange an Australian government representative; and there needed to be notice requirements to the minister. We are using these guidelines. We are using them in relation to Investing in Our Schools projects. Nothing has changed in relation to that—nothing. The guidelines are the same. Any representation to the contrary is untrue, made up, fanciful and perhaps deceitful.
I will take the House to the memo that the member for Sturt has referred to, a memo put out by this government, because the purpose of that memo is a very interesting one. When I was elected as minister, because of the rigorous requirements of the Liberal Party that their members get political credit for the Investing in Our Schools Program and that there be a ceremony in relation to each Investing in Our Schools Program grant, we were faced with a circumstance where there were 22,000 opening ceremonies that needed to occur. The Liberal Party had organised an orgy of self-congratulation around the country.
I came to the conclusion—and that is why this memo went out—that maybe we would like schools to teach children rather than spend their days rolling out 22,000 ceremonies for the Liberal Party’s orgy of self-congratulation. So I issued this memo—it was put out by the department, but obviously I take responsibility for it. This memo went out to put into place the new advice to schools that, for a series of minor Investing in Our Schools Program grants, they did not have to have an opening ceremony and they could consolidate opening ceremonies. To cut down on the number of opening ceremonies, instead of having one for each individual grant, they could have just one for the whole suite of projects that had gone into the school. I stand behind that. That was the right thing to do.
What else happened when this memo went out? We do not have the situation where departmental officers sit in my office the way they used to sit in Mr Farmer’s office organising these opening ceremonies. We thought it was appropriate that those functions be organised by the department. So the other reason for putting out this memo is to say: ‘In the past you have rung into a Liberal Party politician’s office in relation to your Investing in Our Schools Program ceremonies. We don’t want you to do that. We want you to deal with the department.’ Obviously schools deal with the department very frequently. That is why the guideline was here to ask schools to deal with the department.
All of these guidelines are about who officiates at the opening ceremony, who represents the Australian government. The member for Sturt has tried to pretend that somehow when the Liberal Party were in office it was common for them, out of the goodness of their heart, to allow a member of the opposition to be that government representative. That is completely and utterly untrue. The member for Adelaide was telling me the other day about a ceremony in her electorate which was officiated by a state Liberal member of parliament whose electorate was not even in that area. I have been told by the member for Shortland that she was invited to a ceremony and the then Liberal government caused it to be cancelled. I have been told by the member for Chifley about a ceremony officiated at not by a state Liberal member but by a state Liberal member’s staffer—a political staffer. The Liberal Party would have dragged anybody out of any corner of the planet that suited their political interests rather than let a Labor member officiate at one of these ceremonies. So let us not hear this hypocrisy and cant from the member for Sturt.
Mr Speaker, if the member for Sturt had indeed listened to your ruling, he would have heard that what first brought these matters to the attention of this parliament was a complaint from the then Labor member for Swan that he had been excluded from a Green Corps announcement in his electorate under a similar sort of process. That complaint was made to the then Liberal Party member who was Speaker at the time—and I do not mean to impugn him in any way, but obviously it is a matter of fact that he was a Liberal Party member when the Howard government was in office. So let us not listen to any of the cant that we have heard from the member for Sturt. It is hypocrisy writ large in capital letters.
The member for Sturt has deliberately and craftily tried to confuse the difference between officiating at a ceremony as a representative of the Australian government and attending a ceremony. It is a question of who speaks on behalf of the Australian government as opposed to who is in attendance. The member for Sturt, the member for Gilmore and others have been saying we are somehow stopping people from going to the schools. Ridiculous! If you go to the departmental website and look at the frequently asked questions about Investing in Our Schools ceremonies, you will see the question, ‘Whom else can I invite to an opening ceremony?’ It says:
Schools are welcome to invite any member of parliament, federal or state, as a guest to an opening ceremony to acknowledge Australian Government funding and the achievements of the school with the local community.
So the guidelines are about who officiates—
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—The guidelines say they must not.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—I did not interrupt you, Member for Sturt—a man who says he cares about democracy and clearly does not. The guidelines are about who speaks at a ceremony—who officiates on behalf of the Australian government—not who can attend.
The member for Sturt has raised the question of who can attend ceremonies at schools. I want the member for Sturt and every Liberal member in this House to understand this. Schools will be able to invite Liberal Party members to Investing in Our Schools launches and they will be able to invite Liberal Party members to Building the Education Revolution launches. Do you know what? I hope they do. I hope they invite every Liberal member of parliament. When a school is opening a new building that this government has funded, I hope every parent and every teacher stands in a queue and asks the Liberal Party member there why they oppose them having that facility. That is what I hope happens. I hope you are all continually there, day after day, being asked why you voted against the schools in your electorates getting those benefits.
I conclude by saying this: under the Howard government, we used to have the phenomenon of members being lions in their electorates but lambs when they came to Canberra. They would stalk around their electorate saying, ‘I don’t believe in selling Telstra.’ That was always a classic. Then they would come here to the Liberal party room and say: ‘Eek, eek, eek! John Howard wants me to sell Telstra.’ But now, of course, we are seeing the reverse: they are lions here in the parliament. They shout abuse about Building the Education Revolution. They vote against it. Their most senior spokespeople describe it as ‘ridiculous’, ‘poor quality spending’ and so on. They are lions here, but in their electorates they are lambs trying to work out how they can get themselves in the photo when a building is opened. Political decisions have political consequences, and you made one by voting against the Building the Education Revolution program. I hope every member of the Liberal Party is at every opening explaining that.
1942
09:48:00
Neville, Paul, MP
KV5
Hinkler
NATS
0
0
Mr NEVILLE
—I open by saying that the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement is false. It is not about what Chris Pyne said; it is the unmitigated truth. It happened to me personally. Fancy going to a country school that has had the most basic of facilities installed and having the principal say to you: ‘Paul, I’m terribly upset about this, but you can’t open it, mate. I’m sorry, you’re not allowed to unveil the plaque.’ Or worse still: ‘You may speak briefly.’ And within a couple of weeks the same thing happened again.
Government members interjecting—
KV5
Neville, Paul, MP
Mr NEVILLE
—What about the Westminster system, which allows everyone to be heard in silence? After that occasion, it happened again twice. My state member called me up and said, ‘You weren’t at the opening of such-and-such the other day.’ I said, ‘I wasn’t invited.’ ‘Yes,’ he said, ‘I know you weren’t. I went to the management of this particular Job Network and they said they were instructed not to invite you.’ As recently as last Sunday, outside church, one of the Green Corps committee came up to me and said: ‘Paul, we’ve been told not to invite you next Thursday, but please come along. You will be acknowledged and honoured.’ That is disgraceful. The tit-for-tatting that colleagues on both sides are going on with demeans us as members of parliament. However, this does not happen in all portfolios. I must say out of fairness that I have been treated with great courtesy by Minister Albanese and Parliamentary Secretary Gray.
Government members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Those on my right should contain themselves.
KV5
Neville, Paul, MP
Mr NEVILLE
—Mr Speaker, with two speakers having been heard in relative silence, and with me being the subject of the motion, I find it quite unfair that I do not have the right to put my case.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Hinkler has the call.
KV5
Neville, Paul, MP
Mr NEVILLE
—I was saying that we are demeaning ourselves as politicians. I also said that Minister Albanese and Parliamentary Secretary Gray have treated me with inordinate courtesy at all times and have had me at openings. I acknowledge that publicly. What a pity it is that that bipartisanship and decency does not extend to all portfolios. For those on both sides who think it is smart to do those sorts of things, and who have done so in the past, all it does is diminish us as politicians. When I went out to that little school we talked about, the topic of conversation after the opening—and it was opened by the principal, for heaven’s sake!—was: ‘What a dreadful thing they did to our local member.’ So anyone who thought that they were silencing me or getting some political advantage did the exact opposite.
Let me put this on the record: any minister, parliamentary secretary or officer of the parliament who comes to my electorate will be treated with great courtesy. I will acknowledge them, I will move votes of thanks and I will do whatever is required of me when they are there. In fact, I will meet them at the airport and, if they are short of a feed before they go back, I will take them to lunch. I acknowledge that we should never underestimate the value of having a minister or parliamentary secretary, from whichever side is in power, visit our electorates. So I give a guarantee: if any minister, parliamentary secretary or officer of the parliament comes to my electorate, they will be treated with great courtesy. But let me warn you: if anyone demeans the office of this parliament by ignoring me or by sending some minor official or by having a principal or some apparatchik open a building, I will make it totally uncomfortable for them and I will make a political issue of it.
Let me also say this: I think it would be a good idea if, perhaps through the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests, we sat down in a bipartisan way and wrote guidelines on this for the future. I acknowledge that it has happened on both sides of the parliament, but I find this appalling. I do not play the sort of games in my electorate that we have talked about in this parliament this morning, and I have pledged to act properly and in keeping with the high standards of this House. Every time we do one of these dodgy deals, we diminish ourselves as a parliament and we do an insult to the people of this country.
1943
09:55:00
Windsor, Antony, MP
009LP
New England
IND
0
0
Mr WINDSOR
—I agree with the final comments that the member for Hinkler made. I do think we demean this place when these games are played. But there is a great deal of hypocrisy in the current motion before the House. If anybody was a victim under the previous government of the very things that the member for Sturt is talking about, it was me—and there were many others. I find it extraordinary to use the example of Investing in Our Schools, because it was a great and very fair program that the school system responded to well. The only problem that ever occurred with that particular program, in my view, was when it was used for political advantage at these ridiculous openings, when orders and instructions were given that various members of the parliament were not to be invited or encouraged to attend.
This is embarrassing, as the member for Hinkler said, to the schools. It does reflect badly on the process. In fact, when these things are politicised, what happens is that the reaction in the community is the opposite of what was intended. I would encourage the minister, and other ministers, to view this as a stupid practice. It backfires every time that it is carried out. I remember one occasion when it was particularly embarrassing to a school in my electorate. The previous government had been invited to officiate, and no-one would attend. So the principal wrote to me as the local member and asked if I would officiate. I said that I was more than happy to. When the government heard that I was going to do the opening, Mr Farmer suddenly appeared on the scene. I am not suggesting that Mr Farmer was sitting there with some sort of insidious program—I think he was being ordered by others on what he should be doing in certain seats—but it was terribly embarrassing for that school community.
The member for Hinkler is right: this place ought to sit down together on this. It is not the government’s money; it is the public’s money. In various electorates the people elect people of different persuasions, and they should be able to attend the various functions that occur. The opposition have come in here very high-handedly on this particular issue, but when they were in government they perpetrated this against me. I remember when the then Minister for Transport and Regional Services and Deputy Prime Minister in the former government said to the people at a meeting concerning aircraft in my electorate that if I attended the meeting he would not say anything. He said that if the member representing the community on a federal issue that reflected on that community attended a meeting with the minister responsible for that issue, he would not say anything. Numerous examples of that activity occurred under the previous regime.
Does everybody remember the flagpole issue? I think that, every time one of these missives went out in my electorate, my vote went up. These absurd directives, with the minister of the day ordering a community into certain protocols for a political advantage—thinking that that would advantage the party concerned—are just a nonsense. The member for Hinkler is quite right: a reverse reaction occurs. I would encourage anybody who is thinking of playing the blame game: please do it in my electorate, because it is very good for votes. People are not dumb. They see the cynicism of political manipulation of programs, particularly the Investing in Our Schools Program. It did not need to be ‘glossified’ politically, because it was a good program in its own right, and people respected that. When it was politicised, people started to disrespect the people who were pushing the politicisation. So the reverse occurs in terms of what these politicised processes are intended to do.
I think the member for Sturt is recognising a few points that really do need to be fleshed out, because there are some missives and directives out there in the community that might be encouraging. If there is a grey area then kill it, because it is not worth having. It achieves nothing. In fact, when people of various political persuasions do attend these functions, the community respect the policy and the program far more than when there is some sort of politicised process or when someone whom no-one knows travels in from outside the electorate to read a speech from the minister and then flies out again.
Question put:
That the motion (Mr Pyne’s) be agreed to.
10:05:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
63
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.E.
Broadbent, R.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Farmer, P.F.
Forrest, J.A.
Gash, J.
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.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Mirabella, S.
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.
Vale, D.S.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
75
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
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.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
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.
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.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Swan, W.M.
Symon, M.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Vamvakinou, M.
Zappia, A.
* denotes teller
Question negatived.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMENDMENT (INTEGRATED PUBLIC NUMBER DATABASE) BILL 2009
1945
Bills
R4062
Second Reading
1945
Debate resumed from 23 February, on motion by Mr Albanese:
That this bill be now read a second time.
1945
10:12:00
Billson, Bruce, MP
1K6
Dunkley
LP
0
0
Mr BILLSON
—The Telecommunications Amendment (Integrated Public Number Database) Bill 2009 is a piece of legislation that the coalition supports. The Liberal and National parties will cooperate and support the bill and do what we can to bring about the goals of this bill, although the parliament needs to be realistic about what this bill actually does. The bill is a key input to an early warning system, examples of which are being trialled and developed in the different state and territory jurisdictions. This bill will not of itself bring about a nationally coordinated early warning system to deal with disasters and emergencies, but it is a key input. It is a key input in that it makes a very important database available to those who are developing and implementing those systems. It does that by amending the Telecommunications Act 1997 to allow access by an emergency management person, as authorised by the Commonwealth Attorney-General, to the information contained in the integrated public number database. The IPND is not something that many people would be aware of. It is actually a bringing together of telephone numbers and their addresses for billing purposes, both for fixed line and mobile services. It is available from Telstra and is managed and supervised at this time by Telstra. It has a very important role in enabling communications competition and access to a single integrated telecommunications system, recognising that there is a range of service providers and users.
That database contains very crucial information. At the moment, the law provides for access to the database primarily for law enforcement authorities, and state and territory governments can access it. There is a narrow definition under which access can be provided. At the present time, as I mentioned, it is largely used for law enforcement purposes, but it has been used in part and on some occasions for the purpose for which it is being facilitated today. A couple of things need to be said. Firstly, this database is key. Access to it is crucial but it is a key input to the goals that this bill seeks to pursue. Secondly, the idea that it can be accessed is one that we all support. We also recognise that the range of circumstances for which access can be provided will vary, and that is certainly something that will be discussed at greater length.
The other thing that this legislation does is extend the lawful scope of the reasons for which the database is accessed beyond a fairly narrow definition at the moment—that is, to lessen a serious or imminent threat—to a broader definition of an emergency which enables its use for warning purposes. The Attorney-General’s role, as the Commonwealth go-to person in relation to gaining access, is to make sure that there is a legitimate need for an emergency service responder to have access and that the proper safeguards are in place to make sure this valuable database, which is a very crucial database, is not used for other purposes, either within the agencies themselves or by secondary disclosure. There are criminal penalties of up to two years imprisonment for inappropriate disclosure, which I think is entirely appropriate.
The thing that we need to talk about, though, is how it will be used. The integrated public number database, as I said, is a crucial input to an emergency warning system, but there is work to be done to make an early warning system operational. As many in this parliament know, and as members of the public are aware, this has been a subject of some debate for a number of years. What is at the heart of this is just how to use it. Since 2004, when the previous government, through COAG and other avenues, thought about making sure that this database was available and that work progressed on the establishment of a nationally consistent early warning system, there has been some discussion and some disagreement about what that system should look like, how it is managed and how it is paid for. What we in this parliament all agree on, though, is that this system is needed. I believe we all support the idea of a nationally consistent approach, and we all believe that those involved should get on with it. In my view, and from discussions with the Attorney-General, there probably is a pile of documentation in Commonwealth and state departments that you could barely climb over about the difficulties in getting what is essentially a perfectly simple, straightforward idea into operation. There is a need for, I would say, mutual adjustment, greater collaboration and a greater urgency in overcoming a number of technical and, in some cases, not terribly significant difficulties in giving effect to the goals that this database seeks to pursue.
I believe that there is goodwill on all sides of this parliament and across the country to get on with that work, and I urge officials and those in positions of authority to go about that collaborative work to make it happen. The Commonwealth is rightly ensuring that it cannot be seen to be holding up that work, and this bill seeks to make sure that a key input is available. But more work is required. I endorse the remarks in the second reading speech, delivered by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, pointing out the urgent need to get on with the implementation and the bringing into operation of an early warning system. The bill canvasses a number of things—and quite rightly so—within the Commonwealth jurisdiction. I have touched on the issue of having the database available, the need to broaden the circumstances under which it can be lawfully used and the way in which privacy and other important safeguards are put in place. It also takes account of what we can learn from the use of the database by requiring those who exercise the database to activate some kind of telephonically based emergency warning to report on their experiences both to the Attorney-General and to the Australian Communications and Media Authority. That second element with the Australian Communications and Media Authority recognises that the telecommunications infrastructure is at the heart of bringing this idea into operation. The way in which an early warning system is developed and activated can have enormous bearing on the way in which our telecommunications systems function. In fact, the telecommunications infrastructure itself needs to be taken into account in the design of those systems.
The Liberal-National Party strongly support this bill, and we offer our assistance, our cooperation and our support for the goals it seeks to pursue. But it is not just about the work of this parliament. Earlier, I touched on the history of this matter and how it dates back to COAG discussions in 2004. Even at that time, the idea of having the database available was overwhelmingly supported by those whom the restrictions involved, but it was also recognised that there was some work still to be done on implementing a nationally consistent system. The COAG documentation from the April 2004 meeting recognises that natural disasters were investigated—the way in which we as a nation could respond to them—and, in large part, this was prompted by bushfire mitigation and management reporting after the horrendous fires in Canberra. What we have seen is that these bushfire threat warnings were recognised as being able to add something to the tool kit available to the emergency responders and that the goal of having some kind of standardised emergency warning system was something that should be pursued. The structure of that system, though, needed much more development, and the expert input was welcomed and taken on board.
We have seen some discussion of the way in which various government agencies would bring their input to the task—the way those responding to threats would bring their expertise to recognising where a danger may exist—and then what the nature of the warning should look like. We have heard how the Bureau of Meteorology and other agencies had input that was also crucial in the formulation of responses, including not only the need to activate a ban and its character but some standardisation of the advice that is provided so that people receiving it know what to do. There was a shared commitment to move forward through the Australian Emergency Management Committee to develop draft guidelines to use for a standard emergency warning signal when lives and properties are threatened. Some time has elapsed and the Attorney-General—in fact, attorneys-general from both sides of this parliament—has shared with me the recognition that quite an amount of interaction followed from that day.
Where we had got to in 2008 was a need to really move things forward. The proposition of a nationally consistent community emergency warning system was again recognised as being the desirable way forward, and some of the differing points of view from state and territory agencies were again aired, the issue being that we really needed to get on with it. As late as October 2008, COAG again signalled that there was some urgency in moving forward and again referred to a nationally consistent telephone based community emergency warning system. That nationally consistent system is the goal. This bill makes available a key input to achieving that goal, but we in this parliament should recognise that more work is required and give our support and our encouragement to those state and territory and other officials who are involved in the development of that work. There are some differences in views across the continent about what that system should look like and how it should work. But we all share the view that we need to get on with it, and this bill before the parliament represents a clear statement that all that the Commonwealth is able to do is being done and that we need to collaborate with other jurisdictions to achieve the goal of a nationally consistent early warning system.
The devastating bushfires in Victoria are a tragic reminder of the havoc that can be wrought by nature. We are firmly of the view that all steps should be taken by all levels of government to reduce the risk of such devastation occurring again and to make sure that people are as well prepared as they can be to deal with the disasters, emergencies and risks that may confront them. We on the coalition side again express our deep sympathy to the victims of the bushfire crisis and reassure the Australian public that we will do all we can to assist the communities to rebuild and recover.
In addition, we need to make it clear that there is a bipartisan commitment in the Com-monwealth parliament to get on with the work of putting this emergency warning system in place. Since these most recent horrific disasters there have been further public statements in support for the idea of a national early warning system and its important role in communicating to people not only the risks that they may be exposed to but—hopefully—the behaviours that we feel those potentially affected should undertake. This bill does not go into the detail of that system, but I put on record the coalition’s view that developing that system and making it operational is something we all need to work collaboratively toward.
We know that there have been some examples of systems being trialled in jurisdictions across Australia. In my own state of Victoria—and I should recognise that Victoria has been one of the strongest advocates for a nationally consistent warning system—that sentiment has been put into effect by trialling a fixed phone line system in 2005 and by more recent testing looking at other technologies. I know that Western Australia has also been actively pursuing a system which the Western Australian government believes suits its purposes. Through those trial exercises a number of obstacles have been identified—they can and need to be overcome.
One of the things that we are also mindful of is the recent hot spell in South Australia, where again we saw an example of the system being utilised. The South Australian government collaborated with at least one of the carriers, Telstra, to send a one-off heat stress message that was distributed by SMS. Many people in this parliament would be aware that extreme heat events can cause the risk of heat stress or heat injury which can be fatal or extraordinarily debilitating. A message was put out to mobile phones via SMS in South Australia as a community service and as a public health initiative.
In that exercise Telstra collated data about mobile phones that had reported to its base stations over the preceding couple of days. That was one way of collecting data not linked to the physical address for which a service is billed but actually trying to take account of the mobility of the Australian community and the mobile phone technology which may see someone in a far different part of this vast country or in another part of the state, well away from where the billing address may be recorded for their mobile phone. The system actually soaked up those numbers and then used that collection of mobile phones reporting to Telstra’s base stations to send out this public health message. That seems a good idea. What we do know though is that in some cases people were well outside South Australia. There were reports of heat stress warnings being received by people in other countries, and there was one example that I am particularly familiar with where that message did not come through until seven or eight hours later and was received in the middle of the night when most of the heat stress risk had passed.
These are some practical examples that need to be recognised and factored into the planning for a nationally consistent system. But this bill itself does not claim or seek to set up that system holus-bolus; it seeks to ensure that a crucial input is available, which is this IPND—a master telephone database for telephony devices, both landline and mobile, linked to their billing address—and I have touched on an example of where that may present some shortcomings.
The coalition has been actively pursuing the early warning system and has, as I illustrated earlier, sought to give effect to that goal through COAG. But the national system remains the goal, notwithstanding the good work and the progress being made by individual states and territories. The idea of recognising the different telephone technologies is something that needs to be addressed, particularly as we saw with these recent bushfires in my state of Victoria, where often there are areas frequented by visitors—daytrippers and the like—whose billing address for their fixed line or their mobile service is well and truly away from the areas of concern. Indeed, I recounted some of the story of a personal friend, David, in the parliament earlier. He was at his farm in Yarck and feeling very isolated in that the mobile phone system would not carry voice calls. We were sending him information via text message, and that would work its way through, but the congestion on the mobile phone system seemed to be an impediment. That is one of the reasons why ACMA needs to be involved in this exercise. Having a mass broadcast message go out over the telephony system risks clogging up that system for emergency 000 calls, and ensuring that the 000 emergency response calls can still find their way through what may be a very congested telecommunications system is something that needs to be taken into account in a design sense and also in making the idea operational. That is why I welcome and recognise ACMA’s valuable input in that role.
The other thing that we need to talk about is different kinds of messaging. This system is often characterised as an electronic doorknock or a reverse 000 system—or a reverse 911 system, as it is described in the United States. If you are in your home and you have a fixed-line service and the infrastructure supports the use of that fixed line then it will serve some purpose. But, as we have seen with recent events, particularly in high-fire-risk areas where there may be shortcomings in the telecommunications system anyway, relying on a single technology and hoping that it has the reach and the range that is needed is something that certainly needs to be revisited. That is why there is a need for the collaboration that I referred to earlier, not just between the governments of the Commonwealth, states and territories and their agencies but between the many other service providers, including the ABC, whose valuable contribution has been referred to by colleagues in this place as part of the condolence motion.
The other question to touch on is what constitutes an emergency. We have had vivid examples in recent weeks of fire threat, and people would of course automatically see that as a circumstance that would warrant a warning notification. Floods, cyclones and the like are other examples. I note that other countries’ systems—for example, codeRed in the United States—actually go further to talk about hazardous chemical leaks, missing children, issues around explosions or even an ongoing criminal event that represents a risk to people. Those systems can then be used for other purposes. That is why there is a need to have a conversation and sort out the differences between the states and territories over just what constitutes the kind of emergency that warrants the notification and what that notification would look like so that the receivers of that information actually know what is expected of them in light of that advice.
I draw from my involvement in chairing the Australian delegation on the Indian Ocean tsunami early warning system. We went to Thailand just days after that horrendous tragedy and saw not only how important it is to get the technology right but also how important it is to get the art of communication right—that is, communication conveying meaning. The recipient needs to know what to do and how to make sense of the messages they receive. That was seen as equally important as getting the message out there so that the community’s behaviour was informed and activated by the message. So any kind of comprehensive system needs to take its audience into consideration so that when a warning is put out people know what it means. If there are escalations in warnings, people need to know what each one represents. To support that notification system we need public education and advice about what they mean.
We can look to other areas within our own country—for example, the very extensive system in downtown Sydney. That functionality enables voice communication and the like and very explicit and situationally relevant advice for an area of this vast continent. That degree of sophistication is helpful, but it obviously has with it some very significant cost implications. Trying to get a nationally consistent system that fits the purpose for our continent and the circumstances in which we may need to exercise it needs to be worked through very carefully.
I would again like to acknowledge the Victorian Emergency Services Commissioner, Bruce Esplin. He has been very consistent about the need for a nationally consistent system and the need, as recognised by the Attorney-General, for a national dialogue to bring about the practices that would accompany that system. I recognise the Victorian government’s ongoing work and commitment to this goal—a goal which we at least have clarity on through this bill today.
Even as recently as the last few days in Senate estimates we have again seen a reaffirmation that a more integrated national approach to emergency management or a national emergency plan to deal with catastrophic disasters would optimise efforts and address fundamental gaps such as the lack of an effective arrangement to deliver community warnings. Again, there is this national consistency theme emerging and a recognition that the telecommunications network is a part of that. In the government’s second reading speech in support of this bill, it has hung out the carrot that, if such national consistency can emerge, additional resources will be made available to help put in place those arrangements. That is something that the opposition welcomes. Again, we reiterate our encouragement to those involved in the detail and in the dialogue of setting up a nationally consistent system. We urge them to move forward thoughtfully to achieve that goal.
The other issues that emerge are about operation management. In recent weeks I have read with interest how in Georgia in the United States questions are being asked about why a system like the one described, which was in place in the counties affected by a tornado, was not actually activated. Those issues around the operation and management of the system are very important.
The other issue is the technology that is utilised—and we have talked about that briefly and the need for the IPND to be a key input—and the need to look beyond the billing address link to the fixed-line and mobile service and to recognise that mobile phones may be a long way from their home. That is something that needs to be addressed in the design of the system. My friend and colleague the member for Gippsland in his contribution on 23 February touched on just how important reliable information is to people faced with the dangers of an emergency like the bushfire that caused such devastation in his electorate and how there is a need to integrate that with other communications technologies and devices. The member for Mayo in his contribution on the condolence motion again talked about the urgency of getting in place a nationally consistent early warning system and just what kind of conditions might lead to its activation. My friend and colleague, for whom the parliament shares a great admiration, the member for McEwen also made reference to the need to get on with developing and implementing this system, and quite rightly drew attention to the capability of the communications infrastructure to deliver the messages that are put out over that system.
I wonder whether it is timely for the government, given the difficulty it is having with the National Broadband Network tender, to revisit the OPEL project, which I think would add something in terms of the capability of the communications system in the areas that are currently underserviced by telecommunications infrastructure. I think that the OPEL project would be an important step forward in making sure that the hardware at least is in these areas to support the implementation of the system.
Finally, in the few minutes I have available I want to touch on the other part of the bill. The bill includes a second part beyond the IPND’s use for emergency management systems; it will be available for some of the call-routing technologies that are currently used in the phone system. This is for location-dependent carriage services where the location of a caller is recognised and then, because of that location, the call is routed to a particular destination. Currently, that behaviour is going on but there is some uncertainty about the lawful basis for it, in that there is a licence provision saying it is appropriate but not an explicit legislative provision to authorise its use. The bill has a part that clarifies that point. The legislation respects the fact that the current arrangements provide that unlisted, silent and mobile numbers are not part of that arrangement. That respect will continue, but the bill does clarify those points.
With those remarks, I again emphasise the coalition’s support for this bill. The Liberal and National parties are very keen to see an emergency management notification and warning system operationalised in a nationally consistent way across the continent. We offer our support to the government and whatever assistance we can provide. We urge those involved to overcome some of the territorial issues, technical debates and jurisdictional impediments. We need the best of all of us to get this system in place and get it in place urgently. We all recognise the benefits that would flow from it. I commend the bill to the House.
1951
10:39:00
Bidgood, James, MP
HVM
Dawson
ALP
1
0
Mr BIDGOOD
—I rise to speak in favour of the Telecommunications Amendment (Integrated Public Number Database) Bill 2009. I welcome the bipartisan agreement that we have in this House on this bill because of the importance and the nature of its composition, particularly in light of recent events concerning the bushfires in Victoria and the floods in Northern Queensland. The Telecommunications Amendment (Integrated Public Number Database) Bill 2009 amends the Telecommunications Act 1997 to allow information contained in the integrated public number database, known as IPND, to be disclosed for the provision of telephony based emergency warnings and for the supply of location dependent carriage services, known as LDCSs.
Emergencies by their very nature are unexpected. Not everyone is listening to the radio, watching TV or surfing the internet. Calling people is the most direct way to contact as many people as possible to provide the information they need in a time of emergency. The integrated public number database is an industry-wide database of all residential and business phone numbers, both listed and unlisted, and associated subscriber information, including name and address information. The IPND was established and is maintained by Telstra as a condition of its carrier licence. Given the personal nature of the information contained in the IPND, such as telephone numbers, names and addresses, the access to the information in the IPND is strictly limited under the Telecommunications Act. This bill takes privacy seriously.
Section 276 of the Telecommunications Act effectively prohibits the disclosure or use of the IPND information by carriers, carriage service providers or their contractors. An exception to this prohibition permits the release of IPND data on a case-by-case basis, subject to Telstra, the manager of the IPND, coming to a belief on reasonable grounds that the release is reasonably necessary to prevent or lessen a serious or imminent threat to the life or the health of a person. This information is fair, reasonable and responsible. This is not only for a serious emergency; it will allow for emergency warning systems to be tested. This will allow emergency management organisations to be ready to issue telephone based warnings in response to smaller emergencies, such as chemical spills, and larger disasters, such as the recent Victorian bushfires, the floods in Queensland or cyclones in Western Australia or the Northern Territory. In times of emergency, we need to be able to communicate and contact people. Often time is the issue, so a quick response to a situation can be of great benefit to our emergency service workers for the safety of the rescued and also the rescuers.
Information obtained from the IPND may only be used for the purpose of providing warnings about specific emergency events. It is anticipated that these messages will be recorded voice messages providing appropriate advice to telephone subscribers about the nature of the emergency and any recommended actions that are required. A very important issue in this, however, is the protection of the millions of names, addresses and telephone numbers that are listed in the IPND. These will be both listed numbers that are in the telephone book and the unlisted numbers of people wishing to keep their identity and location secret for a range of personal, safety and professional reasons. I stress that this bill has strong privacy requirements and reporting obligations, and penalties of up to two years imprisonment for any unauthorised use or disclosure of the data. This means those who receive information from the IPND and then misuse it—for example, by using it to locate someone for a personal reason or selling the information to a telemarketer—are breaking the law and will potentially go to jail for up to two years.
The government will know when a communication event occurs. Whenever an emergency warning is activated using the IPND information, emergency management persons will be required to report to the Attorney-General and the Australian Communications and Media Authority, known as ACMA, as soon as practicable after each disclosure occurs. Details of these reports will include the nature and the location of the emergency, the number of telephone numbers that were disclosed, the date the disclosure occurred, the number of persons to whom the information was disclosed and the reason it was justified. The intention of these reporting requirements is to allow for any unauthorised use or disclosure of the IPND information by any person to be identified as soon as possible and to enable enforcement action to be undertaken.
In the light of recent events, there has been a lot of soul-searching, although, even with the best intentions in the world to contact people—via telephone, via radio, via the internet—unfortunately it does not guarantee that there will be no loss of life. But we can truly say that, by being prepared, giving fair warning and doing everything we can, we have done as much as possible to prevent any loss of life and limit damage to property.
I was privileged this week to have a presentation from the Bureau of Meteorology. They showed me the satellite photographs of 4 February, looking down on Australia from space, and you could see the huge plumes of the Victorian fires. That was three days before Black Saturday. It is pleasing to know that the Bureau of Meteorology really is owned by the Australian community. I was pleased to find out that there are over 7,000 volunteers across this nation who regularly and willingly supply weather details to the bureau on a consistent, regular and reliable basis to help the bureau in their forecasting and prediction of weather events. That really is the spirit of this nation. When we think about the volunteers who have gone to the Victorian fires—those who have come from overseas and those who have come from all over Australia out of human compassion, kindness and motivation to help their fellow Australians who have suffered so much—it truly has been heart-rending and moving.
The sad thing is that there were certain areas that did not have phone coverage. I know—and I know it is in the hearts of members on both sides of this House—that we are going to do everything we can to rectify that. It is pleasing to know that so many volunteers have mobilised, and part of that mobilisation is the communication through media. I am privileged to know a member of the emergency services here in Canberra who today has given up the opportunity to go to Queensland for his nephew’s 21st birthday party. He is going to spend four days with his volunteer colleagues fighting the fires, which are predicted to get worse this weekend. That is the dedication—that is the heart—of the Australian spirit that is embodied in our volunteers who mobilise selflessly to give help and to help others.
As I said previously, even with the best intentions and the best warning systems in the world—and God knows we need them—we cannot prevent some disasters, like earthquakes, causing widespread devastation. Of course, when we say earthquakes, here in Australia we think of Newcastle. There are many lessons to be learnt there. Also, when the tsunami hit, even with all the warning buoys that are out in the ocean that monitor temperature and wind and wave movements, even with all of those warning systems, it was still difficult to prevent so much loss of life. I recall that, up in Queensland, in the seat of Dawson, a number of years ago a warning was issued to the Premier at the time, Peter Beattie, that there had been an earthquake under the ocean and that a tsunami-like event was going to hit the coast of Queensland. Needless to say, that put everybody on high alert, but the event did not happen. It is better to be warned and for the event not to occur than to have no warning at all.
We as a government and as a nation need to do some serious cost-benefit analysis in investing in our warning systems and services, particularly investing in the Bureau of Meteorology. With the Bureau of Meteorology, along with all the systems that we have available on the internet and the radio, I can honestly say that we have tried and done the best we can to give the best warning. I fully support this bill.
1954
10:54:00
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
SJ4
O’Connor
LP
0
0
Mr TUCKEY
—As previous speakers have informed the House, the coalition supports the Telecommunications Amendment (Integrated Public Number Database) Bill 2009. It will bring benefits to the community by giving people warning of pending disastrous events. However, I have to say that, on a scale of one to 10, there is other legislation that this parliament must address that would rate higher and would have prevented the loss of all of these lives. Perhaps we can get a signal out to people. I hope they will be better than I am at responding immediately to all the SMSs that I receive. I often have to catch up with them two or three days after the event, which in this case would not have done my health much good. But the real question is: should we be warning people of an event that guarantees death and destruction of property or should we be taking steps in this parliament to see that it does not happen? To raise this issue at this point in time is just part of the conspiracy of state based authorities and their vertically integrated fire suppression groups. Once there used to be the bush fire brigades, the fire brigades in the urban areas, and environmentalists over there somewhere. Now that has been vertically integrated and, what is more, in the vertical integration, the environment departments run the shop. They know nothing about putting out fires; they are not even very approving of putting out fires or addressing the fundamental issues. I have with me some very comprehensive information and media comments, over decades, that address this problem.
Having now got through the tragedy of the fire, the valedictories in this place and the memorials, the defensive structure, the smokescreen—excuse the pun—is up to protect the bureaucracies whose public policy has failed, and failed thousands of people, and to divert public opinion away from the one and only thing that will fix the problem. It is interesting that suddenly we are talking about communications. There is nothing wrong with that, but why should we have to be able to inform people about a wildfire—a ‘nuclear’ event—if we have taken provision to make sure it cannot happen?
Then we get into building by-laws. We should remember that a lot of the houses that were blown away on this occasion, and on the occasion some years ago here in Canberra, had survived previous bushfires. Bushfires are, admittedly, part of the Australian ecology. But the houses did not burn down before and they did not blow away. I watched a replay here in the parliament of the ABC’s Q&A program. A historian from Marysville, a lady of some capacity to observe and know, said that there were no flames in this instance in Marysville; everything went black and the houses started blowing up. It was not a case of the fire jumping from this tree to that tree to something else and then catching a house on fire; the houses blew up. There is only one reason for that: the deliberately created fuel that was in the surrounding forests. It created a ‘nuclear’ event, and the heat preceded the flames.
We are talking about building systems and bunkers. We are talking about everything. This is very carefully orchestrated by those who do not want to take the blame and who do not want to change their policy. It is quite interesting that we are talking about building codes all of a sudden. Of course we should talk about building codes, but we do not have to go over the top if we have a safe forest environment. Some people had protective bunkers and survived, but some had them and died. On the matter of arson, of course it is to be condemned, but we will catch the last arsonist the day we will catch the last drug dealer. It is a fact of the problem; it is a tragedy. Opposite my house there is some open country, with only a row of houses intervening. Last week a bloke went out on a hot day to mow his lawn and he started a fire, which took me by surprise. Is he an arsonist because he chose to mow his lawn at lunchtime in a bit of spare time? Not one word do we hear.
Fran Bailey, the member for McEwen, got up in this place the other day and said, ‘We have got to have fuel reduction,’ and the Prime Minister wobbled all over the place about it. Let me tell you, in the Canberra fires so did the then Prime Minister. The states get them frightened. The states have made bad mistakes that have killed people, yet they are already putting up—excuse the pun again—a smokescreen so as not to do anything else. Consequently, the parliament should be dealing today with legislation that obliges the states and private forestry owners—everybody affected—to keep their forests a safe environment.
It is going to cost them a lot of money if, all of a sudden, they have 80 bulldozers working somewhere. Russell Broadbent said to me last night that the fire front in Victoria was 270 kilometres long and that if the weather reached the intensity that is predicted it would be goodness knows how long. We were never allowed to touch a tree, yet there are 80 bulldozers working in what is left of the Victorian forests. Four hundred thousand hectares are dead and any metre of that soil, I can tell you, will have been sterilised. There will be no seeds left after these intensive fires to allow regeneration.
‘Save the forests,’ they tell us. ‘You have to save them from those dreadful foresters; they cut down a few trees.’ The damage that has been done to the health of the Victorian forests in the last fortnight could not have been achieved by men with chainsaws in a century. Suddenly it is okay to push over trees all over the place for containment lines. The spotting in the last fire was preceding the flames by 20 kilometres, so what sort of a containment line do you need for that? They are always talking up their containment lines; they will not talk about the fundamentals.
I refer the parliament—and I hope those present will get a copy and read it—to Peter Clack’s book Firestorm: Trial by Fire, which is the story of the Canberra fires. It tells it all. Above all, it tells us how the first integrated bureaucracy came to be formed, here in Canberra. A Liberal senator was substantially responsible for it, and you can work out who it was if you like. The president of the country fires section said:
When Humphries became minister with the Liberal Party winning government in 1995, Jeffery tried to undo the amalgamation. ‘I warned him this was going to happen. I begged him but he wouldn’t listen.’ Before the collapse in the council’s role—
that is, the rural firefighting council—
rural landholders had radios, pumps and other equipment that were part of the suppression force. They were discarded and phased out.—
because the environmental groups got control of the system. He went on to say:
The organisation—
meaning the Rural Fire Service—
had to be independent of the bureaucrats, but it went downhill. The way they have ignored the Bush Fire Brigade, they have used parks people over experienced bushfire captains. When I wanted to burn off, a parks officer rang me up and said she wanted to come out and talk it over. It held us up for an hour. It meant it got very hot and we nearly lost half the place.
In 1961 in Western Australia we probably had the first of these ‘nuclear’ events, because European forest management policy was much the same as has been promoted in recent times by green activists. The government of the day did not have to go seeking preferences from minor parties and they introduced the first program of what is known as prescribed burning. For years and years approximately 20 per cent of the forest—whether it was used for forest harvesting or whether it was a reserve—had prescribed burning. The undergrowth was burnt out in a cool burn in exactly the same way Aboriginals had done it for centuries. After the war and with the advent of green activism the campaigns started: ‘You can’t have smoke blowing from these fires. People will get asthma.’ I bet a few of those who died would wish they had only had asthma. The campaigns started and what happened is just as is described in the book—the Perth bureaucracy and the environmental bureaucracy took over.
Some years ago a firefighter and forest manager said to me: ‘We are experienced people, we have our 20 per cent per annum planning for prescribed burning in the forests of WA and we wake up on the perfect morning with all the indicators right for a cool burn. But can we go out and light the fire? No.’ It is five o’clock—they are early risers down there—but they have to wait for the boss to turn up in Perth at nine o’clock. They say, ‘Please, sir, can we start a fire?’ And he says: ‘Well, have you checked this? Have you checked that? Have you checked something else?’ Suddenly it is lunchtime and, to quote Mr Jeffery here in Canberra, it is too late, too dangerous. Consequently, that 20 per cent in Western Australia has dropped to eight per cent.
We are told that it is all too hard—that is another greenies’ defence. ‘Yes, we do not disapprove, but it is very difficult, you know, and it has got to be done scientifically,’ and I will get back to the science in a moment. The reality is that in New South Wales—I have quoted this in parliament previously—the forestry department, in the areas for which they remained responsible, were achieving 20 per cent of cool burns each year. As this was transferred to National Parks and Wildlife in New South Wales, they got that down to 0.5 per cent. Look at the bombs that you would be aware of, Madam Deputy Speaker Vale, that have occurred in New South Wales. Kings Park has been burnt so often it cannot recover.
The reality is that all of the criticism of prescribed burning is an ass. The member for Canning reminded me to check my records of a very good piece of Western Australian research using the grass tree. It has a very technical name but we mostly call it a black boy. They are very ancient trees. Some are hundreds or thousands of years old. They grow very slowly. These people went and looked at the rings in one of these ancient trees; they actually ground off one side of it. They are called black boys because they respond to every fire and their debris, their dead leaves, burn off. It leaves a ring on the trees and you can measure the fires. And you think the Aboriginal people did not know the science of our forests. A very interesting article came into my possession. Josephine Flood states in her book Archaeology of the Dreamtime:
One of the Aborigines’ most important artefacts was the one that is largely invisible to the archaeologist: fire. Much of the vegetation encountered by early white settlers in Australia was not natural but artificial: an Aboriginal artefact created by thousands of years of burning the countryside … Aborigines never put out their fire.
That was confirmed, as I will point out, by Governor Phillip. In December 1642, at the north end of Storm Bay, Tasmania, Abel Tasman wrote:
Amongst the trees, two were remarked whose thickness was two, or two and a half fathoms—
a fathom is six foot, nearly two metres—
and the first branches from sixty to sixty-five feet above the ground … the country was covered with trees; but so thinly scattered, that one might see everywhere to a great distance amongst them … Several of the trees were much burnt at the foot …
It was a parkland environment. Why were the trees so big and so healthy? Because they had space. In this campaign of ‘save the forests’ we let them grow closer and closer together, and anybody knows that if you have got to stir up the fire in the lounge room you push the logs together. That is the other contributing factor. William de Vlamingh sailed up the west coast of Western Australia, right opposite Perth, in January 1697 in the heat of summer. He wrote:
No men were seen but they observed many smokes …
He went all the way to Geraldton, at the northern end of my electorate, and all the way up. In January, the Aboriginals were carrying out burning. Captain Cook, one day’s sailing north of Cape Howe, in the Bega area, wrote:
In the afternoon we saw smoke in several places by which we knew the country to be inhabited.
… … …
After this we made an excursion into the country which we found diversified with wood, lawns and marshes; the woods are free from underwood of every kind and the trees are at such a distance from one another that the whole Country or at least part of it might be cultivated without being oblig’d to cut down a single tree.
I could go on. I mentioned that Governor Phillip made similar remarks. That was the nature of Australia and that was the nature of our forests—forests that became a huge economic resource in the early years of colonisation. Jarrah was cut down in Western Australia to pave the roads of London and of course was used for sleepers under half the railway lines of the world. We were told that if you do that you destroy the biodiversity of the forest. The forest was in perfect health when we arrived. Eventually in Western Australia we learnt the lesson of returning to the Aboriginal practices, which are still being stared down. And this is the threat that we are not addressing.
Back in my period as Minister for Forestry and Conservation, an article about fires appeared, on Monday, 23 April 2001, stating:
The Australian Conservation Foundation attacked Mr Tuckey’s stance, noting that native trees were naturally fire retardant and protecting them was the best means of encouraging local fauna.
I bet the people around Marysville think they are fire retardant! I add that, at the time, I seriously thanked the Conservation Foundation, because in future all we had to do was get a heap of woodchips and dump them on the fire and it would go out, because they are retardant! What body with any credibility in Australia could say that? As I have said, they are ducking and diving now because their policies murdered people, and what have they done? They are saying: ‘Yes, I heard Flannery on the television the other day. Yes, I agree with hazard reduction, but it is very difficult.’ It was not difficult for 300,000 Aborigines—without bulldozers, without helicopters, without anything. They could burn in the middle of summer. Why? Because they constantly maintained that situation.
This government has got to legislate to control all owners of forests so that they maintain those forests as safe environments. The member for McEwen made the point: until they do it, give them no money; give them nothing. The families of the 200-plus people who are dead and the thousands of people who have lost their homes deserve better than having us dancing around the edges on this issue. No fuel, no fire. Then you do not need special houses, then you do not need bunkers and then you do not need to be warned, because the fire is no threat to you personally. They will still exist and they will exist at a level that is pretty impressive, but it will not take people’s lives or blow their houses away, and normal protective suppression measures will do. In that fire, the estimate on the index was 100. Firefighters have got to get out on that index at 2.5. So any of that is a waste of time. The tragedy of me having a ministerial council and being told by state ministers that they were going to do nothing— (Time expired)
1958
11:14:00
Marles, Richard, MP
HWQ
Corio
ALP
1
0
Mr MARLES
—I rise to speak in support of the Telecommunications Amendment (Integrated Public Number Database) Bill 2009. Before I get into the substance of the bill, with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome students in the public gallery from St Pius X Primary School in Dubbo. We really hope that you enjoy your visit to parliament. You are hearing in this chamber a very important debate relating to the establishment of an early warning system for natural disasters. Such a system has obviously received some prominence given the tragic bushfires which occurred in Victoria a few weeks ago.
There has been considerable media attention on the idea of putting in place an early warning system whereby people who reside in an affected area might be rung and provided with a warning about whatever the emergency is and instructions about what they ought to do in relation to that emergency. From the outset it should be said that the Victorian bushfires and the tragedy of that event ought to provide a significant inspiration for all of us in relation to dealing with this issue and to ensuring that this measure, along with every other measure that can be put in place to ensure that a tragedy of that kind never happens again, is implemented as quickly as possible.
The idea of an early warning system is not a new one. It was first kicked around the halls of the Commonwealth government back in 2004. When this government came to power it was a matter that we wanted to pursue with significant priority. In 2008 we referred it to the Council of Australian Governments. The states, the territories and, of course, the Commonwealth spent much of last year trying to reach an agreement about such a system.
The reason we need to have an agreement about such an early warning system is that a number of areas of government fit into it. It is within the sphere of the Commonwealth government to legislate and regulate telecommunications, and the law surrounding telephone numbers is within the purview of the Commonwealth government. On the other hand, emergency responses are largely, although not exclusively, the responsibility of states. Indeed, within states and territories there are very different rules, procedures and agencies which handle emergency responses. So it is actually quite a complex public policy landscape in which we need to work in order to develop the early warning system that we are describing.
It is very important that we work through the issues and reach an agreement about how a system would work. Were we to put in place an early warning system that we had not got right and to suddenly put a significant number of calls into an affected area, there is the potential that we could bring down the telecommunications system and, with it, the 000 number, which would be very counterproductive. So we actually do need to work through the details of what is a pretty complex scheme, and that was being done throughout last year.
There is also complexity at a Commonwealth level. It is the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy who is responsible for the regulation of the telecommunications system. But, to the extent that the Commonwealth does deal with emergency responses, that is handled in the Attorney-General’s Department. So the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and the Attorney-General were both working throughout last year on how we could engage at a federal level with the implementation of an early warning system.
In November of last year an agreement was reached about how to go forward in implementing an early warning system across our country. Since that time, the Attorney-General, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and the states and territories have been working on the details of how the system would operate, which leads us to the introduction of this bill into this House today.
In order to describe the bill, it is important to explain at the outset the broad basis of such an early warning system. The integrated public number database was established by Telstra and is maintained as a condition of its licence. This database contains all the telephone numbers in Australia, both listed and unlisted. It also contains the names of the people to whom those numbers relate, as well as their addresses. This is clearly very sensitive information, so the Telecommunications Act as it stands now provides for very strict rules to ensure that this information is not disclosed for any improper use and that the privacy of this information is strictly maintained. One exception to that currently exists under the act, and that is where Telstra is of the belief that it is reasonably necessary to disclose some of the information on the database in order to prevent or lessen serious or imminent threats to the life or health of a person.
The bill that we are discussing in essence seeks to broaden that exception to apply to not only situations of emergencies and natural disasters but also the situation of testing and building the system for emergencies, which stands to reason. It is important that you do that so that, in the event there is an emergency and you need to deploy the system, it is ready to deploy. The system might apply to very small emergencies—for example, a chemical spill in a very discrete geographical area—or it might apply to much broader emergencies, such as the Victorian bushfires that we experienced a few weeks ago.
That is a very basic description of how the system would work, and the specifics of the bill are as follows. Under this bill, the data on the integrated public number database will be able to be disclosed to a state or territory emergency service organisation to enable them to instigate a telephone based warning. As I said at the outset, as the arrangements and the agencies from state to state vary considerably, the way in which the bill is constructed is to empower the Commonwealth Attorney-General by legislative instrument to specify which organisations can be the recipients of this data. It may be under this bill that the organisations that receive the data will use it individually or they may work jointly across state borders, depending on the nature of the emergency at hand. Clearly, under this bill the data which is provided to these organisations may only be used for warnings for a specified emergency event. What we are talking about will usually be an automated voice message being rung into a particular area to let people know what the emergency is that is affecting them and what they ought to do in response to it.
There are very strict provisions as part of this bill to protect the privacy of the information which will be disclosed in such an emergency. As I said at the outset, we are talking about very sensitive information—both listed and unlisted numbers. The reasons people might have an unlisted number can vary, but the consequences of their unlisted number becoming public in any way can often be very serious. So anyone who receives information from a database under this bill and then discloses it without authorisation or misuses it in any way will be subject to very strict penalties. Indeed, they will be subject to penalties of a custodial nature. If you receive information as part of this early warning system and you misuse it then you could go to jail.
Whenever an authorised disclosure of information from the integrated public number database occurs under this bill, a report is required to be provided to the Australian Communications and Media Authority. That report must detail the nature of the emergency which was the subject of the warning, the number of people who received that warning and what information about them was provided to the organisation that put the warning in place. Having that strict reporting regime provides an evidentiary base to enable prosecutions to occur if there is ever a misuse of the information. If it turns out that information has leaked from the integrated public number database and there is no report of that then that will immediately alert the authorities that something wrong has occurred and the investigation will be able to commence, leading to a prosecution. That reporting regime is a very important part of the bill. Emergency management persons who are the recipients of this data will also be required to provide annual reports to the Australian Communications and Media Authority as well as to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.
Importantly, the bill also provides a requirement that reasonable steps be taken to ensure that both the disclosure and the use of the information from the database will not affect the normal operations of the telecommunications system. This goes to a point that I made at the opening. It is very important that, as a number of inbound calls to a particular region may occur as part of a warning, this does not bring down the system and with it the 000 number, preventing outbound calls from people within that area to the 000 number. Again, this is a very important component of the bill.
The bill is principally about the early warning system, as I have described, but it does do one other piece of housekeeping. Currently, there is a practice whereby some data from the integrated public number database is provided to location dependent carriage services. These are services which provide for the automatic routing of calls to a particular office of a company based on the geography of where that call was made. The kinds of companies which use this particular method are, for example, pizza chains and cab companies. Which office you are connected to will depend on where you are ringing from. This practice is not explicitly dealt with under the Telecommunications Act. It is implicit within the act that that limited use of the database can occur in order to allow this service to occur. This bill will make it explicit in the Telecommunications Act that the use of the database in this way is allowable.
Returning to the main thrust of this bill, the bill will provide the legislative basis at a Commonwealth level for the implementation of an early warning system for emergencies and natural disasters within Australia. I think it is, along with a range of other important public policies, a significant legacy to occur. It is not just from the Victorian bushfires, but I think they ought to be an inspiration to us in dealing with issues of this kind. Certainly the Victorian bushfires make it clear that early warning systems of this kind are so important. It is so important that we develop them. That is why this bill is so important, and it is fantastic that it has bipartisan support in this place. I very much commend the bill to the House.
1961
11:28:00
Chester, Darren, MP
IPZ
Gippsland
NATS
0
0
Mr CHESTER
—I join the member for Corio in his support of the Telecommunications Amendment (Integrated Public Number Database) Bill 2009 and acknowledge that the coalition wishes to cooperate with the government to secure the passage of the legislation as soon as possible. We have all been struck by the images of disaster and the impact of the bushfires across Victoria. We have had some impassioned speeches from members of all sides as they have reflected on the significance of this event where more than 2,000 homes were lost and more than 200 people perished. Many people have spoken in the aftermath of this epic tragedy about the speed and the magnitude of these fires and the lack of warning they had of the fire front approaching them. I think it is important that we as members of parliament do whatever we can to facilitate this bill as soon as possible. I do not see it as a silver bullet or a solution to all the problems we face in relation to the future management and prevention of bushfires, but it is another tool we will be able to use to hopefully reduce the impact of these bushfires in the future, particularly the impact on human lives.
The bill does not particularly canvass the proposal of the early warning system, but it is freely acknowledged that it is seen as an important first step in ensuring that state and territory emergency services providers have access to the information that they require to develop the telephone based warning system. The bill amends the Telecommunications Act 1997 to allow access by an emergency management person, as authorised by the Attorney-General, to information contained in the integrated public number database. It is believed that this will help to facilitate the communication of warnings in emergency situations, such as the bushfires which we have just experienced.
Prior to the 2007 federal election I understand the coalition put the issue of an early warning system on the COAG agenda. Emergency agencies have argued for a national system, although differences between the states and territories over a period of time have delayed the establishment of such a system. I think it is a sign of the goodwill of political leaders on all sides that they have put aside any partisanship on this issue and are moving forward in a manner which I believe is constructive and which will have some practical outcomes for the communities which have been affected not only by these bushfires but by the reality that there will be bushfires in the future, which will threaten our homes and our lives.
A number of technical issues remain outstanding with the database. I will not go into the details now; I think the member for Corio has covered them well. The circumstances under which the IPND can be accessed for a warning will be determined, as I said, by the Attorney-General. It is anticipated that ‘an emergency’ will be defined under existing state and territory legislation.
The bill also provides measures to protect personal information contained in the database, including that subscriber names may not be disclosed by the authorised user or by secondary disclosure. These are important considerations with a system of this magnitude. I endorse the position put by the bill that criminal penalties of up to two years imprisonment will apply for misuse of the data, consistent with existing provisions of the Telecommunications Act. Regardless of the passage of the bill, the coalition does note that the regulations will permit state and territory access to the necessary information immediately, and that is as it should be.
In relation to the broader significance of this bill as a precursor to an early warning system, I would like to make a few comments and feed back to the House some of the information I have received from the fire front and from people at community meetings. Typical of the feedback I have received is an email from a family in Drouin West in the neighbouring seat of McMillan. The family wrote to me and, without divulging the family’s name, I will quote from the email:
I find the need to write to you expressing concern over the lack of warnings available to residents, especially rural residents. Normally, I am at home with my 4 children, and my husband is at work. When I am at home I do not normally have the radio on as I am busy with the children. For the same reason the television is not on. Except for the fact that a neighbor, who normally has no contact with us, bothered to pick up a phone, because they had a member of the family in the CFA and had early warning, there is no way I would know of the danger until it was too late. I’m sure you can understand, that with 4 children (two with a disability), I do not have the luxury of looking out the window to see if there is a fire coming and on this particular day the smoke was going up, before being taken away so even that was not a clue at the time I needed to evacuate. Smoke was of course an issue as the fire became closer but by then it would have been too late to leave.
The email goes on:
There needs to be a faster and more efficient communication system. One that covers the deaf and blind, the elderly, the disabled, the stay-at-home parents, the farmers out in the paddock ... everyone. Please, let this be dealt with urgently.
That is very much feedback from the fire ground, if you like, of a mother. It is probably very typical of a situation in a rural community. She was flat out on that day, 7 February. She had no chance of monitoring the situation and probably had no real inkling of the impending danger in the Drouin West area. I have had similar comments from people in the Gippsland community that they simply did not feel the imminent danger of the fire front and that it was not until the wind changed they realised they might be in a spot of bother. By then, for some, it was too late. Many did flee and successfully got away from the fire front.
The commentary from this mother really reflects the situation we are faced with, where there is an expectation in the community that there will be action on these issues. We need to be mindful that, with that expectation, there is an element of residents becoming more aware—education focused, perhaps—of the circumstances they are living in. We have seen a rapid increase in the number of people relocating to the tree-change areas and the sea-change areas of my electorate in particular. We welcome them with open arms. But we need to ensure that if they have come from a suburban environment they are well aware of the challenges and the potential threats of bushfires during the summer season. We need to be mindful of that in the future.
I have spoken briefly about the technical aspects of this bill, but I think the practical applications of any early warning system will need very careful consideration by all concerned in the implementation phase. It must not be seen as a single solution to the problem. At best, it will be a minor part of a much bigger problem. There are three elements which contribute to these major fire events: a point of ignition, hot windy days and fuel. Quite simply, we will always have points of ignition, whether it be from idiots who light fires, from accidental activity on a farm or from a lightning strike. Similarly, we will always have hot and windy days where the fire risk is off the scale. We cannot do anything about those two circumstances; they are part of the great country we live in. But the one area we can have an impact on is the fuel. We can have a direct impact on the level of fuel and the degree of the intensity of the fires when they do occur.
I fear that we have talked a lot about this issue for many years—decades in fact—and have failed to grasp it properly. The common-sense approach, and the practical feedback from people on the ground, is that we must do more fuel-reduction burning. I have heard many impassioned speeches from members of parliament, but also from residents and emergency services agencies, saying there needs to be a greater prescribed-burning regime, and I refer specifically to the Victorian situation. The high-fuel fires, on extreme weather days, are simply impossible for us to defend. We must do more to reduce the intensity of these fires and buy more time for people. By the time we implement an early warning system, I fear that the horse will have already bolted. Once the fire has started, we are really playing catch-up from then on. The opportunity for us is at the beginning of the process, by reducing the amount of fuel in the environment.
From a Victorian perspective, the chief fire officer, Ewan Waller, is someone whom I not only regard as a personal friend but also hold in the very highest esteem professionally for his career and the contribution he has made to the Victorian public service. I feel a great deal of empathy for Ewan in his position as the chief fire officer responsible for the prescribed burning regime in that I do not think we are providing him with the resources required to carry out the job that is expected of him. Over the past decade in Victoria we have seen a pitiful attempt to reduce the fuel load. We have only burnt in the magnitude of 30,000 to 40,000 hectares per year. I must acknowledge, however, that there has been an increase in the past 12 months to something in excess of 100,000 hectares, which is getting closer to the community expectation of this agency in terms of its fuel reduction effort. I believe we must provide more resources to the agency and to Mr Waller for the work he does to ensure that he can burn on a greater number of days. I completely reject the argument being put that there are so few days on which we can burn safely in Victoria. I believe that there would be far more days on which we could burn if we put resources on the ground to assist in that process. We are going to need to accept that there is an element of risk. If you are burning more frequently, if you are pushing the envelope, so to speak, there will be occasions when there will be escapes, and we need to be tolerant of that and we need to raise the community’s understanding that it is for the good of the community that we have these prescribed burns to reduce the level of fuel in the environment and that it is in their own interests, for the protection of their properties and their families in the future.
That is the feedback that I am receiving from residents on the ground. It has been a constant message for many years, and I believe there are opportunities for us to provide more resources to the agencies and also to engage more with our local CFA brigades in the off season. I fear that we rely on these men and women of the Country Fire Authority in a crisis situation but we do not really assist them or engage with them during the off season, when I believe they are equally as important. It may be an anathema to a lot of people, but there may be opportunities to provide some training wage, some sort of subsidy, directly to the CFA volunteers involved if they are doing this prescribed burning work. There is an expectation due to a strong sense of duty within our CFA volunteers that it is purely a voluntary service. We have a small army of people in Victoria. There are, I think, about 58,000 CFA volunteers who have the skills. They have been trained up, they have the practical knowledge, they have fought on many fire fronts and they also have skills that we could be using during the fire off-season on preventative measures. There may be opportunities for employment associated with that. This would not tarnish their reputation at all as the heroes of our bushfires in terms of their voluntary commitment. However, I think if we are going to expect these agencies to make commitments to these long-campaign fires, it is unrealistic to expect the business community to be relieving their volunteers for all of this work and to expect our volunteers to carry the high significant personal and economic costs. I think there are opportunities to improve the resourcing of our prescribed burning campaigns in conjunction with the trained staff we have within the CFA. In any case, we have a significant problem with the ageing nature of our CFA volunteer workforce, and we need to do more to encourage young people to be involved in the future.
I am sure that the royal commission in Victoria will consider these and many other issues, including the merits of the early warning system which is the substance, I believe, of the bill which is before us today. Just as I referred to the practical issues involved with prevention of bushfires, I believe there are going to be a lot of practical issues that need to be considered as part of our discussion of the early warning system. As I referred to earlier in relation to the correspondent from the seat of McMillan, I do support in principle that there should be better information flow in this emergency situation. That is a key concern for people. They need to know what is going on, and it becomes very difficult for people once the emergency starts. From the Gippsland experience, one of the critical aspects of the last bushfires was that we lost access to our regional ABC radio. It was not across the whole electorate, but in certain patches the transmission went down when the tower at Mount Tassie was exposed to the fire front. As our emergency services broadcaster, we had become accustomed to listening to the ABC as a first point of information. When that transmission tower came under attack, a lot of people were without direct information on the fire front. The telephone based early warning system would complement the ABC emergency services broadcast process, but it would also be exposed to similar threats in making sure that the message gets out to the people who need it the most. Unfortunately a lot of our rural and regional areas are in quite rugged terrain and the mobile phone coverage, for example, can be patchy at best. So there will be issues there in making sure that the people who need the message the most actually receive it. There are going to be practical measures that I am sure will need to be fully discussed in the implementation phase.
The timing of the warning is something that I think will need a great deal of reflection by those who are charged with the management of any system which is introduced. We are going to need a situation in which someone who is close to the fire front will be informing the incident control centre, which can be difficult. There will be issues about who makes the decisions about when to send out a warning and when it is too late to be advising people to leave. They will be significant points of discussion as we move forward with this issue. We need to avoid, of course, the situation of the last-minute rush which proved so fatal in so many of our communities, but I believe it is going to be a very heavy burden of responsibility to fall on someone’s shoulders in relation to these practical issues of who makes those calls in relation to the time to leave and giving information to people about the best course of action. So I do support the early warning system in principle but I think the protocols for the use of any type of system will need to be established very early—and we do not want to be overplaying this as a solution to the bushfire crisis. Just as people do not expect to have a fire tanker at their door, they must not expect a text message giving them precise information on the time to leave and the road to take to safely escape. We cannot create a situation where people become dependent on information which may not even come in some circumstances and is beyond the control of the emergency incident control centres.
I do believe that an early management system does have the potential to save some lives and, if it saves any lives, it is well worth doing. But it should be part of a suite of much bigger reforms. As I said earlier, once the fire has started we are actually playing catch-up from that point onwards. The information and the warnings that are delivered during an event are always going to be important but they must never replace the practical and common-sense steps that we all need to take in terms of preparing our properties, reducing the fuel loads and keeping our roads clear in the event of fires. As I flagged in the condolence motion a week or so ago, the issue of leaving early or defending a well prepared home is going to be one of the pivotal questions as we go forward in our hopes to minimise the impact of bushfires and prevent the loss of life. I think the experience of the past couple of weeks in Victoria has given our community a very harsh dose of reality in terms of our capacity to deal with these fires in situations where we have had such a long build-up of dry weather and fuel on the forest floor, and I think we have run the risk of underestimating the potential of these fires and perhaps overestimating our own capacity to deal with them on days when the fire scale is completely out of all proportion to what we normally expect.
It has given us all a very good sense of perspective of what is important in our lives. We have already seen, with the current fires occurring in Victoria as we speak, that there seems to be more of a readiness for people to leave early, to pack the few possessions they want and to acknowledge that their lives are more important than staying to defend their property. I think we are going to see more of that in the future, and we are going to need to accommodate those people if they do make the decision to leave early. There will be people leaving en masse from some of these suburban hinterland areas. There is a real balancing act to be managed here in that in certain circumstances I am very confident of people’s capacity to defend their properties if they stay and defend, but on days like we had on 7 February I doubt that anyone could manage to defend a property if they faced the full front of the fire.
I have spoken in the past about the need for a national database of every known firebug, with strict reporting provisions which would require these people to report any change of address and subject them to high levels of scrutiny and police surveillance if required. It is an issue that I feel very strongly about, and it would allow authorities to keep a check on these people during the days of extreme danger when firebugs tend to be at their worst. The most serious offenders could even be required to report to authorities on days of total fire ban. It is very hard for our fire authorities to manage lightning strikes and the accidental ignition of fires, let alone the constant threat of criminal activity during the fire danger period. I have written to the Prime Minister and sought his support for this practical measure which I believe could help to reduce the incidence of deliberately lit fires in the future. Again, it is not a silver bullet. It is just another tool to help our emergency services personnel, particularly to help our police detect these offenders and keep an eye on them on days when I fear they are at their worst. You can say a prayer for the emergency services personnel in Victoria faced with the conditions that are expected tomorrow. They will require all the good fortune we can wish upon them. We would rather see an inch of rain than the conditions that are heading their way tomorrow.
As I said at the outset, the coalition wishes to cooperate with the government in relation to this bill. A telephone based early warning system, I believe, has the potential to assist our communities to remain safe in these emergency situations. Allowing access by an emergency management person to information contained in the integrated public number database is a positive move but it should not distract us from the hard work, the practical work that is required to prevent these bushfires and minimise their impact in the future.
1966
11:47:00
Gibbons, Steve, MP
83X
Bendigo
ALP
1
0
Mr GIBBONS
—I am pleased to participate by speaking on the Telecommunications Amendment (Integrated Public Number Database) Bill 2009, especially as, in part, it relates to potential communications difficulties that are likely to be experienced during national disasters such as the horrific bushfires we experienced in Victoria on 7 February, Black Saturday, and in particular the impact in my electorate of Bendigo, as we have experienced the worst disaster in our history as a result of those firestorms. When I spoke last week in the debate on the condolence motion for the victims of the bushfires in Victoria, I mentioned the tragic death of one person and the total destruction of 59 homes in the Bendigo fires. The Victorian Department of Primary Industries has provided me with its assessment of farm losses in the fires at Redesdale, and I will speak about these briefly before speaking to the bill.
The fires affected 85 rural properties around Redesdale and almost 6,500 hectares of land were damaged. Most of this is grazing pasture, but of note was the impact on two commercial olive-growing operations at Barfold, where more than 300 hectares of olive trees were affected. Most of the livestock death toll was sheep, with more than 900 accounted for so far, and another 420 sheep are reported as missing. Fortunately, though, there was no loss of human life in this fire.
The full cost of the recent fires in Victoria is still being calculated and, of course, the fire season is by no means over yet, as one of my staff can attest, having spent most of Monday on alert at his property near Daylesford. Among the many matters that will be investigated by the forthcoming royal commission is the effectiveness of the warnings that were, or were not, issued to residents in the fire-affected areas. We do not expect our volunteer and professional emergency services workers to operate without timely, accurate and relevant information about the threats they face, and we should not expect homeowners to make life and death decisions about when to leave their properties, or what action to take to defend them, without having access to the same sort of information. Indeed, our emergency management organisations have said that rapid and appropriate responses by the public are critical to restricting the impact that emergencies have on our communities. The public cannot be expected to respond appropriately to an emergency without an effective warning system. Emergency management organisations have asked for a telephone based warning capacity to supplement other warning systems, such as radio, public address systems or television alerts. At this point, I will pay tribute to the efforts of ABC radio, in particular the staff at ABC in central Victoria, during the recent fires in my electorate. The required information was provided in a calm, efficient manner and it was accurate and comprehensive, and I am sure the community very much appreciate those efforts; they were outstanding.
Telephone based emergency warning systems have been the subject of discussions between the Commonwealth, states and territories since 2004. Until July 2008, no agreement could be reached between the states and territories on the use of the integrated public number database to make warning calls to all landlines and mobile phones in a fire threatened area. The IPND is the most comprehensive and accurate Australian public number database available and its information is continually updated. It is an industry-wide database of all residential and business phone numbers, both listed and unlisted, and other subscriber information, such as names and addresses. The IPND contains around 50 million Australian telephone numbers and other information such as whether a service is a residential or business number and the type of telecommunications service delivered by each number. Telstra maintains the IPND as a condition of its carrier licence, and all carriers and carriage service providers are required to provide subscriber information to populate the database. At the July 2008 meeting of the Council of Australian Governments, the Rudd government secured the agreement of the states and territories that emergency access to the IPND was a priority and that policy agreement between the states and territories was required by December 2008. This was duly achieved.
This bill represents the Commonwealth’s fulfilment of its part of the agreement with the states and territories to introduce legislation to facilitate access to the IPND. Individual states and territories will retain autonomy to decide when and how best to warn their citizens of emergencies and which telephone based warning system is most appropriate for their needs. The Commonwealth Attorney-General has consulted with the states and territories in developing a model for access to IPND information that will meet their needs. Given the sensitive nature of the information contained in the IPND, access to this information is strictly limited under the Telecommunications Act. The historical advice to the Commonwealth has been that any plan to allow the states and territories access to the IPND as part of any emergency warning system would be best secured by a legislative amendment. However, in light of the Victorian bushfire emergency, the government has also sought advice from the Solicitor-General on an interim measure to allow access.
Based on this advice, the government has made a regulation under the Telecommunications Act 1997 enabling interim access to the IPND. This will enable immediate access to the IPND by individual states and territories who wish to implement a more limited system as soon as possible. But this is not a long-term solution and not a substitute for the amendments to the Telecommunications Act contained in this bill and the planned future access arrangements for the IPND. For example, privacy protections included in the regulations cannot be as strong as those included in this bill. Rigorous privacy protections are essential due to the sensitive nature of information contained in the IPND. The bill provides the Attorney-General with the powers to specify by legislative instrument who can use IPND information in the event of an emergency and what circumstances should be considered to be an emergency.
Emergency management personnel will only be permitted to access the data in the following circumstances: in the event of an actual emergency, in the event of a likely emergency or for testing purposes—that is, to test whether in the event of an emergency the alert would have reached the people that it needed to. The systems to deliver emergency warning messages are not covered by the bill, and their implementation will be the responsibility of the Attorney-General and the states and territories as part of managing emergencies and disasters in their jurisdictions.
Access to the IPND will be provided through a new secure database that provides real-time access to up-to-date telephone numbers while protecting the identity of individuals. The Commonwealth government will provide $11.3 million for this purpose and a tender to build the database will be issued shortly. Under the COAG agreement, states and territories can retain autonomy about the warning systems they choose to implement, and they are then responsible for funding them.
Whatever system or systems are established, there remain technological challenges to overcome to enable any system to communicate with all telephones in a threatened area. Advice to the government is that current technology can only communicate with fixed landlines and mobile telephones on the basis of billing address only, rather than the location of the handset. This may mean some individuals in a threatened area will not receive a warning on their phone, and some outside a threatened area could receive irrelevant warnings. It is also possible that issuing mass alerts may have a detrimental impact on the telecommunications network. It is obviously important that calls to 000 can still be made when an emergency warning has been issued, and there is a requirement in the bill that reasonable steps be taken to ensure that the use of the IPND information does not adversely affect normal network operations. For example, this could involve staggering the calls over several minutes, rather than sending them all at once. To help address this, at the next COAG meeting the Commonwealth will offer the states and territories financial assistance for them to conduct collaborative research on the viability of a location based emergency warning system. The government has advised the states and territories that, if they are able to agree to a national system at the next possible COAG meeting, the Commonwealth will make a further financial contribution to establish such a system to be owned and operated by the states and territories.
This bill also contains safeguards to protect people’s personal information. Use or disclosure of IPND information in any situation which is not an emergency as defined by law in the state or territory in question will be an offence. Given that the IPND information includes unlisted numbers and subscriber details—for example, names and addresses—the bill imposes penalties of up to two years imprisonment for misuse of IPND information. In addition, any agency that issues an emergency warning using the IPND information will be required to report each incident to the Attorney-General and the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Agencies will be required to report on the nature and location of the emergency or disaster, the number of telephone numbers disclosed, the number of persons to whom the numbers were disclosed and why. These reporting requirements are intended to allow identification of any possible misuse of IPND information quickly. Agencies responsible for issuing alerts will also be required to report annually to ACMA and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner on a similar basis.
This bill will also tidy up some of the uncertainty surrounding the operation of location-dependent carriage services. These are services that automatically route calls to the appropriate store or branch location of a business, depending on the caller’s location. Taxi and food delivery services are some of the businesses that use this type of service. Currently, the Telecommunications Act does not contain express authority for disclosure and use of information in the IPND for the purpose of providing LDCSs on a wide scale. Telstra’s carrier licence does allow it, as the IPND manager, to make IPND information available for the purpose of providing LDCSs. The bill clarifies the Telecommunications Act by explicitly allowing carriers and carriage service providers supplying LDCSs to access listed public number information in the IPND.
The bill addresses key privacy concerns around the release of this data. For example, disclosure of IPND information relating to unlisted numbers is not permitted under the new amendments. Information from the IPND may only be disclosed to carriers and carriage service providers, and only that information necessary to provide an LDCS may be disclosed. In addition, a secondary disclosure and use offence has been included in the bill to further protect against the improper disclosure and use of information provided for an LDCS system.
Returning to the primary purpose of the bill, it is important to remember that telephone based emergency warning systems are only a supplement to, and not a replacement for, the range of measures currently used to warn the public of emergencies, such as television and radio, public address systems, doorknocking, sirens, signage and the internet. The introduction of this bill by the Rudd government is still only a step towards making telephone based emergency warning systems a part of Australia’s disaster response capability. It is an important step, but it is not the silver bullet. There is much work that needs to be done, and I am sure that work will be done.
This bill will enable the states and territories to access information from the IPND in order to implement telephone based emergency warning systems, should they chose to do so. It is drafted to allow the states and territories the flexibility to develop and operate data management and emergency warning systems either individually or jointly. I commend this bill to the House.
1969
12:00:00
Windsor, Antony, MP
009LP
New England
IND
0
0
Mr WINDSOR
—I rise to support this particular piece of legislation, the Telecommunications Amendment (Integrated Public Number Database) Bill 2009. There are a number of issues here that most members have canvassed, but I think some of those issues are worth repeating. Obviously any warning system that can assist people in times of disaster is very worth while contemplating. I understand that there may be some people—maybe not in this place but in the community—who do still have some issues with this legislation in terms of the privacy provisions. But I am informed that, under the way in which the legislation has been structured, the Attorney-General will keep a very close eye on the various agencies—the state and territory agencies that are actually given access to the database. So I do not share those concerns that maybe some people in the community would have.
I am also told that when an emergency does take place and the database is triggered the numbers are triggered and not the names of the persons holding the number, so there will not be any disclosure of who those with private numbers happen to be—they will get the message either through the normal system or through the SMS system. So I would just say that I do not have a problem with the legislation at all. Given the tragedy that has just occurred in Victoria and the possibility that a better system—an emergency warning system—may well have saved some lives, I think we should look very seriously at these arrangements.
Obviously COAG was looking at this issue some time ago. I think they agreed at the time that it was going to be fairly expensive and procrastinated or whatever. But now it has been brought to a head and it is good to see it coming before the parliament. I would not envisage that there would be any issues with this particular piece of legislation. As I said, this issue has been brought to the parliament very quickly, and so it should be, on the back of the Victorian bushfires. I think it is appropriate and I would just support some of the comments that the member for O’Connor made earlier today and in the Main Committee a few weeks back in relation to the broader debate about the severity of these fires and other emergencies that may occur from time to time as well and the need for a database such as this one to be triggered. This also goes to the heart of the issue as to how this particular fire became so ferocious.
I think scientifically we are well aware now that if you get various circumstances such as low humidity, very dry conditions, wind, very hot days and an amount of fuel in the understorey of a forest then you have the preconditions that will eventually lead to a wildfire. Irrespective of how that fire is started, whether it be by nature or by arsonists, the preconditions for those fires will always be there if we do nothing. There is a Victorian royal commission to take place. I have absolutely no doubt that they will revisit many of the decisions that were made in the past. I have a file with me, which I will not bother going right through. If people are interested in looking at the various commissions and inquiries—state based inquiries in Tasmania, Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia; and in Victoria again and again—they will see that there has been any number of inquiries. The recommendations that have come back time and time again include fuel reduction as one of the main objectives to reduce that precondition—not for bushfires, we will always have bushfires, but rather for firestorms of the nature of that which occurred in Victoria the other day.
I particularly relate to an inquiry I was on back in 1994 in the New South Wales parliament. After some very severe bushfires in New South Wales that parliamentary committee was formed and we went out and spoke to the people. We came back with a whole range of new information and recommendations, some based on communications—not strictly this type of database that we are talking about today but nonetheless communications between the various agencies: the police, the SES, the fire people and whoever else was involved. There were real issues—the various agencies could not talk to each other because they were on different frequencies. Some of those things have been patched up and fixed. In New South Wales there was an enormous injection of money into fire sheds, fire trucks et cetera.
One thing that was not done adequately in my view was the reduction of fuel. There were recommendations in that particular inquiry and there have been recommendations in every inquiry since the 1939 Victorian episode, where there were heavy recommendations. There were recent recommendations in 2002 after the Gippsland fires. I know the Independent member for Gippsland East, Craig Ingram, made certain recommendations by way of submission and highlighted that even the targets being set by the Victorian government at that time had not been met at all. In fact I think that on average only about a third of the reduction targets being set at government level had been reached.
I do not think that is good enough, and I think we have to learn from this. I am pleased to see that the Prime Minister has taken a pretty prominent position on this, and he made the point at the mourning ceremony on Sunday—and I raised this in question time on Monday—that we should learn from the past, and that successive governments had, I think his words were, ‘let the communities down’. I think that is a significant point, and probably one of the most significant points that were made during that ceremony.
The other very important point, in my view, was made by an Aboriginal lady who welcomed the group gathered at the Rod Laver centre. She made a point about the fires that occurred in her area—she came from Healesville. Auntie Joy Murphy, I think was her name; her people originated in that area and she made the welcome on behalf of the Wurundjeri people. She made the point that, traditionally, her people would have burnt the land to ‘cleanse’ and to ‘renew’ it—I think they were the words that she used—on roughly a seven-year cycle. The other important point she made was that the fire that occurred in Victoria the other day was not natural; that it was, in fact, ‘torture’ to the land.
There is a significant point in this. And, while I know we will all have arguments about environmentalism, carbon emissions and a whole range of other things, if we are serious about trying to stop tragedies like the Victorian one occurring, I think we have to learn a little from the Aboriginal people and the history of the evolution of the vegetation in this country. We are trying to deal with the vegetation now by just ignoring it, and saying, ‘Oh, it’s natural’—if 40 or 50 tonnes per hectare of fuel builds up in the understorey—‘for that to burn.’ The Aboriginals did not allow that to happen. In fact, the type of bush that has developed over the last 40,000 years has really developed because of fire—but low-level fire, not wildfire of the nature that we saw the other day.
We came along in the last century and assumed that we were best to preserve and to let nature take its course, in the build-up of debris. But that is not natural. What we are doing has resulted in these very bad fires—and they have occurred in the Blue Mountains before and in other parts of New South Wales. And when they occur we actually do torture the land, and not in a natural sense. To go back to a natural sense of the land we would have to know what the land was like before the Aboriginals came, and I do not think anybody really knows that—or those who do make statements do not seem to suggest that it was very similar to what we have today. So I think we have to recognise the role that the first Australians played in the evolution of our landscape and learn from some of the technologies that they put in place, because it is not only the trees and the bush and the flowers that are being impacted on here, it is also the animals, which have learnt to live with and have evolved in that low-fire regime.
Towards the east of my electorate we have the Oxley Wild Rivers National Park and others, and there are a number of them with landscape which, in some parts, is not all that dissimilar to the part of the Victorian countryside that was burnt the other day. Historically, however, after the Aboriginal people, the pastoralists who leased that country used to do low-level burning from ridge to ridge, in the cooler months of the year, so that those fires would always burn themselves out. So when and if there was a particularly bad year, in terms of dryness, low humidity et cetera, and a fire did break out, there were these natural barriers that had been created in the times where there was a low-level risk.
So I would make a plea to the government—and particularly to the Prime Minister, because I think he did demonstrate the other day a genuine willingness to actually do something about this issue—to return to that low-fire regime. I know that the member for O’Connor was pilloried for the comments that he made. Well, I support what he said. And he did not say to anybody that all trees should be removed; I do not think he said anything of that nature. But if we are going to live in this nation and we are going to let people live in areas where there are trees—and I plant hundreds of trees every year; I am a bit of a tree lover—we have to make sure that the sort of disaster that occurred the other day cannot happen again. Humans can fix that problem; it is a fixable problem. And this regime that I suggest fits more with our landscape than the one that some people, particularly in the last 30 or 40 years, have said is the natural one for the landscape and the one that we should be going back to.
I highlight again the Blue Mountains near Sydney. Some of the fuel tonnages in parts of the Blue Mountains mean that a tragedy will occur in that area. It is not a matter of ‘if’; it will happen. There are areas there where nothing has been done. Why am I particularly concerned about that? It is mainly because it is near a capital city, and if it is near a capital city, it gets plenty of attention when something happens. If it were out in the middle of nowhere and only two or three houses burnt down then Channel 9 would not particularly care. So that event will occur in the future. And if we are serious about actually addressing this issue—and I think there has been due warning on this by many people in the parliament—then there are mechanisms that should be put in place to come to grips with those sorts of fuel loads.
There are other issues that I will briefly raise in relation to the bill we are passing today. This database will be very important, and I applaud its introduction. There are other things that we really do need to look at—not just in terms of a Victorian royal commission, because royal commissions have been held and have gone, and very little has happened. I would suggest that the royal commissioner could probably put that commission together very quickly and on a very low budget because it has all been written in dust covered books, inquiries and documents in the past, and the recommendations will be no different at all about what needs to be done. But the royal commission should look—as did the 1939 Victorian royal commission, as did a number of others—at the issue of bunkers in the high-risk areas where even with fuel reduction there may be circumstances where people will not be able to leave the area in which they live, particularly if there is a narrow dirt track that is surrounded by trees. And that is another issue that maybe we should look at. A lot of those people died the other day because there was not a road for them to drive on. If you allow the trees to grow right up to the verge, obviously, one only has to fall and you cannot get out. We have to look very closely at those areas, particularly at bunkers, where in that circumstance people could go to ground. Wombats do it. They do not race up the road and try and get away; they know where the protection is.
The other issue I would like to touch on—and a number of members did touch on this issue in their earlier addresses—is the role that the Australian Broadcasting Commission played in alerting people in those communities to what was happening as it was happening. We have seen it time and time again in all of our electorates. We recently had a flood in Tamworth where the newsreaders, Richard Standley, David Evans and others—the manager, Jennifer Ingall, for instance—all got up well before dawn and were on the radio telling people what was happening. A major cloudburst had occurred and a flood was coming down at a massive rate, and they were there to alert people. I note that the ABC’s budget is being looked at again, and I would support their budgetary requirements because I think they have shown on a number of occasions that they have probably saved many lives by being there and informing people. They have also placated the concerns of many individuals by just being there and telling people what is going on and by having the capacity through talkback et cetera to receive messages from people on the ground and let the broader community know exactly what is happening.
In conclusion, I applaud the legislation. I support the legislation. I say to those who are a little bit concerned about the privacy issues that they should look beyond those issues and look at the value that this sort of emergency database can give in terms of protection of the wider community.
1973
12:18:00
Cheeseman, Darren, MP
HW7
Corangamite
ALP
1
0
Mr CHEESEMAN
—I would like to thank the member for New England for his contribution to the debate today. I share with him many very similar views, particularly about how our Indigenous communities pre European settlement managed the bush. I think there are a lot of lessons that we can pick up from those Aboriginal communities. I also share his views about the very important role that the ABC played in trying to alert the community to events in Victoria three weekends ago.
It is with a mixture of feelings that I speak to the Telecommunications Amendment (Integrated Public Number Database) Bill 2009 today. Firstly, I am proud to be a part of a government that is able to react with such speed and commitment in times of crisis. But, of course, it is after an event of catastrophic proportions, an event that has shocked our entire nation. This bill is about saving lives, and it is of utmost importance to rural and regional communities around Australia. It is also of utmost importance to my own community, the federal seat of Corangamite. In fact, I would go as far as to say that this bill will be more important in my own seat than in just about any other region in Australia, but I will get to that in some detail in a moment.
First, here is some of the detail of this bill. The integrated public number database, the IPND, is a centralised database of all telephone numbers in Australia, including unlisted numbers. This bill will amend the act to allow the IPND information to be disclosed for use in issuing state and territory government initiated telephone based emergency warnings. Given the sensitive nature of information contained in the IPND, such as telephone numbers, names and addresses, access to this information must be and will be strictly limited and protected under the Telecommunications Act. This bill is about dealing with emergency situations. The legislation is intended to assist in the implementation of telephone based emergency warning systems by state and territory governments. The bill is drafted so that it allows for states and territories to develop and operate jointly data management and emergency warning systems. The bill also includes a number of very important privacy safeguards.
This bill also provides the Attorney-General with powers to make legislative instruments to do a couple of things: firstly, in consultation with the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, it provides powers to specify to whom the IPND information can be disclosed; secondly, the Attorney may also determine the circumstances in which the IPND information could be used—in practice this is likely to be in an emergency, as defined by the relevant state and territory legislation for telephone based emergency warning systems. Significantly, this bill imposes penalties of up to two years imprisonment for the misuse of the IPND information database.
I want to say a few things about the relevance of this bill to my seat and to my community. Within Corangamite we have one of the highest levels of fire threat anywhere within Victoria. The Otways region has a high-level threat because of both the numbers of people at risk and the public and private assets that are at risk. It is also important due to the assets of great significance to our regional economy. Within my seat we have the Otways Ranges and the Great Ocean Road. Along the Great Ocean Road we have many coastal towns: Port Campbell, Apollo Bay, Skenes Creek, Kennett River, Wye River, Fairhaven, Moggs Creek, Aireys Inlet, Anglesea and Jan Juc—just to name a few of the coastal communities that are extremely vulnerable to fire attack. There are also small hinterland towns, including Forrest, Beech Forest and Deans Marsh. There are tens of thousands of people who are vulnerable to fire attack living within these towns. After briefings late yesterday between the education department bosses in Victoria, the Parks Victoria heads and CFA leaders, a host of visitor areas and tourist hotspots throughout the Otways National Park and along the Great Ocean Road will be declared no-go zones tomorrow because of the unprecedented extreme fire weather conditions expected. There is no other region in Victoria where so many people are centralised in such high-risk areas. This bill potentially will give them early warning of fire and, hopefully, a greater chance of getting out alive.
In addition to my constituents, I have many friends who also live in these communities. The advent of the recent, terrible fires has given me cause to think hard about what is the best way to warn people. I think this is one of the best ways possible. Given the speed at which fires can travel and their increasing ferocity unless we have more proactive individualised warning systems people in these communities will have little chance. Relying upon passive measures for early warning—such as occasionally checking a website, turning on a radio or watching the TV—is not very safe at all, especially given, as I say, the speed and ferocity that fires can travel at. I believe the ability to send a message straight to people’s mobiles or home phones is very important. It is also a much more proactive, faster and more efficient way of sending a warning, and that is exactly what we need in an emergency situation. Three weeks ago, I was watching the news unfold on the Sunday morning and I recall one family—who just got out with their lives—who spent that Saturday evening watching a DVD, not knowing the disaster that was unfolding around them. Very clearly, the matters in this bill will give people in such circumstances a much greater opportunity to escape with their lives.
I also want to make some broader comments about the Otway Ranges and the issue of telecommunications and fire vulnerability. I have been concerned about telecommunications in the Otways, particularly in relation to fire risks. One of the legacies, I believe, of the previous coalition government in telecommunications in Corangamite is very poor coverage in many parts of the Otways. It is a sad fact that the overwhelming effort, over the period of the previous government, in telecommunications was about selling off telecommunications to the private sector. The coalition pursued an ideological agenda in telecommunications—as they did in a number of other areas—rather than provide services and apply equity principles to all Australians. We have seen very recently how this can, in fact, put lives in danger. I am not one to get too partisan. I believe that this is not the time to do so, and I will not go any further.
I am very pleased to see that the opposition is supporting these provisions, but I do have to say there have been quite clear consequences for people in my seat due to the lack of commitment by the coalition to telecommunications in the bush. The fact is that it was only after the Telstra privatisation legislation polled so badly and looked in jeopardy that the coalition offered a sop to the bush and regional and rural Australians. The lack of action over so many years whilst the coalition was in government has had a clear impact on telecommunications in this nation. It is a sad fact that some of the highest risk areas in the Otways actually have the worst telecommunications services in Victoria. I believe that that is the coalition’s legacy within my seat. It is true that mountainous areas are, by nature, difficult to cover by telecommunications. But it is equally true that if you are concentrating on improving services rather than pursuing an ideological agenda then you are more likely to get the things done that matter to people. Telecommunications coverage in the Otways should be better than it is today and I believe that this government will improve them. This is something I have been speaking to the minister about, and it now needs to be addressed to enable implementation of this database.
I wholeheartedly support this bill. We cannot pass it soon enough as far as I am concerned. It is indeed one of the most important things we can do to provide early warning against bushfires and floods in the future. There are clear advantages in using data sourced from the IPND for telephone based emergency warnings. The IPND is the most comprehensive and accurate Australian public number database available and information is updated on a continual basis.
Individual states and territories will also retain autonomy to decide when and how best to warn their citizens of emergencies and impending disasters and which telephone based warning system is most appropriate for their jurisdiction. The bill is drafted so that it allows states and territories the flexibility to develop and operate data management and emergency warning systems either individually or jointly. Emergency management organisations have proposed a telephone based warning capacity to complement existing warning systems, such as radio, public address systems or television alerts. The experts are recommending this, there seems to be universal support for this measure, and I certainly recommend it to the House.
1975
12:31:00
Neville, Paul, MP
KV5
Hinkler
NATS
0
0
Mr NEVILLE
—The coalition is supporting the Telecommunications Amendment (Integrated Public Number Database) Bill 2009. Before going into the body of my speech, I would like to join with other members in complimenting the ABC in particular on the work that they have done in the bushfire circumstances, and they are well-known to us for similar activities in my area in cyclone periods. In fact, when we get a cyclone, generally the radio station at the eye of the cyclone and one either side of it go onto 24-hour local broadcasting. So their efforts in Victoria are in keeping with the best traditions.
It was not always so. We had an inquiry some years ago on the committee that I chaired that was then known as the transport and communications committee. We conducted a very far-reaching inquiry into regional radio. One of the things we detected in that inquiry was a very poor response to emergencies. Before we had even tabled our report, the ABC, commercial radio and I forget who the third party was got together and tried to get a protocol together because they could see this train coming down the track that would be quite critical of them. One of the things that has caused that is the excessive networking, out of hubs, of country radio stations. Sadly, that has not been totally corrected. Despite what the coalition did during their previous term in office in requiring newsrooms to be manned and so on, there are still a lot of liberties being taken in that field. But that is not the purpose of the bill today, so I will not dwell on it.
The bill before us today will broaden the access to the integrated public number database, the IPND. It will take it beyond its present scope so that emergency services agencies around the nation can make mass outbound phone calls to listed and unlisted numbers to let people know of developing life-threatening situations. We have talked a lot today about cyclones and there have been one or two references to floods, but it goes a lot further than that. A cyclone is one of the most damaging of all things and it can take many lives, as we all know from the Cyclone Tracy circumstance in Darwin. We have also seen in our region, though Australia has been spared it in living memory, the danger of a tsunami. I would think that this service would be at its most heightened in the event of a tsunami. We have seen other things overseas and we need to get ready for them. We are building gas plants. I know that Central Queensland, possibly Gladstone, is going to have a major gas plant. We all remember the dreadful circumstances in Bhopal in India where whole communities were subjected to chemical intrusion. If that were to happen, heaven help us if it did, people would need to know how to get out of a chemically affected area in the best way possible.
I for one support this legislation. I realise that, as some speakers have said, there are some worries about privacy. I do not think they apply, but all I would say to that is that, if any state or territory were to abuse this power that the Commonwealth is passing on to them, they should be taken off the list. If it were used for any other purpose but a genuine emergency, I think that the Commonwealth should come down on that state or territory very heavily. The measures give the Attorney-General the power to determine under what circumstances the IPND can be accessed for a warning. It is anticipated that an emergency will be defined under existing state and territory legislation.
A telephone based early warning system is just plain common sense. I think we have seen enough examples in recent times in our own country and overseas, as I just mentioned, that clearly illustrate how important it is to have various agencies of government able to do this. Emergency service agencies have argued that a national early warning system is needed and the matter was put before COAG in 2007 but for various reasons it was not progressed. We can never be absolutely sure that a more sophisticated or extended IPND might have made a difference in recent circumstances but I make the observation that if it saves one additional life then what we are debating today will be all worth while. Allowing the integrated public number database to be used for such purposes is the right thing to do, because it gives the state based emergency services more flexibility in responding to situations.
If we have learnt one thing from the tragedy of the Victorian fires it is that information is power—power to decide whether to stay and defend one’s property or power to decide to leave and, more importantly, to leave early. In the event of a broad scale, rapidly developing emergency situation such as a bushfire, most if not all avenues of information become lost in one way or another. We saw in Victoria where the power grid went down and people were left with absolutely no power options. We also know that a lot of phone systems—although you often have one handset on a bypass—work on your landline power, and, if you do not have power, that can make things very difficult.
This underlines the liability of mobile telephone black spots. If there is simply no mobile coverage, one option—a potentially lifesaving option—is not available to people. Topography and geography play a big part in dictating the quality of coverage. In other words, if you are in an area that does not have mobile coverage and your electricity lines have gone down or your phone line has gone haywire because of heat or for other reasons, you are totally isolated. I for one would like to see an audit of black spots, particularly in areas like the Central Highlands of Victoria. We need to have an audit of that. Ninety-eight per cent coverage is very good, but we are not talking about landmass here; we are talking about real people—and I think the strategic placement of some additional towers might be in order. I hope that the royal commission will look very carefully at that.
Australia is the size of the United States, yet we have only one-thirteenth of their population. So we have to cover these things strategically as best we can. We do pretty well, but the wake-up call was in the last fortnight and we should respond to it. Mobile coverage is taken for granted by a lot of us. I have a son who lives in Brisbane. He is 3½ kilometres from the Brisbane GPO—you cannot get much closer than that; that is almost inner city Brisbane—yet he does not have mobile coverage. So there are black spots everywhere. When they are in strategically vulnerable areas, I think we have to be right on the ball.
Back in 1997 the coalition government established Networking the Nation, which to date has been the most ambitious communications and infrastructure program ever attempted in this country. The whole program was designed to improve availability, accessibility and affordability and to use the communications service to close gaps in communications access between metropolitan and non-metropolitan Australians. After its cessation in 2005, more than $230 million had been invested in almost 800 projects. Funding went to not-for-profit agencies such as local councils, regional development organisations and local government associations, and around $73 million was invested in building telecommunications infrastructure. Of this, half was for mobile phone towers and related equipment. An evaluation of the NTN program showed that, during its operation, it funded 267 telephone installations and provided mobile phone coverage to 1,000 settlements across regional Australia—with almost 60 per cent of those sites being in remote and very remote areas. From that, about 280,000 people—or up to four per cent of the population of Australia—were able to live within proper mobile phone coverage.
I have a number of telecommunications towers in my electorate. I was listening to the member for Corangamite. I know he is a new member—and he is a good mate of mine—and I say to him: you have to be on the ball with Telstra, Optus and other agencies and with your communications ministry, because these things do not always fall in your lap; you have to be an agitator. I have a lot of towers—in Agnes Waters; in 1770, which is located between Bundaberg and Gladstone; in Baffle Creek, which was on a high mountain, like the member for Corangamite was talking about; in Miriam Vale; in Woodgate, south of Bundaberg; and in Moore Park, north of Bundaberg. Many of these, I might add, are now in the electorate of the member for Flynn. Nevertheless, I worked very hard to get all those towers, and I am sure the member for Corangamite can do likewise.
So we have achieved some outcomes for people living in isolated areas. But, as I said before, there is no silver bullet. All the things we are talking about today are incremental. I challenge members sitting in the chamber—though there are not many in the House at present—to write down the SES number. Can you at this minute write down the SES emergency number? It has been on television day after day over recent months. I cannot; I tested myself in the office and found that I cannot write it down. What I am advocating, hand in hand with this extension of the broadly based emergency coverage to the states, is that we have the right education program. If that is not in place, the system does not work.
During our inquiry into communications, I recall we were discussing emergencies. Someone gave evidence of, I think, a central western New South Wales town—probably not far from where you live, Mr Deputy Speaker Schultz. I do not remember exactly what happened. I think a tanker or something had turned over on a highway and someone rang the local radio station, which just happened to be on network at that time. So he rang the hub station in Sydney, saying ‘There has been a great emergency here; can you break into the programming for the town or, if you can’t do that, can you put it on your network?’ The girl at the switch said, ‘Oh, no, we cannot do that. Just ring up your SES; they will look after you.’ We have to get much more sophisticated than that. There has to be an emergency protocol in every country town, especially with commercial radio—I have no worries about the ABC in that regard—and, to some extent, with television. We need this IPND system as well. We need a communications awareness program. We need to put all of those things together. As part of that whole umbrella of activities, we also need to make sure that we are strategically putting in telecommunications towers.
As I was researching this, I was very impressed with some information made available from Ericsson, which I thought might be of interest to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ericsson has a type of mobile tower that allows them to set up a temporary mobile transmission area. During the recent fires and in collaboration with Telstra, Ericsson provided fixed wireless terminals to the Country Fire Authority—the CFA—to restore voice and data services to areas affected by the blazes. I think that that is quite commendable. That might be something that the royal commission looks at: if you cannot afford to put a tower somewhere, could you perhaps make available to the local Country Fire Authority a mobile tower that they could operate? It might be on an old four-wheel drive or fire truck that can be taken into an emergency situation and put on a hill that covers a whole valley where there might be a number of fires. There are a lot of innovative things that we could do, and I commend Ericsson for their work on this. Their human resources executive, Tristram Gray, said:
Once transmission was restored, they—
they being the CFA and the community—
were able to communicate the direction the fire was moving and to respond effectively. Not only that, but the people in the community were able to maintain communications with each other.
The other thing that we saw from these fires was the inability of people at times to contact their relatives.
The other thing that I would like to see the royal commission do—and it is an adjunct to this—is to require phone kits in areas of high risk to carry two batteries. When we got our first mobile phones we always got two batteries and that was a very sensible thing. I know that the life of batteries has increased dramatically since then—I acknowledge that—but nevertheless there is nothing worse than being in a situation and having your battery go. It happens to me from time to time and I know how embarrassing it can be, but when it is life and death stuff then it is a different matter. Again, if power lines are down and you cannot recharge, you are doubly vulnerable. Another thing that I would like to see the royal commission consider is for there to be some way in certain vulnerable areas of Australia to encourage telephone companies—and whether this should be subsidised or not I do not know—to provide a second battery for people’s mobile phones at the time of purchase.
That is my contribution. I think this is a good measure. I do not think that it is the total answer or the silver bullet, but I think that it will go a long way to making Australia safer in emergency situations such as fires, floods, cyclones, tsunamis, chemical spills and the like.
1979
12:49:00
Marino, Nola, MP
HWP
Forrest
LP
0
0
Ms MARINO
—I rise to support the Telecommunications Amendment (Integrated Public Number Database) Bill 2009. A nationally consistent early warning system is certainly necessary. This was made very apparent to all Australians during the recent bushfires in Victoria. I take this opportunity to offer my deepest sympathy to the victims, their families and the communities that have been so badly affected. I also offer my sincere gratitude to every individual, group and volunteer who has in any way helped in fighting the bushfires, as well as those assisting each of the communities both during and since this crisis.
As a coalition, we support measures to do whatever it takes to assist communities to rebuild and recover but also to put in place preventive and management measures. A nationally consistent early warning system is just one part of this process. This bill amends the Telecommunications Act 1997 to allow access by an ‘emergency management person’, as authorised by the Attorney-General, to information contained in the Integrated Public Number Database. The IPND was established in 1998 to create a centralised, comprehensive database for use by the telecommunications industry and a limited number of other organisations with community protection functions. I understand that there are a number of technical issues that remain outstanding with the database itself, but the emergency agencies have argued that state and territory access to the IPND would provide greater flexibility for them to respond to emergency circumstances. It is time to move this early warning system process forward, with all levels of government involved.
People throughout my electorate in the south-west of Western Australia understand very well the threats and challenges of bushfires and the need for effective communications before, during and after the actual fires. We have had three serious bushfires in recent months: in Bridgetown, in the Dunsborough area and in the Balingup-Mullalyup area. The Bridgetown fires were by far the worst. Bridgetown is situated in the Darling Scarp and there are significant bushland reserves and plantations as well as farmlands there. Rugged, steep country provides extremely challenging terrain to fight bushfires. More than 6,000 hectares were burnt in the Bridgetown fires—5,126 hectares of private property, 1,764 hectares of pine and blue gum plantations and 713 hectares of reserve. Five homes were also burnt in Bridgetown townsite, as well as vehicles, sheds and farming equipment.
As in Victoria, significant numbers of local and regional groups, agencies and individuals were involved in fighting the fires and assisting the community following the devastation. Four hundred personnel in total, of which 150 were volunteers, were part of that process. Twelve local government authorities provided assistance and four water-bombers were deployed. Again, like Victoria, the local community worked vigorously to help itself and those most affected by this fire.
I recently attended a community concert to help raise funds for those who lost their homes—and this was not the community’s first major bushfire. Bridgetown held a community debriefing after the December 2003 Greenbushes-Bridgetown fires and they identified a range of improved processes and measures to manage any future bushfire threat. As you would expect, effective communications with the community were a priority then. One communication problem they experienced at that time was being able to provide early and constantly updated information. At the time, the emergency radio station was the ABC and that was networked out of Melbourne, and it was impossible to get messages to air.
Changes have been made since, but there was a problem again during the most recent fires in January this year, when the ABC was unable to broadcast on its regular frequency. Where community members were located at the time meant they could not receive current and updated information—critical information when you are in a fire or out on a property—relating to road closures and the progress and location of the fire as well as wind changes. The ABC was broadcasting on alternative frequencies every half hour, encouraging those who could hear the broadcast to contact their friends and relations in the fire affected areas to let them know of the change of frequency for that information. This certainly was a problem for many of my constituents, particularly as so many of them were unable to access mobile reception and landlines at the time were burnt or down.
Nannup’s ABC coverage comes from Karratha, which is 1,800 kilometres away. I presented a community petition to the parliament last year seeking transmission from the Bunbury ABC service. I was particularly disappointed at the department’s response, which effectively was that there are many towns like Nannup across Australia and, if the service to Nannup were upgraded, it would have to do so elsewhere. That showed a concerning lack of understanding of the problems in regional areas like those I represent in the south-west.
On 7 and 8 February, there was a bushfire in the Dunsborough area near Bunker Bay—115 hectares were burnt and 300 guests and 70 staff were evacuated, and the fire was controlled just 20 metres from the 105-year-old Cape Naturaliste lighthouse. Again, it was local volunteer firefighters on the front-line. On 14 February, the most recent bushfire occurred in the south-west in the Balingup-Ferndale area—the same rugged type of country—where 1,800 hectares of pine plantation were burnt, as well as private property and farming equipment. Again, 200 firefighters were involved, using heavy machines, tankers and water-bombers as part of the fire suppression effort.
We know that bushfires in the south-west will continue to be a threat and they will need to be managed by these local communities as well as local and state government agencies and bodies. The consistent issue, however, is the communications problem. Bridgetown, Nannup and Balingup have poor to no mobile coverage in certain areas. During the recent fires in Bridgetown, with the landlines burnt and limited 3G mobile reception available, the shire was told by the Telstra reps on site that Telstra would increase the power of the network signal during the fire to improve reception availability for affected residents and crews. The question put to me since by the community members was: if the signal can be increased in an emergency, why can’t it be available all of the time? Why can’t they have this service all of the time and why can’t they receive that early warning signal? That consistent access problem is an issue. We have had reports since that, during the time the signal was increased, people throughout the area who normally cannot and still cannot use the 3G network were able to do so. They also want to know why this service is not available all of the time. I was really pleased to hear the previous speaker mention the mobile tower option. That certainly could be an option in the future in this south-west area.
There has been a subsequent fire between Balingup and Nannup. Some residents on the Balingup-Nannup Road have to drive seven kilometres to find reception on any given day, let alone during a fire. During the actual fire, this put them at severe risk. I have had phone calls from badly affected local people who said they did not know whether they could get out or where the fire was. This is clearly a public safety issue. I am also told that Telstra may have negotiated an additional tower site in Bridgetown, but there are associated costs preventing this tower going ahead. I will continue to ask questions about this issue, particularly regarding public safety in this fire-prone area.
This demonstrates the need for effective, efficient and timely communications during emergency situations. It is a critical issue—a life-threatening issue. People in fire-prone areas can be totally isolated from critical information about the fire itself, about physical barriers and about constantly changing road closures. I note that a recent report in a regional newspaper indicated that the WA state government has indicated a likely increase in prescribed burning.
I support this bill, particularly as it is believed it will assist in managing emergency situations. As has been similarly mentioned here today, this is just one part of a comprehensive response to the bushfire threat in Australia.
1981
12:59:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local government
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—in reply—I thank all members who spoke on the Telecommunications Amendment (Integrated Public Number Database) Bill 2009. There were pertinent points made by all speakers, and I would like to acknowledge the contributions of the members for Dunkley, Dawson, O’Connor, Corio, Gippsland, Bendigo, Forrest, Corangamite, Hinkler and New England to this important debate. I want to also acknowledge the bipartisan support for this important bill going forward and I welcome the offer of support and assistance from members on both sides of the House on this issue.
I am encouraged by the recognition by members that information contained in the IPND is highly sensitive and needs to be managed carefully. I am encouraged by the acknowledgment that this bill represents an important step and input towards assisting implementation of telephone based emergency warning systems by states and territories. The IPND is the most competitive and accurate Australian public number database available, and information is updated on a continual basis. It contains around 50 million Australia telephone numbers and other information, including whether a service is a residential or business number and what type of telecommunication service is provided by each number.
Given the sensitive nature of the information contained in the IPND, access to this information is strictly limited under the Telecommunications Act. This bill proposes amendments to the act: to allow information to be disclosed from the integrated public number database in order to facilitate state and territory government initiated telephony based emergency warning systems; to give the Attorney-General the role of determining the circumstances in which IPND information could be disclosed, and to whom; to address concerns that telephone based emergency warning systems do not overload and disable the telecommunications network—including access to the 000 emergency hotline; to explicitly allow location dependent carriage service providers to access listed public number information in the IPND for the purpose of supplying location-dependent carriage services; and to provide strong privacy protections for individuals’ personal and sensitive information contained in the IPND.
In light of the unprecedented Victorian bushfire emergency, which claimed so many lives in that state, the government has also made a regulation under the Telecommunications Act 1997 to enable immediate interim access to the IPND for emergency warning purposes. The regulation will enable immediate access to the IPND by individual states and territories who wish to implement a more limited telephone based emergency warning system as soon as possible. It should be emphasised that the regulation is not a long-term solution and is also not a substitute for the amendments contained in this bill. As I said in this place on Monday, the historical advice to the Commonwealth has been that any plan to allow the states and territories access to the IPND as part of any emergency warning system would be best secured by a legislative amendment. It should also be emphasised that telephone based emergency warning systems can only supplement—and not replace—the range of measures currently used to warn the public of emergencies, such as television and radio, public address systems, doorknocking, sirens, signage and the internet.
Members speaking on this bill have acknowledged that, while a telephone warning system will add to the emergency response capability of states and territories, other mechanisms and measures will continue to remain important. In this context, the capacity to provide telephony based alerts—which will be enabled with the passage of this bill—would be a valuable additional tool that the states and territories could draw on in the event of an emergency situation. Actual emergency warning message delivery systems will be implemented by the states and territories as part of their responsibilities for managing emergencies and disasters in their jurisdictions. Individual states and territories will retain autonomy to decide when and how best to warn their citizens of emergencies and disasters and whether a telephone based warning system is most appropriate for their jurisdiction. I understand that on Monday the Commonwealth wrote to state and territory governments advising that, if they are able to agree to a national system at the next possible COAG meeting, the Commonwealth will make a further financial contribution to establish such a system, which would be owned and operated by the states and territories.
Whether or not a national system is established, there remain technological challenges to overcome to enable any system to communicate with all telephones in a threatened area. Advice to the government is that current technology is limited to communicating with fixed landlines and mobile telephones on the basis of billing address only—that is, rather than the location of the handset. This can mean individuals in a threatened area do not receive a warning on their phones, and individuals outside a threatened area receive irrelevant warnings. To help address this gap, at the next COAG meeting the Commonwealth will offer the states and territories financial assistance for them to conduct collaborative research on the viability of a location based emergency warning system.
As we enter the latter stages of the current bushfire season, I commend the work, sacrifices and dedication of the many Australians working in disaster affected areas, including the fire services, police and others working on the front line, and I impress upon all in the community the need for continued vigilance. As I advised the House in question time, I visited the bushfire affected areas in Victoria last week to discuss with local government leaders the way forward in terms of reconstructing those communities. I also had the opportunity to have one-to-one discussions with some of those very brave emergency service workers; they do our nation proud.
I would also like to reiterate that all those working in the disaster affected areas will have the continued support of everyone in this House and everyone in the Australian parliament. In summary, the steps announced by the Rudd government on Monday, including the introduction of this bill, will help make telephone based emergency warning systems one part of Australia’s disaster response capability. The bill will also clarify arrangements for the delivery of location-dependent carriage services. I commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
1983
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government)
13:07:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
HIGHER EDUCATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (STUDENT SERVICES AND AMENITIES, AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2009
1983
Bills
R4049
Second Reading
1983
Debate resumed from 24 February, on motion by Ms Kate Ellis:
That this bill be now read a second time.
1983
13:08:00
Dreyfus, Mark, MP
HWG
Isaacs
ALP
1
0
Mr DREYFUS
—I rise in support of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. I support this bill because it will reverse the destruction of the established fabric of student life that was caused by the former government’s voluntary student unionism legislation. To start off with, it is worth considering what was attacked by that legislation when it was introduced by the former government in 2006.
A snapshot was taken by Universities Australia, formerly the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, of student organisations in 2005. It is recorded in a discussion paper which was published in February 2008. This found that in the final year before voluntary student unionism was introduced universities collected some $172.8 million from student services and amenities charges. The snapshot found that the funds were distributed as follows: 71 per cent went to student organisations, 14 per cent went to universities to run their own student services and 15 per cent went to other bodies, such as privately run student advocacy organisations.
Universities Australia said that examples of the services that were provided by student associations under the model operated before the introduction of voluntary student unionism included the provision of food outlets, buildings, meeting rooms, toilet facilities, stationery, second-hand book shops, childcare services, legal services, welfare services, accommodation assistance, health services, employment services, funding to student groups—including clubs and societies on campus—support for campus theatres, student representation, educational advocacy, short- and long-term student loans, student newsletters and student newspapers. We can see from that long list of services provided under the model which existed before the introduction by the former government of voluntary student unionism just what a broad range of services were provided and what a contribution those services made to the rich fabric of student life.
The voluntary student unionism legislation of the former government was seemingly driven by an obsession to destroy all things union and to tear away at all parts of the union movement, even things that are only peripherally related to the union movement—student unions, it has to be said, stand in a class of their own. But, even at the cost of destroying and tearing away at the essential fabric of university life, the former government was intent on tearing at and striking down anything that they regarded as being associated with the union movement.
I am a proud graduate of the University of Melbourne, an institution that I attended for some 5½ years in the 1970s. I look back very fondly at the myriad of activities that I was able to participate in as a student at the university. Indeed, I served on the union council at the University of Melbourne for some years. I look back very fondly at the range of services that I was able to access as a student at the University of Melbourne. I am talking about various clubs and societies. There are a whole range of those at the University of Melbourne, from the chocolate appreciation society right through to sporting clubs, bushwalking clubs and all of the other essential services that should be part of university life.
Because I attended the University of Melbourne in the 1970s, I am also able to remember—and establish—just what a longstanding obsession of the Liberal Party this has been. Students associated with the Liberal Party in the 1970s—notably including Mr Robert Clark, now the Liberal member for Box Hill in the state parliament of Victoria—went so far as to engage in litigation against the university, so concerned were they about aspects of the collection of fees and the student union’s activities at the University of Melbourne.
Partly, then, this was an attack on unions and partly also it seems to have been an attempt by the former government to suppress the political activity and debate that have been and should continue to be so much a part of university life in this country. Those objectives of attacking the union movement and suppressing political activity and debate were much more important to those opposite than ensuring that the experience of university life was a rewarding one and that the full set of services that should be available to students was in fact available. Those opposite did not care about the loss of services which followed on from the introduction of their legislation in 2006. I want to dwell for a moment on what the effect of the former government’s voluntary student unionism legislation was, first of all, on sport, and then I am going to look briefly at the impact on regional campuses and then some other impacts.
The 2008 review of the impact of the previous government’s approach found that sport at universities across the country had been very seriously affected. Evidence was given to the review by a range of sporting organisations, from the Australian Olympic Committee to individual sporting clubs, and every single one of their submissions and all of the evidence was to the effect that sport had been an innocent but nevertheless a very real victim of the 2005 changes. The statistics included these: that direct funding for sporting clubs had been cut by 40 per cent; that there are now 12,000 fewer students participating in sport at university across the country, which is a 17 per cent reduction since 2005; that funding for intervarsity sport had been cut by half and participation by women in the Australian University Games had been reduced by almost 10 per cent; that six universities had shut down their elite athlete support program altogether and eight universities had discontinued funding of sports scholarships; and that 30 per cent of the spending of the sector, in real terms, on the maintenance of buildings and playing fields had been cut away, severely affecting the long-term viability of sporting, social and cultural infrastructure.
It is worth repeating what the Australian Olympic Committee had to say about this, and I will read from their submission. They said:
For a number of our Olympic Sports, the university sporting clubs system is a key component in the elite athlete pathway. The best example of this is rowing where approximately 80% of national representative rowers are members of or connected with a university club.
They went on:
Given the importance that the university sports system has on elite level sport, these trends will have a direct and real impact on Australia’s ability to maintain its hard won international standing in sport.
To continue with a bit more from the Australian Olympic Committee:
… the introduction of the VSU legislation has had a direct negative impact on the number of students (particularly women) participating in sport and, for the longer term, the maintenance and upgrading of sporting infrastructure and facilities and the retention of world class coaches.
There has been almost universal praise for this legislation. I note that Australian University Sport, on 12 February 2009, had this to say:
The proposed legislation provides great hope throughout the tertiary sport sector. Many campus sporting programs and clubs continue to struggle in the post VSU environment. The passage of this Bill will be welcomed by the hundreds of thousands of student-athletes and members of the community that regularly use university sporting facilities in the pursuit of health and well-being.
It is an extraordinary thing that, by introducing the legislation that it did in 2005 in its obsessive attack on all things union, the former government damaged sport and damaged participation in sport in the university sector at the very time that all governments in this country should recognise that engaging in preventive health measures, and encouraging people to participate in sport, should be the direction in which we are headed.
There was an equally disastrous impact of the voluntary student unionism legislation on regional campuses and regional students. The 2008 review found that students who attended regional campuses were more severely affected than were students attending metropolitan universities, and that is because regional students, generally speaking, are heavy users of services and amenities on campus. Often they have come from some other city or part of Australia to attend the regional university and thus lack the support that people who are attending tertiary institutions closer to home can expect from their families. A good example was the closure of the dental service at Southern Cross University, which until 2006 had been subsidised by student non-academic fees. Some 2,100 students at Southern Cross University accessed the service in 2005, but two years later it was forced to close. At James Cook University the Centrelink services at the Cairns campus were closed down, and the legal service was also closed down. Indeed, I can say that legal services closed down at a number of other universities around Australia, including the University of Technology, Sydney, and La Trobe University.
There is a long list of direct and detrimental effects that the introduction of voluntary student unionism had on the tertiary sector across the country, with closures of dental services, loan schemes and legal services. I have already mentioned the cut in funding for sport in all respects at universities. It has to be said that overall there has been a very direct decline in the opportunities for participation in university life—in the opportunities to enjoy university life, because all of us would recognise that attending a tertiary institution is not simply a matter of attending lectures and studying for the course in which one is enrolled. There are other, perhaps intangible, benefits of university life, including socialising and participating in extracurricular activities with other students, that are in a very real sense education for life just as much as are the formal courses that a student is enrolled in.
There has been overwhelming support for this legislation. The Group of Eight, which is the coalition of leading Australian universities, in November last year had this to say:
The Federal Government’s decision to allow universities to support essential student services through the collection of a modest fee is a sensible compromise that will enhance the quality of Australia’s higher education system
Universities Australia, which is the industry peak body representing the university sector, on 3 November 2008 said:
Universities have struggled for years to prop up essential student services through cross-subsidisation from other parts of already stretched university budgets, to redress the damage that resulted from the Coalition Government’s disastrous Voluntary Student Unionism (VSU) legislation.
Also in November last year, the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations said:
We certainly welcome the recognition by Government of the importance of student services and representation. Since the onset of “VSU” we have seen a dramatic decline in services and representation for postgraduates on most campuses.
There have been some suggestions by speakers opposite that, because the scheme being introduced here permits universities to impose a capped fee of up to $250 and because it further provides for students to borrow and thus increase their debt in order to pay that fee, this is in some way imposing an additional burden on students. I say to those opposite who have made this suggestion that students are already, and have been for over two years, paying the cost of voluntary student unionism. They have been paying because the facilities and services that were previously available to them either were substantially reduced or had been cut completely, leading to the situation where, in order to obtain those services, students who had previously been provided with them collectively were paying for them themselves. Students have been hit with increased prices for child care, parking, books, computer labs, sport and food. They still need all of those services as people attending tertiary institutions. The fact that services have not been provided collectively has not relieved students of their need to access such facilities and services.
Students have experienced indirect costs caused by voluntary student unionism because universities have had to redirect funds that would have been better spent on other aspects of university activities. They have had to redirect funds that would otherwise have been spent on research and teaching to fund services and amenities that, because of the introduction of voluntary student unionism and the reduction of funds available, would otherwise have had to be cut. In addition, it should be clear to all that the reintroduction of a student amenities fee will help to rebuild important student services and amenities. The paying of this fee by students will not be a financial barrier because students will have the option to take out a HECS style loan as a new component of the Higher Education Loan Program.
This legislation will, as I said at the start of this speech, reverse a disastrous change in the administration of our tertiary sector. It will go a long way towards restoring the provision of services to students. The only striking thing about the debate in this House has been the number of speakers opposite who have persisted with their obsessive desire to continue to destroy all things union. I commend the bill to the House.
1987
13:25:00
Marino, Nola, MP
HWP
Forrest
LP
0
0
Ms MARINO
—I rise to voice my opposition to the proposed amendments in the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. Schedule 1 of the bill will amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to provide for a compulsory fee to be imposed by higher education providers from 1 July 2009 for student services and amenities. The fee is to be capped at $250 per student each year but will be indexed annually. The bill provides for a new component of the Higher Education Loan Program, HELP—the Services and Amenities Higher Education Loan Program, SA-HELP—that will provide eligible students with an option to borrow the fee through SA-HELP. But we have no clear idea what the eligibility criteria will be. The Student Services and Amenities Fee Guidelines will be tabled as a disallowable instrument after the bill has been passed. The bill requires higher education providers to comply with the new Student Services, Amenities, Representation and Advocacy Guidelines. This is clearly funding for student elections, union officers and salaries and, like the fee guidelines, will be tabled after the bill has been passed.
Historically, Labor’s student amenities fees were clearly compulsory upfront union fees. The Higher Education Support Amend-ment (Abolition of Compulsory Up-front Student Union Fees) Bill 2005 prevented a higher education provider from requiring a student to be a member of a student association, union or guild and prevented a compulsory fee for facilities, amenities or services that are not of an academic nature. However, to deal with concerns regarding the impact of voluntary student unionism on regional campuses and on recreational and sporting activities, the Howard government provided transition funding to universities. Forty-four projects funded by $85 million assisted universities with the construction and maintenance of infrastructure for sporting and recreational facilities. Other projects were funded through the Support for Small Businesses on Regional University Campuses fund to establish operations for small businesses on regional campuses and provide services for students. The regional university sport program provided $10 million over four years to support regional universities in maintaining their sporting programs.
The minister claims that she does not intend this bill to reintroduce compulsory student union fees, but the only political activities expressly prohibited by the legislation are support to political parties and support for election to a Commonwealth, state, territory or local government body. The legislation does not prohibit funding campaigns against legislation and policies or for direct support of trade unions or any other organisation not registered as a political party. I am sure we will see some very creative student union activities and cross-subsidisation.
The legislation does allow the funds to be used for student representations—in other words, compulsory student unionism by stealth. Students will have no choice but to fund the political agendas of student unions whether they want to or not. How will these funds be audited? Where is the departmental monitoring to ensure compliance with the guidelines? At the end of the day, it will be at the minister’s discretion as to whether any penalty is imposed.
Many students believe that the government is attempting to reintroduce compulsory student union fees via the back door, with student unions set to be the beneficiaries of at least part of the revenue raised by the compulsory charge, aided by the lack of compliance requirements. I am told that the University of WA has a $120 fee for students to join the guild. If this fee is compulsory, will universities simply increase their fees immediately to the proposed $250? And on what basis will the universities’ fees be evaluated?
Many students also believe that they should have the freedom to decide how and on what they spend their money, if in fact they have some to spare. They do not want to be forced to pay for services or amenities—many of which are already offered by universities—that they do not use. Specifically, over 130,000 external students may never have the opportunity to use any of those facilities, but they will have to pay. What impact will this compulsory fee have on the businesses currently patronised by the students? Students will not be able to afford both the compulsory fee and the fees of community and regional sporting clubs and associations or those of the private support and community services that are provided off campus—services they are currently paying for.
Coming from the regional electorate of Forrest, I know too well the financial and emotional stresses students have to deal with when they leave the security of their south-west family homes and move to Perth—or any other capital city, for that matter—to continue with their education and take up tertiary courses only available at metropolitan universities. There are extensive additional costs they and their families have to meet compared with their fellow metropolitan based students. Students from regional areas are already financially and socially disadvantaged when they have to move from their home base to that metro area. They are disadvantaged due to the high costs they incur but also due to the extra emotional stress of simply being away from home and their families, and some students handle this better than others.
For young students this can sometimes be the worst time in their lives to be away from their support base, which is their family. They are basically on their own. In their first year, university is a whole new world and, unlike their city based counterparts, they cannot continue to live at home with meals prepared and, often, the washing done and with the comfort and support of just being with their family. Regional students’ lives take on a very busy schedule. They have to find a place to live and a vehicle to get around in. They have to work to pay the rent and buy food and clothing. These are the very things that they used to take for granted in the family home. Cooking for themselves is just another hurdle and challenge. If you are a first year student, there is the challenge of managing the social and relationship issues in a major city, as well as finding money for parking at some universities and for fuel, if you can afford it, for the odd trip home to the country. And then the student has to find time to study.
Rent prices in Perth have increased dramatically over the past year. Rents for units have jumped 25 per cent and house rentals have jumped 17 per cent. Houses to share with fellow students are definitely in short supply. It is often extremely difficult to find a landlord or real estate office willing to rent to students. Students and their families have to find two weeks rent in advance and four weeks bond, as well as connection fees for electricity, gas and telephones. Accommodation at residential colleges can cost approximately $300 a week per student. Often regional students see themselves as poor students, and those from regional areas often are poor students—and for more than just financial reasons—compared to metropolitan based students because their families have such a battle to get them to university in the first place.
This bill will simply add to the cost of education for students and their families at a time when the economy is in decline. Many first year students from Forrest have told me they will not use the amenities that will supposedly be funded by this charge. They have said they cannot afford the fee and, in many instances, simply will be unable to use the services that the fees are supposed to provide. This is a Labor government $250 tax to fund compulsory student unionism by stealth, imposed irrespective of a student’s income, actual use of services and where they are doing the course. Students, as I said, studying by correspondence will also pay the $250 tax. What services and facilities will those students actually use?
I also know of students in music performance studies who provide entertainment for the campus at various concerts during the day and in their own time at night as an extension of their studies. Universities already have their clubs, sports and recreation facilities but not every student uses them, particularly those doing, as I said before, correspondence courses. Those who can afford or want to use the facilities now pay a fee. This is as it should be—a free choice made by the individual student depending on their circumstances and willingness to use the facility. Under the Howard government’s legislation, students on average saved $246 a year. Those who chose not to become members of a student union saved $318 a year. But with the government’s current spending sprees and $200 billion borrowings, our students, youth and future generations will inherit massive Labor debt—and here we have another tax on university students to fund compulsory student union fees.
In February, the Minister for Youth took submissions from stakeholders on the impact of the current VSU policy. The findings were reported in The impact of voluntary student unionism on services, amenities and representation for Australian university students: summary report. Some of the benefits were listed as:
… streamlining and more efficient delivery of services to suit student needs, the opening up of the provision of services to a commercial model, and consultation with students to determine what could be defined as essential services.
At a number of universities there was no longer a student union. In other instances, a number of student groups had merged into one body. Some institutions commented that there had been benefits from voluntary student unionism in terms of student representation and, in particular, that representation was now from a much broader base. Yet the government is intent on forcing this policy onto all students. I note that the Greens are also calling for more effective student advocacy. There is a campaign online called ‘Hey Government, Leave My Wallet Alone!’, where numerous blogs can be found in opposition to the reintroduction of student services fees. One says:
No fees, no new tax on students, deferred or otherwise, said pre-election Labor.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs said in interviews that an elected Labor government would not reverse the introduction of voluntary student unionism. The member for Perth said:
No, we won’t. We’ve made it clear we will allow students to voluntarily organise themselves.
When asked if an elected Labor government would contemplate some sort of loan or deferred payment, the member for Perth said:
No, absolutely not. One thing I can absolutely rule out is that I am not considering a HECS style arrangement, particularly a compulsory HECS style arrangement.
An excerpt from the comments on the website I referred to earlier—Hey Government, Leave My Wallet Alone!—includes:
I could barely support myself through-out the year and I don’t get a cent from centrelink and eventually I had to skip lectures to pick up extra shifts at work and now I’m expected to pay for services that I won’t use.
As I mentioned earlier, I am very concerned about the disproportionate disadvantage students from regional areas face, those students whose parents have to work to provide their children with tertiary education. Many students from regional areas also do not qualify for youth allowance from Centrelink. Growing numbers of students have to take a gap year, deferring their university studies to qualify for the independent rate of youth allowance; otherwise, they are unable to afford to go to university.
An article in the Courier Mail by Amanda Horswill on 7 November 2008 explained why generation Y students are opting for a gap year before going to university. She writes that many gappers are being forced to take a year off to work and save up cash for their future studies. A survey of the class of 2007 year 12s undertaken by the state government found that university deferrals rose from 7.1 per cent in 2006 to 8.4 per cent in 2008, with 52.4 per cent of students working full time and 38 per cent working part time. A quarter of deferrers blamed monetary reasons for their deferrals. Most of this group said they needed to work to finance further study. A further 8.5 per cent said they were working so they could qualify for the youth allowance to help pay for part of their study and living allowances. What is not known is how many of these actually never return to take up their places and do not follow through on their tertiary education ambitions.
Many in my electorate of Forrest struggle to send their children to university, even with students taking that gap year, working to qualify for the independent rate of youth allowance. Mrs Collins of West Busselton, John Thompson and Denis Frost are just three of my constituents who have contacted me recently because their children do not qualify for youth allowance. Mrs Collins’ daughter lives in Perth and studies at TAFE. She is trying to qualify for the independent rate of youth allowance but there are simply no jobs available for her at the moment. Mr Frost’s son spent seven months in Cambodia last year undertaking volunteer work. He now wants to study but cannot afford to move to Perth and therefore his studies are on hold while he tries to find work. The problem is that he will have to start from the beginning again and work the 18-month period and his university studies will be deferred for a lot longer than he would have liked. Consideration should be given to waiving the qualification for independent youth allowance for those students who participate in an exchange program and who are often out of Australia for a full year.
However, the key issues on this bill remain, and they concern the following. Should the fees be compulsory? No. Will the fees be increased? This may be the starting point because the fees, capped at a maximum of $250, are indexed. Where is the guarantee that the money will be spent by universities on services? What administration will be applied?
This bill has been scheduled for debate today, but the bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations reporting on 10 March. I remain opposed to the introduction of what will lead to compulsory student union fees.
1990
13:41:00
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
1
0
Mr KELVIN THOMSON
—The member for Forrest talked about affordability of university education for young people, but this is an unfortunate example of crocodile tears. Certainly there are substantial difficulties being faced by university students today, but they are a direct consequence of the Howard government ripping out hundreds of millions of government support for universities and instead encouraging universities to charge higher fees and introduce full-fee degrees and higher HECS charges. It is these things, the legacy of the previous government, which have made university education less affordable for young people than it has been in the past.
A report released by the National Union of Students in 2007 on its findings concerning the Howard government’s voluntary student unionism, known as VSU, reported that:
-
VSU has failed to deliver what its proponents argued for—self sustaining student organisations just able to survive off voluntary memberships, investments and trading operations.
It reported that:
-
25 out of 30 student organisations reported substantial or total job losses; much of these cuts have come in the area of professional support to student representatives;
And that:
-
13 out of 18 organisations reported that they had made substantial or near total cuts to departmental or portfolio funding (ie campaigns, activities, support programmes).
The Australian University Sport and the Australian Campus Union Managers Association review of the impact of VSU was that:
-
Prices charged to students for use of services and facilities have in general increased materially since on-set of VSU outstripping, in most cases, consumer price index (CPI) and placing greater financial pressures on students.
In stark contrast, the Labor government acknowledges that it has a responsibility to allow universities to provide suitable student services and also to ensure that students have appropriate representation. This bill, the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009, honours that commitment to ensuring that students have access to vital campus services and our commitment to undo the damage inflicted by the previous government.
The government is taking a balanced and practical approach to ensure student amenities, services and access to independent and democratic representation and advocacy are secured now and into the future. Through these amendments the government will, for the first time, introduce national access to services benchmarks relating to the provision of information on and access to services such as welfare and counselling services in line with the current requirements for overseas students. The government will, for the first time, introduce national student representation and advocacy protocols to ensure that students have an independent voice on campus. These protocols will facilitate access for students to advocacy support services and ensure opportunities for democratic student representation and student input during the decision-making process.
To support quality services over and above these benchmarks and protocols we will provide universities with the option to set a compulsory fee capped at a maximum of $250 a year indexed annually. A set of guidelines is being developed outlining the range of services and amenities for which the fee can and cannot be used. This will include things like child care, health care and sports and fitness clubs. It will be a decision for each university—let me repeat: it will be a decision for each university—as to whether it wishes to implement a fee and the level of the fee up to $250. The fee will support student services and amenities over and above the new national access to services benchmarks and national student representation and advocacy protocols. The bill will also ensure that students wanting to study diploma and above qualifications in the vocational educational and training sector are able to access the training they choose without worrying about upfront fees.
To increase productivity, Australia needs to increase the skill levels of the Australian population. For the last four or five years, the number of students studying diplomas and advanced diplomas in the public VET system has decreased from 197,300 in 2002 to 165,000 in 2007. This bill includes amendments to allow for future expansion of the VET FEE-HELP scheme, which will provide the flexibility to reduce the loan fee for particular students and streamline credit transfer requirements for a range of students through the guidelines. In August last year, the government announced that VET FEE-HELP would be extended to state subsidised diploma and advanced diploma students in Victoria, with the loan fee being withdrawn for these students. Reducing the loan fee and relaxing credit transfer restrictions form part of this measure. The availability of VET FEE-HELP is expected to significantly contribute to the Council of Australian Governments’ target to double the number of diploma and advanced diploma completions by 2020. The Australian government is committed to building a highly skilled workforce that will deliver productivity growth in a low-inflation, modern economy. World-class universities are a crucial component of an effective economic strategy to deliver the growth that this nation requires as we come through uncertain times.
On the subject of world-class universities, this bill demonstrates that the Labor Party has a genuine feel for what campus life is really like. A university is a community. Universities can be large, cold, remote, impersonal places. You need to feel that you belong. Students who feel that they belong will have a much more rewarding and successful student life. My first university degree was from the University of Melbourne. I took advantage of its great facilities and its active student life. At the Rowden White library I listened to records—Bob Dylan, Led Zeppelin, the Rolling Stones—which I, as a poor student, could not afford to buy. I used the athletic track. I used the swimming pool. I went to the student union theatre and watched films at cheaper rates than at commercial cinemas. I went on bushwalking club walks and enjoyed from a distance the more far-out clubs and societies such as the chocolate appreciation society and the engineers society. I went in the Mr Commerce drinking competition and I was runner-up. I am not sure if I ever told my parents that. I hope they are not listening. All these student activities enhance campus life. They bring it richness and meaning: the sport, the arts, the journalism skills—forged writing, outrageous copy, for student publications. That is why when the Victorian Kennett government moved to introduce what it called voluntary student unionism it was opposed by a glittering array of artists and entertainers.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
1992
Questions Without Notice: Additional Answers
Special Air Service Regiment
1992
1992
13:49:00
Mr FITZGIBBON,MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
Minister for Defence
1
0
Mr FITZGIBBON
—by leave—Yesterday I was asked in question time by the shadow minister for foreign affairs:
Is the minister aware that, as recently as four weeks ago, due to debt recovery action by the government, a serving SAS soldier received zero dollars in his pay packet and has been unable to make his home loan payments?
To that question I responded:
I am not aware of the particular case, although I have noticed that Senator Johnston has been bandying around a piece of paper—unwilling, by the way, to share it with me. So I invite the member to table it, so that I can ...
Of course, the opposition decided not to share that information. Immediately after question time yesterday I asked the Department of Defence to try and identify more details about the pay slip that Senator Johnston was bandying around in Senate estimates yesterday—which, I believe, the shadow minister for foreign affairs was also bandying around.
At 10 am today I was provided with a copy of a pay slip that Defence, I am advised, believes is a copy of this pay slip. We believe that this is a copy of the same pay slip of the husband of a woman who emailed our office two weeks ago raising concerns about debt recovery issues. Of course, this would have been much easier to deal with if the opposition had not sought to score a cheap political point at the expense of this family. This is also despite Senator Johnston, the shadow minister for defence, saying at Senate estimates in October:
I am very much obliged to the efforts you—
that is, the Chief of Army—
have taken. I thank you for that. I will write to you if there are any further issues so that we might resolve them privately from here on in. Thank you very much.
I also said yesterday in parliament that:
My office advises that we did have one woman ring my office complaining about an overpayment. Unfortunately, she was unprepared—and I think that is understandable given the political nature of this issue now—to give us her name, number or situation. She just wanted my office to know that there was a problem. I appreciate her having done that because it reinforced in my mind that we still have problems.
That phone call was made to my office on 10 February 2009. I have been advised overnight that another person called my office on 12 February to follow up on an email she had sent to my office the day before—that is, 11 February. That person emailed me overnight to point out that she too had made contact with my office. She was not very happy, I have to say. I absolutely understand her not being happy that I did not mention her yesterday, so I thank her for bringing this to my attention. Hers is a case in which her husband, who is an SAS soldier, had money deducted from his pay. Importantly, I am advised that, like other members affected, any recovery action relating to the March 2008 Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal determination against her partner ceased at my direction last year.
For completeness, I wish to advise that during the past four months the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and I have received a number of emails and phone calls from members of the Defence Force and the public expressing concern about this matter. All phone calls were taken, all emails were responded to promptly, and any specific concerns that were raised with my office have been immediately referred to the Australian Defence Force for both investigation and action. I thank the House.
HIGHER EDUCATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (STUDENT SERVICES AND AMENITIES, AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2009
1993
Bills
R4049
Second Reading
1993
Debate resumed.
1993
13:54:00
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
1
0
Mr KELVIN THOMSON
—When the Victorian Kennett government moved to introduce voluntary student unionism, it was opposed by a glittering array of artists and entertainers—Barry Humphries, Magda Szubanski, David Williamson, Peter Rowsthorn, Rob Sitch, Mick Molloy, John Clarke, Max Gillies, Noel Ferrier, Deborah Conway and many more—who pointed out how important student arts activities had been in their own formative years. So why had the Kennett government moved to introduce voluntary student unionism in 1994, and why did the Howard government follow suit in 1999? The answer is that the people who developed the legislation were failed former Liberal student politicians, and legislation was the third go they had at it.
First, they tackled it in the courts. They tried to have universities prohibited from charging compulsory fees and compulsory memberships of student unions or associations. They were unsuccessful. Secondly, they tried to have students on the campuses of universities and other post-secondary education institutions vote for VSU. It is indeed a reasonable proposition that, if a majority of students want this outcome, they can move in this direction. However, they failed to attract support amongst the student community to do that. So they turned to parliament to impose voluntary student unionism on universities and student communities, regardless of whether or not they wanted it. Back in the 1990s one of these Liberal advocates, Mr Charles Richardson, said:
Nobody wants to abolish the caf. Nobody wants to close down the toilets in the union building or whatever. Those services will survive under a voluntary union. They will be better provided. They will be targeted more effectively at the students.
I can remember a couple of my fellow students who might have targeted themselves more effectively at the urinals, but the reverse idea is plain absurd. Perhaps Mr Richardson was in favour of user-pays toilets, where you pay at the door. That system did indeed exist 50 or 100 years ago, but I believe that the fact that we do not have to pay when we visit public toilets these days represents social progress.
Mr Richardson also rebutted concerns about freeriding by saying that it was possible to limit most of the union services to people who had paid. He said, ‘You could reserve the union to members only like private clubs do.’ This attitude is a dead giveaway. It is all too typical of a Liberal Party which just hates it when education is accessible to everybody, a Liberal Party which is still hung up on exclusivity, a Liberal Party which never got over Gough Whitlam opening up tertiary education to all young Australians on merit, and a Liberal Party which in office made tertiary education more expensive and less accessible for young people in my electorate of Wills and right around Australia.
Student unionism is not anything like compulsory unionism in an industrial relations setting. University students and post-secondary education students are not employees seeking to negotiate with employers. It is a totally different kind of association, more akin to paying rates or taxes. Of course, we could have voluntary payment of rates or voluntary payments of taxes, but if we made the payment of rates or taxes optional then no-one would pay them. We would have to pay someone to construct the street outside our house, someone to construct the footpath and so on. We could hire private bodyguards to keep us safe, or at least a private investigator to recover our belongings if they are stolen. If you go back far enough in history, things indeed used to work like that. But there are severe problems with the idea of voluntary payments. We do not have the time to do all these things ourselves, such as hire road makers, footpath makers or private investigators. We do not have the time to check their credentials or to sue them if they stuff things up. And even if my section of a road is perfect, perhaps the neighbour next door is too lazy, too poor, does not drive a car, does not want to put in his section or may want to do it in gravel instead. I do not want a patchwork quilt for a road; I want a road I can use.
I have found, and whole communities have found, that it makes a lot more sense to pool our resources and have someone else look after those things so that we can get on with our lives and the things that are important to us. That is how taxes developed and that is how student unionism developed. Student unionism goes back to before the turn of the century. It has a history which members of the Liberal Party have not appreciated. It came into being to serve student communities because there was a need for the services the unions provide and because they represented better value for time and money than if individual students had to do all those things themselves.
In 1994, in the Victorian legislation, we could see the consequence of ideological obsession getting in the way of good policy. We ended up with legislation under which overseas students could achieve representation but local students could not. Students could run their own TV or radio services, but not newspapers. Student cultural activities were all right, but not student political ones. It reminded me of Eastern Europe before the Berlin Wall came down. It was the same with the Howard government. During the Howard government period close to $170 million was ripped out of university funding—$170 million. This resulted in the decline and, in some cases, the complete closure of vital health, counselling, employment, childcare and welfare support services.
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 Wills will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
1995
14:00:00
Questions Without Notice
Employment
1995
14:00:00
1995
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his industry minister’s declaration to all Australian workers, broadcast on Radio 3AW this morning, that none of their jobs are safe. When will the Prime Minister admit that his tens of billions of dollars in cash splashes and relentless talking down of the economy are destroying confidence, frightening workers and their families and making matters much worse?
1995
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. He speaks of the need for hope and confidence and about the strength of this economy, when in recent days he has appointed a shadow Treasurer who said a year ago, and has championed this since: ‘I firmly believe we are heading into a recession nationally.’ So there we have, on the one hand, the shadow treasurer in the last 24 hours speaking about the need for hope and positive sentiment in the economy, reflected again in the question just asked by the Leader of the Opposition, when the same shadow Treasurer has chanted this mantra for the year, beginning with February last year: ‘I firmly believe we are heading into a recession.’ What double standards!
Victorian Bushfires
1995
1995
14:02:00
Gibbons, Steve, MP
83X
Bendigo
ALP
1
Mr GIBBONS
—My question is addressed to the Assistant Treasurer. Will the minister give an update to the House on progress of insurance claims of those affected by the Victorian bushfires?
1995
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Treasurer
1
Mr BOWEN
—I thank the honourable member for his question. We all know that the efficient and speedy settling of insurance claims will play a very important part as people seek to rebuild their homes and their lives following the Victorian bushfires. The latest advice is that 6,760 bushfire related insurance claims have been received. Approximately 85 per cent of these relate to property or contents. The approximate value of claims received to date, including residential, commercial, industrial and farming losses, is $810 million. This number is, of course, subject to refinement as further assessment and further work is done to detail the affected premises and assets.
The $810 million estimate comprises approximately 76 per cent domestic claims and 24 per cent farming, commercial and insurance claims. To 23 February, the general insurance industry has delivered approximately $63 million in emergency payment cash settlements to affected policyholders. Several insurers have now completed 100 per cent of the assessment of their commercial claims, while others have completed more than 80 per cent. The remainder of the claims are in areas which cannot currently be accessed. Sixty per cent of home claims have had their sites assessed, up from 50 per cent last Sunday. Of course, progress in completing assessments is dependent on the policyholder being ready to progress the claim—some, understandably, are not—and also on police and coronial activity in the area and, in some cases, continuing bushfires.
When I last addressed the House on this issue, I informed honourable members that the insurance industry had established representation and a process for lodging claims at every relief centre. Following the successful implementation of those arrangements, insurers are now commencing an adjustment of resources into the field to ensure that claims are processed as quickly as possible. The full establishment of the case management system, which has been outlined to the House by the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, has been matched by a dramatic downturn in visits to relief centres, and insurers are continuing to adjust their resourcing to ensure that claims are assessed speedily. Insurers are continuing to maintain a presence at Alexandra, Yea and the Kinglake relief centres, as these locations are close to the damaged properties. I take this opportunity to say to the front-line insurance workers who are dealing with victims being exposed to distressing scenes and stories every day and doing their best to resolve issues as quickly as possible that we appreciate their work.
As I have outlined to the House previously, there will inevitably be some disputation around some insurance claims. As the House will recall, the chief financial ombudsman, who has the power to issue binding decisions to resolve disputed claims, has established a bushfire and flood hotline. That number, for people listening, is 1800337444. The Financial Ombudsman Service has handled about 70 inquiries from bushfire affected policyholders and has been assisting those policyholders in dealing with their insurance companies. Last week I met with the chief executives of each major insurance company in Australia. Each of them indicated a desire to work proactively with the government to resolve issues as they arise, which we appreciate.
I also thank those honourable members who have been in contact with me personally to discuss issues in their electorates. I will not detain the House with an update on each of those issues, other than to say that I appreciate the cooperative spirit with which those honourable members have engaged with the government to resolve issues that they have brought to our attention, and we have worked well together to resolve those issues. It is still relatively early days in terms of resolving all the insurance claims and issues arising out of the bushfires, but we will continue to work with honourable members affected, with the insurance companies and, where necessary, with the chief financial ombudsman to resolve these issues as they arise. I will keep the House updated with progress.
Economy
1996
1996
14:07:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the statement by his Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research yesterday that he had been told by Pacific Brands three weeks ago it was going to sack 1,850 workers and had discussed it with the company’s chairman. But in an interview on 3AW this morning the minister was asked if he was aware of the depth of these problems before yesterday and he replied, ‘No.’ Which version of events from the industry minister is correct? And, Prime Minister, when did you become aware that these sackings were coming up, and what did you do about them?
1997
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I thank the honourable member for his question. As I said in the parliament, the loss of jobs as a result of Pacific Brands’ decision yesterday is regrettable for the economy, but it is distressing and devastating for individual workers. That is why every form of assistance available from the Commonwealth government to those individual workers will be provided.
On the question raised just now by the honourable Leader of the Opposition, the industry minister has indicated that he had been in discussion with the company concerning their intended announcement. The key and responsible decision by the minister was to put this to the Chairman of Pacific Brands: ‘Is there any form of government assistance which would prevent you from taking this course of action?’ The answer was ‘no’. That is the responsible course of action.
Can I say more broadly on the question of industry policy action—which those opposite have resolutely opposed in relation to the car plan and in relation to everything else—that they speak with great double standards on the question of industry policy assistance, period. The industry minister has handled this matter entirely responsibly. I have been in close consultation with him and he has my full support.
Economy
1997
1997
14:09:00
Bevis, Arch, MP
ET4
Brisbane
ALP
1
Mr BEVIS
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on recent global economic developments and the response of governments around the world?
1997
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I thank the member for Brisbane for his question. We have various developments in terms of the global economy which are of relevance, of course, to the unfolding strength of the Australian economy and the impact which flows on the question of jobs.
It is important as we work our way through the implementation of the government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan that we are always mindful of the fact that we are in the midst of a global economic recession. UK GDP contracted by 1.5 per cent in the fourth quarter, German GDP contracted 2.1 per cent in the fourth quarter—the largest contraction since reunification in the early 1990s—and trade data from Japan showed a fall in Japanese exports of 45 per cent.
President Obama addressed congress last night on the economic challenges facing the world and the United States. President Obama correctly called this ‘a moment in history’ because it is necessary for us all to be seized of its absolute importance, of as much as possible coordinated government action across the world. He described it as a day of reckoning and said that ‘the time to take charge of our future is here’. President Obama outlined his fiscal stimulus plan to invest US$787 billion into the US economy. He said that over the next two years this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs.
President Obama also recognised the growing threat to prosperity, which lies in our credit markets. The President noted the flow of private credit is essential. He said:
… even if we manage this plan flawlessly, there will be no real recovery unless we clean up the credit crisis that has severely weakened our financial system.
… … …
The concern is that if we do not re-start lending in this country, our recovery will be choked off before it even begins.
You see, the flow of credit is the lifeblood of our economy. The ability to get a loan is how you finance the purchase of everything from a home to a car to a college education; how stores stock their shelves, farms buy equipment, and businesses make payroll.
President Obama is absolutely right because what he is describing in his address to the United States congress is the challenge, of course, that we face right across the world, and that is the problem of global private credit supply. That is why in Australia we have acted in relation to particular challenges within individual credit markets, actions which, by and large, have been uniformly attacked by those opposite in relation to car dealership finance, in terms of the commercial property market and also in terms of residential mortgage-backed securities.
That is why acting to restore the flow of lending to the private sector will be a key priority for the G20 leaders’ summit on 2 April. We, together with others, are working hard with other G20 members to find an effective global solution to the problem of these banks’ bad assets, as we are on restoring global growth and strengthening the regulatory framework for the financial system so as to minimise the prospect of future crises. These actions are necessary globally. The problem at present is that we see a range of uncoordinated, individual national actions in relation to the restoration of the health of private credit markets, and that continues as a core of the global economic challenge.
This will be a difficult period ahead for the global economy. When we discuss job losses in Australia, which we will do a lot in this parliament as the year progresses, action can be taken nationally to support, stabilise and normalise Australian credit markets and to restore—to the greatest extent possible—private credit flows. We can act nationally also when it comes to nation building and jobs investment through a Nation Building and Jobs Plan—which each one of those opposite has voted against. I would recall, for the benefit of those opposite, the comments this morning by former Woolworths boss Roger Corbett, who said the following in relation to recent tactics by the Liberal and National parties in opposition to the stimulus package before the parliament:
… delay …is very, very counter-productive to the end result …
He said:
I think, generally, economic theory, sensible theory is that a package is needed and I think the community expects our governments operating in this crisis situation to act in a bipartisan way.
He went on to say:
I would like to call on the opposition here in NSW, (Opposition Leader) Barry O’Farrell and the federal people to pull together to close this gap because speed is of the essence.
Roger Corbett from the business community, former CEO of Woolworths and, of course, with Reserve Bank experience, is a business person making plain to those opposite in his direct remarks that what is required here is for the nation to pull together in response to a Nation Building and Jobs Plan to provide the fiscal stimulus necessary to see Australia through the crisis.
I heard the comments earlier today and last night from the shadow Treasurer calling for hope and optimism. Calling for hope and optimism is one thing; the monstrous contradiction between such a person doing so on the one hand and then predicting an economic recession 12 months later, I leave to one side. But calling for hope and optimism is a dead letter in the absence of a concrete strategy and plan for action. That concrete strategy and plan for action is represented by our $42 billion nation-building plan. This government has an economic strategy to see Australia through this crisis. Those opposed to us—the Liberal and National parties—have a political strategy that seeks to take political advantage from this crisis. Therein lies the difference.
Nation Building and Jobs Plan
1999
1999
14:15:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
Mr HOCKEY
—My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the Prime Minister’s recent statement:
I don’t want to be Prime Minister of a country that doesn’t make things anymore
Treasurer, Melba Industries in Victoria makes things. It employs 230 people who make, amongst other things, protective clothing for firefighters and military clothing for the SAS. Melba Industries has gone into voluntary administration. Treasurer, given your cash splash did not save the workers at Pacific Brands, how will it save the workers at Melba Industries?
1999
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question. You can almost hear the glee in the question.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing orders 89 and 90, the opposition has found deeply offensive all week this imputation by the government of improper motives to our questions. I ask you to rule the Treasurer’s comments out of order and draw him back to the question. This is a serious issue. People’s lives and livelihoods are at risk and he should not be making light of it.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat. There is no point of order. The Treasurer will respond to the question.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—It certainly is a very serious question—
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Then take it seriously.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—and it is something that the government takes very seriously. That is why we have said repeatedly that the global recession will have a negative impact on employment in Australia. The global recession will have that impact, and it is going to have tragic consequences for too many Australians. That is why the government is so steely in its resolve to support employment through stimulus packages—first of all the Economic Security Strategy brought down last October and, of course, our Nation Building and Jobs Plan. They are all designed to support employment in this economy in the middle of a global recession, because there is only one certainty here: we would be much worse off if the government had not acted. That is something that those opposite simply refuse to acknowledge. They refuse to acknowledge the magnitude of the problem and they refuse to put forward any alternative whatsoever. They are a policy free zone.
Looking at the pictures on television last night of those Pacific Brands workers only steels the government’s determination to act and steels the government’s determination to support employment. On this side of the House we will do everything within our power to support employment and to avoid unemployment. The only people in this country who want higher unemployment are those on that side of the House. There is something inherently un-Australian about the way they celebrate these figures. There most certainly is. Those opposite stand up and say they are for jobs and then come into the House and vote against jobs.
We saw comments today from a leading Australian businessman, who is not associated with this side of the House, Mr Corbett. He is probably one of our most respected businessmen in this country. He made this point—and it represents what the business community is saying, it represents what the Australian Industry Group is saying, it represents what the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry is saying, it represents what the Business Council of Australia is saying and it represents what everybody in this country, except those on the opposite side of the House, is saying. He said:
Delay is very, very counterproductive to the end result.
Mr Corbett called on federal and state oppositions not to stand in the way of government attempts to stimulate the economy. Mr Corbett went on to make this very sensible point—and this is a complete repudiation of everything that has been said in this House and in the Senate by the Liberal and National parties. He said:
“I think, generally, economic theory, sensible theory is that a package is needed—
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My question was about the workers of Melba Industries and what the government is going to do to protect their jobs.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Treasurer is responding to the question.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—I most certainly am responding to the question, Mr Speaker, because what Mr Corbett is saying is what the government is saying—that is, that the government must do everything within its power to support employment. He went on to say:
“A package is needed and I think the community expects our governments operating in this crisis situation to act in a bipartisan way.”
That was very clearly directed at those opposite. Mr Corbett is a respected Australian businessman, but he is also somebody who has an enormous amount of economic knowledge and experience and, of course, is quite familiar to the member for Higgins—because Mr Corbett was appointed to the Reserve Bank board by the member for Higgins. So he is somebody whose views were once respected, at any rate, by those opposite. I guess what those quotes really demonstrate is one thing: how out of touch the opposition is with the scale of the challenge and the nature of the response that is required in this country, because we are in the middle of the sharpest synchronised contraction of the global economy in our lifetime.
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr Tuckey
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The very important question regarding the future of people who have not got a job is not being answered and the minister should be asked to sit down, as you have the power to do.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for O’Connor will resume his seat. The Treasurer is responding to the question. The Treasurer, in conclusion.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—Unfortunately, the nation is in the middle of a global recession, one that no nation in this world can avoid. No nation can avoid it, but what nations can do is moderate the impact. That is what this government moved to do swiftly and decisively last October not only with the stimulus package but with the bank guarantee, both in the end opposed by the opposition, and of course with our Nation Building and Jobs Plan of February—voted against in this parliament by those opposite. You would think that the Leader of the Opposition would know better, but of course he does not. He ought to behave better, but of course he does not. If the consensus of opinion that would normally be associated with the Liberal Party in this House could support the Australian government in our endeavours to combat unemployment and to support employment in this country, why can’t those opposite? I will tell you why they cannot: all they are concerned with is playing politics—point-scoring before policy—and they are unconcerned about what is occurring out there with those who have become unemployed.
This government will do everything within its power to support employment in the Australian community. We will work with the whole of the Australian community to achieve our objective. If that leaves the opposition out there point-scoring, so be it. We would rather see them on our side of the House supporting this, not opposing it. But they have taken a crude political position, which reflects very poorly on the Leader of the Opposition, who simply wants to point-score at a very important time in our history.
When President Obama spoke in the United States 24 hours ago—
Opposition members interjecting—
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—They do not like it, Mr Speaker.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister will bring his answer to a conclusion.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—Their tawdry strategy is exposed before all. The country wants unity. They do not want to see point-scoring from the other side of the House, and the unemployed most certainly do not deserve it.
Climate Change
2001
2001
14:25:00
Champion, Nick, MP
HW9
Wakefield
ALP
1
Mr CHAMPION
—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. What steps is the government taking to assist our agricultural industries to prepare for climate change and are there any threats to those plans?
2001
Burke, Tony, MP
DYW
Watson
ALP
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
1
Mr BURKE
—I thank the member for Wakefield and acknowledge his strong engagement with the farmers in his area and with making sure that they have a strong future ahead. Yesterday I was able to announce the next stage of research funding out of Australia’s Farming Future, which is to make sure that farmers in the livestock industries are able to have tools at their disposal to be part of the effort in reducing emissions, particularly from the mouths of cattle, sheep and goats. There has been very little research done in this area, but it is actually the third biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto protocol within Australia. This money and these projects will go toward exploring dietary supplements and alternative feeds to reduce methane production from livestock and looking at chemical or biological controls and also at genetic approaches such as selective breeding. This is all to make sure that, as Australia makes its effort to reduce emissions, farmers are able to have a very strong future.
I regret to inform the House that there are other approaches which provide much less of a future for Australia’s farmers. I discovered this a couple of nights ago while watching The 7.30 Report. I have to say the Leader of the Opposition on The 7.30 Report made absolutely compelling television. The commercial networks at the same time were showing Animal Rescue, Wipeout Australia and The Biggest Loser. I had to check which channel I was on. The Leader of the Opposition said:
… I did nothing more than rely on the work of Dr Phil Polglase from the CSIRO, who in his published work, which is cited in my paper, which I’m sure you’ve read—
he said ‘which I’m sure you have read’; he really said that—
shows that you can abate 146 million tonnes of CO2 a year, with nine million hectares of planting …
Nine million hectares of planting is an extraordinary amount of planting. There is no doubt that, as part of the effort to deal with climate change, more trees have to be planted. The modelling that was done for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was quite squarely focused on tree planting in marginal agricultural areas. So we went to the report to see what the Leader of the Opposition was relying on, because there are a number of different projections of how many trees you could plant. He chose the highest figure—9.1 million hectares. There is a map on page 80 of the report of where those plantings would take place—and we have enlarged it and shaded it to make it clear.
All the way up and down the Queensland coast there are people who are cane growers, who are deeply concerned about whether or not sugar mills are going to lose their capacity because so much prime agricultural land is being lost to tree production. Yet, under the Leader of the Opposition’s plan, from Cairns to Townsville to Mackay to Rockhampton to Gladstone to Bundaberg—all the way down that Queensland sugar coast—there are dots for where he is planning to take prime agricultural land. I know there is none in Gladstone; it is between the dots when driving from place to place. All the way down there are dots on the map that have been chosen by the Leader of the Opposition to say where the prime agricultural land will be transferred to forestry. But it is not just there but the New England area. He has chosen agricultural land around Tamworth and agricultural land around Glen Innes and said, ‘The future for farmers is that we will take out that prime agricultural land and we will plant trees there.’ Even Nambour is on the list of areas.
In Tasmania, the agricultural land between Launceston and Hobart is marked on the map as an area of prime agricultural land to be changed over for tree planting. Over in Western Australia, in the wheat belt, there are dots on some of our most productive land in the country. The Leader of the Opposition plans to make those places of prime agricultural land where forestry will take over from agriculture. At least the Independent members of this parliament can go back to their seats and say that they support a strong future for the farmers in their electorates. At least the member for Wakefield and other members on this side of the House representing country seats can go back and tell their farmers what they support.
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr Turnbull
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: relevance. The minister was not invited to attack the integrity of the CSIRO.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The minister is responding to the question from the member for Wakefield about any threats.
DYW
Burke, Tony, MP
Mr BURKE
—The CSIRO provided a number of different projections. Only one person chose to engage with the highest level of projections and the ones that were on prime agricultural land—although, not on his farm, by the way! The Leader of the Opposition has adopted a scheme in which everyone is a winner—unless they require food. The Leader of the Opposition has designed a world where you will sequester heaps of carbon but there will be a lot less to eat. There is a reason it looks too good to be true—it is.
Government members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for North Sydney will resume his seat until the House comes to order. Those on my right will come to order.
Employment
2002
2002
14:32:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
Mr HOCKEY
—My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to an announcement by Lend Lease just before question time that they are going to cut 1,700 jobs, including 340 jobs in Australia. I ask the Treasurer: given that the government has dressed up all of its announcements since the budget as ‘nation building and jobs’, why has Australia’s largest property developer just cut jobs across the nation?
2002
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I am certainly disappointed to hear that that is the case. It is yet another demonstration of why the government has acted so decisively and so swiftly with our Economic Security Strategy and our Nation Building and Jobs Plan. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that those industries and those sectors are under a lot of pressure. That is why the government has moved swiftly to stimulate demand and, most particularly, to put direct investment into building and construction—something which has been opposed tooth and nail in this House by those opposite. You cannot come in here—after opposing every single measure put forward by the government to stimulate demand and push construction—and claim that somehow the government is responsible for it.
We accept responsibility for the fact that we have to stimulate our economy. We have to give a significant boost to jobs, given the dramatic slowdown that is occurring in the global economy. We pointed to the fact that unemployment was going up when we put out our Updated Economic and Fiscal Outlook in February and brought down our Nation Building and Jobs Plan. You can see the benefits of that coming through, but those opposite, because they want to score a political point, will not acknowledge what is happening out there. They will not acknowledge the fact that retail sales in December were up—at the highest level since 2001. They will not acknowledge that. They will not acknowledge the substantial boost that is happening in the housing sector because of our first home owner boost. They certainly will not acknowledge that.
Our message is that the government will do everything we possibly can to stimulate demand and to ensure that credit flows through the system. That is why we put in place the bank guarantee, which was opposed tooth and nail by those opposite but which the Governor of the Reserve Bank has acknowledged was absolutely important in avoiding some very traumatic events in our financial system last October. They will not support our initiative of supplying credit to the property sector. They have opposed that tooth and nail. I do not even know whether they supported our special purpose vehicle for car dealerships. This government has been very active. We have been responsible in what we have done, because we acknowledge the size of the problem—something that those opposite simply refuse to do. If they want to have any credibility when it comes to the vital area of property, they should be supporting our $4 billion Australian Business Investment Partnership, which is being put in place to secure finance in the commercial property sector—something that they are opposing tooth and nail because they will not recognise the risk to our economy if foreign banks pull out of banking syndicates.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for North Sydney has asked his question.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—So all of this simply demonstrates how unqualified, how unprepared, those opposite are to deal with this situation. But the government will continue to act forcefully and decisively in the face of all of these events that are being imposed upon us by the international economy.
Infrastructure
2003
2003
14:36:00
Turnour, Jim, MP
HVV
Leichhardt
ALP
1
Mr TURNOUR
—My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. What investment is the government making to fast-track the construction of a central community infrastructure, and are there any obstacles to implementing this nation-building plan?
2003
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
1
Mr ALBANESE
—I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question, and I thank him for the welcome that I had from him in Cairns last week. I was there to announce some $900,000 of support for community infrastructure, including the upgrade of 13 sportsgrounds and pools and 18 community halls across the region. These are some of the things that this government is doing—supporting jobs and the local economy in Cairns—which are opposed by those opposite.
I was also in Townsville last week and there I announced over $1 million to support a pedestrian walkway to the Cowboys home ground at Dairy Farmers Stadium and to support water conservation measures at the council buildings there. This side of the House is supporting jobs and the local economy in Townsville; they are opposed by that side of the House.
This week we have also announced $1.3 million for the Sunshine Coast Regional Council in the electorate of Wide Bay. A quarter of a million dollars of that is for a new walkway and cycleway along the Noosa River. The local economy and jobs in Noosa are supported by this side of the House; they are opposed by that side of the House.
We have announced $2.1 million for Dalby Regional Council. We are funding 28 separate projects, including the upgrading of the main streets in Dalby and Chinchilla in the electorate of Maranoa. It was voted against by that side of the House and once again the local economy and jobs have been supported by this side of the House. This week Toowoomba has got $1.8 million for 21 separate projects in the electorate of Groom. On this side of the House we are supporting jobs and local economies; they are opposed by that side of the House.
We have already supported some 3,600 projects, which are being delivered by local government. Each one of the 565 local authorities throughout Australia is being given funding to support local jobs and to stimulate their local economies. But what is the response to it of members opposite? Perhaps it was best summed up by the member for Warringah, when he showed his renowned people skills yet again this week. He described it as $42 billion being blown in low-quality spending.
What I say to those members opposite is: when you look at the spending in their local communities—including $220,000 for the Warringah Aquatic Centre to be upgraded; including extra funding for the Warringah Library at Warringah Mall; including spending to upgrade the kitchens at Forestville Senior Citizens Centre—go along to those local communities and tell them that you voted against the local jobs being created and against the stimulation of local economies. That is exactly what those opposite have done. They know that local capital works are a very effective way of creating jobs and stimulating local economies.
HK6
Lindsay, Peter, MP
Mr Lindsay
—The walkway in Townsville goes to a car park that has been closed.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Herbert will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—I was in Townsville with the Liberal Mayor of Townsville for the announcement of the project chosen by the Liberal controlled Townsville City Council. The benefit of this program is that we are not deciding what is funded; local communities are—your communities in your electorates—and do not think we will not remind each and every one of you that you opposed this every step of the way, including in Townsville.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations: Happiness Seminar
2004
2004
14:41:00
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
TK6
Boothby
LP
0
Dr SOUTHCOTT
—My question is to the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. Is the minister aware that while the government was forecasting 300,000 more Australians would be out of work by June next year the department responsible for getting Australians back into jobs held a week-long happiness seminar for 100 of her public servants? These happiness seminars were run by Professor Martin Seligman, who has coined the expression ‘learned helplessness’ to describe someone who refuses to take responsibility for anything. Will the minister take responsibility for this extravagant spending of almost $1 million of taxpayers’ money or has she learned helplessness?
The member for Herbert then left the chamber.
2005
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the member for his question and note how unusual it is to get a question on education from those opposite. If the shadow minister asking the question had got to the bottom of these facts, he would have realised that the expenditure he refers to includes a training seminar for teachers. I actually believe that supporting teachers to be better teachers in their classrooms is not a waste of money.
So, if I could refer the member to the seminar for 209 teachers led by Martin Seligman, I note his attempt to parody what Martin Seligman did at that seminar, but I say to the members opposite that Professor Seligman is a noted educationalist from the University of Pennsylvania. He is the leader in the development of the Penn Resiliency Program. That program has been shown to make a difference—
Opposition members interjecting—
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—You will not be laughing in a second. That program has been shown to make a difference to mental health issues amongst young people, including issues like anorexia and depression. That is actually serious and ought not to be catcalled about. People in this country, I believe, are concerned about mental health issues for teenagers. Perhaps those members calling out are not. But if they are not concerned about those things then they are clearly out of touch with the value system of Australians. Australians are concerned about those things.
Professor Seligman held a seminar—yes, for which a subsidy was made available through my department—for 209 teachers. The member used a figure that also included expenditure on this. I can certainly refer the member to the fact that this seminar was attended by teachers across the country, including teachers in South Australia, who came there to learn from those professional development activities. So perhaps in their haste to make a cheap political point the Liberal Party might like to think through these issues. Are they concerned about mental health issues amongst young people—yes or no? Do they recognise that Professor Seligman’s program has been recognised around the world as making a difference to those mental health issues amongst young people? And, therefore, should they consider whether supporting teachers to get access to that kind of curriculum and professional development is a good idea or a bad idea? Before they keep making cheap political points maybe they should just spend a moment reflecting on each of those things.
Education
2005
2005
14:46:00
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
83E
Oxley
ALP
1
Mr RIPOLL
—My question is to the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. Would the Deputy Prime Minister detail progress made to date with implementing the Building the Education Revolution initiative?
2005
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the member for Oxley for his question. I had the opportunity to be in his electorate last week, where we held a seminar with the school principals in his electorate to talk about the Building the Education Revolution initiative. What was remarkable is that people who care about education and people who lead schools were delighted to see this program and were full of energy and goodwill in working with the government in delivering it. People who care about education have that approach to this program. They want to be there; they want to be working with the government delivering it.
What was also remarkable was that these school leaders could see that this not only was going to be of benefit to their school through the new facilities and upgrades that it promised but was going to be of benefit to their community, because they understand, in a way that members of the Liberal Party in this House clearly do not, that the global financial crisis and global recession are going to impact on their communities. So they want to be part of a program that will make a long-term difference to education and that will make a difference to economic activity and support jobs in their local community.
People who care about education and people who care about jobs have shown that goodwill at all levels. The Prime Minister, on 6 February, hosted a forum here for education stakeholders. It was attended by around 50 people. Once again, there was energy and enthusiasm for this investment in education and this support for local jobs. The program guidelines have now been released, and I can report that since 4 February there have been eight meetings with all state and territory education departments and the various block grant authorities of the Catholic and independent schools systems. In addition, there has been work and discussion with the Australian principals forum and the independent schools association. All of this work is going in so that the program can be delivered. It is ambitious in its delivery time. We want to deliver it quickly. And those who care about education and those who care about supporting local jobs, like the people I have just referred to, are working alongside us.
It is startling to me that, when you survey the education community and the people who do care about its future, there is that degree of enthusiasm, yet in this House amongst members opposite there is the degree of opposition and catcalling that we have seen displayed towards this program.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—What happened to working families? When did you last say ‘working families’?
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—The shadow Treasurer, who interjects now, described it as ridiculous. The member for Warringah described it as a low-quality spend. And, of course, the Leader of the Opposition leads the Liberal Party in voting against this program and voting against the jobs that it will support. It should cause Liberal members to reflect, when they see the education community seizing this historic investment—this huge opportunity to have 21st-century facilities in schools—that they are there opposed.
There was discussion and debate in this House today about opening ceremonies in relation to this program, and I will reiterate what I said then—that of course schools will be able to invite local members opposite. I sincerely hope they come, because when they go to those opening ceremonies the only honest way for those Liberal Party members to conduct themselves would be to say, in front of the assembled parents, principals, teachers and students, that they are members of the Liberal Party, they do not believe that facility should have been built, they do not believe that it should be there for students, they do not believe that it should be there for teachers, they do not believe that it should be there for principals, they voted against it and, had they been in government, it would not have happened. That would be the only honest way for them to conduct themselves when they go, and I trust that they will go and conduct themselves in that honest way and say, ‘We were opposed to all of this.’
Special Air Service Regiment
2007
2007
14:51:00
Baldwin, Robert, MP
LL6
Paterson
LP
0
Mr BALDWIN
—My question without notice is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, your defence minister gave assurances to this House that no SAS soldier would be financially disadvantaged and there would be no retribution for raising the issue outside the chain of command. Prime Minister, are you aware that the SAS soldiers have now been called in, one by one, and required to sign statements that they were not responsible for the publication of an email threatening disciplinary action if soldiers went outside the chain of command over the pay scandal? Prime Minister, the guarantees of your defence minister mean absolutely nothing. Prime Minister, how can you still have confidence in your defence minister when our soldiers do not?
2007
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—First of all, as the minister indicated in his statements yesterday and the day before, he took action on 22 October. That was reinforced by a direction to the Chief of Army in February. Secondly, I would draw the honourable member’s attention to the statement made—I believe yesterday—by the Chief of the Defence Force that, when it comes to any matter relating to the chain of command and any statement by any member or communication by any member of the SAS, no retribution would ensue. I take the Chief of the Defence Force at his word.
Economy
2007
2007
14:53:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
1
Mr HAYES
—My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the impacts of the global recession on business investment and jobs?
2007
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I thank the member for his question. As we have been saying earlier in the day, this country is experiencing the full impact of a global recession, but it does remain the case that we are better placed than most other countries in this environment; nevertheless, we cannot completely resist the pull of global economic forces.
We certainly do welcome today’s CAPEX data. The numbers are stronger than were expected for the last three months of 2008, and that is certainly welcome. The figures show that new capital expenditure—that is, investment in business machinery and equipment and in building and structures—rose by six per cent in the December quarter. But unfortunately the figures also confirm a slowing in business investment plans for the period ahead. The figures show that business expectations for capital expenditure in the first half of 2009 are 8.5 per cent lower than businesses had planned for in September. Of course, we said in the Updated Economic and Fiscal Outlook that the global recession and the unwinding of the mining boom would see falls in business investment. Indeed, UEFO forecast that business investment will fall substantially through this year and next. We have seen substantial falls in business investment elsewhere in the world. In the UK business investment fell by 3.9 per cent in the last three months of last year; in the US by 5.2 per cent; and in Japan it fell by 5.3 per cent in December.
The government is going to do everything within its power to support jobs and growth in the face of this global recession. That is why we are so determined to put in place swiftly our Nation Building and Jobs Plan to support demand, given the expected fall in business investment. That is why almost three-quarters of our Nation Building and Jobs Plan is direct investment—direct investment in our schools, direct investment in our homes, direct investment in our roads and direct investment in our communities. That is important direct investment given the shock to our economy being imposed by this synchronised global recession which is now occurring across both developed and developing countries. It is also why we put in place the small business and general business tax break to provide greater incentives for business to invest in the future. It is also why we put in place the bank guarantee to ensure that our banks have the capacity to continue to fund business investment. If businesses cannot get access to credit they cannot invest. So that bank guarantee has been very, very important to ensure there is a flow of credit to the Australian economy.
What do those opposite say? What is their alternative approach? We heard from the shadow Treasurer on Lateline last night that his policy is to sit and hope. The policy of those on this side of the House is to take action, to be very active in the face of this global recession and to put in place a direct investment which will support Australian jobs, build our community and leave lasting benefits for the nation. Nothing could be more important for this country at the moment than for government to take an active role to combat what is being imposed upon us so savagely by the rest of the world. That is why I do welcome the CAPEX figures that came out today. They are a surprise on the upside, but of course we have the other news on the other side—that expectations are for less investment. What that shows is the wisdom of the government’s action to put in place this direct investment through our Nation Building and Jobs Plan.
Special Air Service Regiment
2008
2008
14:57:00
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
0
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—My question is to the Minister for Defence. I refer the minister to his statement to the House yesterday on the pay scandal when he said the only representation to him or his office from an SAS soldier or their family was a phone call from one woman who would not give her name, phone number or details of her situation. I refer the minister to his statement today, now admitting to a number of other representations from members of the Australian Defence Force to him, to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and to their offices. Given the critical nature and timing of these representations, how could the minister fail to recall them yesterday, the third day of questioning on this issue? Hasn’t the minister demonstrated either a gross dereliction of duty or unforgivable incompetence? Why won’t the minister do the right thing and resign?
2008
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
Minister for Defence
1
Mr FITZGIBBON
—I thank the member for her question. The simple answer is: because I was only aware of one of the calls. The buck stops with me on this issue. But, in the first instance, calls on SAS pay problems go to my colleague the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. I had feedback about one phone call. From there, there is a set process. They are referred to the department for investigation and action. The important thing here, of course, is that these phone calls came in February. When learning of this problem last year, in October, I put an immediate stop on the recovery payments.
LL6
Baldwin, Robert, MP
Mr Baldwin
—You did not.
8K6
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
Mr FITZGIBBON
—The member for Paterson was outside the doors this morning claiming that I did not put an immediate stop on the recovery action.
LL6
Baldwin, Robert, MP
Mr Baldwin interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Paterson is warned.
8K6
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
Mr FITZGIBBON
—I now table the internal defence paper trail, which acknowledges my direction and shows the stop on the recovery being put into effect. The member for Paterson interjected and said, ‘That’s not true.’ He claims I did not stop it for 120 days because he has a pay slip showing a zero payment. I asked the opposition yesterday to share that pay slip with me so that I could get to the bottom of the issue. It left me perplexed because, having been assured that my stop had been put into effect almost immediately, I could not understand why someone would continue to have overpayments deducted. Very sadly, the opposition chose yesterday not to share that pay slip with me, despite my request. I suggested that all names and any identifiers could be blanked out. I was looking for some cooperation to ensure that Defence had promptly acted on my instruction to immediately stop the deductions. Fortunately, I now have a copy of the same pay slip, I believe.
That pay slip for that fortnight shows that the member concerned had a net pay on that day of $2,749.06, of which $1,956 went into his Westpac account and $778 went into the Defence Force Credit Union. I do not expect people in the House to be able to read this, but at the bottom of the pay slip it says, ‘Entitlement: 00.’ I am happy to compare notes with the opposition to make sure it is the same document, but I am very, very confident it is. The ‘00’ down the bottom is the result of the last box on the pay slip. The box reflects quite complex calculations and adjustments which go to the debts that appear against the soldier’s name for various reasons, including, I think, the implementation of the tribunal’s decision. But no money has been deducted for that debt—which, by the way, was extinguished as of 18 February. This soldier no longer has any debt relating to the implementation of the Remuneration Tribunal’s decision. He could have other debts for other reasons, as members of the ADF often do—for overpayments et cetera—but, as of the Chief of Army’s directive of 18 February, this soldier no longer has any debt on that basis.
The whole politicisation of this SAS matter this week has been based on this pay slip, which the opposition have claimed resulted in the soldier being paid zero. Either the opposition are very dumb and cannot read the pay slip properly or they misrepresented the facts. I will leave it to members of the Australian community and, in particular, the men and women of the Australian Defence Force—and, even more importantly, the men and women of the SAS Regiment—to decide which it is. When Senator Johnston rightly—well, not rightly, because I think he should have brought it to me—brought up this matter for the first time in October estimates last year, he finished by saying:
I am very much obliged to the efforts you—
that is, Chief of Army—
have taken. I thank you for that. I will write to you if there are any further issues so that we might resolve them privately from here on in. Thank you very much.
Senator Johnston decided that this SAS issue was too sensitive to continue to pursue in the public domain. Apparently, the Leader of the Opposition decided something different.
Nation Building and Jobs Plan
2009
2009
15:06:00
Bidgood, James, MP
HVM
Dawson
ALP
1
Mr BIDGOOD
—My question is to the Minister for Employment Participation. How will the training and learning bonus and other measures announced as part of the government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan assist unemployed people and students?
2009
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
00AN3
Gorton
ALP
Minister for Employment Participation
1
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—I thank the member for Dawson for his question and his concern for students and out-of-work Australians in his electorate. The $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan will help, of course, combat the challenges of the global financial crisis. We need to assist those acquiring educational qualifications and vocational training to ensure that they—and, indeed, we as a nation—are ready to take advantage when the economy improves.
An important aspect of the jobs plan is the training and learning bonus to help current students as well as unemployed people returning to study or training. The bonus has two components: first, a one-off bonus of $950 for full-time students and apprentices receiving youth allowance and for recipients of Austudy and Abstudy as of 3 February this year; second, a temporary supplement to the education entry payment of $950 for the period 1 January this year to 30 June next year. This is in addition to the existing education entry payment of $208. The government will also temporarily expand eligibility for the education entry payment, and therefore the bonus, to unemployed youth undergoing approved training and receiving youth allowance. By extending the eligibility of this group, we are giving young people every chance to gain the skills and training they need in very difficult economic circumstances. Finally, we are also making it easier for people to get this payment by reducing the qualifying period from 12 months to one month. It is now more important than ever that people can participate in education and training in order to improve their skills and in order to ensure that they can be employed over the months and years ahead.
The support that we are providing to out-of-work Australians undergoing training and those students would not have happened if it were left to those opposite. They voted against this particular payment which provides support to students and the unemployed undergoing training in their electorates. They voted against the plan, against supporting students in times of need and against supporting the unemployed who are undergoing training which will provide the skills that employers need. The Leader of the Opposition and indeed the shadow Leader of the Opposition, the member for Higgins, clearly do not appreciate the scale of the global financial crisis and the consequences it will have for this nation. If they did, they would have supported the government in the measures we have outlined in the Nation Building and Jobs Plan and the measures I have outlined in the House today. Unfortunately, the opposition are self-absorbed and self-indulgent and they have acted recklessly and irresponsibly in attempting to block the measures that have been put in place by the government to support Australian businesses, Australian workers, Australian students and those Australians who find themselves out of work.
Special Air Service Regiment
2010
2010
15:10:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In light of the Minister for Defence’s answer to the previous question that he was aware of only one communication from an SAS family number, being a phone call, and in light of the fact that we have in our possession an email dated 11 February from the partner of an SAS soldier to the minister to which the minister personally replied on 13 February, how can the Prime Minister have any confidence in this minister’s ability to undertake his responsibilities? Will the Prime Minister dismiss this careless, incompetent Minister for Defence?
2010
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—There is nothing like seeing the Leader of the Liberal Party in theatrical high dudgeon. It is worthy of an Academy Award. If the honourable member and the member for Curtin had bothered to check their facts, they would have noted that these matters were addressed by the Minister for Defence in a statement to parliament earlier today. I refer to the Minister for Defence’s statement to the House, which says:
… I wish to advise that during the past four months the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and I have received a number of emails and phone calls from members of the Defence Force and the public expressing concern about this matter.
That is what he said this morning—
THE PRIME MINISTER
2010
Motions
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
2011
2011
15:12:00
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 this House censures the Prime Minister for his failure to:
-
hold the Minister for Defence to acceptable standards of accountability and responsibility;
-
take action to protect the welfare of SAS soldiers and their families;
-
dismiss the Minister for Defence:
-
over his incompetent handling of the SAS pay scandal which has caused significant financial and emotional harm to SAS soldiers and their families; and
-
for his contradictory statements to the House and the attempted cover-up of the Minister’s personal knowledge of the harm the SAS pay scandal has inflicted on the families of SAS soldiers.
It is remarkable that, on a day when the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research has said that there is not one job in Australia that is safe, the Prime Minister has decided to secure one job—the job of his incompetent, careless, slovenly, misleading Minister for Defence, who stood here just a few moments ago and misled the House, not for the first time, when he said that he was only aware of one phone call from the family of an SAS soldier. Yet we have an email, which he has too, which he received from the partner of an SAS soldier and to which he replied himself. He replied himself and yet he is not aware of it! The list of the things this Minister of Defence does not know is very long indeed. He did not know there was a problem with SAS soldiers having their pay docked. He did not think there was a problem with putting soldiers on the front line and their families on the breadline. He did not realise, he said, that there were many emails and complaints coming to his office until he learnt about it some time between question time yesterday and this morning. Now, of course, we know that one of those emails was one to which he personally replied himself, signed Joel Fitzgibbon. This is an email he was not aware of, apparently!
Yesterday the minister said, ‘There is a bond of trust between our armed forces and the government,’ and that is true. It is a bond of trust between our armed forces, the men and women we send into harm’s way, the men and women to whom we say, ‘Take our uniform, take our flag; put your lives on the line; we are with you.’ And that bond of trust has been shattered by this minister. There is nothing more important to our national security than the morale of our armed forces. They know that they must go where they are told. They know that in their service they run the risk of death and worse. They know they take on that risk but they believe—or used to believe—that there is always a government standing behind them, that there are always people who care, people who will look out for them and their families, people who will ensure that they are cared for and will stand behind them as loyally as we ask them to stand up for us. And what do we have here? This is not a minister who has just made a mistake, who has made an error of judgment. For months and months he has known, as has his Prime Minister, that our finest fighting men were having their pay docked. They were getting little or nothing in their pay packets. We were told on 22 October that this error was going to be fixed, and nothing happened.
When the minister was brought into this House to explain how this could be so, how he could have been so careless, so indifferent, so heartless, so unfeeling about our own soldiers, he said, ‘Oh, it was a problem with the computer.’ He sounded like a clerk in the billing department of a department store explaining to his boss a problem with his inventory. This is not an inventory—these are soldiers; these are fighting men. They are the best that Australia can put in the field, but the best of us have received the worst and most callous bureaucratic indifference from this minister.
There is nothing more important to our armed forces than morale. If morale is undermined, the effectiveness of our armed forces is undermined. The Prime Minister has been as culpable as his minister, because he sat next to that minister on 22 October. He would have realised then, if he had not before, that soldiers were not being paid. The Prime Minister heard that, and he heard his minister say the problem would be fixed. A Prime Minister who was committed to the armed forces, who saw our soldiers as more than a series of photographic opportunities, would have brought that defence minister into his office, sat him down, and said: ‘Come on, Joel, fix it. It’s got to be fixed right now.’ Everyone on this side of the House knows that is exactly what John Howard would have done. It would have been fixed within the hour. There would have been an announcement, apologies would have been given, financial positions would have been reinstated and the soldiers would have known that behind them there was a government, led by a man who was committed to them.
What we have had is a Prime Minister who took this minister at his word, took no interest in whether the problem was being solved, and now one slipshod explanation after another has been revealed. This is a minister for whom the excuse ‘the dog ate my homework’ would be an improvement on the pathetic excuses he has given us today. He has blamed everybody but himself. It has been embarrassing to sit in the House and listen to this pathetic string of excuses. What do we have now? We have a minister in whom our fighting men and women can have no confidence, because they know that it was only after intense political pressure and public pressure, which this minister said should never have occurred, that something would be done. This is the remarkable thing: the minister deplored and decried the fact that members of parliament, including the member for Curtin, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—who represents many of these soldiers, whose barracks are in her electorate—have taken up their cause, and yet we know that had she not done that, had the member for Paterson not done that, had the shadow minister for defence, Senator Johnston, not done that, had the opposition not stood up for these men, nothing would have happened—a big fat nothing, just like these men got in their pay packets in January. That is all they would have got, and one pathetic excuse after another.
There is a principle of ministerial responsibility. This minister can blame the defence department, he can blame its computers and he can blame the dog that ate his homework as much as he likes but, as a matter of law and principle, he is responsible. He is the Minister for Defence; he is responsible for everything that is done in the defence department. This is not a problem that occurred without his knowledge; he has known all about it for months. Each and every Australian knows and, more importantly, each and every member of the Australian armed forces knows that this problem could have been fixed in a few hours. All it needed was leadership, commitment and will, and the minister had none of those. He was not prepared to lead, he has no commitment to the armed forces and he was not prepared to do the work, to make the effort to get the thing right and to ensure that the soldiers were paid.
He said yesterday that he was disappointed that this had ‘descended into a debate about who is more supportive of our troops’. It is a debate about who is more supportive of our troops, because I cannot imagine anybody who could be less supportive of our troops than the Minister for Defence. The only honourable thing for the minister to do is to resign. If he will not do that then the Prime Minister is letting down our soldiers, he is betraying the defence of Australia and he is contributing to undermining the morale of our armed forces by leaving this incompetent in the job that he holds today.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Is the motion seconded?
2013
15:22:00
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
Deputy Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—I second the motion. Mr Speaker, let me read some words to the members of this House. Let me quote from Hansard:
The core element of the Westminster system of government is ministerial accountability to parliament and to this House. The last time I looked, honourable members, the person who answers to this parliament on behalf of the government was called the Prime Minister—
Not the defence minister, not the foreign minister, but the Prime Minister. He is the core of the accountability system that is supposed to operate in this House today. Members, who said those words in February 2005?
Opposition members interjecting—
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—It was the Prime Minister, who has left this chamber and walked out on a censure motion against him. What has happened to the standards of prime ministerial accountability and responsibility when this Prime Minister walks out on a very serious censure motion involving the incompetence, the ineptitude, of the Minister for Defence?
It is one thing for the Minister for Defence to blame his department for failing to pass on information; it is another thing for the minister to say to this House, as he did this afternoon:
I thank the member for her question. The simple answer is: because I was only aware of one of the calls.
Yesterday this minister led the House to believe that there was only one phone call from an anonymous woman who would not give her details, would not give her phone number and would not give her position. I am afraid that is not true. This minister engaged in email correspondence with the partner of one of the SAS soldiers involved in this pay scandal. There was not one woman without a name, without a phone number and without details. This woman wrote to the minister’s office and the minister replied personally to the email with her name, her email address and the most detailed description of the hardship that her partner had been put through. She described how difficult it was for them to make ends meet because of this pay scandal. On 11 February she wrote an email to the minister, to which the minister responded. She said:
All we want is to have a swift resolution to this issue. My partner is now considering leaving the Army and getting a job in another field. For someone who has always wanted to be in the Army and loved his job, it is a sad day when he considers leaving. I cannot believe that people further up the chain would want these highly-trained soldiers, which we have spent a lot of money on, leaving the Army because of this issue. We need a result and fast before more decide their only option is to leave.
Minister, you sent an email back to this woman. Minister, you told this House yesterday that you had had one anonymous phone call. You emailed this woman back and blamed someone else, and you said on 13 February, ‘I am aware this situation has not been handled well.’ Is that any response to the partner of an SAS soldier who is considering leaving the Army after a long and distinguished career because of your incompetence, your ineptitude, your inability to solve what is just an administrative problem? And this was not a computer glitch, Minister. That was another misrepresentation to this House. It was not a computer glitch; it was a bureaucratic decision that the minister could have overturned. It was a decision about pays that this minister could have fixed in May 2008 when the tribunal handed down its determination.
Minister, you said that you did not even know about this until it was raised in Senate estimates. The minister said that he thanked Senator Johnston for raising it in estimates; otherwise, he would not have known about it. This minister has to learn about a pay scandal from the opposition; otherwise, he does not know about it. Minister, there were many people who watched question time yesterday, including people to whom you owe a duty of care. Many people watched question time yesterday, Minister, and they heard you say that only one person had contacted your office and it was an anonymous call. You did not tell them about the partner of a soldier with whom you personally corresponded—‘Yours sincerely, Joel Fitzgibbon’—and you repeated today that you were only aware of one phone call. That is not true, Minister. There have been numerous emails, phone calls and contact not only with your office but also with the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. And this was in the third question time in a row. Didn’t the minister go back to his office on the first day and say: ‘Show me what correspondence there has been. Have I written emails? I am brain dead. I do not know whether I wrote an email just a couple of days ago.’ Minister, you replied to this woman on 13 February. Minister, in the event—and if the Prime Minister were back here, I would bring it to the Prime Minister’s attention, but as the Prime Minister is not— (Time expired)
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek your guidance. Is it appropriate in a censure motion against the Prime Minister for the response to be made by the Minister for Defence?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Sturt is warned. That was not a point of order. This is a motion for the suspension of standing orders, if the House needs reminding.
2014
15:27:00
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
Minister for Defence
1
0
Mr FITZGIBBON
—Of course, the government will be opposing the suspension motion. Fancy the member for Curtin coming to the dispatch box and beginning her contribution by talking about the principle of ministerial responsibility! Many of us sat on the opposition side for 11½ long years watching the Howard government become perfect at avoiding ministerial accountability. They talk about standards of defence ministers. This is the party of John Moore. Remember him, Mr Speaker? He used to come to the dispatch box when asked questions like this and simply say, ‘The government’s position is well known.’ Then, of course, there was former Minister Reith, the master of deception in the avoidance of ministerial accountability. We all remember only too well ‘children overboard’ and the way former Minister Reith sought to politicise the men and women of the Australian Defence Force for his party’s own political gain. Of course, some have not been too bad. There is former Minister Nelson, who appeared on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald this morning having a bit to say about the challenges of managing the defence portfolio. I know he knows them well. He was no doubt prompted to do so at this time, somewhat concerned about the way in which his own party has sought to deliberately politicise some of the most elite soldiers in our country.
I was surprised when the Leader of the Opposition came to the dispatch box to move a suspension. I thought he was coming to the dispatch box to table the pay slip that he has been relying upon all week to launch this jihad on me—and yet, as I have told the House, it was a pay slip which he misrepresented for his own political gain.
LL6
Baldwin, Robert, MP
Mr Baldwin interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! Member for Paterson! The member for Paterson was warned earlier.
8K6
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
Mr FITZGIBBON
—Let me say that again: he misrepresented a pay slip of a special forces soldier simply for his own political gain. Was he concerned, as was Senator Johnston, last October about the likelihood that he would be bringing our elite soldiers into the political quagmire? Was he concerned about the impact that might have on the SAS family and their families? No. There was no concern for them. This is a Leader of the Opposition who is prepared to put his own political interests ahead of the interests of our elite soldiers. This is a Leader of the Opposition who is so low in the polls that he will stop at nothing, including embarrassing our special forces soldiers, for his own political gain. I suggest that, when I complete my contribution, the Leader of the Opposition might once again come to the dispatch box and table the pay slip so that we can compare it, so there can be absolutely no doubt that we are talking about the same pay slip. Then we can determine once and for all whether he has misrepresented the situation. Having said that, I am in no doubt that this is the same pay slip.
Opposition members—Well, give it to us.
8K6
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
Mr FITZGIBBON
—I would be happy to table this pay slip but, unlike the Leader of the Opposition—
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! This may not be a censure motion but it is a motion to suspend standing orders over an important matter. The House will listen to the minister in silence.
8K6
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
Mr FITZGIBBON
—Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I am not prepared to take any risk whatsoever that the pay details of one of our SAS soldiers will go into the public domain and cause him grief. But this would be much easier. Here is the suggestion: after the censure motion, the Leader of the Opposition and I share a seat on one of the front benches and we compare notes—
HWT
Robert, Stuart, MP
Mr Robert
—How about you do your job, Joel?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Fadden is warned!
8K6
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
Mr FITZGIBBON
—and we can conclude absolutely whether we have the same pay slip. I can tell you that I am 99 per cent sure we have, but I think we should check.
LL6
Baldwin, Robert, MP
Mr Baldwin
—Then read it.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Paterson will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).
The member for Paterson then left the chamber.
8K6
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
Mr FITZGIBBON
—The member for Paterson should walk out in disgrace because he has been part of this misrepresentation all week. By the way, the member for Curtin has been sitting on this pay slip for 11 days. For 11 days, she has been aware of this pay slip and also aware of the misrepresentation she was perpetrating upon the Australian people. What sort of local member—and someone as senior as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—withholds a pay slip which she is relying upon to launch her attack just so that she can disguise her misrepresentation of the facts? They talk about people resigning; it is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who should today be considering her position.
Those on that side should take a leaf out of the book of Senator Johnston, who, having raised this once in the political domain—for his own political gain, I should note again—eventually decided: ‘That’s enough; let’s get this out of the public domain. In future, CDF, and in future, Chief of Army, I’ll send you a note. We’ll get together, we’ll talk about it and we’ll resolve these issues privately.’ Why did Senator Johnston say that? It is because he understands how important it is not be having a public and political debate about our SAS soldiers and their personal details and, in some cases, their hardships as a result of things that may have gone wrong in the system or as a result of legitimate recovery.
The opposition continues to run the line that I did not put an immediate stop to the recovery of these debts. Yet I have tabled today—and I am sure they have had a look at it by now—the paper trail within Defence which was the response to my directive, clearly showing that, since October last year, the order was given for no debts to be recovered. Unfortunately, I cannot be absolutely sure that Defence somewhere along the track has not still deducted some money from some soldier—that is the state of the system that I inherited from the former government. It cannot tell me how many soldiers are affected, it cannot tell me how much was deducted, it cannot guarantee me that recovery will not take place but they do assure me—and the evidence is in the paper trail—that my directive was followed and the stop action put into place. So the opposition should stop running this line—this fiction—that somehow I did not follow what I said I would do and put that stop into place.
I do know one thing. I am going to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s proposition now. She talks about the lady who contacted me. I did not know there was a link between an email and a phone call.
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—
8K6
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
Mr FITZGIBBON
—Yes, she emailed my office and, properly, she got a response. I was asked yesterday if I had met with anyone or talked with anyone. I said, ‘Yes, I met them at Campbell Barracks and one woman tried to ring.’ I did not know there was a link between her email and a phone call. It is just a silly proposition to suggest I would know that.
I do know about one link, and I do not make a big deal of it. I am pretty sure—and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not mention this—that the lady, the partner, who contacted me and whose action has been taken care of is the partner of the soldier who appears on the pay slip.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The debate is now concluded.
Question put:
That the motion (Mr Turnbull’s) be agreed to.
15:42:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
59
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Broadbent, R.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Forrest, J.A.
Gash, J.
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.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Mirabella, S.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Nelson, B.J.
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.
79
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
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.
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.
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.
Rudd, K.M.
Saffin, J.A.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Swan, W.M.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Turnour, J.P.
Vamvakinou, M.
Zappia, A.
* denotes teller
Question negatived.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
2017
15:46:00
Questions Without Notice
National Building and Jobs Plan
2017
15:46:00
2017
Perrett, Graham, MP
HVP
Moreton
ALP
1
Mr PERRETT
—My question is to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. How is the government fast-tracking support for green jobs through the Nation Building and Jobs Plan?
2017
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts
1
Mr GARRETT
—I thank the member for Moreton for the question. It is my great pleasure to advise the House that today the Prime Minister and I announced at Just-Rite Insulation and Home Improvements in Fyshwick the fast-tracking of support for green jobs with the launch of the early installation guidelines for the $4 billion Energy Efficient Homes package. Through these guidelines released today, there will be the oppostunity for nearly three million dwellings to have ceiling insulation installed—that is, 2.2 million owner-occupiers will be eligible for up to $1,600 for ceiling insulation and some 700,000 landlords or tenants will be eligible for rebates of up to $1,000 for ceiling insulation. That means work coming through the doors now in the suburbs and cities of Australia. I should also point out that the solar hot water rebate has also been boosted under this package from $1,000 to $1,600, with no means test in place—a means test that was put in place by my predecessor as environment minister, the now Leader of the Opposition.
Households can get started, because these guidelines are now available. They just need to go online to see whether they are eligible, arrange for a tradie to come and get the work done and send in their receipt, and then they will get paid for it. That is great news for small business; it means work is coming in the door now. I also want to point out to the House that from 1 July this year the Energy Efficient Homes program will step up again with a free call direct booking and installation service, making it even easier for households to arrange installation. The toll-free number is 1800808571 and the online register and guidelines are at www.environment.gov.au/energyefficiency. Early installation guidelines are available now so that benefits can flow to businesses, to homes and to the economy. If Australians want to get ceiling insulation up and running now, they can.
But I notice that that is not the only online register that has been announced. Following the member for Tangney’s launch of an online petition yesterday stating that the world is not warming at an unusual rate or magnitude and that emissions trading should not go ahead, I thought that there is an interesting choice of websites for people who are listening to the House today to refer to. I table the member for Tangney’s online petition. When asked about who is responsible for climate change, the member for Tangney said that humans are not causing climate change. When it was pointed out to him that the opposition leader says—and it is true; it is on the record—that humans are affecting the climate and that the problem must be addressed, the member for Tangney said that he differs with his leader on that. When he was then asked how reporters should sum up the opposition’s climate change policy, the member for Tangney saids:
I’ll leave that to you to determine.
We have seen more and more different positions on responding to climate change from the opposition: low targets, high targets, no targets, carbon tax and—the last refuge of the cynics and the sceptics—climate denial. At this point in the week, when we finish the kind of week that we have had with the opposition opposing the delivery of a job-creating program that will put ceiling insulation in the homes of Australians, I say to the Leader of the Opposition: get your house in order, get on board—
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order that goes to relevance. Will the minister acknowledge—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! No. The member for Flinders will resume his seat
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—The Australian public is looking for coherent policy delivery on the challenges that we face now. You are all over the place on climate change. We are delivering ceiling insulation, jobs and assistance to householders that need it most.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—In future, the minister will refer his remarks through the chair.
Economy
2018
2018
15:51:00
Oakeshott, Rob, MP
IYS
Lyne
IND
0
Mr OAKESHOTT
—My question is to the Prime Minister—and thank you for continuing question time. Prime Minister, with Port Macquarie-Hastings Council now laying off up to 70 long-term staff—in large part due to collateralised debt obligation exposures and losses—and with the Go8 universities openly expressing concerns this week over their exposures and losses, will you now accept the need for an inquiry into the extent of public sector losses within all three tiers of government as well as within statutory, semi-statutory and non-statutory agencies and, from this, to either hold to account those that have been operating outside Treasury guidelines or improve Treasury guidelines so that in the future an absolute premium is placed on investments involving taxpayers’ dollars?
2019
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I thank the member for Lyne for his question. I know he is well representing the interests of his constituents, particularly their concerns about what is happening with Port Macquarie council. Firstly, in terms of debt exposure on the part of local authorities, their public sector borrowing requirement in general and their public finance management in general: Australia’s constitutional arrangements primarily place that, as the honourable member knows, within the purview of state government. That is the first point.
He also raises the question about the problems encountered by a number of universities around Australia in terms of their exposure to what has happened with CDOs worldwide and other forms of securitisation of assets, which have subsequently become bad assets in terms of the overall health of their finances. The financial arrangements of the universities as a matter of general principle, because they all exist under state statute, fall within a similar category. However, the honourable member legitimately raises the question about the overall impact of the global financial crisis spreading through to the public finances of various instrumentalities across the Federation. I can assure the honourable member that the Commonwealth Treasury is actively engaged with state and territory counterparts about the overall problems in various sectors.
On the question of local government which the honourable member raises, I would draw his attention to the fact that we have been exceptionally mindful of the financial burden being faced by local government across the nation. I believe that 565-plus local authorities attended the Australian Council of Local Government’s meeting in Canberra at the end of last year. What was plain from my discussions with many of the mayors and shire presidents, and from the discussion they had with the minister for local government, was that they were already being impacted by the deterioration of the rate base as a consequence of the wash-through impact of the global financial crisis. That has been one of the reasons why in the period since we held that council meeting in Canberra, the first in the Federation’s history, the minister for infrastructure has released an $800 million community infrastructure package for local governments to deliver across the country. The objective is twofold. First, we understand the pressure which local authority budgets are now under because of the downstream consequences of the global financial crisis on the rate base and, in some cases, the extent to which they have been exposed by investments of the type which the honourable member describes. It is not just that $800 million package which is designed to provide some support for local authorities’ funding arrangements at present. On top of that, the enhanced funding for Roads to Recovery and the Black Spot Program has been designed with a similar intent. On the questions which the honourable member raises, I would invite him to remain in continued liaison with the Treasurer and his office as we examine the public finance impacts through the Treasury of these instrumentalities across the country.
Nation Building and Jobs Plan
2019
2019
15:55:00
Neumann, Shayne, MP
HVO
Blair
ALP
1
Mr NEUMANN
—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Why does the government believe the Nation Building and Jobs Plan is the most appropriate strategy for supporting jobs and sustaining economic growth? Are proposals for a smaller stimulus package based on tax cuts widely supported?
2019
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
YU5
Melbourne
ALP
Minister for Finance and Deregulation
1
Mr TANNER
—The government has put in place a $42 billion package, the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, in order to stimulate economic activity, to stimulate growth and to support jobs in the Australian economy—all critical to the wellbeing of working people in this country. We are in the face of extraordinary developments in the international economy. We have seen growth going backwards big-time in economies like the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, many parts of Europe and other parts of Asia. The opposition has put forward an alternative stimulus package, approximately half the magnitude of that advocated by the government, that is purportedly based on tax cuts—one would assume mostly tax cuts favouring the better off.
In a debate with me on Lateline a couple of Friday evenings ago, the now shadow Treasurer, then shadow finance minister, was asked to name commentators and economists who supported this approach—who supported the coalition’s alternative. He was unable to name a single one. He was unable to answer that question. Seeking to determine what the position of opposition members is on the opposition’s package, journalists on the doors today asked a number of members of the opposition what their package would have done with respect to the job losses at Pacific Brands. The opposition has been very keen to blame the government, to say that the government’s package had failed to prevent those job losses and to imply that their alternatives would have done something about those job losses. So I would like to run through some of the answers to these questions from journalists about what conceivably could have happened had the opposition’s package been in place.
First, the member for Tangney, who was perhaps the most honest, if a little bit gauche, said, ‘There’s no specific guarantee of that’—in other words, ‘No, our package would not have done anything.’ The member for Boothby was asked, ‘Would your package have prevented these job losses?’ and his answer was, ‘Let’s talk about the $10 billion stimulus package’—in other words, ‘I don’t want to answer.’ The member for Moncrieff was asked whether he could guarantee that the Pacific Brands job losses would not have occurred had the Liberal package been in place and he said, ‘That’s your assertion.’ Finally, the member for Gippsland was asked about the Pacific Brands issue and whether the coalition’s package would have prevented those job losses and he said, ‘The government’s spending should have been directed at small business.’ That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the Liberal Party approach, given that Pacific Brands is hardly a small business.
This follows in the wake of the coalition’s absolute confusion with respect to the other part of the government’s package: infrastructure investment. When that legislation was put to the parliament at the end of last year the Liberal Party set a new record. For the first time in the history of this parliament, the members from one major party voted three different ways—some voted for the legislation, some voted against the legislation and some abstained.
A government member—Some of them got lost.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr TANNER
—Yes, some of them got lost, got stuck in the lift, went to the toilet or whatever. That added to the confusion, of course, because some National Party members voted against it. I note that, when the now shadow Treasurer, the member for North Sydney, was asked by the media in the wake of his promotion why the coalition had supported the government’s $10 billion stimulus package and was now opposing it, his response was, ‘I wasn’t terribly involved in our response to the $10 billion package.’ I wonder what portfolio he held at the time. He was actually shadow minister for finance. Ten billion dollars was on the block and he ‘wasn’t really involved in the coalition’s response’.
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr Tuckey interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister still has the call. I simply say to the member for O’Connor that, earlier in the week, when he rose on a point of order that was not a point of order, he was very charitably dealt with. I will listen carefully to the minister but, so far, I believe the minister is being relevant to the question.
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr Tuckey interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for O’Connor does not have the call.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: relevance. I understand the remark that you have made with respect to the member for O’Connor, but I would direct you to standing order 86(a), where it is very clearly stated that a member may raise a point of order with the Speaker at any time, which means that you must hear the member for O’Connor’s point of order. Even if you dismiss it, under the standing orders you must hear it.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—But, in the past, chairs have used this device to get a message through to members.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! Members who will not get on their feet can scoff all they like, but the member for O’Connor was charitably dealt with earlier in the week. The minister has the call.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr TANNER
—Last year, the member for North Sydney advised the House that the only thing that united the Liberal Party was hatred of the Labor Party. They must be getting more friendly towards us, because there is not much uniting them at the moment.
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister will bring his answer to a conclusion.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr TANNER
—I will bring my answer to a conclusion, Mr Speaker. In the space of 15 months, the Treasurer and I have been faced by no fewer than three shadow Treasurers and three shadow finance ministers. One wonders how many there will have been by the time we get to the election.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: relevance. The minister is being irrelevant and provocative, and I would ask you to sit him down.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The minister has at this point in time returned to the question, but he will now conclude his answer.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr TANNER
—The lines we are hearing from the opposition about the government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan are completely confected, completely phoney and entirely hollow. What we have seen over the last two days is a couple of questions about the issues of jobs—and then straight on to a giant phoney distraction regarding SAS pay.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr Rudd
—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
MEMBER FOR HERBERT
2021
Miscellaneous
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I would just like to clarify a point of procedure. In doing so, I want to assure the member for Herbert that I am not trying to embarrass him—he did the crime; he did the time. Earlier in question time, I directed the member for Herbert to leave the chamber for one hour. At the time, because he had so many things with him in the chamber—such as a computer and books—he took an inordinate amount of time to leave. But I knew he was not defying my direction. Pardon me for having to use this phrase this week: I let sleeping dogs lie. This became an issue in that the point in time that he left the chamber was recorded—and he may have sought advice about when he was to return which was actually different to the advice which, for instance, I would have received if I had asked. On this occasion I was quite happy to allow the member for Herbert to be involved in the division, but I would remind honourable members that the clerks note the starting time of the hour as being when the member has physically left the chamber rather than the time that the Presiding Officer has made the direction.
HK6
Lindsay, Peter, MP
Mr Lindsay
—Mr Speaker, I would never knowingly return before time. I did check the draft minutes and I did return after the one hour on the draft minutes.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I acknowledge that there was a difference in those two times. It may be better if, in the future, the member involved, on their return, liaises with the clerks at the table, just to make sure.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
2022
Ministerial Arrangements
2022
16:05:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr RUDD
—I table for the information of the House a revised ministry list reflecting changes to the ministry, all of which relate to parliamentary secretary appointments following the resignation of The Hon. John Murphy MP as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade. I acknowledge the significant and strong contribution that Parliamentary Secretary Mr Murphy has made to the government and to our reform agenda and I thank him for his service.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Senator the Hon. Mark Arbib has been appointed Parliamentary Secretary for Government Service Delivery and will have particular responsibility for the implementation of the government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan. I seek leave to have the revised ministry list incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The revised ministry list read as follows—
RUDD MINISTRY
25 February 2008
TITLE
MINISTER
OTHER CHAMBER
Prime Minister
The Hon Kevin Rudd MP
Senator the Hon Chris
Evans
Cabinet Secretary
Senator the Hon John
Faulkner
The Hon Lindsay Tanner MP
Minister for Climate Change and Water
Senator the Hon Penny Wong
The Hon Wayne Swan MP
The Hon Peter Garrett AM MP (Water)
Parliamentary Secretary for Early Childhood Education and Childcare
The Hon Maxine McKew MP
Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change
The Hon Greg Combet AM MP
Parliamentary Secretary
The Hon Anthony Byrne MP
Parliamentary Secretary for Government Service Delivery
Senator the Hon Mark Arbib
Minister for Education
The Hon Julia Gillard MP
Senator the Hon Kim Carr
Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations
The Hon Julia Gillard MP
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig
Minister for Social Inclusion
The Hon Julia Gillard MP
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig
(Deputy Prime Minister)
Minister for Youth
The Hon Kate Ellis MP
Senator the Hon Chris Evans
Minister for Employment Participation
The Hon Brendan O’Connor MP
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig
Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and Parliamentary Secretary for the Voluntary Sector
Senator the Hon Ursula Stephens
Treasurer
The Hon Wayne Swan MP
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy
Assistant Treasurer
The Hon Chris Bowen MP
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy
Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs
The Hon Chris Bowen MP
Senator the Hon Nick Sherry
Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law
Senator the Hon Nick Sherry
The Hon Lindsay Tanner MP
Minister for Immigration and
Citizenship
Senator the Hon Chris Evans
The Hon Robert McClelland MP
(Leader of the Government in the Senate)
Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services
The Hon Laurie Ferguson MP
Special Minister of State
(Vice President of the Executive Council)
Senator the Hon John Faulkner
The Hon Lindsay Tanner MP
Minister for Finance and Deregulation
The Hon Lindsay Tanner MP
Senator the Hon Nick Sherry
Minister for Trade
The Hon Simon Crean MP
Senator the Hon Kim Carr
Parliamentary Secretary for Trade
The Hon Anthony Byrne MP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
The Hon Stephen Smith MP
Senator the Hon John Faulkner
Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs
The Hon Duncan Kerr SC MP
Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance
The Hon Bob McMullan
Minister for Defence
The Hon Joel Fitzgibbon MP
Senator the Hon John Faulkner
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs
The Hon Alan Griffin MP
Senator the Hon John Faulkner
Minister for Defence Science and Personnel
The Hon Warren Snowdon MP
Senator the Hon John Faulkner
Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support
The Hon Dr Mike Kelly AM MP
Minister for Health and Ageing
The Hon Nicola Roxon MP
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig
Minister for Ageing
The Hon Justine Elliot MP
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig
Minister for Sport
The Hon Kate Ellis MP
Senator the Hon Chris
Evans
Parliamentary Secretary
Senator the Hon Jan McLucas
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
The Hon Jenny Macklin MP
Senator the Hon Chris
Evans
Minister for Housing
The Hon Tanya Plibersek MP
Senator the Hon Chris
Evans
Minister for the Status of Women
The Hon Tanya Plibersek MP
Senator the Hon Penny Wong
Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Service
The Hon Bill Shorten MP
Parliamentary Secretary for Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction
The Hon Bill Shorten MP
Parliamentary Secretary for the Voluntary Sector
Senator the Hon Ursula Stephens
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
The Hon Anthony Albanese MP
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy
(Leader of the House)
Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia
The Hon Gary Gray AO MP
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy
The Hon Anthony Albanese MP
(Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate)
Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research
Senator the Hon Kim Carr
The Hon Dr Craig Emerson MP
The Hon Julia Gillard MP (Research)
Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy
The Hon Dr Craig Emerson MP
Senator the Hon Kim Carr
Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts
The Hon Peter Garrett AM MP
Senator the Hon Penny Wong
Parliamentary Secretary for Water
The Hon Dr Mike Kelly AM MP
Attorney-General
The Hon Robert McClelland MP
Senator the Hon Penny Wong
Minister for Home Affairs
The Hon Bob Debus MP
Senator the Hon Penny Wong
Minister for Human Services
(Manager of Government Business in the Senate)
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig
The Hon Tanya Plibersek MP
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
The Hon Tony Burke MP
Senator the Hon Nick Sherry
Minister for Resources and Energy
The Hon Martin Ferguson AM MP
Senator the Hon Kim Carr
Minister for Tourism
The Hon Martin Ferguson AM MP
Senator the Hon Nick Sherry
Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there is a Department of Climate Change in the Prime Minister’s portfolio and a Department of Veterans’ Affairs in the Defence portfolio. Except for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Finance and Deregulation, the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, the Department of Climate Change and the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism the title of each department reflects that of the portfolio minister.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
2026
Personal Explanations
2026
16:07:00
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
0
0
Dr NELSON
—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
RW5
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
Dr NELSON
—I have been, in the most unethical way.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
RW5
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
Dr NELSON
—On the front page of today’s Sydney Morning Herald is a story which refers to defence matters. The opening paragraph reads:
THE former Coalition defence minister Brendan Nelson has bought into the row over special forces pay by accusing the military of being reluctant to take orders from its civilian masters.
The facts of it are that on 9 February I gave a 90-minute interview to Ms Cynthia Banham from the Sydney Morning Herald—for whom I have enormous respect—about my experiences in Defence, admirations of it, observations of it and some criticisms of it. She phoned me yesterday to check some of my quotations as being accurate, and indeed I am accurately reported in the story, although incompletely in one passage. However, the newspaper has sought deliberately to suggest in some way that I have lent defence to the indefensible way in which the Minister for Defence has handled this particular matter. I reinforce that I have a very high regard for Ms Banham but considerably less for those who editorialised on this.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The honourable member will resume his place.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
2027
Ministerial Statements
Indigenous Affairs
2027
2027
16:08:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr RUDD
—by leave—I acknowledge the first Australians, on whose lands we meet and whose cultures we celebrate as the oldest continuing cultures in human history.
A year ago, at the opening of the 42nd Parliament, I made a formal apology to the Indigenous peoples of Australia—in particular to the stolen generations. I did so on behalf of the government and the Parliament of Australia. I also said that the apology would help to build a bridge of respect between Indigenous and other Australians so that we could begin to turn the dream of reconciliation into a reality that we could see and feel and know.
That is why, on that day, I pledged that the government would lead a new national effort to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians—the gap in health, in housing, in educational opportunity and attainment and in employment and the obscenity of the 17-year gap in life expectancy. These are ambitious goals. Some said I should not set them for fear that they could not be realised. But my response was that, unless we have agreed national goals that guide our national effort, we would be guaranteed one thing—that we would achieve virtually nothing. Too much time and too many decades have already been lost. We must seize the opportunity that the apology provides us or else, put simply, we will lose that opportunity. To speak fine words and then to forget them would be worse than doing nothing at all.
To underline our accountability to this great task we have assigned ourselves, and to keep it fresh in the mind of the parliament and the nation at large, I undertook also to report to parliament at the beginning of each year on our progress in closing the gap. And so today I make the first of these statements, which outlines the dimensions of the challenge we face and sets out our plan to close the gap.
I believe that the mark of this government is our commitment and capacity to address the immediate crises of today while also embarking on a program of reform to deal with the challenges of tomorrow. That is why we must strain with every possible resource of government to deal with the impact of the global economic recession to reduce the impact on the Australian economy, businesses and jobs. That is why we must continue to prosecute our long-term reform agenda, implementing the education revolution to drive long-term productivity growth. That is why we must create a blueprint for nation building to construct the infrastructure we will need for the 21st century. That is why we must deal with the blight of homelessness. That is why we must act effectively, nationally and internationally, on the great challenge of climate change. And that is why we must act also to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
Indeed, in confronting the national economic challenges we have at present, the actions we take to stimulate and support our economy can also substantially contribute to dealing with our nation’s long-term challenges. And that includes actions on the long-term challenge of closing the gap. But this task is not merely a matter for government, important though the role of government is. It is equally a matter for Indigenous people, for corporate Australia and for our entire Australian community. Unless there are relationships anchored in mutual respect and articulated through mutual responsibility, the great enterprise of reconciliation on which we have embarked will fail.
The historic shift
We stand at an extraordinary moment in the history of Indigenous affairs—a time of despair, but also a time of hope; a time of great challenge, and equally a time of great opportunity. Let us, always, start with hope. We are so fortunate, as Australians, to have among us the oldest continuing cultures in human history, cultures that link our nation with deepest antiquity.
We have Aboriginal rock art in the Kimberley that is as ancient as the great Palaeolithic cave paintings at Altamira and Lascaux in Europe. These paintings remain as part of the culture of Indigenous peoples today, expressing the traditions and spirituality of the traditional owners of the region. We have a culture of Indigenous art that is alive, changing and a source of wonder to the world. We have Indigenous dance, both traditional and contemporary, that astonishes the world, and music—a unique and beautiful music; a haunting music—that is celebrated all over the world. There is a reason why the cultures of Indigenous Australia inspire such fascination, and that is that they represent a unique way of thinking about the world, a vision that over tens of thousands of years has risen out of the land, the power and the very being of our continent, Australia.
But my reasons for hope extend far beyond the depth and breadth of Indigenous creativity and culture. Across the country, Indigenous communities are now trying new approaches to deal with old problems. There are Indigenous Australians making great strides in education and in the workforce: the successes of ordinary people, sometimes against extraordinary odds—the stories that we don’t often hear about. Consider the fact that Australia now has 129 Indigenous doctors and 129 medical students, or consider the success of the best Indigenous organisations. The Chairman of the Productivity Commission, as a judge on last year’s Indigenous Governance Awards, found that the best Indigenous organisations ‘outclass most mainstream organisations and enterprises in Australia’.
Or consider the work of Dr Chris Sarra, Director of the Queensland government’s Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Leadership and former Principal of the Cherbourg primary school in Queensland, and the transformation that has occurred under his leadership in that school. These are just a few examples of change that is happening on the ground in Indigenous Australia. Therefore, when we publicly reflect on the challenges facing Indigenous Australians—and they are many—let us have about us a habit of reflecting on what is going right as well as what is going wrong.
Nonetheless, we cannot ignore the despair that exists in too many Indigenous communities. The chaos, violence and abuse that blight so many lives and the absence of law enforcement, of housing that is fit to live in and of basic services that the rest of the nation takes for granted are classical areas of challenge. It is indeed an obscenity that in a prosperous nation such as ours Indigenous males die, on average, at the age of 59—18 years earlier than non-Indigenous males—and Indigenous females live only until 65 on average, compared to 82 for non-Indigenous females. And, while the mortality rate of Indigenous Australian babies is declining, it remains at more than 12 for every 1,000 live births—a rate nearly three times that which exists for non-Indigenous infants.
In some outback Indigenous communities infection rates of the eye disease trachoma are as bad as they were 30 years ago, when Professor Fred Hollows, Professor Hugh Taylor and others began their celebrated campaign to eradicate the disease. And Australia is the only developed nation among 57 listed by the World Health Organisation that still has blinding trachoma.
In December, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education said she was ‘hit in the guts’ by the latest figures on the extent of illiteracy among Indigenous students in remote Australia. Her words were strong but justified—because, in remote Indigenous communities, only 30 per cent of children in year 3 meet the minimum standards for literacy.
In recent years a sense of deepening despair had settled on much of Indigenous Australia. Many people felt they were not consulted; that decisions about their welfare were being made without reference to them; that they had even become invisible to the nation. While efforts had been made—well-motivated efforts—problems remained. For the nation at large it had all become too hard. The apology opened the opportunity for a new relationship based on mutual respect and mutual responsibility between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia—because, without mutual respect and mutual responsibility, the truth is we can achieve very little.
But I also believe that another great bridge was crossed in the events of 13 February last year, and that is what I have described as the death of ideology. Let us not forget the great wave of goodwill that has been unleashed across our community this last year to tackle Indigenous disadvantage. After two centuries of European settlement, I believe we have finally concluded that this great challenge transcends ideology—both of the left and of the right. Both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians are eager to embrace a new approach, an evidence based approach, where two questions come before all others: (1) what is most needed to close the gap in each community and (2) what works best to meet that need in each community?
The challenge
Of course, the apology has also raised expectations—expectations that change would be swift and results sudden. But generations of Indigenous disadvantage cannot be overturned overnight. Some say that little has happened in the year since the apology. But that is not the case. Progress has been made. Houses are being built. Since the end of 2007, 80 houses have been completed or are nearing completion in remote Northern Territory communities.
We have negotiated four township leases in the Northern Territory. This means we can start housing construction by mid-year, using the $672 million investment in Northern Territory housing. Housing precinct leases have also been negotiated in five Territory communities. In Tennant Creek, following a lease negotiated with the local Aboriginal corporation, prefabricated kitchens are being installed employing local Indigenous people. There are also more police on the beat. An extra 65 police have been deployed to remote Northern Territory communities that did not previously have a police presence. With more night patrols, less alcohol consumption and more safe houses, families say they are feeling safer.
In the Northern Territory, 75 community stores have been licensed for income management so women can buy fresh food and essentials for their families. Almost 13,000 child health checks have also been undertaken. In Western Australia, 121 people have voluntarily signed up to have their welfare payments income managed so money can be spent in the interests of families. In Queensland, the Family Responsibilities Commission is making good progress with its community-led income management model. Nationally, we have driven reforms through employment programs to give more Indigenous people the skills they need to get and keep a job.
In the past year, the foundations of our closing the gap agenda have been laid—and they are strong foundations. Let me describe the four pillars of this agenda. One is that all our efforts in Indigenous policy must be governed by the sincere objective of closing the gap. Within this, our six targets are as follows:
(1) To halve the mortality gap between Indigenous children and other children under five within a decade.
(2) To provide access to early childhood education for all Indigenous four-year-olds in remote communities within five years.
(3) To halve the gap in literacy and numeracy achievement between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and other students within a decade.
(4) To halve the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students in rates of year 12 attainment or an equivalent attainment by 2020.
(5) To halve the gap in employment outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians within a decade.
(6) To finally close the shameful gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians within a generation.
Based on these objectives, both levels of government—state and federal, Liberal and Labor—agreed to a national investment of $4.6 billion over 10 years on programs aimed at closing each of these gaps. To give one example, new funding of $1.94 billion, added to existing programs, means that over the next 10 years $5.5 billion will be spent on housing in remote Indigenous communities—good for the construction industry; good for business; good for jobs; good for Indigenous Australians.
It is the largest single outlay that government has ever made to address the chronic underinvestment in remote Indigenous housing. Furthermore, the partnership of all Australian governments establishes a genuine national approach to closing the gap. It establishes who will formulate policies, who will deliver programs, who will collect the data and who will evaluate that data. It also establishes a mechanism for measuring whether we succeed, whether—as is more likely—we partially succeed or whether we fail. And, should either of the last two happen, we should have the courage and the maturity to admit it and to adjust our policies and programs.
Above all, we will never take our eyes off hard data or careful measurement of progress as we move forward. For example, Indigenous year 12 attainment rates are 45 per cent compared to 86 per cent for non-Indigenous students. And they have widened over the past five years. Meeting our target of halving this gap in 20 years will require an improvement in year 12 completion rates for Indigenous students of up to two per cent every year between now and then. This is a big target. This is a big ask. But unless we have this target we will achieve no progress in moving towards it. We have in place the statistical collections that will allow us to measure progress each year. If it becomes clear that we are not on course, we will, as I said to the House before, adjust our policies. And the Council of Australian Governments Reform Council, assisted by specialist resources, will report each year on progress against each of our targets—thereby providing an independent assessment of government commitment and progress.
The second pillar in our national strategy is resetting the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. The Australian government consulted widely with Indigenous groups in the lead-up to the national apology. This year we are moving towards establishing a national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representative body to give Indigenous Australians the voice in national affairs that they have lost. We are undertaking extensive consultations with Indigenous communities on the nature of the representative body. We are moving toward recognition of the first Australians in the Australian Constitution. But our commitment to consultation will not prevent us from moving quickly, when necessary, to protect vulnerable people, especially women, children and the elderly.
When manifest failures on the part of individuals and communities place others at risk of harm, we will act. That is why we are continuing the Northern Territory emergency response, in order to stabilise some of the Northern Territory’s most troubled communities. And that is why we are continuing a program of income management in remote communities. I know that income management is controversial, but we have maintained it for a simple reason—it has been shown to work in many communities. It helps to protect vulnerable groups such as women, children and the elderly by enabling the purchase of food and other essentials.
That brings me to the third pillar of our national strategy for closing the gap, which is rebuilding the everyday social norms that underpin strong families and healthy communities. We must address the dysfunctional culture of violence and neglect that blights some communities. We must all work toward shared values. Indigenous women and children must know they will be safe from violence and abuse. Our investments to rebuild communities are aimed at helping people to increase their personal responsibility. We will support people to be responsible parents, tenants, students and employees. But this alone is not enough. We need people to take responsibility for changing their lives and those of people around them. That is why we are trialling a program in six Northern Territory schools, in which welfare payments are conditional upon parents making sure their children attend school.
A growing number of Indigenous community leaders are determined to reject family violence, alcohol and drugs. These leaders include the women of Fitzroy Crossing, who fought for alcohol restrictions and who, since the restrictions came into force in 2007, can report a 43 per cent drop in reported domestic violence and a 55 per cent drop in alcohol related attendance at hospitals. There are leaders such as male health manager John Liddle, who read out a statement that had been signed by nearly 400 Aboriginal men at a Central Australian male health summit last July. The Inteyerrkwe Statement was a collective apology to women for past violence and abuse. It read:
We acknowledge and say sorry for the hurt, pain and suffering caused by Aboriginal males to our wives, to our children, to our mothers, to our grandmothers, to our granddaughters, to our aunties, to our nieces and to our sisters...
We also acknowledge that we need the love and support of our Aboriginal women to help us move forward.
I believe that these men are part of the way forward for the country.
And that is our fourth pillar: the building of partnerships across all sectors of the Australian community to help to close the gap, where the wider community—including business, the education sector, sporting groups and the community sector at large—become partners in bringing about measurable change in Indigenous communities and Indigenous lives. That is why the Australian government is supporting the Australian Employment Covenant—an initiative led by mining executive Mr Andrew Forrest that seeks to engage corporate Australia in creating jobs for Indigenous Australians. It is an ambitious plan, and it will be hard to achieve, but, despite difficult economic times, 34 companies have already pledged to create 10,000 jobs under the covenant, and I thank them for it.
The covenant builds on the great efforts many Australian companies have already made in the area of Indigenous employment—companies such as Rio Tinto, Qantas, the NAB, the ANZ and the Indigenous Engagement Task Force of the Business Council of Australia, among others. The Commonwealth is also contributing $20 million to provide scholarships for up to 2,000 Indigenous secondary school students through the Australian Indigenous Education Foundation. And we are providing $10 million over four years to support the expansion of the remarkable work of the Clontarf academies, which now number 23, mainly in Western Australia and the Northern Territory.
I now turn to the building blocks of our strategy to close the gap.
Housing
If we are to improve health, education and employment outcomes we must start in the homes of Indigenous Australians. The appalling state of housing in so many remote Indigenous communities is a major contributor to entrenched disadvantage—communities in which an average of 10 people, and up to 17 and even 20 people, live in one dwelling. There are houses where you cannot cook a meal; bathrooms where you cannot bathe a child; taps and toilets that simply don’t work. No child can do homework or even get a good night’s sleep in such conditions. No adult can properly hold down a job. In addition, the Bureau of Statistics estimates that there are 3,000 Indigenous people in remote areas who are homeless. The government is determined to bring major change to remote Indigenous housing.
From July we will begin to fund the construction of 4,200 new houses—all connected to power, water and sewerage—in remote communities. And 4,800 houses that are either in shocking disrepair or uninhabitable will be upgraded. That means up to 9,000 Indigenous families will benefit. We recognise that progress is slow. Overcrowding and decades of inadequate or non-existent maintenance mean that houses fall quickly into disrepair. But we are determined to tackle these challenges. This includes making funding for communities conditional on the reform of land tenure arrangements that obstruct new housing investment. Only with clear, well-functioning tenure arrangements will government agencies, housing authorities and private businesses make substantial housing investments in remote communities. We are driving an aggressive land tenure reform agenda, which is necessary to underpin sustainable tenancy management, give tenants the assurance that routine repairs and maintenance will be carried out and lay the foundations for economic development in remote communities.
For the first time, remote Indigenous citizens will have access to mainstream housing arrangements that public housing tenants in cities and towns take for granted. And, over time, remote Indigenous citizens will have a realistic opportunity to own their own homes. In return, Indigenous tenants—like all public housing tenants—will be expected to pay rent on time, to cover the cost of any damage and to not disturb the peace of their neighbours.
-
If people fail to pay their rent, action will be taken to deduct it from their accounts automatically as a condition of remaining.
-
People who damage their homes will be made to cover the cost of any damage and be required to enter into acceptable behaviour agreements.
-
People who allow unacceptable behaviours to occur on their premises will be subject to further action including orders by the Commissioner for Tenancies.
And people who wilfully fail to meet these commitments will face eviction.
Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Reform of public services
Our housing strategy is closely linked to our plan to create a new model for service delivery in remote Australia. We have chosen to focus on 26 selected remote locations—of which 15 are in the Northern Territory, and have already been identified for significant housing and infrastructure investment. The goal is to invest sufficient money in these places to make a substantial difference, before we apply our reforms more widely. These 26 communities will also be the first to benefit from the $291 million we are investing over six years in a new model for delivery of services to remote communities. Unlike current arrangements, which too often fail to deliver basic services, the 26 locations will have one point of contact with government: one contact point to coordinate the delivery of housing, health, early childhood, welfare and education services; one contact point to deliver services to communities in a form that respects their culture and, where necessary, uses their languages.
To ensure our best chance of success, I am pleased to announce today the creation of a new position of Coordinator-General for Remote Indigenous Services. It will be a statutory position, responsible to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. The coordinator-general will have the authority to cut through bureaucratic blockages and to help make sure services are delivered and conditionalities enforced. Too many government initiatives have failed in the past in remote communities because essential preconditions have not been put in place, and planning has not been undertaken. A coordinator-general will help ensure that, instead of being planned and delivered in isolation, the delivery of government programs is coordinated and, as a result, those programs deliver better results.
In the past much criticism has been legitimately made of the fact that the Commonwealth itself has had difficulty in properly coordinating the delivery of its own services. There has been further criticism which I believe is legitimate in terms of the Commonwealth’s historical capacity to properly coordinate its efforts with states and territories. This administrative initiative on the part of the Commonwealth aims to reduce that problem.
Health
I turn now to our health policy for Indigenous Australians. Today I am pleased to announce that the Commonwealth will invest $58.3 million over four years in order to fight chronic eye diseases such as trachoma. Our objective must be clear: to eliminate trachoma among Indigenous Australians within a finite time frame. Trachoma currently affects approximately 20,000 Indigenous children. This should not be the case. The investment we announce today will also target chronic middle ear infections and the attendant risk of hearing loss which regrettably remains a real problem in Indigenous communities. This investment will expand services to combat trachoma, train health workers for hearing screening, and provide extra ear and eye surgery, especially in remote and rural areas. This funding comes on top of the $1.57 billion that the Commonwealth, state and territory governments have committed over the next four years to improve Indigenous health outcomes.
Three-quarters of Australia’s more than 500,000 Indigenous people live in urban and regional areas. Their needs are also central to our health agenda. Too many Indigenous people across Australia die well before their time because of treatable chronic diseases. Illnesses such as rheumatic heart disease, kidney disease, diabetes and cancer account for about two-thirds of premature deaths among Indigenous Australians. Our strategy focuses on these and similar illnesses. And it does so largely through the mainstream health system, because that is where 70 per cent of Indigenous people are treated.
Over four years, the Commonwealth will spend $806 million to improve the management of chronic disease. We will appoint 160 new Indigenous health outreach workers to help improve Indigenous health outcomes. We will offer financial incentives to GPs to encourage them to identify and better manage chronic illness among Indigenous people in their area. Critically, we will also fund two free health checks over the next four years for half the Indigenous adult population aged between 15 and 65. These checks are intended to identify chronic disease early—and will lead to more than 90,000 Indigenous people being provided with a program to help them manage their own illness. Importantly, these health checks will provide governments with better aggregate data on the state of Indigenous health across Australia.
Smoking is one of the biggest single killers of Indigenous Australians. A national Indigenous tobacco campaign will provide information, skills and support to enable people to quit smoking—using programs that have been shown to reduce tobacco use.
Early childhood development
We know that high-quality early childhood education is critical to the physical, emotional and intellectual growth of the child. Over six years, the Commonwealth, state and territory governments will invest $564 million to act on the critical needs of Indigenous infants and young children. Indigenous babies are still twice as likely as other babies to be born with low birth weight, a condition linked to ill health and poor performance at school. To improve the health of babies we need to work with pregnant mothers—especially teenage mothers. We need to tackle conditions such as birth trauma, foetal growth, and foetal alcohol syndrome—conditions that are often linked to ill health or substance abuse.
The Commonwealth will fund the states and territories to improve access to antenatal care for young Indigenous mothers. We will create at least 35 new Indigenous children and family centres that will provide support for families and pregnant mothers, as well as childcare and early learning services. To achieve lasting progress in closing the gap we must start at the earliest stages of the lives of Indigenous Australians. These centres will play a vital role in addressing the earliest causes of disadvantage.
Schools
During the past year the Australian government has made a substantial commitment to reform the nation’s schools, with a strong focus on the nation’s most disadvantaged schools. This reform agenda will particularly help Indigenous students, many of whom attend schools that are among the group of up to 1,500 disadvantaged schools that will each get half a million dollars a year to build better quality in their schools. The government has announced a total investment of $1.1 billion for all disadvantaged schools, $550 million to improve teacher quality and more than $540 million for literacy and numeracy programs. To qualify for funding, these schools must sign up to a set of outcomes, including our targets to halve the gaps in Indigenous literacy and numeracy achievement and in year 12 attainment.
Workforce participation
At the time of the 2006 census, just 48 per cent of the Indigenous workforce-age population was in work compared to 72 per cent of other workforce-age Australians. To halve this gap to 12 percentage points by 2016, 100,000 more Indigenous Australians need to be employed—63 per cent more than were in work in 2006. The Commonwealth, state and territory governments have set a target of helping 13,000 Indigenous people to find and keep jobs. We recognise this will be very difficult to achieve given the impact of the global economic recession, but we are committed to working towards this goal in partnership with business and in partnership with state and territory governments.
The way forward
If we are to deliver on our nation’s commitment to close the gap, we will need an unprecedented level of cooperation and coordination between Commonwealth and state and territory governments. That is why, later this year, a meeting of Commonwealth, state and territory governments will focus on progress in closing the gap and the practical policies which proceed from that. From 1 July, the new agreements we have struck with the state and territory governments will come into force. That means we will prepare to build the new houses and early childhood centres and to start the new health programs.
Change is coming to Indigenous Australia, and change is coming from Indigenous Australia. The task ahead is difficult. Let us be clear about that. The transformation of communities and of lives will take many years, and there will be many bumps and setbacks on the road. But the alternative is to do nothing. We are determined to have a go.
In this country, the burden of history falls most heavily on our First Australians. The disadvantage they have suffered for more than two centuries has placed great obstacles in their way. But I also believe that we stand at a moment of great historical possibility. Let us as a parliament and as a nation seize the moment. Let us work together, as Australians, with a sense of urgency but also a sense of hope, knowing that we have the capacity and the compassion, the mutual respect and the mutual resolve to act and so change our nation for the better. Let us now begin. I now table the first annual report, Closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage: the challenge for Australia.
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
16:40:00
—by leave—I move:
That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Turnbull (Leader of the Opposition) speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 40 minutes.
Question agreed to.
2035
16:41:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Mr TURNBULL
—On 13 February 2008, Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia was given the opportunity to reconcile the past and together embrace the future. On that historic day at this table in this parliament 12 months ago, all sides of politics made a commitment to the shared future of our country. The apology, which meant so much to so many, was a critical element of our commitment to Australia’s future. But if we fail to reinforce the words of last year with actions and results and a renewed focus on Indigenous issues then we will sadly relegate that apology to nothing more than another well-meant historical event with fine speeches from which little of substance came. I know that all members of this House are determined that we must not let that happen. The words of goodwill and the very strong emotions of that day must be emboldened with a practical commitment to end Indigenous disadvantage and enable all Australians to share equitably in our nation’s future.
There is no shortage of goodwill in Australia to promote an end to Indigenous disadvantage. Everybody is committed to closing the gap. There is no shortage of goodwill, there is no shortage of good intentions and there is no shortage of financial resources either. But everybody who has come to grips with these challenges, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, knows the challenges are very hard indeed. There have been a lot of well-meaning policies and well-meaning people whose well-meant objectives have not been met and whose policies on all too many occasions have been counterproductive. No-one here doubts the importance of words. How could we doubt the importance of words in this place? Words and symbols are important and have their place, but symbols without substance are of no use to anyone. Soft soap and warm words are no substitute for action, hard decisions and results.
As a nation, we will fail future generations if we do not demand and deliver real improvements to the health, education, jobs and overall living standards of Indigenous Australians. All sides of politics must be committed to an Australia where opportunity is available to all and denied to nobody; where an Indigenous child can aspire to any job, any profession, any calling that they want; where Indigenous life expectancy is the same as the life expectancy of the rest of the community; where an Indigenous child is encouraged and supported, as all children should be, through the educational years; where those children have the hope of a bright future with food on the table, a home that is safe and secure and, most critically of all, a childhood that is the birthright of every child, free from neglect and safe from abuse. As the men and women charged with making decisions on behalf of all Australians here in our national parliament, this is surely not asking too much of us.
As Leader of the Opposition I reaffirm the coalition’s commitment to delivering a new future, with hope and opportunity for all, to Indigenous Australians. We make it plain that we will do everything we can to support the government in delivering on their commitments to closing the gap in Indigenous life expectancy and to improving educational attainment, employment and life in remote communities especially. But as Leader of the Opposition I will not fail to hold the government to account where the pace is slowed or commitments are not met, and in that context I must note the memorandum of understanding that was signed between the Howard government and the Northern Territory government in September 2007 to provide $647 million to build 750 new houses in 16 communities and improve living conditions in town camps as part of the Strategic Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Program. We are advised that not one house has been built under that program in a remote community in the Northern Territory. That is a great shame. That is a great example of the point I just made. You have good intentions, real and substantial resources committed to a program with a worthy objective, but nothing has happened.
Ending Indigenous disadvantage must be a constant call on every minister and every portfolio. It must permeate every office of the bureaucracy and be a continuing theme, an emphasis, indeed a mainstay of public policy development. Ending Indigenous disadvantage cannot be confined to fine prose here or to a single ministerial portfolio. It must be part of our entire national agenda and an ongoing commitment beyond the term of this, or any, Prime Minister or government. Importantly, if we are to succeed in giving real and practical effect to the promises of last year we must continue to encourage Indigenous Australians to help guide the way ahead. It is, after all, their future. They are the ones who are disadvantaged and they have the greatest interest and the greatest commitment to ending that disadvantage—and they must get our unstinting support in doing so.
For too long Indigenous Australia has been delivered policy from Canberra and has been asked to follow it. We have some truly inspirational Indigenous leaders such as Noel Pearson and others and we must ensure that they have a voice and are heard. Even though their views in all quarters are not always politically correct in the development of Indigenous policy, they speak great wisdom. I sat with Noel Pearson and we talked with Aboriginal communities in Weipa many years ago, when Peter Beattie was the Premier of Queensland. I looked at Noel Pearson as he grappled with those apparently insoluble problems and I thought: ‘Here is a man of great courage, great vision, who is prepared to speak the truth—blunt, unvarnished, tough.’ We listened to him very carefully, and I would say to the Prime Minister that he should listen to Mr Pearson very, very carefully indeed. Indigenous people must be part of this way forward and must fully embrace the rights and responsibilities that will come with the renewed commitment to closing the gap that we make today.
I noted that the Prime Minister referred at length to Indigenous communities and to remote parts of Australia but also noted the very many Indigenous Australians who live in our cities. I was pleased to see the commitment to additional health services in the cities as well as in remote communities. This is of enormous importance. I cannot pretend that I come to this position with a long history in Indigenous affairs—not at all—but I have worked closely with my wife, Lucy, with the Aboriginal communities in the inner city of Sydney, in Redfern and in Woolloomooloo, and people have been crying out for support for some of the challenges there, such as the health problems. Lucy was very active in working with other committed people—Susie Carleton and others—to establish a foundation that provided resources to enable Aboriginal women in particular to get health services for their children, when, without that support, they would not have been able to do so. There are a lot of very practical things that need to be done on the ground. There is so much goodwill and so many resources. It needs the right leadership, policies that are effective and, above all, the engagement of and support for Indigenous people themselves. The most critical thing is to ensure that the leaders in Indigenous Australia, wherever they may be, are empowered for good and are given support to provide leadership for their communities
Since becoming Leader of the Opposition last September, I have worked hard to engage with these issues. On a recent visit to Western Australia I saw firsthand some of the challenges facing remote Indigenous communities—and I think this is where my path and the path of the Prime Minister have crossed somewhat. I spent some time in Western Australia with Andrew Forrest, better known as Twiggy, a man who has a well-demonstrated commitment, a lifetime commitment, to Indigenous Australia and creating job opportunities for Indigenous Australians. Twiggy and I travelled to Halls Creek and Fitzroy Crossing, communities where we must recognise that policies—many of them, perhaps most of them, well intentioned in years gone by—have proved to be quite counterproductive. The number of children born in those places with foetal alcohol syndrome is incredibly large, in the sense that it is almost impossible to believe that in a country such as Australia so many children could be so disadvantaged at birth.
During my visit I heard a powerful plea from a woman in Halls Creek about the damage that grog was doing to her community. It was at a meeting at the hospital. Like everyone here, I have heard many impassioned speeches in my life and many of them have been very compelling and persuasive. I have heard no speech or address more compelling than what I heard at Halls Creek from the matron of the hospital, and she was echoed by other leaders. Her eloquence came from a life’s knowledge of what had gone wrong and what was needed to set it right. It was a cry of pain but also a call for leadership. There can be no doubt that underlying so many of the problems that the Prime Minister has spoken about and that we have all spoken about here is the curse of grog, the curse of alcohol. Tackling grog in these communities must be at the centre of anything and everything we do to close the gap. That is the truth. We know that; we must act on it. I thought to myself as I sat there listening to this compelling speech from the matron: how many people in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra would think differently about these issues if they heard them from people on the ground firsthand? There is no substitute for being there.
Today, as the Prime Minister hands down the first of the annual Closing the gap reports to the parliament, I use this opportunity to reaffirm the coalition’s commitment to continuing the courageous work undertaken by the former government—the Howard coalition government—to end the systemic abuse, dysfunction and dislocation so evident in many remote communities. I note that the Rudd government has acknowledged the importance of that work and is continuing, in very large part, the important work of the intervention that the Howard government so boldly undertook, recognising that drastic action was needed to correct terrible wrongs.
To close the gap and end this dysfunction we must deliver change that is real, practical and above all at the grassroots level. It must be felt in every school, in every home and in every community. It cannot be something that just makes people in Canberra feel good. All of the beauty and indeed the majesty of the apology will be lost forever—it will be betrayed—if it is not followed up by action; if we do not deliver on the promise. The coalition will carefully examine this first progress report on closing the gap. With my shadow ministers, I will examine changes to the rate of four-year-olds in remote communities who are engaged in appropriate early childhood education. We will examine the gaps in literacy, numeracy and employment outcomes as well as the gap in infant mortality rates between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children.
Twelve months on from the apology, we must ensure that we have embraced the new opportunity that consensus and goodwill provides. We must continue to support those communities and indeed those individuals who move forward constructively and who are doing their bit to change their own situations and to be an active partner, if that is what they want. We must provide that support, and there is so much good work being done. I think of Mark Spinks, a man who works with the Aboriginal men’s group in Redfern in Sydney. He works with the Walla Mulla community in Woolloomooloo in inner Sydney. He is a Commonwealth public servant who, in his own time, puts an enormous amount of work into providing leadership on the ground. He is a charismatic Aboriginal man who is proud of his people and determined to make changes for the good. These are the types of leaders that we need to support.
We must see real and tangible benefits from policy changes. The Prime Minister spoke about housing. I provided a disappointing fact about housing earlier. The truth is that very little has been achieved to date on housing, despite lots of news grabs and photo opportunities. That has to change. The government has to do more and it has to do better. The Prime Minister has said he is committed to do that and we will, in the most constructive way, hold him to account for that. Progress on closing the gap and ending Indigenous disadvantage is not measured by the number of agreements, ministerial visits, photo opportunities or announcements but by real and tangible outcomes—and it is not easy. It requires leadership from government and support from those who are willing to do the heavy lifting. It will involve some tough decisions, it will involve some unpopular decisions, and it will demand a genuine commitment to moving on from a past that is riddled with missed opportunities.
This government, and all of those that come after it, must also be brave enough to report on real progress—on what has actually been achieved or not achieved, as the case may be. We have to do that. We have got to be truthful, honest, about the facts on the ground. If we do not do that, we will achieve nothing. We will do no better than others who have had good intentions and lots of money but have achieved so little before us. I am a practical person. I have spent much of my life in business, where words and decisions, policies and programs, have to result in real action, in real results. We in the coalition want to see real results.
The Prime Minister talked about ideology in his speech. This is no place for ideology. Ideology has bedevilled this whole area. What the Indigenous people of Australia need is action. They need support to be able to change their own lives so that they have the same dignity and the same opportunities as every other Australian. We will give them that support and we will give the government—so long as it is the government—that support. The coalition stand committed to a real future for all Indigenous Australians. We will demand results from the government. Our criticisms of the government may at times appear harsh, but we will be doing our job, and we will be doing the job that Indigenous Australia needs us to do in holding the government to account—just as, when the political tables are turned and we are in government, we will expect the Labor Party to hold us as accountable.
DOCUMENTS
2039
Documents
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
17:00:00
—A document is presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the document will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
ADJOURNMENT
2039
Adjournment
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
17:00:00
—I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
Question agreed to.
2040
17:01:00
House adjourned at 5.01 pm
2009-02-26
Ms Burke took the chair at 9.30 am.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
2041
Constituency Statements
Swan Electorate: Queens Park Junior Football Club
2041
2041
09:30:00
Irons, Steve, MP
HYM
Swan
LP
0
0
Mr IRONS
—Last year I attended the Queens Park Junior Football Club in my electorate to present some trophies. I went there as a representative of the Perth Football Club as I am the director of junior development at that club. While I was there I was pleased to receive a copy of a book titled Queens Park Junior Football Club Kicks Off!!! A History of the Queens Park Junior Football Club 1965-2008 written by Rebecca Doughty. The book describes a history which demonstrates the strong relationship between sporting organisations and community. I would like to share some of the stories written in this book with the parliament today.
Queens Park Junior Football Club has existed for 44 years. This is not to be confused with the senior Queens Park Football Club, formerly the Canning Football Club, that was established in 1912 consisting mainly of volunteer firefighters, who have been in the press quite a bit lately. The story of the junior football club begins with Sister Kate’s Children’s Home which operated from 1936 until the 1980s. Sister Kate was sent from England to Australia to help disadvantaged children. The Parkerville Children’s Home she established is still operational today as a shelter for homeless youth and children at risk, something I have spoken about in this House before. Later she established the Queens Park children’s home for Aboriginal children and operated it for 15 years until she died in 1946. After Sister Kate’s death in 1946, Sister Kate’s assistant and friend Miss Lefroy continued to operate the home and established a football team. Children who attended the Queens Park primary schools engaged in football at Sister Kate’s and, after it had been established, these children played with the Queens Park Junior Football Club. There are plans to redevelop Sister Kate’s into an aged care facility for Aboriginals and a website has been established to support this plan.
In 1958 a group of neighbours who had moved into the newly built homes in Donaldson Street, Queens Park, became close friends and took up the challenge of starting a football club. The group attempted to collaborate with Sister Kate’s club although establishing Sister Kate’s club formally was proving difficult. Eventually Queens Park Junior Football Club was born as its own entity and Sister Kate’s team joined them. They officially entered competition in 1965. Back then the club consisted of just a handful of kids.
Over the years the club has expanded and is now a very important club within the Perth junior district. The original president was Colin Willey, from 1966 to 1968. He also held the position of secretary in the years 1973 and 1974. In the last few years in my role as director of junior development at the Perth Football Club I have had the pleasure of dealing with Peter Salter and Dianne Brown who have both been presidents of the club. They have an enormous capacity for work and they have managed to hold this club together through some very difficult periods, which has benefited the club. During their time there has been an increase in the number of players representing Queens Park in the district representative sides.
I wish this proud club, all its members and particularly its volunteers all the best for the future and know that they will be around for another 44 years at least. I thank them for the book, which is extremely interesting. I am probably going to put it in the Parliamentary Library and I am very happy to stand up here and talk about their club. Thank you.
Youth Membership in Political Organisations
2042
2042
09:33:00
Butler, Mark, MP
HWK
Port Adelaide
ALP
1
0
Mr BUTLER
—The following words were written for me by a very bright young woman, Melissa Westbrook, who spent a day in my office recently. They are about how young people might be best served by federal politicians. It has been suggested that rates of youth membership in political organisations are dropping which is a predicament when one considers that existing party memberships are ageing. Some speculate that this drop in numbers indicates that the current 18- to 25-year-old age bracket is politically apathetic or uninvolved, but there is much evidence to show that this is simply not the case. Young people are now channelling their community values in different ways from previous generations and there are a number of things that federal politicians can focus on in order to politically engage people and better represent their needs and interests federally.
Federal MPs can encourage young people to become more politically involved by introducing programs that focus on them being citizens rather than becoming citizens. Current school pedagogies focus on civic education programs that provide young people with the tools to exercise civil liberties for when they come of age. This is not a bad thing as education into our institutions and models is a must if we are to have well-rounded, responsible citizens. Federal MPs can, however, recognise that there needs to more of an outlet for the practical application of politics for young people, as only four per cent of a student population at any school get elected to a student reps council and an even smaller figure get elected to a university board or SRC. Federal MPs can provide assistance in terms of the formation and funding of programs where young people get a chance to take the reins on important issues. Social science studies have shown that young people are driven to focus on making a difference. They are often found in studies to be a results driven generation strongly motivated by a desire to make a direct impact on a cause that matters to them.
Federal MPs can focus on opening these sorts of doorways for young people, with a strong focus on recognition and achievement. Moreover, it must be recognised that young people now are less concerned with the affairs of the state than they are with specific causes and movements. As a result of the information boom, young people are channelling their naturally-felt obligation to be good citizens into broader, more international issues such as climate change and foreign affairs rather than party affiliation and voting. This is a challenge for federal MPs as one of the key problems in trying to engage young people is that they feel obligated to participate in democracy but often feel they have very little power to do so. This is a sentiment MPs can focus on changing. It is a sentiment that has already led to a new brand of youth political action in the rise of internet blogging and course-oriented website building.
MPs can help by acknowledging this individualised, digitally oriented approach to politics by providing more technological forums for young people to participate in federal issues. These could include online chat forums, consultations and mobile alerts in order to provide ongoing liaisons for young people and youth organisations in a way that speaks their language. Ultimately, the key point for federal members looking to engage young people in their electorates is quite simply to provide those young people with the means to get their hands dirty.
Interest Rates
2042
2043
09:36:00
Robert, Stuart, MP
HWT
Fadden
LP
0
0
Mr ROBERT
—I rise to raise an issue regarding second-tier lenders and interest rates, and I particularly want to raise the plight of one of my constituents, Eric Charlier, who is a director of a company called ActionCOACH. The issue with second-tier lenders is simply that interest rates go up faster than the Reserve Bank adjustments, and they come down slower. We have seen in the last few months that interest rates at the cash rate have dropped from a high of 7.25 per cent to 3.25 per cent at the cash rate level, which is the lowest in some 40 years.
At the same time, the rates of second-tier lenders have not come down. If I could quote a situation that Eric Charlier is currently facing, his lender, Bluestone, on a number of occasions has raised its interest rates over and above the cash rate that the Reserve Bank raised last year, taking his interest rate to above 13 per cent. Interest rates have, as we know, come down, to the point where a standard variable rate now for a package with National Australia Bank is 5.11 per cent—if you are on their portfolio program—reflecting the cash rate at 3.25 per cent. Yet with second-tier lenders like Bluestone, rates have come down only to 11.39 per cent, with Bluestone informing Mr Charlier on 23 February that it would be dropping rates by only 0.5 per cent rather than passing on the full one per cent cut. Mr Charlier has also indicated that Bluestone has consistently refrained from passing on the full amount of decreases and has, in fact, added other charges to the mortgages as interest rates have decreased. Whilst every second-tier lender has a range of issues and an expense base and it is almost impossible to put them all together into one lump, I would question whether second-tier lenders are actually doing enough to reduce rates in the current climate where their cost of borrowing has so dramatically decreased.
I therefore call on second-tier lenders, like Bluestone, to look at their expense base, to look at the way they work out their loan structures, and to pass on the full rate reductions that the Reserve Bank is passing. If lenders can borrow money at a lower cash rate then those who are the beneficiaries of those funds through loans should benefit from the reduction in those rates. I would call on a full pass-through of rate reduction by all lenders, especially the second tier.
Ovarian Cancer
2043
2043
09:38:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
1
0
Ms HALL
—Yesterday all members of the House wore a blue ribbon to raise awareness of ovarian cancer. Ovarian cancer has been known over the years as a silent disease, but it is not quite as silent as people think. Women do have symptoms of ovarian cancer—symptoms such as abdominal bloating, feeling full, appetite loss, unexplained weight gain, constipation, heartburn, back pain, frequent urination, abdominal or pelvic pain and fatigue.
The reason that I feel so passionate about this particular form of cancer is that 12 months ago I lost a very dear friend who had ovarian cancer. She did not have it diagnosed until it was too late. She lived for almost five years with the cancer. The five-year relative survival rate has increased. It was 32.7 per cent from 1982 to 1986 and 39.8 per cent from 1998 to 2004.
There is a growing awareness of ovarian cancer. More women are aware that they need to look for these symptoms. It is the ninth most common cancer diagnosed in Australian women, so it is not to be scoffed at. Women should really focus on the symptoms that I mentioned before. If they have any of those symptoms, they should go and see their doctor. It is better to ask about it than to find out when it is too late.
The present life expectancy of Australian women is 83 years. One in 77 women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer before the age of 85. In Australia in 2005 a total of 1,205 women were diagnosed with ovarian cancer. It is projected that there will be 1,378 new cases of ovarian cancer in 2010. The older a woman becomes, the more likely she is to develop ovarian cancer. It is the sixth most common cause of cancer death in Australian women. In 2005, 888 women died of this cancer. It is so important for women to listen to their bodies and check to see if they have this cancer. I only wish my friend had done so. (Time expired)
New South Wales Floods
2044
2044
09:41:00
Oakeshott, Rob, MP
IYS
Lyne
IND
0
0
Mr OAKESHOTT
—I rise to talk about the floods that have taken place on the mid-North Coast of New South Wales, to say a few thankyous and to give a report to the parliament on an event of last week that might have received greater significance in this place if there were not such devastating events happening elsewhere, both north and south, on the east coast of Australia. I start on that point because probably what I am most proud about from last week is the ‘two-bucket’ mentality of the local communities of the mid-North Coast. While they had a bucket and mop in one hand for cleaning out shops and homes, there was still very much a commitment to the greater good within Australia through the ‘bucket drive’ of support for victims of the Victorian bushfires, in particular. This was still going on, despite people being very wet. The fundraising campaign is going on throughout the mid-North Coast, despite it being in fairly deep waters as a result of the flooding. It was certainly a proud moment for me to see that, and it is something for all of us to reflect on in a positive way as far as community is concerned.
‘No lives lost’ is an old surf club term, and the mid-North Coast was very lucky to be able to use it throughout the past week. There were seven serious rescues. Not much airtime was given to that, but things could have gone wrong very easily. So I very much thank the various agencies, particularly the state based agencies, for their rescue and recovery efforts. The SES have now centralised their phone number system, with the 132500 number, and that made a big difference on the ground. It made it very easy for those in need. I thank those state agencies, including the police and the other agencies.
I will also mention the ABC. With all the disaster relief that has been happening, the ABC do deserve a wrap—and they have been mentioned in various speeches from members. I know they are putting a funding submission to the government at the moment. I hope that is considered. They are an emergency service in regional areas.
I have met with the Insurance Council of Australia. About $5 million of insurance claims are in so far. You can draw a comparison with about $800 million of claims in Victoria. That shows the difference, but there have been about 300 claims from the mid-North Coast so far.
I am about to meet with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and thank him for his commitment to the primary producers who may have some issues. I will continue to talk at length with him.
The key issue for government to consider is the damage to local infrastructure. The area does have natural disaster relief under state rules. However, if there were any funding for local roads and bridges from the federal government, it would certainly help significantly in the rebuilding following last week’s events.
Lowe Electorate: Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program
2044
2045
09:45:00
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
1
0
Mr MURPHY
—Today, I rise to speak about the Rudd government’s community infrastructure program. I am delighted to record that the Enfield Olympic Swimming Pool in my electorate of Lowe will receive $190,000 to upgrade its amenities under the community infrastructure program. Those funds are part of the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the Hon. Anthony Albanese’s, $250 million component of the program, allocating a share to every local council and shire in Australia.
The Enfield swimming pool is Sydney’s oldest freshwater swimming pool and it celebrated its 75th birthday in November last year. Burwood Council recently funded the construction of an indoor heated pool, and the new change rooms, to be funded by the federal government, will make the entire facility an all-round water wonderland for the residents in my electorate of Lowe. The pool hosts many children’s swimming lessons, aquarobic classes and swimming clubs. The upgrade to the change rooms will be warmly welcomed by the patrons of this fabulous facility.
The community infrastructure program was initially announced by the Prime Minister on 18 November last year. The program gave every council and shire the opportunity to submit projects for the benefit of their community. It is terrific that the submissions to Infrastructure Australia are processed so quickly so that the fantastic improvements to our local communities can be delivered as soon as possible. I am also very pleased to note that, despite the best efforts of the Liberal and National parties to prevent the $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan passing through the parliament, an additional $500 million for community infrastructure projects will be made available to local councils this year. That brings the total funding available for community infrastructure to $800 million. Minister Albanese highlights that this is the single largest investment in local infrastructure in Australia’s history.
This initiative will result in the improvement of sports grounds, community centres, swimming pools, town halls and many more worthwhile projects in every electorate in Australia. Without federal funding assistance, I know that many of these projects would not be possible. The program is important to our local community because it stimulates the economy, supports local jobs and invests in quality long-term infrastructure which will be utilised and enjoyed by generations to come. I take this opportunity to congratulate Burwood Council on their application for this funding and note the good work of the mayor, Councillor Lesley Furneaux-Cook, who is continuing to work hard for her municipality, following in the steps of former mayor, Councillor John Faker. Burwood Council will receive the approval for the funding shortly, and I encouraged them to organise the relevant paperwork as quickly as they can to ensure the construction work can be underway as soon as practicable. In my more than 10 years as federal member for Lowe, I have made many representations to Canberra supporting local projects like this and today I am pleased that the Rudd government is delivering for my electorate. I commend the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and Minister Anthony Albanese for this worthy initiative, and I look forward to further funding announcements for other councils in my electorate of Lowe.
Macarthur Electorate: Camden Hospital
2045
2045
09:48:00
Farmer, Patrick, MP
00AMO
Macarthur
LP
0
0
Mr FARMER
—Camden Hospital used to be a place of new life, with a fully operational maternity ward and an emergency ambulance drop-off. But, sadly, due to the New South Wales Labor government’s cutbacks in health and the underinvestment in the Camden Hospital, the area hospital is degenerating into a subacute-care medical centre. No longer is there a fully operational emergency ward and there are no facilities for birthing and no maternity ward.
I was part of a very large crowd—over 300 people—who walked through the streets of Camden protesting to our local state members about the importance of Camden Hospital and protesting that facilities have actually gone backwards over the last 10 years. There was a time, 10 years ago, when Camden Hospital had a birthing clinic, a fully operational emergency ward and was in a growth phase. But, of course, since the New South Wales government came to power and started their cutbacks, those services have decreased greatly.
While the population grows, the services are cut back. In 1998, Camden LGA had a population of 40,180. It now has a population of 52,166 residents, and yet services have declined greatly. I was disappointed that the federal Minister for Health and Ageing was unwilling to take up my open invitation to inspect Camden Hospital even though she was in the region just last week with the cabinet, meeting in the Campbelltown area, and I would encourage her to come along and see the facilities—or lack of facilities—out there in the Camden area.
I know that the Prime Minister of Australia, the Hon. Kevin Rudd, has mentioned that the buck is going to stop with him, that he is going to make a difference to the health system throughout the whole of Australia, and that no longer will other people be blamed—that he is prepared to accept all concerns and all blame in relation to health and education and so many other things in this country. All I want to say on that is that this is an opportunity for him to not just speak about doing that but to actually do something about it and to work with the New South Wales government to provide them with funding to be able to keep Camden Hospital as a fully functional hospital instead of the skeleton of a premises that it is at this time. I think it is appalling that, while Camden is going to grow to the size of Canberra, with an extra 100,000 homes being developed in that area as we speak, our facilities are going backwards. The people of the Camden district—and, indeed, the Southern Highlands and the whole of south-western Sydney—deserve much better, and I am calling on the federal government to support the New South Wales government in this matter.
Wakefield Electorate: Rotary Club of Kapunda
2046
2046
09:51:00
Champion, Nick, MP
HW9
Wakefield
ALP
1
0
Mr CHAMPION
—I rise to congratulate the Rotary Club of Kapunda on having their 50th anniversary on 31 January this year. It was held at the Dutton Park club rooms, the home of the Bombers, my old football team. And, of course, Kapunda is the town I grew up in. So it was terrific to see this organisation which has played such an active and committed role in the community life of this town—Rotary received its charter in 1958—celebrate this anniversary.
It was interesting to hear Bruce Eastick, who is a former Mayor of Gawler and was a charter member of the Gawler Rotary Club as well, speak about events in that first meeting on that first night in 1958. Bruce has played a great role in the local community in and around Gawler.
The achievements of the Kapunda Rotary Club are really quite prominent in the town. Probably the most prominent achievement has been the building of ‘Map the Miner’, which was an idea of John Davidson in 1986, to celebrate the contribution that the Cornish miners made to the state of South Australia. They made Kapunda the oldest mining town in South Australia and one of the oldest in the country. Map the Miner is a statue, about 13 metres high, of a Cornish miner, commissioned by the Rotary Club, and designed and built by Ben van Zetten. Unfortunately, although it was finished in 1988, it was burnt down, I think at the start of 2007. So it was damaged by fire but then rebuilt and made bigger and better and, thank God, it has been made fireproof! It is a really prominent sign of Kapunda’s heritage.
Another thing the Rotary Club has achieved is the construction of a helipad at Kapunda Hospital, something that has been used often to help people who have had car accidents and the like, and has obviously saved many lives. Brian Goodfellow and Don Franks were involved in that project and David Quodling gave an admirable speech to the meeting on that. We also had Dean Rohlach, my old school principal, receive the Paul Harris Fellowship. The night itself was organised by Anne Hornsey, who has made a magnificent contribution to the town, to the school where she worked for many years and also to the Rotary Club, along with her husband Robert Hornsey, who is, of course, the Mayor of the Light Regional Council. So this is a club that is very dear to my heart and a town that is very dear to my heart.
Victorian Bushfires
2047
2047
09:54:00
Robb, Andrew, MP
FU4
Goldstein
LP
0
0
Mr ROBB
—I rise to convey my deep regrets to and sympathy for all those involved in the recent Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria. In particular, I mourn for those who lost their lives in this horrific blaze and I pray for those who lost loved ones. The tragedy is all the more real for me because I know many of the areas so well. The first five years of my life were on a soldier-settler’s block at Flowerdale, where my parents had a sheep property. My forebears, extended family and many friends come from Yea, Alexandra, Thornton, Kerrisdale, Whittlesea, Kinglake, Doreen and the Yarra Valley and surrounding areas. A brother of mine lives at Traralgon. It is hard to reconcile the devastation and the ferocity of the fires with the beauty and the serenity that I know and the uncomplicated and welcoming nature of these very special parts of Victoria. I feel deeply for all those affected. I admire enormously the efforts of the brave and selfless firefighters and the many forms of assistance provided so willingly and instinctively by so many members of our community. It is a great tribute to the character of our community.
For so many, their lives will be forever altered. Scars will remain. Memories will not diminish. I still remember vividly—most vividly—as a nine-year-old grabbing treasured possessions and being bundled into our FJ Holden with my many brothers and sisters as fires bore down on our dairy farm at Epping, not that far from the areas hit by the Black Saturday fires. I remember the sense of loss and destruction when my parents told us that our property had been burnt out, despite saving the house, sheds and cows, and the sense of deep anguish and sheer disbelief that a neighbour had died on our property when his knapsack was caught in the fence wire as the fire swept through. That was nearly 50 years ago, yet it is with me still. The memory is as clear as if it was yesterday. So too will the memories and the emotions remain with those affected in the Black Saturday fires. Yet we are a resilient people, and those affected will in due course pick up the pieces and seek to make the most of life. I offer my condolences and my best wishes.
Franklin Electorate: Urban Black Gum Reserve Rehabilitation and Community Education Project
2047
2047
09:57:00
Collins, Julie, MP
HWM
Franklin
ALP
1
0
Ms COLLINS
—I want to talk about a project that I was fortunate enough to launch in the southernmost municipality in Australia last week, in the Huon Valley. It is a Green Corps project. It is a partnership between the Huon Valley Council and Central Victorian Group Training, and it is called the Urban Black Gum Reserve Rehabilitation and Community Education Project. It is a 26-week program. Its aim is to improve the black gum reserve area, to help protect its unique species.
The Huon Valley environment network approached the Huon Valley Council about two years ago wanting to highlight the importance of a piece of remnant bush. It is a five-hectare block that contains a wide diversity of flora and fauna, but, more importantly, it includes the black gum reserve, which is significant due to the presence of a threatened species of swamp gum. The swamp gum is habitat for the endangered swift parrot. The black gum reserve has several natural wetland areas and a diversity of vegetation types. It is also very close to the centre of the township of Huonville. When I arrived at the black swamp gum reserve, I was really surprised to see that such a diverse habitat was only a few streets away from the busy town centre. It was no wonder that the Huon Valley Council was so eager to see this area preserved.
I want to congratulate the eight young people who are taking part in this project. They will receive accredited training in environment and resource management. They will be doing a lot of work over the next 26 weeks. They are looking at collecting seeds and propagating and planting seedlings. They are looking at constructing swift parrot nesting boxes; undertaking weed control; constructing tracks, bridges, benches and tables; and hosting a community field day, as well as conducting school environmental education with the Huon Valley primary school. When these young people were asked why they were involved in the Green Corps project, they were very honest with some of their answers. Their reasons ranged from wanting to contribute to the environment to doing it just for the money, but I was really thrilled that they were so enthusiastic about this project. I hope that their enthusiasm continues—particularly during the winter months in Tasmania, as it does become a bit colder—as they work through this. Their team leader, Leon le Bon, is a very enthusiastic young man, and I hope that his team does very well over the next 26 weeks.
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
RESALE ROYALTY RIGHT FOR VISUAL ARTISTS BILL 2008
2048
Bills
R4010
Report from Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts Committee
2048
Debate resumed from 23 February, on motion by Ms George:
That the House take note of the report.
2048
10:00:00
Ciobo, Steven, MP
00AN0
Moncrieff
LP
0
0
Mr CIOBO
—I rise this morning in response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts report into the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008. It is worth acknowledging the journey that has brought us to this point. The concept of resale royalty rights for artists has existed for some time. A number of reviews have been undertaken over the years suggesting that a resale royalty right is perhaps the best way forward to ensure that the natural barriers to visual artists receiving an income stream from their work—as opposed to the income stream that is able to be achieved by those that record music, for example, or by authors of works of literature—do not prevent them from receiving that income stream. One way of addressing this difference between visual artists and musicians or other artists—and this has been put forward under the Berne convention—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 10.02am to 10.14 am
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr CIOBO
—In continuation, resale royalty right is a concept that has been developed in accordance with the Berne convention to look at rewarding visual artists by providing an income stream which essentially is directed at putting them on the same footing as musicians or authors of books. I know this was a commitment of the Labor government and is a commitment that has been followed through by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, the member for Kingsford Smith. What is also very clear is that once again the Australian Labor Party has not taken into account the very legitimate concerns that have been raised in the development of this Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008. Perhaps mindful of that, the minister on the first reading speech directed the legislation to the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts in order to obtain the committee’s views on the bill. This of itself was interesting. I was surprised that the minister referred it to a House of Representatives committee. It is not a common practice and in fact, as all members would know, typically these types of matters are referred to Senate committees for review. The cynic might say the minister did it because he knew that in the House of Representatives the Labor government controls the majority of the committee. As it turns out, the committee report was supported by both coalition and Labor members. What is crystal clear in this committee’s report is that the bill in its current shape is fundamentally flawed.
The question may also be posed whether the bill is so badly flawed that it is unworkable in its current concept. There are a variety of views as to how fatal the flaws in this bill are, but what is clear from this report from the committee is that their very specific recommendation to the minister is that the legislation not be continued with, the bill not be proceeded with. It said:
The committee was mindful of these competing views throughout its deliberations and it has concluded that a number of matters need to be further investigated before the bill proceeds.
The competing views that that sentence refers to are essentially two principal views that are put forward on this bill. The committee summarises that there is widespread support for the resale royalty scheme but also notes that those supporters typically feel that the current legislation would deliver very little by way of royalties to artists at the commencement of the proposed scheme and also the view that the proposed scheme is out of step with other schemes already in place internationally. On the other hand there are those who believe that any sort of royalty scheme will only benefit relatively few, and in fact literally a handful of already successful artists and/or their estates, and the imposition of another levy on art purchases will adversely affect the primary art market and future resales of art work may as a consequence go offshore and be sold in other markets where no resale royalty right scheme exists.
They are the two principal points of view that are put forward. What is also clear is that the committee—and I notice that there is a member of the committee here and I will be interested in their comments—has stated unequivocally that the bill that is before the House requires much further investigation before it can proceed. This also highlights that this bill as it currently stands should not be proceeded with. The minister’s timetable of the introduction of this from 1 July is blown out of the water. I have to say on behalf of the arts community that I have been talking with a large number of artists, with intermediaries in galleries and with some of the significant collectors of Australian artworks, and universally across-the-board I would say to the minister that there is condemnation of this flawed bill. This committee report highlights why there is condemnation of this flawed bill, and it is time that this minister stood up, took a graceful back step, acknowledged the fundamental flaws in this legislation, acknowledged that he has got it very wrong, and acknowledged that the department, although I am sure they have used their bona fides and best efforts in drafting this bill, have made a number of mistakes. It is time that this minister listened to the views of me and the opposition as well as the views of those stakeholders in the arts community and fundamentally addressed the concerns that have been raised. Whether it is clause 11, which deals with the retrospectivity issue, or whether it is the broad operation of the resale scheme or whether there should be a cap—a whole raft of issues that the committee has considered in this report need to be looked at and closely evaluated by the minister and by the department before going forward.
My concern and the concern raised by this committee—and we share indeed a number of the concerns—can be summed up really by illustrating one key point. Perhaps the single-largest area of friction in the bill as it is presented at the moment is the non-retrospective nature of the bill—in other words, the committee has highlighted that the bill as it stands will only apply to the secondary sale and will only embrace a very small number of artworks on an ongoing basis. It could even be suggested that in its current proposed form the bill will have such a narrow scope of operation that the central collecting agency that the government intends to appoint through the tender process will not even be viable.
The government is throwing $1.5 million of taxpayers’ money at the central collecting agency under the proposed draft legislation to sustain the collecting agency in its first three years. But in its current draft it is entirely sensible and in fact reasonable to conclude that beyond that three-year period without ongoing taxpayer assistance the whole scheme could fall apart—it could come undone and be unsustainable—and then where would Australian artists be left? So Australian artists have every right to be very fearful of the major flaws in this draft bill, and again I urge this minister to take a graceful step back, to acknowledge his mistakes and to sit down and start again with respect to resale royalty rights rather than stubbornly digging his heels in, refusing to listen to anyone, refusing to admit his mistakes and pressing on with something that basically has zero support at all out there in the community.
When it comes to the central point of friction, it is to do with the retrospectivity issue and the operation of clause 11. The fundamental problem as well is that we have a minister who is unwilling to share the legal advice that the Solicitor-General’s office has provided the minister and the government about whether or not constitutionally retrospectivity can be brought into play. I know and I know the Labor member opposite, a member of the committee, knows that this committee was very frustrated at the unwillingness of the minister and the government to release this information. I again say to the minister: release the legal advice you have, because we know that there is eminent advice from other members of the legal profession which indicates that they disagree very strongly with the conclusions that this minister is forcing the committee, all members of the arts community and the opposition to accept blindly—that is, that the advice stipulates that retrospectivity would make the bill unconstitutional.
It is not good enough. Where is the notion of accountability? Where is the notion of transparency? Where is the notion of the government providing stakeholders and the opposition with the information they need to make an informed decision? It is not good enough that the minister is wanting to keep everyone like mushrooms in the dark about the most fundamental aspect of this legislation—that is, the legal advice which addresses clause 11 and the whole question of the operation of retrospectivity. It is not acceptable. It was not acceptable to the committee and it is not acceptable to me as the shadow minister. This minister is running scared and is unwilling to provide that legal advice publicly. It frustrated the committee, it frustrates me and I know it frustrates all of those stakeholders in the arts community—who, frankly, are unwilling to accept at face value the minister’s assurances that the advice from the Solicitor-General is good enough and that the advice from the Solicitor-General indicates that clause 11 and indeed the retrospectivity issue cannot be addressed in any other way.
If there was consistent legal opinion that supported that point of view, things might be different. But there is not. There is eminent advice from the legal profession, which the committee itself took evidence on, which indicates that, in the view of those legal professionals, the Solicitor-General’s advice could be wrong or at the very least certainly very debatable. In the face of this public rejection of that point, we have a minister running scared and a government unwilling to be transparent—unwilling to provide this most basic information so that stakeholders can have an informed point of view.
In conclusion, I can say that there is a rocky road ahead for the resale royalty bill based on essentially a couple of key points. The first is the unwillingness of the minister to release the legal advice. This legal advice should be released sooner rather than later—the legal advice should be released, full stop—in order to ensure that all stakeholders and I, as the shadow minister, have a chance to actually look at the contention which the minister has put forward and which he refuses to actually provide any substantive evidence of.
The other key point is that the committee has been frustrated in their investigation process. I welcome the report but I note their frustrations. It presents a rocky road for the passage of this bill because nobody is happy. Stakeholders in the debate are not happy, whether they are artists, galleries or, indeed, collectors of Australian artworks. I am not happy with the approach adopted by the government. The committee is not happy with the approach adopted by the government. It can all essentially be brought back to one key issue: the unwillingness of the minister for the environment, the member for Kingsford Smith, to acknowledge he has got this very wrong, to acknowledge that he needs to be more transparent and to acknowledge that he needs to take a backward step.
I urge the minister to take account of this very important concluding sentence that is incorporated in the committee’s report, which says ‘it has concluded that a number of matters need to be further investigated before the Bill proceeds’. The minister needs to take account of that very salient point by the committee. I welcome the committee’s report and I welcome their conclusions. I acknowledge their frustration at dealing with the minister on this issue. We have a long way to go on this issue. The minister’s timetable is already blown out of the water. The minister should accept and acknowledge that and should move forward in good faith to ensure that we can actually get a unified approach to this, instead of this basket case of a bill that is currently before the House.
2052
10:26:00
Zappia, Tony, MP
HWB
Makin
ALP
1
0
Mr ZAPPIA
—I, too, wish to speak in respect of the report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts on the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008. I was a member of the committee that looked into the matters that have been reported back to this House in that report and, let me say from the outset, the introduction of this bill is long overdue. It is a bill that I commend the minister for introducing, and for doing so as quickly as he has been able to since becoming a minister of government. It is long overdue because it was back in 1977 that Australia acceded to the Berne convention. The convention was drafted in Paris in 1971, and it effectively gave protection to the literary and artistic works of artists around the world. So we have a convention being established in 1971, we have Australia agreeing to that convention in 1977 with formal entry into it in 1978, and now, 31 years later, we still have done nothing about ensuring that the rightful entitlements of artists are protected and provided to them. So I certainly congratulate the minister for getting on with what should have been done a long, long time ago.
Interestingly, already 54 countries of the 164 that signed the Berne convention have introduced a resale scheme of some kind or another. It is true that those schemes have some differences in different countries of the world; they all have peculiarities about them that make them somewhat different between one country and another. But, broadly speaking, they all set up a framework to ensure that artists get the rightful entitlements that they deserve and are entitled to. Amongst those countries, I have to say that both the UK and the European Union are signatories to it. I want to quote from the Berne convention, because I think it is important that members understand exactly what it says. The convention states:
-
The author, or after his death the persons or institutions authorized by national legislation, shall, with respect to original works of art and original manuscripts of writers and composers, enjoy the inalienable right to an interest in any sale of the work subsequent to the first transfer by the author of the work.
-
The protection provided by the preceding paragraph may be claimed in a country of the Union only if legislation in the country to which the author belongs so permits, and to the extent permitted by the country where this protection is claimed.
-
The procedure for collection and the amounts shall be matters for determination by national legislation.
That is what this bill does. It is Australia’s national legislation in response to the Berne convention.
Because artists have been denied their rightful entitlements for so long, there are too many artists in this country who no longer apply their artistic ability to creating artworks. A number of my acquaintances are very good artists—I have seen their work; I have got some of their work—who have not been able to continue to be artists because the remuneration simply was not there and they have had to go back to relying on other forms of income, in turn denying them the time that they need to apply themselves to creating the artwork that they are so good at doing. So I have seen it myself.
Before I came into this place, as Mayor of the City of Salisbury I would regularly host art exhibitions for young students of the schools in the area from which I came. These artworks showed an extraordinary level of talent amongst those young people; talent that I am sure could have been developed in the years ahead. But, sadly, I do not know too many of them who have continued to apply that talent. Again, I suspect because they understand that there is simply not the remuneration there as the law currently exists, they do not pursue those talents and skills. Quite frankly, because they do not, we as a society are the poorer. The resale royalty scheme provides a key incentive for those artists who do have talent to in fact continue with that work.
There have certainly been some questions raised by a number of people as a result of the bill being introduced into parliament and, because we were aware of these concerns, the committee, quite rightly, held a public hearing into the bill. If I recall correctly, we received over 40 written submissions and, on the day, we heard from around eight or nine representatives—some speaking on behalf of others. So we got a really good cross-section of all of the issues relating to the concerns with the current bill. Having listened carefully to those issues, I have to say that, by and large, the bill gets most of the issues pretty right. Yes, there could be some fine tweaking of some matters—and the nine recommendations that the committee has put forward, I believe, do that. They were not controversial matters. They were matters where, on perhaps a second look at the bill, one might say, ‘Have you allowed for this? If not, do you think it would be a good idea to amend the bill in this way?’
There is only one critical issue that is perhaps still the subject of some controversy, and that is the issue referred to by the member for Moncrieff, relating to clause 11—the issue of retrospectivity. It relates to section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution and what lawyers might describe as ‘acquisition of property on other than just terms’. It relates to the fact that, under the current bill, the resale royalty scheme cannot take effect until the second sale of the artwork. My understanding is that the legal advice in respect of whether or not clause 11 should stand in the bill is unclear in that there will be differences of opinion on it. I have listened to the advice of those people who made submissions to the committee. We also heard advice from the department. I have drawn the conclusion that that matter will only ever be properly determined in the courts.
It is my view that we need to try to ensure that the matter never gets to the courts. We should at least put together a framework that is likely to ensure that the matter never gets to the courts. I do not believe we will ever get a clear definition on whether the clause ought to remain in the bill. Because of that, the committee quite rightly recommended in its report that further advice be sought in respect of clause 11. But, as I say, it is my view that, regardless of how much advice is sought, the truth is that it will only ever be clarified once it is tested in the courts.
The other nine recommendations relate to matters which are not controversial, but they are interesting. They relate to issues such as what constitutes art and what is an art transaction—for example, if you gift art to someone, is that a transaction that should be included in this legislation? The question of internet sites which might be used to sell artwork is of some concern. There is also the question of Indigenous art, and I would have to say that the Indigenous community is probably the most deprived in terms of their rightful remuneration when it comes to artworks. There were also questions with repect to the royalty scheme and the succession that applies with that scheme. Under the current scheme, as members may or may not be aware, after the death of an artist the scheme remains in place for 70 years and it is a flat five per cent royalty. Therefore, that royalty would continue to the heirs and successors of the artist. Because of Aboriginal law, matters were raised with respect to the intestate succession in Indigenous communities. Those are, in my view, quite proper matters to be raised and they are matters that I am sure the minister will respond to. The opt-out clause, if an artist does not want to be in the scheme, was also raised, and again quite properly so. Again I expect that the minister will respond to that.
Because this is a new bill and because there are a range of issues that one can only assess after the bill has been in place for some time, the committee has recommended that the bill be reviewed in five years time. I think that is quite reasonable. We are dealing with a very complicated matter. We are dealing with a new bill and we are dealing with artists from a whole range of different areas, and so to suggest that a bill ought to be reviewed is not unreasonable. In any case, it is the prerogative of the parliament to review bills at any time, regardless of whether or not that recommendation is in the committee’s report.
The only other matter that I want to touch on is with respect to the submissions that we received. We received a lot of submissions that I believe the bill in its present form adequately caters for, and the committee did not make any recommendations on them. It was interesting to note that the art sales industry generally opposed the bill in its entirety. Again, I can understand why, but the committee certainly did not share their view in opposing the bill. The matter that I found interesting was that one of the countries has a provision whereby, if art sold goes down in value, the royalty should not apply. That is another matter that is perhaps worthy of further response by the minister. Having said that, as a member of the committee that looked into the bill in detail and listened to the submissions, I can only say that the bill in its current form—with the exception of the questions in relation to clause 11—is a bill that is worthy of being proceeded with. Certainly, as a member of the committee, I would welcome some additional legal advice with respect to clause 11. But, having said that, I am not sure that it would give me the clarification that I need. I would like to see the bill proceeded with in the parliament.
Debate (on motion by Mr Hayes) adjourned.
COMMITTEES
2054
Committees
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity Committee
2054
Report
2054
Debate resumed from 23 February, on motion by Ms Parke:
That the House take note of the report.
2054
10:39:00
Chester, Darren, MP
IPZ
Gippsland
NATS
0
0
Mr CHESTER
—I rise to speak in relation to the report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity on its inquiry into law enforcement integrity models. I note the presence of the member for Werriwa. I hope I get my facts straight and reflect fairly on the committee’s hard work. I give credit from the outset to the chair of the committee, the member for Fremantle, and all of my parliamentary colleagues for the spirit of bipartisanship and the professionalism which has typified our work on this committee. As a new member in this place, it has been very satisfying and professionally rewarding for me to be involved in such productive work, and I give much credit to the member for Fremantle for her level-headed approach and even-handed treatment of all members. All credit to her in that regard.
I would also like to thank the committee secretariat and the staff for their outstanding support over the months of the inquiry and thank the people who appeared before the committee for their insights, their forthright comments and the submissions they made, which have guided the committee in its report. As I said, as a relative newcomer to the committee, I missed some of the early stages of the inquiry, but I have appreciated the willingness of the other committee members and support staff to bring me up to speed on the issues of interest.
ACLEI itself is also a relative newcomer to Australian public life. It is worth reminding the House that it was formed to provide oversight of the Commonwealth law enforcement agencies: the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission. Unlike many of the state based agencies, which were formed as a response to evidence of major corruption or other incidents relating to law enforcement, ACLEI was not created because of any findings of corruption or misconduct in these agencies. That does not mean, of course, that a level of corruption does not exist, but it is worth emphasising that ACLEI came about more as a pre-emptive measure. I believe it is inevitable that it will need to expand its role in the future, particularly in the areas of prevention and education.
During the inquiry, as the report before the House reflects, a number of witnesses argued for a stronger corruption education and prevention role or focus for ACLEI itself. ACLEI has noted that it has limited capacity to advertise widely at the moment, but its awareness-raising activities undertaken so far have produced results, and the agency has experienced an increase in the flow of information to it.
I believe the big issue for the future will undoubtedly be the level of resources provided to ACLEI and the agencies for which it has oversight. In terms of resources, the report recommends that the Australian government undertake a review of ACLEI’s funding levels as a matter of urgency, and I wholeheartedly support that recommendation—and not in any political or partisan way. I believe that it is inevitable in the future that ACLEI is going to require more resources to undertake the work it is expected to do.
As I understand it, the decision to establish ACLEI in the first place was always intended as a building block approach. It was expected that ACLEI would establish itself and get a direct understanding of the task at hand, and the funding requirements to fulfil that role may well flow out of that experience. By starting small, the commissioner, Philip Moss, and his team have been in a position to build relationships with the agencies in what has been described—and this is reflected in the report—as an ‘integrity partnership’. I think that is a good model going forward.
As I mentioned previously, ACLEI was not formed in response to some cataclysmic event, but, as witnesses to the inquiry reported, it is wrong to suggest that corruption does not exist within these agencies. The Commonwealth Ombudsman, Professor John McMillan, commented to the inquiry:
I am strongly of the view that it is misguided to work from the premise that we have not seen corruption and, therefore, that it does not exist and it is not a problem. Firstly, corruption has been a problem for every police force internationally and it would be wrong to assume that it cannot be a problem for any policing agency in Australia.
The creation of ACLEI has been a precautionary policy, and I strongly support the recommendations which deal with the issue of future funding and resourcing for the organisation.
Just by way of reference, in 2007-08 there were eight ongoing staff at ACLEI and six casual or seconded staff. As a matter of comparison, ACLEI has an oversight role for the Australian Federal Police, which has 6,598 staff, and the Australian Crime Commission, which has 585 staff. Given its main purpose of enhancing the integrity of Commonwealth law enforcement agencies by providing independent and effective external investigation of possible instances of corruption, this quite small staff at ACLEI has a very large job on its hands.
Another of the key recommendations in this report, which goes directly to the task of ACLEI performing its role, is the issue of a secure hearing room. The committee has recommended that the government fund a secure hearing room and associated technical infrastructure and personnel support as a matter of priority. It is a significant issue in terms of the independence of ACLEI and its capacity to hold its own investigations without relying on the facilities of other agencies, as is currently the case. The committee noted that a secure hearing room is one of the fundamental building blocks for ACLEI, and it considers that there would be important practical and symbolic benefits to the effectiveness of the integrity system if ACLEI had its own purpose-built hearing room here in Canberra. An on-site hearing room would allow ACLEI to hold investigations as necessary rather than subject to the availability of other facilities.
I freely acknowledge that all this will cost money, in an environment of very difficult economic circumstances. I think members on all sides, though, would place a high value on the anticorruption initiatives undertaken by ACLEI and would appreciate the importance of the work that has been undertaken by the organisation.
I would also like to acknowledge that ACLEI has received a significant budget increase in the past, but it was the committee’s view—and one that I fully support—that ACLEI is not sufficiently resourced to meet its increasing workload or to deliver adequately on its designated output. Without wishing to pre-empt in any way future decisions, it is highly likely that ACLEI will expand into other appropriate jurisdictions in the future, and it needs to be fully funded and appropriately resourced to fulfil that role.
In closing, I would like to reiterate my thanks to the chair and to my fellow committee members, along with the support staff, for their work. It is the first report that I have been part of in this place and I look forward to continuing the positive working relationship within the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. I commend the report to the House.
2056
10:45:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
1
0
Mr HAYES
—I am very happy to follow the member for Gippsland. He may be a newcomer, but he is a very significant contributor on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity.
This was the committee’s first inquiry, so to that extent it was a significant review of the position of ACLEI and what it needs to expand upon its role and to go further in terms of law enforcement integrity. Regrettably, when it comes to law enforcement we probably will continue to increase the powers of law enforcement agencies, which means, in respect of the Commonwealth, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission. When we do, that obviously impacts on the freedom and rights of individuals. Therefore it was considered back in 2006 that it would be appropriate, as we are increasing powers—including coercive powers in some jurisdictions—to have a proper regime of integrity insurance built into our system. That is how the Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity was initiated. As the member for Gippsland said, it did not arise out of some corruption investigation into either the Australian Federal Police or the Australian Crime Commission, but it was created as a check or a balance, if you like, to ensure for the public that preservation of integrity in those law enforcement jurisdictions is regarded as an absolute premium.
The Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity was initiated by an act of this parliament in 2006. This organisation is small, certainly in comparison to the Police Integrity Commission in Sydney, the bodies that operate in Western Australia and the Crime and Misconduct Commission of Queensland. It only has eight ongoing officers and, I think, six secondees. Its role is to carry out an ongoing review and check of integrity measures within the AFP and the Australian Crime Commission. Of late, I think there have been one or two inquiries which it has undertaken that have actually been drawn to the public’s attention. So its work is quite significant and quite demanding, particularly given the fact that it has a small staff.
One of the things that the member for Gippsland raised—and I echo his view on this—is that, when we talk about law enforcement integrity, there are more organisations than just the AFP and the Australian Crime Commission involved in law enforcement activity in the Commonwealth. One of the areas that we think it is worth the government addressing in due course and funding appropriately is the jurisdiction of this Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity to ensure that the appropriate integrity regimes are functioning in a proper manner in other organisations which also have law enforcement powers—organisations which may, without limiting them, involve, say, customs, immigration, taxation et cetera. Those things are certainly live in the mind of the committee. What we would request of government in that respect is that, should it be considered, it must be done on the basis that the organisation is appropriately resourced to undertake that work.
The committee made a series of recommendations and I will quickly summarise those: that the government review ACLEI’s level of funding as a matter of urgency; that the government fund the establishment of an anticorruption education and prevention unit within ACLEI as a matter of priority and that this object be an active function to be strengthened by an appropriate and detailed amendment to the act; that as a priority the government provide a secure hearing room so that ACLEI can conduct various hearings and also provide the necessary technology and personnel required. On that recommendation, given the fact that this organisation undertakes highly secret inquiries within the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission, it is a bit strange that this organisation has to go and borrow hearing rooms to be able to undertake investigations. I have seen the hearing rooms of some of the states. They are secure rooms that are purpose-built and equipped to hold what are not interrogations—I would not say that—but very detailed question and answer sessions with people who are brought before those organisations. Unfortunately, ACLEI needs to interview people in any room that is available. If we are going to take this organisation seriously, if we take the policing of law enforcement integrity seriously, we should ensure that this organisation has not only the staff but the proper facilities to undertake that work.
We also recommended that the government establish a national forum through which matters of common interest to federal and state law enforcement agencies can be addressed. That was particularly obvious after we spoke with people from other law enforcement integrity regimes throughout the Commonwealth. There is a great degree of overlap and there is certainly in a practical sense a lot of collaboration, as you would expect. It is appropriate that there be some national leadership to ensure that all these organisations could come together as a group to appropriately look at and refine techniques and also to pass on information to one another on issues that arise or are emerging with respect to law enforcement integrity investigations generally.
One of the other recommendations was that the government should review and consider strengthening the existing obligations under which employees of the Commonwealth enforcement agencies report misconduct. This is something that is related to whistleblowing, but it is not just about providing protection to a person who does blow the whistle. It is to make sure it is alive in the minds of everybody involved in Commonwealth law enforcement that as a professional you have an obligation to uphold the integrity of the organisation and also the work that you are undertaking. Therefore, it is not whistleblowing; it is an obligation. We see that more needs to be done to communicate that it is a duty of all Commonwealth law enforcement officers. It is not a matter of putting one’s mates in. It is a matter of observing the proper and professional conduct that we require of our law enforcement agencies.
Another recommendation is that we review the existing arrangements for suspending and dismissing Commonwealth law enforcement agency personnel who are believed on reasonable grounds to have engaged in serious misconduct or corruption. This is a difficult area and an area where we have to ensure that people’s rights are not inappropriately interfered with. But, having regard to the level of investigations that take place within the Australian Federal Police, and the powers of the Crime Commission—and bear in mind that they have coercive powers and it may be an offence not to answer a question; these are very significant powers—if we suspect corruption there, we cannot leave someone in play with access to all of those powers while we wait to prove a case against them. On the other hand, it is difficult to work out what to do with a person if they are suspected of that; it is taking them out of a job. It is almost akin to what we would do if it we had in ASIO someone thought to be a spy; would we leave the person there unattended and with access to records that could possibly be going elsewhere? We are alive to that.
This comes out of a series of investigations that have occurred. As a matter of fact, one investigation that I am aware took place involved the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and the normal civil industrial relations regime that protects a person’s rights. However, this goes very much to the area of law enforcement and people who exercise very significant powers and have access to highly secret information. We think that where a person is believed, on reasonable grounds—and they have to be made out—to have engaged in serious misconduct or corruption, there is a case for that person to be removed from office. This does not affect a person’s rights elsewhere. We need to understand that if those organisations—the Australian Federal Police and the Crime Commission—are to work properly and fulfil the tasks that they are required to do then they must have appropriate belief in the honesty and integrity of the officers working in that capacity.
I would like to pay particular regard to the secretariat of this committee. We are very lucky to have the calibre of people we do working for us in our committees. I would like to mention the secretary, Dr Jacqueline Dewar, and her colleagues Dr Robin Clough, Ms Nina Boughey, Mrs Jill Sedaitis and Mrs Dianne Warhurst. These people do a power of work day in and day out. The degree of organisation they put into these inquiries is phenomenal. I feel a little guilty sometimes just turning up having had these people organise everything, including providing a very detailed set of research notes every time a witness comes before you. What they do in the background is very significant and, as a member of this parliament and, in particular, as a member of this committee, I would like to acknowledge that work. I think that far too often the people who do the best work around the place do not get recognised for it. I indicated some time previously—and I still hold this view—that the secretariats that we have here who work on a range of committees do a lot of work to make us look good. In reality, we have a very dedicated and hard-working group of people. Without their assistance, we would not be able to conduct these inquiries in the time frames required by government.
I conclude on that note. This was the committee’s first inquiry. I think it was very successful. Melissa Parke, the member for Fremantle, was the newly appointed chair of that committee, and I join with the views put by the member for Gippsland: she did a sensational job in that capacity. It was a pleasure to be on this committee, as all members participated fully.
Debate (on motion by Mr Secker) adjourned.
Corporations and Financial Services Joint Committee
2059
Report
2059
Debate resumed from 23 February, on motion by Mr Ripoll:
That the House take note of the report.
2059
11:00:00
Pearce, Christopher, MP
A8W
Aston
LP
0
0
Mr PEARCE
—I shall take a few minutes in the parliament this morning to make some remarks on the report from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services into the statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, otherwise known as ASIC. I am a member of this particular committee. This recent inquiry and report covered some key issues in our financial services market. I will touch on some of those key issues this morning.
The first major issue is that of short selling. Madam Deputy Speaker Moylan, you know that this has been an ongoing and significant issue within our financial markets over recent times. I believe that short selling is a legitimate and important dynamic of Australia’s financial services market. The issue that was raised at the hearings and in the report relates to the government’s approach to short selling and, through the government, the approach of ASIC to the bans in relation to short selling it has been implementing in recent months. The bans and the approach the government has been taking culminated with the introduction and passage of the Corporations Amendment (Short Selling) Bill in December last year. At that time, I took the opportunity to raise in the parliament the very real need for the bill and the government to provide some certainty in the marketplace with regard to short selling. In that debate, I raised the issue that, regrettably, none of the regulations surrounding the issue of short selling were included in the bill.
I regret to say that here we are, almost three months later, and still the regulations surrounding short selling in our market have not been defined by the government. Only last night, I had the opportunity to have dinner with some of the key stakeholders in our financial markets, and they highlighted to me the problems caused by the fact that these regulations still have not been designed or put out for consultation. There is a great need for certainty and clarity in this regard so that our financial markets can get on and do their business. I take the opportunity to call on the government: please bring forward these regulations as a matter of haste, because all market participants require certainty in this regard.
Another issue that was brought to the attention of the committee and discussed at the hearing was that of the freeze on redemptions from mortgage funds and cash management trusts. The report says:
ASIC reported that the freeze on mortgage trust redemptions had been widespread: ‘something in the order of 52 or so mortgage trusts have frozen redemptions, which affects about $30 billion of the $32 billion of that market’.
This is a significant issue. Today, 270,000 people still have their funds frozen through these mortgage trusts. Why are their funds frozen? Because of the bungled bank guarantee approach of the government. That is what has done this. Because the government bungled that approach, it dislocated our financial and banking system and, as a result of that, these funds have been frozen. Over a quarter of a million people are unable to get their money from the funds that have been frozen. I think the most concerning thing that came out of the hearings, and which continues to be obvious in the marketplace, is that there is still no solution whatsoever from the government for this very important issue.
Another issue that was considered was the strategic review that ASIC has been undertaking. The report notes that there has been some very good progress made in this regard by ASIC. I commend ASIC for the work that they have done. I commend Tony D’Aloisio, the Chairman of ASIC. Mr D’Aloisio was, of course, appointed by the former government, and the strategic review was commenced under the former government. I think that ASIC has been doing well in that regard.
Superannuation was also discussed at the hearing. Madam Deputy Speaker, you would of course know that, right now, many Australians are finding life very difficult as a result of the decline in the markets and the impact that that has had on superannuation investments. The issue about superannuation funds being able to give members an indication of their end benefit was discussed at the hearing. The committee’s report says:
The fact that the law does not facilitate superannuation funds offering projections to individual fund members hampers the likelihood of them making informed decisions about their superannuation contributions.
And that is the key point about this: the law needs to be changed. The government needs to change the law so that superannuation funds can provide end benefit statements to their members. Again, I think this is a very important matter, particularly at these times when the markets are down and superannuation fund members need certainty and advice.
Finally, I would like to touch on the issue of financial literacy. This was also canvassed during the inquiry and it is in the report as well. The previous coalition government had a very strong commitment to financial literacy. Unfortunately, this government has changed the Financial Literacy Foundation from being a stand-alone body to being a unit within ASIC. I have no problem with ASIC—I have a great deal of respect for ASIC—but I feel strongly that the issue of financial literacy amongst all Australians, young Australians as well as older Australians, is very important. Governments have a key role to play in educating people about how to manage their finances going forward, and it is a deep shame that the Financial Literacy Foundation has been merged into ASIC and has therefore lost a lot of its emphasis, a lot of its focus, as an important stand-alone foundation. Again, I call on the government to ensure that this merger with ASIC in no way undermines any of the great work that the foundation was doing in supporting Australians of all ages to improve their understanding of finances throughout their lives.
I commend the report to the parliament and I also take the opportunity to thank all of those people in the secretariat for their fine work.
2061
11:08:00
Grierson, Sharon, MP
00AMP
Newcastle
ALP
1
0
Ms GRIERSON
—I too rise to speak briefly on the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, Statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, presented this week by the committee chair, the member for Oxley. The global economic crisis has shone new and much needed light on the behaviour of equity markets, the behaviour of those who design and promote particular products, the behaviour of corporations who are listed on the market, the behaviour of investors and traders, certainly the behaviour of the operators of the stock exchanges themselves and particularly the actions and roles of regulators such as ASIC, who have responsibilities with regard to the integrity of the financial system. Our overall finding in this report is that the committee remains satisfied that ASIC continues to carry out its functions in accordance with the provisions of the corporations legislation.
At the public hearing, we were able to further explore ASIC’s performance across its operations as well as some particular new issues which have emerged from the global economic crisis. Those included: ASIC’s decision to ban short selling to reduce market volatility; their dealings with hardship exemptions from frozen mortgage fund redemptions, which the committee registers its intention to track more closely in the future; and new licensing and reporting arrangements for credit-rating agencies. It was also noted that the government has provided ASIC with $66 million to regulate consumer credit operations.
With respect to short selling, whilst pleased with the actions of ASIC the committee considers that more transparency in disclosure and reporting is the desired outcome which should be pursued. The area that I would particularly like to focus on, though, is market regulation and the importance of consumer confidence in the integrity of our equity markets. Whilst welcoming new initiatives designed to better identify and prosecute insider trading, false rumours and market manipulation, the committee has encouraged ASIC to continue to work closely with the ASX on identifying these practices. The need for greater rigour was borne out in ASIC’s survey of the regulator’s stakeholders. Unfortunately, only 20 per cent of respondents to the survey agreed with the proposition that ASIC was good at identifying image problems. The review also indicated a lack of confidence in ASIC’s ability to identify and prosecute instances of dishonesty, misconduct, insider trading and market abuse.
Pleasingly, additional new training and other initiatives aimed at bringing about necessary cultural change have been implemented by ASIC. However, a more aggressive move towards a risk management based operation rather than a process orientated organisation is imperative if stakeholder confidence is to be maximised. Accordingly, the committee encourages ASIC to continue with these initiatives. We are pleased that the commissioner recognised this need when he acknowledged and stated the need to develop people who are much more in tune with the market and understand what is happening so that they can give a quick response.
The need for the early identification of risk was borne out in a table presented in an answer to a question taken on notice at the hearing. The table, on page 22 of the report, shows the Australian Stock Exchange’s referrals to ASIC of potential breaches of market rules over three financial years. The table shows an increase from 29 referrals in 2005-06 to 55 in 2006-07. The 2007-08 results provided are incomplete but the total for the 2008 calendar year showed a continuing high trend of referrals. What is important is that an almost doubling of referrals in 2006-07 should have certainly triggered a dramatic response from ASIC. Unfortunately, that did not seem to be the case.
The committee has praised ASIC, though, for its honest reporting of these survey and review findings and encourages it to use its external advisory panel to stay more in tune with the market. I note that since we met in November the new chair of that advisory panel, Dr Stuckey, a former partner of management consultants McKinsey and Company, has been appointed. I also note that the panel members are still to be appointed, and I encourage ASIC to attend to that as quickly as possible. The committee stressed that the external advisory body can certainly help ASIC to stay more in tune with the market realities and the external financial landscape, which they need to be scanning at all times.
Since we met with ASIC in November the collapse of Storm Financial Limited has taken place, leading to grave personal losses for many mum and dad investors. The committee will be pursuing the issues surrounding the collapse of Storm and other similar ventures in its future inquiries and hearings with ASIC. The interests of consumers—the constituents of the members of this parliament—are paramount to us and certainly need our full attention. The committee’s comments on further improving financial literacy and the adequacy of professional indemnity insurance point to the need for further investigations of these issues.
Another pleasing development commented upon extensively in the public hearing last November by the commissioner was ASIC’s participation with the international economic community in the better regulation of international markets. The very genuine leadership being shown by ASIC in this regard is most welcome. I commend this report to the House. I acknowledge the hard work of the secretariat and members of this committee, and I thank them for it.
2062
11:14:00
Robert, Stuart, MP
HWT
Fadden
LP
0
0
Mr ROBERT
—I also commend to the House this report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, Statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. ASIC forms one of the four pillars that have kept our financial system held in such regard and such standing over the last decade. ASIC, APRA—which was pulled out of ASIC in 1998—the Reserve Bank and the ACCC have provided a sound regulatory framework that has held us in very, very good stead, as seen through the strength of our banking and financial system whilst other banks around the world continue to find themselves in significant difficulties.
The committee’s hearing with ASIC on 28 November raised a range of issues that should be raised to ensure that the regulatory function of one of those four key pillars continues to receive the proper and due parliamentary scrutiny. A number of issues were raised, including ASIC’s decision to ban short selling to reduce market volatility. Issues such as disclosure of short selling and the ownership of short sales, the transparency and reporting of short selling—both naked and covered—received due attention. The hardship exemptions for frozen mortgage fund redemptions also were considered, as were new licensing and reporting arrangements for credit-rating agencies.
A range of other issues were discussed with ASIC that have been included, or shown interest in, at previous ASIC hearings, and they may feed into further hearings within the financial services area. These include ASIC’s investigative capability—noting that the Storm Financial collapse occurred after the hearing with ASIC. But ASIC’s investigation and subsequent action surrounding the collapse of Storm and responsibility for that will be watched by the committee with some interest. Likewise, the regulation of insider trading, market manipulation and false rumours to affect a share price will receive some due attention.
The strategic review of ASIC, as well as its funding arrangements, its financial arrangements and the impact of efficiency dividends and the like, will continue to come under review, as will workload and further budgetary issues. Financial literacy, including the transition of the Financial Literacy Foundation across to ASIC and how ASIC will use its services and the literacy programs that the foundation is bringing across to it, will also continue to undergo scrutiny, as will professional indemnity insurance for financial planners. The proper parliamentary oversight of ASIC, and the four pillars that have held up our banking and financial systems so well, is proper, is due and must continue. I commend the committee for its work. I thank the secretariat for their support and I look forward to further review of ASIC and its work to help support the economy and the nation.
Debate (on motion by Mr Secker) adjourned.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee
2063
Report
2063
Debate resumed from 25 February, on motion by Mr Dreyfus:
That the House take note of the report.
2063
11:18:00
Slipper, Peter, MP
0V5
Fisher
LP
0
0
Mr SLIPPER
—The Main Committee is an appropriate place for debate on reports of committees. The parliament has an undeservedly bad reputation in the Australian community as a place of conflict, difference and argument. But so often parliamentary committees bring down unanimous reports which indicate that members have sat down around a table, listened to the evidence they have received and brought forward recommendations which, hopefully, the government of the day will adopt. This inquiry into whistleblower protection was referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs by the Attorney-General and, once again, this committee has brought down a unanimous report. In the previous parliament, I was the chairman of the committee, and all of our reports were unanimous. I am pleased that the 26 recommendations in this report, entitled Whistleblower protection: a comprehensive scheme for the Commonwealth public sector, enjoy the support of the full committee.
I do not believe that in 2009 anyone could realistically argue that there ought not to be protection for whistleblowers. We believe in openness, accountability and transparency in government and, without adequate whistleblower protection, we simply would not achieve the high standards that in Australia we have come to expect of governments. I must say that I think we are fortunate in Australia, generally speaking, to have a high level of integrity in the administration of governments at all levels. We have very low levels of corruption, and I think that is one of the things that, as Australians, we ought to be proud of. But the committee did recommend in the report tabled this week in the parliament that a bill, to be entitled the Public Interest Disclosure Bill, should be introduced as quickly as possible, and the principles of this bill would be to promote accountability and integrity in public administration.
In recommendation 2, the committee was very keen to ensure:
… the provisions of the Bill are guided by the following principles:
-
it is in the public interest that accountability and integrity in public administration are promoted by identifying and addressing wrongdoing in the public sector;
-
people within the public sector have a right to raise their concerns about wrongdoing within the sector without fear of reprisal;
-
people have a responsibility to raise those concerns in good faith;
-
governments have a right to consider policy and administration in private; and
-
government and the public sector have a responsibility to be receptive to concerns which are raised.
In recommendation 3:
The Committee recommends that the Public Interest Disclosure Bill define people who are entitled to make a protected disclosure as a ‘public official’ and include in the definition of public official the following categories:
-
Australian Government and general government sector employees …
-
contractors and consultants engaged by the public sector;
-
employees of contractors and consultants engaged by the public sector;
-
Australian and locally engaged staff working overseas;
-
members of the Australian Defence Force and Australian Federal Police;
-
parliamentary staff;
-
former employees in one of the above categories; and
-
anonymous persons likely to be in one of the above categories.
Personally I was very pleased that the report sought to extend protection to contractors and consultants engaged by the public sector. While we have had in place certain rules and regulations designed to protect whistleblowers in certain circumstances, the circumstances covered by the existing provisions are not wide enough, and that is why the House of Representatives committee has recommended the introduction and swift passage of the Public Interest Disclosure Bill. The committee would have liked to see this bill introduced yesterday, but we are realists and we do understand that the parliamentary timetable does have a queue of bills. In a prior manifestation, when the coalition was in government, I was well aware of how long it took sometimes to get legislation through the parliament. But I hope, given the fact that this is non-controversial legislation, at least within the parliament—or we hope it is—that this legislation will be accorded the sort of priority it needs so that the protections sought for whistleblowers by the members of the committee will be able to be enshrined in legislation.
The committee secretariat always displays a very high level of impartiality, competence and professionalism. I would like to recognise the members of the secretariat staff publicly in the Main Committee today. Our parliamentary committees would not be able to operate if it were not for the expertise that the officials seconded to those committees and who work with those committees bring. I believe that committee staff often help to create a sense of camaraderie within the committee, and that can ensure that quite often we are able to achieve unanimous reports. Reports that are tabled in the parliament without dissent are very much more powerful and convincing reports than those which are rammed through with the government of the day using the majority it has on all parliamentary committees in the House of Representatives. I think that it is important, wherever possible, to seek to obtain a unanimous report, because that report has a much greater chance of being implemented.
I am particularly pleased to commend this report, Whistleblower protection: a comprehensive scheme for the Commonwealth public sector, to the House. I hope that the government responds expeditiously, that the government, in its response, accepts the recommendations of the committee and that we see introduced to the parliament as a matter of urgency the Public Interest Disclosure Bill.
2065
11:25:00
Neumann, Shayne, MP
HVO
Blair
ALP
1
0
Mr NEUMANN
—I want to echo the Deputy Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in thanking the committee secretariat, particularly Dr Anna Dacre, Dr Mark Rodrigues, Mr Michael Buss, Ms Melita Caulfield and Ms Claire Young, for the wonderful work they do. They make us look good. They do superb work. They are fantastic in the work they do. The research they undertake and the drafting they do is expert, and they are across the issues. I want to pay tribute also to Dr AJ Brown, who heads the ‘Whistling while they work: enhancing the theory and practice of internal witness management in public sector organisations’ team. This is a group of eminent academics and professors who have worked extensively to find out just what evidence there is in relation to whistleblowing and to provide empirical data which will help governments to form a better understanding and better legislation when it comes to public interest disclosure.
Dr AJ Brown found that the typical view of a whistleblower is not correct. In fact, whistleblowers are likely to be women and to have a very positive attitude towards corporate citizenship, but they are less likely to have a positive view of the managerial oversight of their respective government departments. Dr Brown also found that the media is the ninth recipient of public interest disclosures. So the idea that whistleblowers go straight to the media is not correct. There is also evidence that only 20 per cent of whistleblowers end up being treated adversely in the workplace by their peers or by their superiors, which again is not what the community would normally think in the circumstances.
The real reason we need to have a public interest disclosure bill introduced as soon as possible is that there is a deficiency when it comes to the Public Service and those people who contract to the Commonwealth or volunteer for Commonwealth government activity. Only about two-thirds of Commonwealth public sector employees in the Australian Public Service are covered by APS whistleblower provisions. Of course, employees who work for those agencies which are governed by the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 are specifically included. They include employees of the ANU, the ABC and a variety of other corporate governmental agencies. So public interest disclosures are very important to deal with from the point of view of a model piece of legislation and a national approach.
We are not talking about internal grievances and internal management disputes. We are really talking about serious disclosures: evidence of illegal activity, corruption, maladministration, dangers to public safety, dangers to the environment, official misconduct and scientific misconduct—serious matters which adversely affect the public interest. The committee recommended that those types of disclosures be protected and recommended the expansion in the categories of people who make those disclosures to encompass Commonwealth agencies and insider knowledge. For example, those people who are deemed to be public officials for the purpose of the legislation would also be covered, as well as volunteers. So there is breadth in the coverage. With respect to the way this is dealt with, there is a staged approach. The first port of call for a whistleblower is to deal with their matter internally with their superiors. Then they go to an external agency, and finally there is the safety valve of the media if it is absolutely necessary.
There was discussion and submission about which particular body or bodies should be involved in the oversight of whistleblowing legislation. The committee believed—and I agree; it was a unanimous decision—that the Commonwealth Ombudsman has the oversight and the integrity agency requirements to do these sorts of tasks. The Australian Public Service Commissioner and the Commonwealth Ombudsman gave evidence in relation to the additional costs involved in this process. They gave evidence that it would cost an additional $1.5 million initially and recommended that a deputy be appointed for this purpose in the various agencies. They also said that after two or three years the cost would be about $1 million to the Commonwealth with six to seven employees. I concur with the committee’s decision that the Commonwealth Ombudsman has the appropriate skills, expertise and experience to handle these really difficult, sensitive and serious matters. The research shows that that is the case. The evidence before the committee shows that this should be the avenue that people take if internal matters have not been dealt with properly.
There is a subjective test that the committee recommends with respect to whistleblowing. The whistleblower must have an honest and reasonable belief on the information available to them that the matter concerns disclosable conduct. The committee rejected the objective test, which was that the disclosure showed or tended to show wrongdoing. We thought that would not lead towards good public policy and that there would be people who would be dissuaded from coming forward with disclosures. We are not about protecting false allegations or reckless disclosures but we are about good public policy. The committee appropriately rejected the idea of a qui tam provision in the public interest disclosure legislation. The idea of pecuniary profit or incentivisation for a disclosure to be made is simply anathema to me, and I certainly agree with the committee’s recommendation that we should look at the public good and a more communitarian approach to public disclosure. We should look at an approach that does not follow the American system in these circumstances.
I conclude by saying that we have taken note of what the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has said in relation to the matter. We have specifically excluded a number of intelligence agencies, such as ASIO, ASIS and the ONA, from this public interest disclosure legislation in our recommendations. I urge the government to act upon this and act quickly. We would have liked to see this happen under the previous government’s regime but we urge the government to take note of these recommendations, which in our view will help to overcome what I would describe as the governmental vices of secrecy, victimisation, inflexibility and buck-passing and will promote what I would describe as the governmental virtues of openness, transparency, flexibility and accountability. I am very pleased to be a member of the committee, and I thank all those people who participated. I particularly want to recognise the admirable qualities of the chairperson, the member for Isaacs, who did the job exceptionally well.
2066
11:33:00
Parke, Melissa, MP
HWR
Fremantle
ALP
1
0
Ms PARKE
—I am pleased to speak to the report from the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs arising from the inquiry into whistleblowing protection within the Australian government public sector. This report set out to ask the question of ‘how’ we should protect whistleblowers, not ‘if’ we should protect them. As noted in my submission to the inquiry, the statutory protection of whistleblowers—individuals who make a principled public interest disclosure of wrongdoing—can no longer be regarded as a new or controversial area in mainstream Australia.
From 1993, commencing with the response to the 1989 report of the Fitzgerald commission of inquiry into official misconduct in Queensland, whistleblower laws have been enacted in the Australian states and territories. The key feature of the approach taken in Australia has been the recognition that the ultimate objective of whistleblower protection law and policy, properly understood, is not the protection of whistleblowers as such. Protection is a crucial strategy for achieving the main objective: to encourage the disclosure of wrongdoing, fraud, waste, misconduct, abuse, corruption, imminent danger et cetera in an appropriate way so that something can be done about it. Practical concern about the public interest, rather than moralism, is the key. New laws to protect public interest disclosure of wrongdoing in broadly similar terms have also been enacted since 1994 in Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Japan, South Africa and the United Nations secretariat.
There is now broad acceptance in Australia of a public interest justification for effective and practical protection of responsible whistleblowers and for whistleblowing activity by public officials and others occupying positions of trust. There appears to be no serious suggestion in any quarter that those who genuinely disclose official corruption, fraud, theft, criminal conduct, abuse of office, serious threat to public health and safety, official misconduct, maladministration or avoidable wastage of public resources should not receive protection from retaliation by those involved. On the contrary, organisations which fail to protect genuine whistleblowers and permit or take reprisal action against them usually face severe censure. However, incredibly, until now in the Australian government sector the issue of protection of whistleblowers has remained an open question for no apparent reason. The Australian Public Service lacks adequate statutory provisions protecting public servants despite numerous formal inquiries, a significant number of noteworthy cases and eventually, in 1999, the provision of minimal protections in the Public Service Act for a very limited form of whistleblowing activity.
During my time working for the United Nations, I was involved in setting up a UN Ethics Office in New York, putting in place standards and programs to reinforce a culture of integrity, to enhance transparency and accountability and to restore public faith in the organisation. The UN needed to apply to itself the very global standards whose setting it had facilitated, especially in the light of the public perception of corruption in UN agencies arising from the oil for food investigation. The new measures included new financial disclosure policies, conflict of interest provisions, training, advice, standard-setting functions and, importantly, whistleblower protection. The primary focus of the Ethics Office was not intended as another layer of policing for the organisation, which already had an Office of Internal Oversight Services, but as a resource to which staff could turn for advice on ethical issues, such as potential or actual conflicts of interest, and for whistleblower protection.
Whistleblower protection is actually a measure of last resort. External whistleblowing is an indicator of a failure of ethics. There is something wrong within the workplace integrity system if a person who has concerns about wrongdoing is not able to have those concerns addressed internally without fear of the consequences. Ultimately you want to achieve a situation where whistleblowing as such is not necessary because there exists in the workplace a culture that encourages people to raise their concerns as a normal part of their duties. Until that situation exists, however, whistleblower protection will be necessary.
Public debate about the responsibilities of governments and public officials, and in particular about what we should expect by way of accountability, integrity and ethics, is crucial to the health of Australian democracy, and I am delighted that this discussion is taking place within government, within the parliament and within civil society. Some people think that we do not really need to have a discussion about accountability in Australia, as corruption in government and unethical conduct by public servants only happen ‘out there’, in other, less developed, less democratic and less well-regulated countries. Aside from being untrue, this argument misses what is for me an essential issue: accountability is all about the uses of power and is especially about the delegated power which is exercised by officials away from public scrutiny. There is a fundamental duty for public officials at all levels to account for how power was exercised to those who are not in a position to check for themselves that it was, in fact, exercised fairly, lawfully and legitimately. Establishing formal responsibility for accountability in public office is, of course, only part of the task. Putting formal responsibility into practice is the real challenge.
From time to time there have been signs that our public institutions are failing in this challenge. Probably our biggest integrity failure of all resulted in the colossal scandal of the Australian Wheat Board, which in 2006 emerged as the single largest source of kickbacks to Saddam Hussein’s regime, to the tune of $290 million through fraud on the UN’s oil for food program. This episode stood as a stark indicator that there was something seriously amiss in our accountability framework, not least because those involved continued to characterise and justify their behaviour as the cost of doing business rather than recognising and naming it, as Commissioner Terrence Cole did, as a failure of ethics at the most fundamental level. In my view, the acquiescence and deceptive conduct by some parts of the Public Service and by relevant ministers and their staff during this period, which continued for years, indicates that the problem was not confined to a lack of corporate ethics. It showed an irresponsible failure on the part of those involved to recognise that the AWB’s interests were not the only interests to be considered and that failure to take account of broader public interest concerns would ultimately become a matter for public accountability and justification. As a result, Australia’s international reputation was severely damaged.
I believe that author Catherine Aird could have been referring to the Australian Wheat Board when she said, ‘If you can’t be a good example, then you’ll just have to serve as a horrible warning.’ Other horrible warnings during the past decade have included the children overboard episode and Australia’s abandonment of the international rule of law through its participation in the Iraq war, to name a couple. Within each of these incidents, there were public servants and others who had severe doubts about the legitimacy of the government’s actions or, worse, knew that they were wrong but were afraid to speak out. I note that this committee received over 70 submissions and heard from more than 70 witnesses. The level of public engagement on this issue shows that there is an urgent need for legislation in this area.
My own submission to this inquiry argued for the passing of a public interest disclosures act and for such an act to cover all public sector staff, including the staff of members of parliament and non-Commonwealth employees working for Commonwealth agencies. I commend the committee for recommending a public interest disclosures bill as well as for the types of disclosures and the categories of people recommended for protection. The inclusion of not only Commonwealth Public Service staff but also parliamentary staff, government consultants and contractors is welcome. I also strongly support the role proposed for the Commonwealth Ombudsman. In my role as Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, I welcome the committee’s recommendation that the proposed public interest disclosures bill specifically provide for the Commissioner for Law Enforcement Integrity to be able to investigate public interest disclosures relevant to the commissioner’s area of responsibility. This raises again the crucial issue of adequate resources for these agencies to be able to carry out their roles effectively.
As we follow our colleagues in the states and territories and countries including Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Japan and South Africa, I hope that we not only enact laws to protect whistleblowers but also administer these laws in a way that makes them effective. What is lacking in the Australian states and territories is not good laws but effective administrative and organisational support for whistleblowers and would-be whistleblowers and more accessible mechanisms for compensation and protection. This was demonstrated by the wide-ranging research project Whistling while they work, a three-year collaborative national research project led by Griffith University.
It is clear from the committee’s report that the discussion of whistleblower protection in Australia does not stop with the introduction and passing of a public interest disclosures bill. The further questions raised in the report of topics outside the direct terms of reference of the committee will need to be addressed by parliament in the coming years. This includes protection from disclosure of wrongdoing in the private sector. Other countries have legislated protection for those working in the private sector, such as the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which has proved effective in thousands of cases in both the public sector and the private sector.
Of importance too is the need for education and awareness-raising activities for employees and managers about the values of transparency and accountability which will lead to a changing workplace culture that encourages public interest disclosure with appropriate support mechanisms for whistleblowers. I note that an education and awareness-raising function is intended to be part of the extended role of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and I welcome the suggestion in the committee’s report. This report has been well received by one of the key stakeholders, the Community and Public Sector Union. The union has commended the report and asked that the relevant legislation be introduced to put the report’s recommendations into law so that public sector workers are no longer forced to make a choice between disclosing matters in the public interest and their job security and careers.
The recommendations contained in the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs are eminently sensible and the reforms are long overdue. I congratulate the committee for its hard work, in particular the chair, the member for Isaacs, and also the Attorney-General, who requested on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary that this inquiry occur. I welcome Minister Faulkner’s commitment to respond quickly to the report and to introduce whistleblower protection legislation in this term of parliament. The government recognises the crucial role both of people and processes in ensuring public confidence in the integrity of our public institutions. Without good institutions good people will fail, and without good people good institutions are ineffective.
2070
11:45:00
Dreyfus, Mark, MP
HWG
Isaacs
ALP
1
0
Mr DREYFUS
—by leave—Can I thank other members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, including the deputy chair of the committee, the member for Fisher, and the member for Blair, for speaking to the report and also thank them for their participation in the committee’s deliberations on this important matter. Could I also thank the member for Fremantle for the speech that we have just heard, because it went a long way towards setting the context of accountability, transparency and integrity in public administration, putting it in an international context and drawing on the work that we know that the member for Fremantle has done overseas. It is important to recognise that a scheme of protection for whistleblowers taking legislative form is but one of a range of measures in this area of improving transparency, improving accountability and improving integrity of government.
We have recommended a comprehensive scheme, and a scheme which is very long overdue. It is a scheme that is of course intended to protect workers in the public sector who speak out about wrongdoing. The focus is on improving accountability, improving integrity in public administration. As we say in the report, it is not just about introducing legislation. It is about, through that scheme of legislation and through procedures adopted by public sector agencies, creating a culture in which public servants and all who work in the public sector are encouraged to speak out when they see wrongdoing or maladministration in their workplace.
I have said it is long overdue, and perhaps one could demonstrate that by pointing to the fact that there is already in every state and territory in Australia, as well as in a whole range of overseas jurisdictions, legislation that provides protection for whistleblowers. But one can say it is long overdue also because going back some 14 years there have been numerous reviews and attempts made to introduce this type of legislation at the Commonwealth level. You could start with the 1994 report from the Senate Select Committee on Public Interest Whistleblowing, which was entitled In the public interest. That was an all-party committee. It made a very comprehensive set of recommendations with, perhaps one can say with hindsight, a somewhat elaborate scheme. Perhaps the elaborateness of the scheme that was recommended by the Senate select committee in 1994 is what led, first of all, to a very long delay in a response by the former Keating government, which did not come until November 1995. While the government accepted quite a number of the recommendations of that Senate committee and indicated that it was going to move to introduce legislation, the election of March 1996 brought that promise to an end. The new coalition government abandoned the preparation of specific legislation on whistleblowing. There was very, very limited protection introduced in the Public Service Bill that was introduced in 1997, and the provisions that were introduced then found their way into section 16 of the Public Service Act.
But, even then, there was very serious criticism by two parliamentary committees. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts, in its report of September 1997, and the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, in its report of October 1997, were both critical of the very limited whistleblower protections that were proposed in that Public Service Bill. Those provisions did, however, come into force in 1999 and are still there in section 16 of the Public Service Act. Since then, there have been no fewer than three private member’s bills, introduced by Senator Andrew Murray in 2001, 2002 and 2007, dealing with whistleblower protection or public interest disclosure. But, without any support from the former government, each of those three bills proposed by Senator Murray lapsed.
There is one benefit only of the long delay we have seen in introducing legislation at the Commonwealth level, and that is that it has enabled this committee and also the government to consider the lessons that are to be learnt from, in some cases, over a decade of experience in the states and territories of this kind of legislation. The committee, and so too the government, has also had the benefit of a whole range of research work that has been conducted by a three-year project headed by Dr AJ Brown of Griffith University. This project has been referred to extensively by the committee in its deliberations, and it has been referred to by other speakers on this report. In that ‘Whistle while they work’ project, as it was entitled, Dr AJ Brown and his colleagues were able to conduct research across thousands of workplaces by means of survey work and direct interview, as well as holding their own seminars and producing discussion papers over that lengthy period. The situation produced by that is that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs was in a position that standing committees do not often find themselves in, which was that all of that research work was available to the committee, and we were able to take full advantage of it.
The report produced by the ‘Whistle while they work’ project in early September last year contained such helpful sections as a complete analysis of all of the state and territory legislation, including analysis of the deficiencies discovered in each of those state and territory schemes, and also recorded the results of the empirical research work done by the ‘Whistle while they work’ project. Interestingly, one of the conclusions expressed was that, contrary to the popular perception, people who blow the whistle in their workplace do not always suffer. Very often there is a full investigation of the matters raised and, as should be the case, the whistleblower is commended for disclosing the matter of concern.
What the legislation that this report deals with is aimed at is the other situation—with which we are all too familiar—where someone who has made an allegation of wrongdoing, maladministration, corruption or the like within their workplace does suffer in a range of ways. The proposal is that a very large group of public servants and those working in the public sector are to be protected. That is perhaps the core recommendation of the report. Casting the net so widely will ensure that the legislation covers not just those people who are employed under the Public Service Act, which captures in effect only about two-thirds of public servants. It is proposed that the legislation would cover everybody who works for a Commonwealth agency, everybody who works for a Commonwealth corporation and everybody who works for a company that is contracting to the Commonwealth, and it will include a mechanism that recognises even people who are volunteers within corporations or organisations that are connected with the Commonwealth public sector. As was commented on by Dr AJ Brown at the press conference that followed the tabling of the report yesterday, that coverage is very important because it is important that everyone involved in the public sector knows that, if they discover wrongdoing and make a disclosure in respect of that wrongdoing, they will be protected.
Another important feature of the scheme of legislation that the committee has recommended is that it would set up a procedure for making a disclosure and then impose obligations on public sector agencies who receive disclosures. It is important that the legislation specify a set of procedures, because one of the things that the committee wanted to ensure was that people who are contemplating making a disclosure be able to determine, by ready reference either to the legislation or to guidelines that we hope will be prepared based on the legislation, that they are eligible for protection and the procedures that they need to follow in order to gain that protection. They will also be able to readily see that there are obligations on the agencies to which they make the disclosure to go on and investigate the matter and, further, that there are remedies available to them if that does not occur.
It is very important to ensure that the protection that is afforded by the legislation achieves the purpose that it is aimed at and that the person considering the disclosure be able to see just how the protection is going to work. The purpose which the legislation is aimed at is, of course, improving integrity and accountability in public administration and improving the already high quality of public administration in this country. Unless those considering making a disclosure can see at a glance that they are going to be protected, there will be continuing discouragement from engaging in whistleblowing activity.
There are a range of other aspects of the legislation that I would like to mention. Another is the sequential nature of disclosure that is proposed by the recommended scheme of legislation, and by that I mean that it is proposed that those wishing to make a disclosure first make the disclosure to the agency that they work for or are connected to and then that the legislation provide for the possibility of disclosure to another, more central Commonwealth agency apart from the agency that the whistleblower is connected to. There is a recommendation that the Commonwealth Ombudsman be the central oversight agency for the whole scheme of the legislation, but other recommendations for the legislation are that it would be possible to make the disclosure not only to the Commonwealth Ombudsman but also, at a general level, to the Australian Public Service Commissioner and her colleague, the Merit Protection Commissioner.
There are further recommendations that would provide for disclosures to be made to a range of agencies specialised in their particular area—for example, in the intelligence and security area, we have recommended that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security be authorised to receive disclosures, as is the Commonwealth Ombudsman for that purpose. For other specialised areas, we have recommended that such agencies as the Aged Care Commissioner, the Integrity Commissioner, who was mentioned by the member for Fremantle, the Commissioner for Complaints of the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Inspector-General in the Department of Defence and the Privacy Commissioner all be able to receive disclosures about wrongdoing that are directly relevant to their area of expertise.
Following the tabling at the press conference yesterday, Dr AJ Brown also noted the recommendations that the committee has made in respect of the legislation needing to include a set of obligations for managers, Dr Brown making the point that that is an important obligation. Dr Brown also commended the recommendations for external oversight and coordination by the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and I can say to the House that the reason the Commonwealth Ombudsman was selected is that it is regarded by the committee as being the Commonwealth agency with the most expertise in investigating complaints and is recognised across the public service—and, indeed, in the wider community—as being the agency that was established for that purpose.
As has already been noted, the report of the committee has been very well received in most quarters. Senator Faulkner, the Special Minister of State, has indicated that the government is now to consider the report. I look forward to receiving the government’s response to the report. I note that the Special Minister of State’s press release informed the public that the Special Minister of State was looking forward to progressing the issue through government, to developing legislation later this year and to introducing legislation in this term of the parliament. It is a long overdue measure, and I look forward to the legislation being introduced. (Time expired)
Debate (on motion by Ms King) adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
2073
Adjournment
Ms KING
(Ballarat)
12:01:00
—I move:
That the Main Committee do now adjourn.
Mr Norman Jennings
2073
2073
12:01:00
Hawke, Alex, MP
HWO
Mitchell
LP
0
0
Mr HAWKE
—I rise today to pay tribute to the life of a great Australian and a great member of our community in Mitchell. Saturday, 14 February 2009, was the day Australia lost an ingenious inventor and Rouse Hill and Mitchell lost a favourite son. Norman Jennings was born on 14 July 1934 and grew up to invent what would become one of Australia’s most iconic products, Dynamic Lifter. Dynamic Lifter is on a par with great Aussie icons like the Victa lawnmower and the Hills hoist. Dynamic Lifter is that much-loved but smelly garden product that was produced by pelletising chook poo. It was invented and marketed by none other than Norm Jennings of Rouse Hill. The original factory, on the corner of Commercial Road and Withers Road, is long gone, but the unmistakable smell of Dynamic Lifter in gardens across this country and abroad may well outlast religion!
Norm was the quintessential blond-haired, blue-eyed Australian, who loved everything about his beloved country. From humble beginnings, Norm became an engineer at the Clyde goods yard near Granville. He loved learning about how things work. He especially loved cars. He also loved to fish. He was clever with his hands. He loved nothing more than making something old new again. Seeing over 700 members of my community at the service of thanksgiving for his life brought home to me how important he was to all Australians but particularly to people in the north-west of Sydney. Many people, including Don Burke, Jack Iori and other locals, were there to pay tribute to and recognise a man who did so much for his country and achieved so much with his life.
It was Norm’s passion for making old things new again that eventually led him to master the art of how to turn smelly old chook poo into one of the most marketable garden products in the world. This was a long and complex process for Norm. It was a life work. His wife, Nadia, was responsible for coining the phrase ‘Dynamic Lifter’, and they were indeed a dynamic partnership. Norm was a dynamic man.
Norm came from simple origins. He worked for his family throughout his life. He loved his family dearly, but he always had time for other people. He supported his community, through membership of service clubs, through donations and through charitable giving. On every occasion there was a worthy cause, he was there to share the wealth that he had produced with those that were less fortunate than him.
Norm was a foundation member of Kenthurst Rotary. He gave up much of his time on behalf of good causes, but he was a great Australian who never forgot his humble beginnings. He treated everyone with respect. He spoke ill of no-one. He was one of those great people with whom you instantly feel as though you have known them for a long time. The first time I had the privilege of meeting Norm, it was as if we had known each other for many years. He spoke to people of great importance and of lesser importance equally.
A great story was told at Norm’s thanksgiving service about the first time he met John Howard. Norm and a friend crashed the SCG Trust box in order to be introduced to the Prime Minister. His opening remarks were: ‘Hi John, I’m the king of chook poo!’ That is the kind of man he was—an ordinary Australian. His other great love was fishing. He delighted in taking anyone he met out to his favourite fishing spots around the lakes. The tributes paid to him by his friends, his children and his grandchildren were moving in the sense that he always shared his passions with others. We heard many times that, if anyone ever became seasick, he would take them back close to shore and tell them to swim the rest of the way as he had to get back to the fish, especially if they were biting! Many people were dumped off the boat unceremoniously into what they thought was shallow water, only to be soaked from head to toe.
As I said, there were 500 or 600 people present at the thanksgiving service at Our Lady of the Rosary Church in Kellyville. It was a moving service which paid tribute to the life of a man who contributed so much to our community. On behalf of the Mitchell community, I want to pay tribute to Norm for his life and I extend my condolences to his wife, Nadia, and his children and grandchildren. Thank you, Norm, for a life so well lived.
Sydney West Area Health Service
2074
2074
12:06:00
Price, Roger, MP
QI4
Chifley
ALP
1
0
Mr PRICE
—I would like to speak in the adjournment debate. I will start by expressing my serious lack of confidence in Sydney West Area Health Service, particularly its top executives. I do so for two reasons. Firstly, I am really concerned that they have become prisoners of the Sydney University medical faculty and seem to have more concern about their priorities than those of the people who are served by Blacktown/Mount Druitt Hospital.
Secondly, they are impossible communicators with the public. Let me explain why. Currently, there is a great deal of public protest about a study which is examining the closure of our emergency department. You have to understand that this is one of the busiest emergency departments and it serves a demographically disadvantaged community. We have a large proportion of Sudanese refugees and the largest number of urban Indigenous people—and I could go on. Why anyone would want to close an emergency department which is being so heavily utilised, I do not know. If SWAHS were to do it, I think we ought to have a parliamentary committee inquiry into Sydney West Area Health Service. The study will be finished in the next several weeks and it will go to the Minister for Health. I think that, inevitably, there will be a decision to maintain the emergency department. The local state government members, Richard Amery MP and Allan Shearan MP, are very confident that it is going to be retained. I share their confidence.
I should explain that my history goes back to chairing the community committee that agitated for the hospital. I was the inaugural deputy chairman of the hospital. A want of ecclesiastical qualifications prevented me from being the chair—and I was not prepared to undertake the study. But I have had a long association with that hospital.
Not so long ago, Sydney West Area Health Service looked at privatising the shops in the kiosk that services the Mount Druitt Hospital. We have had a long history of ladies auxiliaries and volunteers servicing the kiosk at Mount Druitt. In fact, an answer to a question on notice showed that the volunteers at Mount Druitt raised the largest amount of money of any volunteers at any hospital in New South Wales—not bad for a disadvantaged community. Of course the volunteers were upset when they were doing this study. Again I ask: why would you want anyone to scope the most successful volunteer organisation for closure? If you would want to do anything, it would be to learn the lessons of their success. It seems that every couple of years there is a protest meeting about a possible closure of Mount Druitt Hospital. In fact, Mount Druitt Hospital now has three specialities: paediatrics, rehabilitation and palliative care. There is also elective surgery, and we are doing very, very well in fulfilling important community needs.
But the real problem rests with Blacktown Hospital. Blacktown LGA has the largest number of early adult deaths in New South Wales. We are the heart attack capital of New South Wales, and there is a whole series of other statistics I could quote to you. Let me say that 27 per cent of patients at Blacktown LGA have to go to Westmead to have non-tertiary services provided because of the lack of medical facilities at Blacktown. This is the fight that we need to be involved in. I think it is an outrage, but it is also a reflection of the fact that the Sydney West Area Health Service have not and will not put the money into Blacktown. (Time expired)
Ryan Electorate: Victorian Bushfires
2075
2075
12:11:00
Johnson, Michael, MP
00AMX
Ryan
LP
0
0
Mr JOHNSON
—Ryan residents, families, businesses and community groups can hold their collective heads up very high, and as the federal member for Ryan I am very proud of all of them because the true spirit of Australia shone through last Friday evening, 20 February. The true spirit of Australia, the character of Australia and the compassion of Australia shone through by means of the Ryan constituents putting their hands up and saying, ‘We would like to show just how much we care about the deaths, the victims and the families—all those who suffered because of the catastrophic bushfires in Victoria.’
Last Friday, 20 February, at the Hotel Indooroopilly, more than 300 local residents and representatives of local businesses and community groups donated some $10,685 to the Red Cross Victorian Bushfire Appeal. This was organised with only four or five days real notice to those who participated. We held a local community concert, and I want to take this opportunity in the Parliament of Australia to thank all those who made this evening possible. First of all, I would like to thank Mr Paul Currie from Kid Rock Productions, a local musician and teacher—a man who has a deep love for music. He arranged for his very talented young musicians to perform to provide the evening’s entertainment. I also want to thank, obviously, the Hotel Indooroopilly, who very generously provided the venue free of charge. They also put on a sausage sizzle for all the guests who came that evening. I want to thank those who made a contribution to the evening’s raffle items and silent auctions, including Nautilus Scuba Centre and Forte School of Music, and also Sonnic Beatt Sound and Lighting Productions, who provided all the equipment for the evening’s concert. They very kindly came from all over Brisbane and donated their skills and equipment so that there was no charge incurred there. I also want to thank Westside News, the local newspaper that partnered with us and helped to promote the concert.
But in particular I want to thank the young people of the western suburbs of Brisbane. I want to thank the Kenmore State High School students who gave their evening for this very worthy cause. Two young musicians of enormous talent gave up their evening to provide the entertainment, and their talent was admired by all those in attendance. I want to thank them here in the parliament today.
Emma Gage sang beautifully. Her parents, Ross and Therese Gage, through their business, Westside Swimming, organised a donation of some $1,600 towards the evening. It was inspiring stuff, and to anyone who questions the character and compassion of our country I say that this answers any questions, doubts or reservations you might have. It was just a marvellous occasion. Also from Kenmore State High School, Chloe Hill played the flute beautifully, and really everybody was in awe of her talent. These are two outstanding young Australians whose lives are going to be enriched because of their musical talents and who have clearly shown that the spirit of Australia shines through not only at Kenmore State High School but also of course in the western suburbs of Brisbane.
I want to thank the head of music at Indooroopilly State School, Jill Elsworth, and the principal, Hilary Backus, for encouraging their students to perform. Young pianist Chai Jie Low played a beautiful piece so marvellously that she had the audience entranced. She was accompanied by Astrid Raschke, Lila Cassidy, Ellen Lynch and Chandra Choudhury. It makes me proud not only as the member of parliament representing the electorate of Ryan and the western suburbs of Brisbane but also as an Australian because they were just marvellous.
I want to thank especially the Veteran’s Support and Advocacy Support Association, VSASA, based at Toowong. They donated a cheque for $5,000 for this. What can one say but thank you so much for showing just how marvellous a country we are. They are a community group that does wonderful things for our veterans, but on this occasion they contributed so much to other Australians whose lives have been torn apart by this force of nature.
Banking
2076
2076
12:16:00
Bradbury, David, MP
HVW
Lindsay
ALP
1
0
Mr BRADBURY
—Last week the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Mr Glenn Stevens, appeared before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics and commented on some impending reforms to ATM fees. The RBA, in consultation with the banking sector, has put together a package of reforms that will have an impact on the way people use ATMs. These reforms come into effect from next Tuesday, 3 March. Under the proposed regime, transaction fees will be charged by the owner of the foreign ATM—that is, an ATM operated by a bank other than the customer’s bank—to the customer directly.
To provide greater transparency in relation to these fees, the fee will be displayed on the screen during the transaction—allowing the customer to cancel the transaction if they do not wish to proceed and pay the fee. This relatively simple reform is intended to make ATM fees more transparent and promote competition between financial institutions and ATM operators by allowing customers to identify and choose to use the cheapest ATMs. Underpinning these reforms is the abolition of the interchange fee. Under the existing arrangements, each time a customer uses an ATM that is not operated by their own bank, their bank is charged an interchange fee by the ATM operator, and that fee is generally passed on to the customer through a transaction fee. Depending on the bank, these fees could range from 50c to $2 per transaction. Now that the customer will be required to pay the ATM fee directly to the foreign ATM operator under the new rules, there is no longer any real cost to the customer’s bank and therefore no justification for a customer’s bank to impose any transaction fee upon the customer for using the foreign ATM. The only possible argument for the imposition of a fee is to recoup the cost of processing the transaction.
Mr Stevens estimates that any such administrative cost would be ‘at most 10c and quite possibly a lot less’. If these new arrangements are designed to ensure better disclosure of ATM fees then this simply will not be achieved if the customer’s own bank continues to levy a fee, which will not be disclosed at the point of the transaction, on their customer for using a foreign ATM. The only way that customers will be able to have any faith that these new arrangements will lead to a better disclosure of ATM fees is if banks and other institutions do not impose transaction fees upon their own customers for using ATMs not operated by them.
However, I understand that some institutions are planning to continue to charge customers a fee. These fees have been described as ‘disloyalty fees’. I think most customers would find the notion of a fee for ‘disloyalty’ just a little bit rich coming from their bank. To my knowledge, only the Commonwealth Bank and Citibank have announced that they will not charge their customers a disloyalty fee for using a foreign ATM. I congratulate these two institutions for doing the right thing by their customers. I am concerned that other institutions have foreshadowed an additional foreign ATM transaction fee, which will mean that customers will be slugged twice every time they use a foreign ATM. The National Australia Bank say that they will charge a 50c fee every time a customer uses a foreign ATM, on top of the fee the customer will directly pay to the operator of the ATM. There is no justification for these ‘disloyalty fees’. The costs to the banks of processing these transactions are negligible, yet some have seen this as an opportunity to profiteer.
While banks in other countries have been collapsing and governments spend billions or even trillions of dollars to recapitalise and bail out their banks, four of our banks are among the only 18 banks in the world to have a AA credit rating. This is unquestionably a good thing. Ensuring our banks have strong balance sheets and return profits in these difficult times is critical to the overall health of our economy. It is, however, reprehensible that banks and other financial institutions propose to slug customers a fee for using a foreign ATM when the bank is not bearing any real cost, especially when many of these institutions have been the beneficiaries of significant government support in the form of bank guarantees.
I know many people in my electorate—and, no doubt, right around the country—are very angry. That is why I am launching an online petition on my website, www.davidbradbury.com.au, where people can sign on and register their opposition to being hit with these unfair bank fees. I will keep those people who sign my petition updated with further information on the charges that institutions choose to impose from next week. I call on the banks to do the right thing and drop these absurd and unfair fees.
1K6
Billson, Bruce, MP
Mr Billson interjecting—
10000
Saffin, Janelle (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms JA Saffin)—As to your website, I am not sure if advertising is in order, Member for Lindsay!
Flinders Electorate: Red Hill Community Centre
2077
2077
12:21:00
Hunt, Gregory, MP
00AMV
Flinders
LP
0
0
Mr HUNT
—I rise to give my support to a magnificent community vision for Red Hill. The vision is a very simple one. The Red Hill community have approached me, through the showgrounds committee, through the National Trust and also through community members. Their vision is of a community hub, a building which will operate both as a physical and as a social space for the community. They seek to take the opportunity provided by the sale of the grand and historic Church of Christ. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a community centre in this former Church of Christ property, which is currently up for sale. The church, through no fault of its own, is having to consolidate two of the church sites on the Mornington Peninsula, and therefore it is disposing of the Red Hill site.
What we have on the Red Hill site is a magnificent old building and a very useful major second building, on land right in the heart of Red Hill. The vision that has been put to me, and which I support completely, is of a community hub which draws together the National Trust, community organisations, a site for the Red Hill showgrounds and Red Hill Show Committee, and then a space in which visitors, tourists and others can come and have a sense of this grand, historic area, this town and agricultural site. I think this is a wonderful proposal.
The question then is: how would this work? The elements of the proposal are these. Firstly, the Red Hill show society has Scott House. Scott House is a building of questionable quality. I am told that it has a large fibrocement component to it. There are fears of asbestos. And it is in a space which would allow the Mornington Peninsula Shire to complete playing fields, tennis courts and other elements in the area of the old Red Hill showgrounds. If the council were to purchase the show society’s current building, that would enable the show society to contribute capital to the purchase of the Church of Christ building. In turn, the National Trust would contribute capital, and the council could assist with the fit-out. This is a great proposal for the community, and that is the way in which it can be done. The Church of Christ have indicated that they would give the community the chance to match any proposal made by a private bidder for their site, so they want to do the right thing.
These are the elements that have been brought together, and I urge the Mornington Peninsula shire to consider completing the sports facilities which they have very generously developed in Red Hill. This is a once-in-a-lifetime, once-in-a-generation, opportunity, firstly, to complete the community sports facility in the Red Hill showground area; secondly, to give the Red Hill show committee the chance to have a permanent base in a facility which would be outstanding; and, thirdly, to give the community ownership, control and use for community purposes of facilities which include a hall and office facilities right in the heart of Red Hill. It is a great example of a very thoughtful community proposal. The players who need to be commended are the different community leaders who have come together to build the Red Hill community hub proposal; the showgrounds committee, in particular, Rob Breeschoten; and the National Trust, in particular, Gillian Tolley.
My strong proposal is to the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council. I respectfully ask that they consider the proposal, that they look to complete their showgrounds sports facilities. This will bring all else together. I have made the commitment to work with state and federal governments to access programs under existing budgets which would allow for the fit-out and for the operational funding to be, in part or in whole, sourced from those levels. The Red Hill community hub is a great proposal for a great town, and I commend it to council. I thank all of those who have helped put it together.
Nation Building and Jobs Plan
2078
2078
12:26:00
Dreyfus, Mark, MP
HWG
Isaacs
ALP
1
0
Mr DREYFUS
—I want to speak about the Rudd government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan, which was rightly passed by the parliament last sitting week, and, in particular, the positive effects on employment thanks to the insulation component of that plan. The plan will see around 2.7 million homes become eligible for free ceiling insulation. This will create and support jobs across many sectors while reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by around 49 million tonnes. So on that score alone it is a very important measure, even before one gets to the economic stimulus effect.
I do not want to spend too much time talking about the opposition’s decision to vote against this plan, because there are so many positive things I have to say about this package, but I want to put fairly and squarely on the record that, while this government is making tough decisions and taking decisive action to best protect Australia from the global financial crisis, the opposition leader and his band of merry men sit there and offer nothing except their lack of economic credibility. Theirs is a position of economic vandalism, plain and simple, and the Australian people are seeing through their thin rhetoric and constant changing of position. The time has really come for the opposition to say what they would do. They have put no serious alternative to the government’s clear and decisive action.
Moving on, I want to focus on the insulation component of the plan because it will have a particularly strong impact in my electorate. Fletcher Insulation, which is Australia’s largest insulation manufacturer, has this country’s largest insulation manufacturing plant, in Dandenong South, in my electorate, as well as a major distribution centre in Braeside, also in my electorate. The company is firmly and long established in my electorate. What benefits the insulation industry and Fletcher Insulation also benefits the people of my electorate.
Yesterday I spoke to the General Manager of Fletcher Insulation, Mr David Isaacs, about the flow-on effects of the government’s insulation package. Mr Isaacs was full of praise for this plan and how it would support Australian jobs at so many levels of the insulation process. He said it is ‘a great initiative and very positive’. For the benefit of the House, let me run through the myriad links in the manufacturing chain where jobs will be created and supported. Mr Isaacs said this plan will see jobs created at the Dandenong South manufacturing plant, where glass wool is produced to use in their Pink Batts and Fat Batts. He also told me that other competing insulation products like rock-wool, polyester and cellulose, which are produced by other manufacturers, will need production to be boosted, and that of course means even more jobs.
Jobs will be created in the transport, warehouse and distribution sectors. Warehouses will need more staff to deal with the increased volume of stock, and the same for distribution. And what of hardware stores like Mitre 10 or Bunnings? Mr Isaacs tells me that this plan will also have a positive spin-off for these companies because of their distribution networks, and that is a big tick in the retailing box.
Of course, this is all before considering the people who will be employed to install the insulation in millions of homes across the nation. One of the great things Mr Isaacs pointed out to me was just how Australian this will all be. Insulation is not a product which is readily imported—and, for the benefit of the member for Sturt, who seemed confused about this on Tuesday, that means bringing something into the country. This is due to the very bulky nature of the product and also the fact that potential importers just do not have the distribution structure to get it to homeowners.
How many jobs will this plan create? The chief executive of the Insulation Council of Australia and New Zealand, Mr Dennis D’Arcy, with whom I have also spoken, said that 4,000 jobs will be created in the insulation industry and that ‘the economic multiplier will ripple well past the insulation industry’s raw materials suppliers, manufacturers, installers and delivery drivers’.
This plan is all about supporting Australian jobs. We are entering an economic phase that will see unemployment rise and times will get tougher, but I stand proudly in my electorate and say that I am part of a government that is taking every possible step to best cushion the blow of this financial crisis, with decisive and prompt action.
Dunkley Electorate: Post Office
2080
2080
12:31:00
Billson, Bruce, MP
1K6
Dunkley
LP
0
0
Mr BILLSON
—I rise today to raise two particular issues of concern to the Dunkley community. You could be forgiven for thinking it is groundhog day. Ten years ago our community rallied and fought to protect the Playne Street post office in Frankston from plans by Australia Post to close it and relocate it to a far less acceptable location. We are there again! There are plans by Australia Post to close not only the Playne Street post office but also the more retail focused outlet in the Bayside Shopping Centre in Frankston and to consolidate those two activities in Wells Street at the former Dr Edelsten building opposite the new cinema and entertainment complex.
I can understand the rationale for closing the Bayside retail outlet. There was a decision some time ago to move it from a very popular, high-exposure and, I understand, very high rent area in the complex to a far more distant corner of the Bayside complex. It has seen a significant reduction in retail activity and not the take-up of post office box opportunities that people really hoped for. That I can understand, and I can completely understand the proposal to consolidate that somewhere and to make it more attractive as a retail proposition. The idea of shutting Playne Street post office, though, just leaves me completely bewildered. Since the last time we had this battle 10 years ago, I obviously have not learnt much. It bewildered me then and it still bewilders me now. The local community, the Chamber of Commerce and Councillor Christine Richards are just a handful of those who are confused and anxious about what the future plans look like.
As yet, there has been no commitment to actually shut Playne Street, but it certainly is on the radar screen. The idea that the retail activity in the Bayside Shopping Centre and the mainly business bulk mail post office box activity at Playne Street could be brought together in a central location in Frankston may have some theoretical appeal. But all I say to people is, ‘Road test the proposition.’ Wells Street in Frankston, which runs through the middle of the central activities district, has actually had some excellent work done on improving its street amenity and its presentation. There are not too many car parks there, though. The idea is to move that post office, where many of the customers of the post office boxes are from the greater Frankston area. They drive to the current venue. It is on the southern edge of the CBD. You can nip in to the post office. There is angle parking on both sides, and there are a couple of park and ride parks as well that have been provided by the council. It all works quite well. But to move that kind of concept into the middle of town is not a well-thought through proposition. If you are fortunate enough to get a car park in one of the three that are in front of not just this premise but the whole complex along Wells Street, you would be doing well. You would have to take a chance with the three ATMs, the other business activity and the like. The 1,000 or so post office box holders could have a raffle to see who got to use those rare, scarce car parking places—that is, if those places were made available. Frankston City has made it absolutely clear that it has not made any commitment to make those car parking places available for the exclusive use of Australia Post. This idea needs to be re-examined.
If you are lucky enough to get a car park, you have then got to get out of the central area. Wells Street would see you heading towards the railway station and there is no way other than to turn left, which would take you for a nice scenic drive past the front of the railway station and the bus interchange and then you might be able to escape. Alternatively, you would go down Park Lane and through the little rat run behind the entertainment complex. That does not look like a sound traffic management proposition either.
I have been encouraged by the willingness of the Australia Post commercial manager to discuss these issues, but the uncertainty about Australia Post’s actual plans is causing great anxiety in the community. I believe Playne Street needs to stay. I understand that there is an argument for the retail activity moving out of the shopping centre because of rental costs, but we need to think carefully about the nature of the customers, the use of the facility in Playne Street and all the arguments we had 10 years ago, and say that we need to maintain the functionality of those premises. Car parking, traffic movement, ease of access and the popularity of the post office boxes underline the very simple fact that where it is now works. The customers shop with their feet, they can park their vehicles, and they have all of their needs met without going into the heart of the CBD. It is a positive tenant to have on the southern side of the Frankston city area. The council is actively engaged, the Chamber of Commerce is engaged and so am I. I would encourage Australia Post to carefully consult with their clients and customers who make the Playne Street premises one of their most viable and financially profitable outlets in greater Melbourne, and to rethink this plan to make sure that Playne Street can be saved and can continue to serve its very useful purpose for the people of greater Frankston.
Werriwa Electorate: Community Infrastructure
2081
2081
12:36:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
1
0
Mr HAYES
—Today I rise to speak on the Rudd government’s commitment to support jobs and boost the local economy of the south-west of Sydney. The Rudd government last week approved more than $4 million to build and upgrade community infrastructure in and around my electorate of Werriwa. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the Hon. Anthony Albanese, visited Campbelltown last week as part of the community cabinet meeting, where funding from the $800 million Community Infrastructure Program was announced. While he was in Campbelltown he took the opportunity to meet the mayors of Campbelltown, Liverpool, Camden and Wollondilly councils to discuss a number of issues of local concern, including the sound barriers along the new freight line being constructed by the ARTC along the Casula corridor and a bridge at Cambridge Avenue, which is a main thoroughfare but one which regularly goes under water every time it rains. These are matters that are very important to our local mayors, and it has been reported to me that at that meeting the minister was very responsive to looking at making plans to better facilitate those pieces of infrastructure.
The Rudd government is acting decisively on local community issues to support jobs and improve the quality of local infrastructure, and I think what we saw from the community cabinet meeting was that commitment writ large. A new and vibrant partnership between federal and local governments is emerging. I am pleased to see that the funding that has been announced is being quickly targeted. These projects will not only improve our local community but also will support jobs, particularly at this time of global financial crisis.
In the time I have left I would like to inform the House of some of those projects that were approved for Campbelltown and Liverpool city councils: $142,000 for redevelopment of sporting fields to provide improved recreational use at Eschol Park; $125,000 for refurbishing and improving Macquarie Fields Park and its change rooms; $120,000 for the refurbishment of playing fields at Bob Prenter Reserve; $120,000 to install playground equipment and softfall rubber for children at Rizal Park; and $120,000 for the new Woodlands Road baseball complex, including change rooms and a canteen.
There will be $120,000 to construct an infill watering system for playing fields at the Clarke Reserve, $100,000 for the development of a cycleway and walkways to enhance access to local rail services at Bow Bowing, $100,000 for the upgrade of amenities and change room facilities at Bradbury Park, $100,000 for the refurbishment of change rooms and showers in the Campbelltown Swimming Centre, $100,000 for the refurbishment of amenities at Koshigaya Park, $100,000 for the renovation of the existing community hall at the St Helens Park community facility, $90,000 to restore the playing fields at Blinman Park to provide improved facilities for the Glenfield community, $90,000 to upgrade and refurbish the community hall at Kearns and $80,000 to construct new playing equipment and soft-fall rubber at Mawson Park.
In Liverpool, at the other end of my electorate, $400,000 was approved for the renovation of existing retractable terraced grandstand seating at the Whitlam Leisure Centre; $160,000 for the construction of a new adventure playground at Greenway Park; $160,000 for structural repairs to the exterior of Collingwood House; $100,000 for the internal renovation, including kitchens, lighting and ceiling, for the Chipping Norton Community Centre; $100,000 for the internal renovation, including kitchens, lighting, ceilings and floors, for the Moorebank Community Centre; $100,000 to install a state-of-the-art gym and training equipment at Wenden Centre, Miller; $93,000 for the installation of security lights at various community centres; $40,000 for the renewal of synthetic grass for the Craik Park tennis courts; $35,000 for the construction of a new children’s playground at the Sydney Neville Reserve; and $35,000 for the construction of new playing equipment at Freeburn Park.
These are fantastic projects. They will create local jobs. We are seeing that locally now. This is our commitment to our local community.
Swan Electorate: Youth Focus Foundation
2082
2082
12:41:00
Irons, Steve, MP
HYM
Swan
LP
0
0
Mr IRONS
—I congratulate the member for Werriwa for the basket of goodies he has just told us about. I rise today to talk about the issue of youth suicide and the efforts of a charitable organisation within my electorate to prevent it. I begin with some sobering statistics. In 2005, young people accounted for 14 per cent of all suicide deaths. A 2002 Western Australian child health survey found that 16 per cent of WA adolescents between 12 and 16 years of age reported having had suicidal thoughts in the previous six months. The highest occurrence was 29.1 per cent among girls aged between 15 and 16 years. Youth suicide is clearly a serious problem in WA and across the nation, and it is a problem that appears to be worsening: between 1996-97 and 2005-06, the hospitalisation rate for intentional self-harm by young people increased by a dramatic 43 per cent. Depression, which is one of the early signs associated with suicide and self-harm, has been predicted by the World Health Organisation to become the second-highest cause of illness globally by 2020, yet this is an issue that is not talked about enough in Canberra. I hear speeches about road safety in this place; however, the latest figures available, from 2004, reveal that 500 more Australians die from suicide than from road accidents each year. This is clearly an area all members need to focus on.
An organisation within my electorate is battling this rising tide and deserves enormous credit. The Burswood based Youth Focus Foundation is a community based charitable organisation with expertise in providing support and solutions for young people—and the families of young people—aged between 12 and 18 who show early signs of suicide, depression and self-harm. These services are provided free of charge. Services include youth counselling services; family counselling services; a peer support program which runs therapeutic, recreation based groups for 14- to 18-year-olds; and a mentor program which provides mentors and engages with young people who have completed a six-week training program. Locals do not have to travel to Burswood to access these services. The qualified professionals of the organisation travel to schools, community centres or even local parks to deliver the services. In 2007, Youth Focus assisted 552 young people and 138 families. Many lives have been saved. They provide an outstanding service and should be commended. Unfortunately, the services provided by Youth Focus are under threat. Thirteen per cent of Youth Focus funding comes from government, and the remaining 87 per cent comes from non-government sources. Government funding for Youth Focus in the last 12 months has included two federal funding grants totalling $37,000, which they are very grateful for.
However, the charity encounters several problems with its government funding which I would like to raise with the House. First, funding grants tend to be based around new projects. This makes maintaining proven, successful projects very difficult indeed. Additionally, the competitive nature of the grant process makes it difficult to establish collaborative partners and, given the economic crisis, businesses are less and less likely to fund the balance with donations. We must consider altering the application requirements to rectify this. The second point on government spending is that it is simply insufficient. Youth Focus said it had to turn away at least 300 people last year because it simply did not have the money to help them. This is unacceptable, and as long as I am in parliament I will push for this to be rectified.
I believe that we, as federal lawmakers, need to take a significant part of the responsibility for this. Youth Focus receives 40 per cent of its referrals from schools. However the WA department of education funds only the provision of one full-time councillor; instead funding the provision of social workers, chaplains, school psychologists and nurses, who in turn refer students to Youth Focus. This seems to be a waste of resources. The contribution from the federal department of education is also limited. I will be writing to the WA and federal ministers for education to suggest a policy change to reflect this.
It is the lack of money which means that Youth Focus has to rely heavily on non-government funding. I am pleased to report to the House that private organisations within my electorate have contributed to this cause. These include the Burswood Entertainment Complex and Mustard Catering. However, as one might suspect in these tough economic times, businesses have been reducing the scale of their charitable contributions. This is happening at a time when the global financial crisis is putting more pressure on families and when the services provided by Youth Focus are becoming increasingly in demand. This not only highlights the need for strong economic management to bring us out of recession but also reinforces the need for federal government investment. It will not be massively expensive and will save lives. Not many policies can claim to achieve that.
In conclusion, youth suicide is regrettably a problem in my electorate and across Australia. However, it can be minimised through the work of groups like Youth Focus Foundation. The commendable work of the foundation helps to achieve these goals. (Time expired)
Victorian Bushfires
2084
2084
12:47:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
1
0
Ms HALL
—The horrendous bushfires in Victoria and the devastation that they have wrought have caused great concern throughout the community. There was a great sense of hopelessness yet a strong feeling that every person throughout Australia wanted to contribute and help in some way. I think the TV coverage made it so real and brought it into everybody’s living room. My office—and, I am sure, the office of every member of this House—was contacted by numerous people wishing to do something. Because of this massive uprising in the community, I decided to organise a fundraiser. The fundraiser was initially planned for the first weekend after the bushfires but, unfortunately, unlike Victoria, we had torrential rain and the fundraiser had to be postponed, instead being held last Sunday.
It was an enormous success, with nearly $17,000 being raised. It was a whole-of-com-munity response. I want to take this opportunity to thank those people that were involved in this fundraising event. I was supported by the state member for Swansea, Robert Coombs; the Mayor of Lake Macquarie, Greg Piper; the Belmont Chamber of Commerce; Belmont Rotary; Swansea Lions Club; Red Cross; and the Salvation Army. They all played an organising role in the event that took place, along with my staff members Kathy Tudor and Mark Raper. I have to give special mention to Steve Smith, the CEO of Austereo. Dr Dave, from Austereo’s KO-FM and NX-FM, came along and was the commentator on the day. They gave enormous support, as did all media. We also had support from ABC Radio, Animal Crackers, Belmont Amcal Pharmacy, Belmont Bunnings, Belmont Cake Shop and Belmont Citi Centre, and I would particularly like to mention the efforts of Barbara Davis, who is a dynamo. When Barbara gets behind anything, it is a great success.
We also had support from Belmont Coles, Belmont Copy Centre, Brian Beesley, Belmont Ministers Association, Father Clive Gerard and the New South Wales Fire Brigade, Belmont Station. We also had support from the Rural Fire Service from Nords Wharf; Grant Hampton from Belmont Retravision, who donated a flat-screen TV for a raffle; Belmont Rotary Club; Belmont Quality Meats; Belmont Woolworths; Blondies Hair Salon; BNP Security; Caffe Macquarie; Caves Beach Butcher; Caves Beach Hotel; Chris Osborne; Clan McEwan Pipe Band; Community First Credit Union; Companion Credit Union; Darbys Swansea; Deck 56; Balcony Restaurant and Swill & Grill at the Gunyah Hotel; Hollebone Meats; In2Sport Belmont; Jim Cowburn; Joe’s Wood-Fired Pizza; Kaylah Anne Farmer; Kennards Hire, Lambton; Kennards Hire, Warners Bay; Kevin’s Meats; Lake Macquarie City Council, who donated the park free of charge for the day; Joe Rowbottom at Lakeside Real Estate; Lakes United Rugby League Club; Logic Hair Design; Marks Point Hair Salon; Marks Point Newagency; Marks Point Post Office; Marks Point Takeaway; Mayfair Jewellers; Swansea Mega Mania; Milano’s Restaurant; Murrays Meat Swansea; Newcastle Jets Football Club; Newcastle Knights Rugby League Club; Newcastle Permanent Building Society; Newcastle Star Newspaper; Nextra Newsagency; Pelican JetBuzz Jet Boats; Rusty Springfield; Sesames on the Lake; Showcase Jewellers; Squid’s Ink; Soup & Song; Spotlight Newcastle; Sun Patch Gift & Kitchenware; Swansea Chamber of Commerce; Swansea Coles; Swansea Lions Club; Swansea RSL Club; Swansea Workers Club; 2HD/NewFM; Ultimate Style Hairdressers; Uproar; Viktoria’s Shoes; Westpac Bank; Warren Ure Jazz Band; Bill Charlton and Robyn Bowman Charlton; and Mark Wison. All these people gave donations and contributed in some way to this very successful day.
The success of the day was because it was a whole-of-community event. Everybody in the community got behind it. Businesses donated prizes and sausages for the sausage sizzle, and Mega Mania donated a jumping castle and fun activities free of charge. It was an outstanding success. It was a comment on what a wonderful community I am privileged to represent in this parliament.
Water
2085
2085
12:52:00
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
TK6
Boothby
LP
0
0
Dr SOUTHCOTT
—I would like to speak on the issue of water security for Adelaide and the Murray-Darling river system. We now have a situation where the Murray River ceases to flow through the Murray mouth 40 per cent of the time. I can remember when the Murray first closed in recent times, in 1981. That was seen as a rare event. We now see that happening 40 per cent of the time. The recent report of the Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project, which was handed down in November, states that total flows at the Murray mouth have reduced by 61 per cent. The report also shows that by 2030 flows at the mouth will reduce by a further 24 to 30 per cent. This is grim news for South Australia and it is grim news for people who rely on flows in the Murray for their water supply and for human needs.
That is one of the reasons that in January 2007 the Howard government announced $10 billion of work in infrastructure to go towards the Murray-Darling river system. It is of real concern that, while there has been a lot of spending announced by the government over the last four to five months, there has been nothing for water infrastructure. It is estimated that $6 billion had already been set aside by the former government. If that were used, it could save up to 600 million litres of water. Unfortunately, instead of that, Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong are voting to take more water out of the Murray-Darling Basin. They voted in favour of building a pipeline from the Goulburn River to Melbourne, which will take 75 million litres of water per year out of the Murray-Darling Basin. At the same time, the minister says that there is not enough water in the Murray-Darling Basin to save the Lower Lakes. If there is not enough water in the system to save the Lower Lakes, why did the federal government vote to take out an extra 75 million litres of water per year? They also voted against a $50 million assistance package for the people around the Lower Lakes.
The people of the Lower Lakes and everyone else living in the Murray-Darling Basin who rely on a health system to survive are sick of hearing about who is to blame. They are sick of hearing about how years of mismanagement have delivered us this mess. They do not want to see another cheap headline that delivers nothing; they want to hear solutions for today and tomorrow. The issue of water security and the state of the Murray River is one of the major issues that constituents raise with me, and it is one of my priorities in representing the seat of Boothby. I am very pleased to be holding a water forum next week in my electorate with the shadow minister for the environment, climate change and water, the member for Flinders. Travelling around the electorate, the lack of water is very obvious. People’s gardens are bone dry We have had years of water restrictions. Parks and school ovals have turned into dustbowls. Unfortunately, we have a state government that have dragged their feet on anything to do with water security.
In September 2007 I launched a petition in my electorate, calling on the state government to act on a desalination plant. This petition received over 8,000 signatures. I am pleased that a desalination plant is now going ahead. This is a good way forward, and it will provide water security for Adelaide in the future. I think it is a real shame that we had to wait as long as we did. I was also very pleased to be associated with the Community Water Grant Program. The last round of this in 2007 saved 73 million litres of water in the electorate of Boothby alone. It was a great program and it really worked well with schools, sporting clubs and other community organisations. It is a real shame that the government have given no incentives for the community to save water and have not continued with that program.
Robertson Electorate: Marine Discovery Centre
2086
2086
12:57:00
Neal, Belinda, MP
B36
Robertson
ALP
1
0
Ms NEAL
—I rise today to inform members of the merits of the proposed marine discovery centre at Terrigal, in my electorate of Robertson, on the Central Coast of New South Wales. This centre will provide the Central Coast with an environmental, educational and tourist facility that will become, I am sure, a benchmark facility of its type in Australia. Over the last six months I have been actively involved in promoting the benefits of the marine discovery centre. I have hosted two meetings of stakeholders in my Gosford office. There was overwhelming support for the centre, and it was widely appreciated in those meetings and elsewhere that Terrigal was the ideal location for such a facility.
The preferred location is The Haven at Terrigal, an established tourist precinct. There is enormous potential for this centre to bring to the coast a sustained economic boost from tourist dollars. Terrigal Haven is also the preferred location and departure point for tourists, divers, researchers and day visitors, who will be able to dive to the wreck of HMAS Adelaide when it is sunk off the coast of Terrigal. Besides education, research and community facilities, the centre will also be the focal point for a vibrant and potentially lucrative dive industry. The spin-off dollars from associated accommodation and restaurants generated by traffic visiting the centre from tourists visiting the coast will also bring long-term benefits to the local community.
The meetings that I have hosted in my office were attended by representatives of the Community Environment Network, the peak environmental body on the coast; the University of Newcastle’s Central Coast campus, which runs a well established and well regarded marine research centre and course; the New South Wales Department of Lands, on whose land the centre may be built; and the New South Wales Department of Premier and Cabinet. Among all these stakeholders there is a real sense of excitement about the possibilities that the marine discovery centre will open up for the people and the economy of the Central Coast. This is a project that builds on strong and already existing partnerships within the community. The linkages that can be built between education, community interest, environmental groups, tourism, local business and major infrastructure provision make the centre an extremely attractive proposition.
A marine discovery centre at Terrigal will provide a marine research and educational facility for the university and for local environmental groups. It will also be used by community groups and will have a number of associated small businesses operating within it. HMAS Adelaide is a real drawcard that will establish the marine centre and the Terrigal site as a must-see destination. Dive wrecks and artificial reefs based on ships similar to HMAS Adelaide have proved extremely successful and a sustainable tourist destination in other parts of the country. There is already considerable interest in the project among dive shop operators, the hotel industry, restaurants and other small businesses on the Central Coast. The centre has already the in-principle support of Central Coast Tourism, the peak tourist body on the coast. The marine discovery centre and HMAS Adelaide will, I am sure, assume its role as a major drawcard for tourists on the Central Coast. Its proximity to Sydney will attract considerable tourist trade both from within Australia and from overseas. In this role the Terrigal site will provide an ongoing return on the initial investment in such a centre. In short, this is community infrastructure that will pay its way in the future.
One of the challenges to the promotion of this project is the position of Gosford City Council. The stakeholders’ group has so far not been able to secure the support of the council for this project. Despite my best efforts and my promotion of the project with the mayor, I was unable to secure the council’s support in applying for a grant under the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program, much to my disappointment. This competitive nationwide program funds local government bodies for strategic projects worth more than $2 million. The original $50 million funding was recently increased to $500 million as part of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, the Rudd government’s response to the global financial downturn. This is a great project and deserves the support of the community. It certainly has my support and I will continue to fight for it. I urge the council to support it also. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
2087
13:02:00
Main Committee adjourned at 1.02 pm
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
2088
Questions in Writing
Living Murray and Water for Rivers Projects
2088
2088
334
2088
Stone, Dr Sharman, MP
EM6
Murray
LP
0
Dr Stone
asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, in writing, on 17 September 2008:
-
In respect of the Living Murray and Water for Rivers projects mentioned in his conditional approval of the Sugarloaf Pipeline, could he:
-
provide a list of the projects in Victoria that are funded under the Living Murray program and Water for Rivers company and for each project, include the date of the grant, the amount funded and the megalitres of water to be saved; and
-
confirm that the projects already funded under Living Murray or Water for Rivers are not counted in the water savings from sending water to Melbourne via the Sugarloaf Pipeline.
-
In respect of the independent audit of the water savings as part of the conditional approval for the Sugarloaf Pipeline:
-
who will be responsible for undertaking the audit of the water savings,
-
can he provide assurance that it will be conducted independently, and
-
would he consider it appropriate for the proponents of the project, the Sugarloaf Pipeline Alliance and Victorian Government, to be involved; if so, why; and
-
do the water savings have to be demonstrated annually in order to send the water down the north south pipeline to Melbourne.
-
Given his decision, as a condition of the Sugarloaf Pipeline, to not use the water quality reserve in Eildon Dam for the water supply to Melbourne, will he also take action to stop Coliban Water using this reserve to supply water to Bendigo.
2088
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts
1
Mr Garrett
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
-
Projects being funded in Victoria through The Living Murray initiative (TLM) and by Water for Rivers (WfR) are listed in Table 1.
Table 1
Project
Funding Source
Grant Date1
Funding ($M)
Savings
(ML)
Goulburn-Murray Water Recovery Measure
TLM
26/04/2006
93
(Common-wealth 37.2)
145,000
Shepparton Irrigation Area Modernisation Project
TLM
12/06/2008
86.2
(Common-wealth 24.6)
30,000
WfR
14.9
5,000
VIC
52.5
17,300
Normanville Pipeline
WfR
3/06/2002
4.3
3,900
Goulburn-Murray Irrigation District Improved Measurement of Small Volume Supplies
WfR
3/06/2002
11
16,400
Woorinen Piping of Domestic and Stock Water Supply
WfR
3/06/2002
2
1,500
Lake Mokoan/Casey’s Weir Stage 1
WfR
3/06/2002
1.4
1,000
Lake Mokoan
TLM
To be finalised
39.2
27,000
WfR
3/06/2002
28.3
18,000
Central Goulburn Channel Automation Project
WfR/VIC
3/06/2002
42.8
18,300
Note 1: The grant date listed for TLM projects relate to the date Investment Agreements were signed for the particular commitment. The grant date listed for Water for Rivers is the date the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Victorian Governments signed of the Snowy Water Inquiry Outcomes Implementation Deed. The Water for Rivers Company is responsible for the commercial arrangements to implement projects.
-
Water recovered through The Living Murray initiative will not be available to send to Melbourne via the Sugarloaf Pipeline.
We are advised by the Victorian Government that water savings achieved through the Central Goulburn Channel Automation project will be available to send to Melbourne up until Water for Rivers finalise payments, which is currently budgeted for 2010-11.
-
-
This has not yet been determined.
-
-
-
The conditions of approval imposed on the project require that the audit be conducted by a party independent of the Sugarloaf Pipeline Alliance. As with all approval conditions imposed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, compliance will be assured through the Department’s robust compliance and enforcement framework.
-
-
Some Victorian Government agencies already play a role in the regulation of water within the Goulburn River system, and their involvement through the provision of information to the audit process may be appropriate.
-
We expect that the Victorian Government will be assessing savings each year in order to identify the appropriate allocations to irrigators, to the environment and to Melbourne users.
-
Condition 11(e) attached to the Approval Decision states that the Melbourne water extracted to the Sugarloaf Pipeline must be “zero if the necessary regulated releases are for the maintenance of environmental flows or materially deplete water stored in Eildon Weir that is designated as being an environmental reserve”.
The water quality reserve, part of which was previously sold to Coliban Water, is a separate allocation of water over and above the environmental flows or environmental reserve. The water quality reserve is not the subject of any condition of approval.
Living Murray and Water for Rivers Projects
2089
2089
344
2089
Stone, Dr Sharman, MP
EM6
Murray
LP
0
Dr Stone
asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, in writing, on 22 September 2008:
-
Did he assure the House on 16 September 2008 that there would be no allocations of water to the North-South Melbourne pipeline which have already been allocated to the Living Murray system or Water for Rivers initiative.
-
Is he aware that a spokesperson for the Victorian Water Minister was reported on 15 September 2008 as saying that Melbourne will receive 75 gigalitres of water in 2010 from existing savings from projects in the Goulburn Valley that are funded by the Living Murray initiative.
-
Is he aware that the Victorian Government’s Water Authority, Goulburn-Murray Water, clearly states on its website that the expected water savings from both the Central Goulburn 1234 Modernisation Project and Shepparton Modernisation Project are earmarked for the Living Murray initiative.
-
Will he confirm that no water will be diverted to Melbourne via the pipeline which has been identified for the Living Murray or Water for Rivers initiatives; and if not from the environment reserve in Eildon, the Living Murray and Water for Rivers savings initiatives, does he know from where the Victorian Government will get the water for Melbourne; if so, from where.
2090
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts
1
Mr Garrett
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Yes
-
I am aware of comments attributed to a spokesman for the Victorian Water Minister, the Hon Tim Holding, reported in the ‘Weekly Times Now’ on 18 September 2008. The spokesman noted that only savings attributed to Victorian investment in the Shepparton Modernisation project would be used for Melbourne in 2010.
-
Yes, however, the information on the Goulburn-Murray Water website was incorrect at the time the question was posed. This website has since been updated to reflect that: (1) the Living Murray component of the Shepparton Modernisation Projects is only one part of a larger project; and (2) the Central Goulburn 1234 Modernisation (CG1234) project is not a Living Murray project.
-
No water allocations identified for the Living Murray initiative or Water for Rivers will be diverted to Melbourne via the Sugarloaf Pipeline.
The proponent has identified water savings from the Victorian Government’s share of the Shepparton Modernisation project, savings from the CG1234 project achieved prior to the transfer to Water for Rivers in 2010/11 and a water quality reserve not allocated to environmental programs.
The Victorian Government claims water savings achieved under Stage One of the Northern Victoria Infrastructure Renewal Project will form the primary source of water to be diverted through the Sugarloaf Pipeline.
Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy: Program Funding
2090
2090
459
2090
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
Mr Hockey
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 1 December 2008:
-
Which agencies and departments in the Minister’s portfolio will return money to budget in the 2008-09 financial year as a result of underspends in the 2007-08 financial year; and what sum of money will be returned to budget from these programs.
-
From 1 December 2007 to 30 June 2008, what sum of money has the Government committed to spending under Regulation 10 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 for applicable departments and agencies under the Minister’s portfolio; and how much of this commitment was approved: (a) at the department and agency level; and (b) by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation.
-
What sum of depreciation funding: (a) is available for each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio as at 30 June 2008; (b) was spent by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio in the 2007-08 financial year; and (c) was spent by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio in the 2007-08 financial year to directly replace assets for which it was appropriated.
2090
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
1
Mr Albanese
—The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has presented the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
-
The following agencies in the Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Portfolio will return the specified amounts in the 2008-09 financial year, as a result of underspends in the 2007-08 financial year:
-
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation: $7.5m
-
The Special Broadcasting Service: $1.4m
-
In addition, the Minster for Finance and Deregulation lapsed a total of $358.5m in administered appropriations for the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and the former Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts on 4 December 2008.
-
(2) From 1 December 2007 to 30 June 2008, spending proposals totaling the following amounts were authorised under Regulation 10 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 for the following applicable agencies:
-
The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy: $187.3m authorised by the Department.
-
The Australian Communications and Media Authority: $2.9m authorised by the agency.
-
-
Accurate records relating to depreciation funding are not held since the implementation of accrual accounting and the Machinery of Government changes to the structure of departments.
-
The depreciation expense for each agency, as outlined in their 2007-08 Annual Report, is
– the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy: $4.9m
– the Australia Broadcasting Corporation: $86.9m
– the Special Broadcasting Service: $6.4m
– the Australian Communications and Media Authority: $4.2m
-
The budget is allocated to priorities on the basis of need and the Government does not try to allocate funding from particular sources to particular expense items.
Foreign Affairs and Trade: Moncrieff Electorate
2091
2091
581
2091
Ciobo, Steven, MP
00AN0
Moncrieff
LP
0
Mr Ciobo
asked the Minister for Trade, in
writing
, on 9 February 2009:
In respect of the Government’s funding of organisations and projects between 3 December 2007 and 20 January 2009: (a) which organisations and projects based in the Moncrieff electorate received funding from his Department; (b) what sum of funding did each organisation and project receive; and (c) for what purpose was each funding commitment made.
2091
Crean, Simon, MP
DT4
Hotham
ALP
Minister for Trade
1
Mr Crean
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Any person who meets the relevant criteria is eligible to access departmental and portfolio agency programs and services. To provide the detailed information sought would entail a significant diversion of resources and, in these circumstances, I do not consider the additional work can be justified.